Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

6 May 2003

SACEUR

• AFP quotes Defense Minister Papantoniou saying that during talks Monday, he has informed Gen. Jones of “decisions taken at European level concerning the acquisition of armaments systems which would enable a European force to take part, with NATO or alone, in international operations.” The dispatch adds that during discussions, Papantoniou stressed Greece’s determination to “maintain a strong presence” within NATO’s structure, arguing that with military expenditure reaching five percent of GDP in 2000, Athens deserved to play a leading role within the Alliance. The dispatch notes that NATO is due to cut its number of regional command headquarters after it welcomes seven new members next year. DefenseNews.com reprints the AFP dispatch.

ISAF

• The Financial Times quotes NATO Secretary General Robertson saying in an interview in Washington Monday that “the decision, one ‘of almost earth-shattering importance,’ made two weeks ago by the NATO 19 to take over peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan” is a concrete sign that the Alliance has emerged from Iraq intact. “While the public memory is still focused on the row in February, and the row in the UN, and the divisions during the war, there is actually an outcome that took place of very great significance. This is NATO taking on a multinational operation a continent and a half away from where it previously was restricted by its members,” Lord Robertson reportedly stressed.
  
  
• About 1,800 Canadian troops have been officially notified they are going to Afghanistan in August to help maintain order as part of an international force, reports The Toronto Star. The article notes that the Canadian contribution to NATO-led force in Kabul will include three main elements: A battle group comprised of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment. A brigade headquarters, the core of which will be comprised of two Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group headquarters and Signals Squadron as well as a headquarters group, whose composition has yet to be decided. Kabul’s Hindokosh in Dari, May 4, quoted an ISAF spokesman saying the force had extended its patrols to areas which in some cases are located 40 km from Kabul.

In the Washington Times, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, vice chairman of the Senate Republican conference, calls on NATO to establish a new, common mission.
She stresses: “Our alliance should recognize that the common threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have replaced the common threat of Soviet imperialism…. If our purpose is a common defense, then we must form a consensus in defining our common threats. And those who agree should reconstitute NATO. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we created a valuable template for how the work community can bond in this era of reckoning. We now should lead the effort to reconfirm a coalition of the willing to stand together against the common threat of terrorism to our democracies. All member countries that agree—new and old—should form the new NATO—a club worth joining for the 21st century.”

IRAQ

• Reuters quotes officials saying in Warsaw Tuesday that Poland has proposed to the United States that its soldiers team up with German and Danish troops to keep the peace in one region of post-war Iraq. The dispatch recalls that Defense Minister Smajdzinski, in Washington for talks on setting up an Iraq stabilization force, said such a unit could be based on a joint Polish-German-Danish NATO corps now stationed in northwestern Poland. A spokesman for Defense Minister Struck is quoted saying that Berlin was “surprised” by the Polish proposal, but Struck would discuss it with European colleagues. In a related development, Warsaw Trybuna quotes Smajdzinski saying that he had discussed with NATO Secretary General Robertson the possibility of the Alliance supporting Poland’s actions to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq. “NATO will consider supporting us and other member states of the Alliance that take part in the operation. Informal consultations to discuss this issue are due to get under way this week,” he reportedly said.

Media focus on reports that Poland is to command a multinational security force that will patrol one of three zones is Iraq.
Poland Monday dismissed suggestions that it was weakening Europe’s efforts to forge a common foreign and security policy by taking command of one of the three military zones the United States intends to establish in Iraq, writes the Financial Times. The newspaper quotes Jerzy Nowak, Poland’s ambassador to NATO, saying: “The criticism by some of our European Union partners is unfair. We are not doing anything wrong. The EU actually does not have a specifically agreed stance on this issue of sending troops.” Warsaw intends to send, at least in the first phase, around 1,5000 troops, Nowak reportedly added and continued: “This is a very important development for Poland. For the first time in our history we will be among powers that would decide the destiny of a specific country and a specific problem.”

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, May 5, warned the Poles against “losing sight of the mosaic of U.S. interests.” It seems that the United States wants to deepen the new partitions in Europe with the sector distribution in Iraq. Poland is also to be strengthened in order to weaken Germany and France. The government in Warsaw, however, should not underestimate the distrust in a Poland that makes itself an uncritical agent of U.S. interest. There is also the danger of Poland’s alienation from the EU, the newspaper argued, concluding: “The Poles would be well advised to differentiate between illusion and reality. An important role in global politics, based solely on U.S. goodwill, is no such thing. Poland should put itself where it carries weight: in Europe. Here it is of importance, both politically and militarily. It should be important to Poland that the UN, EU and NATO be tied into the stabilization of Iraq. In reality, it cannot afford a special role: Poland has to let the United States pay for its deployment.” The Washington Post quotes Polish Defense Minister Szmajdzinski saying meanwhile that he had received assurances from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Monday that the United States would help raise tens of millions of dollars from international donors to finance a Polish peacekeeping contingent in Iraq. Szmajdzinski reportedly said his government could not afford to cover its own expenses for the operation given the weak condition of the Polish economy and military commitments elsewhere. The newspaper remarks, however, that Poland’s high-profile involvement would widen the appearance of international participation in Iraq’s recovery and also enhance Poland’s prominence as a new NATO ally. “As part of a major reassessment of the U.S. military presence in Germany, Pentagon officials have pointed to Poland as a possible location for a network of bases being considered for Eastern Europe. Szmajdzinski said the subject came up briefly in his meeting with Rumsfeld, who said he was waiting for recommendations from U.S. military authorities in Europe. Szmajdzinski said Poland had not offered facilities yet. Before Poland could accept the stationing of U.S. troops, he said, his government would need to consider legal and international treaty issues, and also consult with Russia and Germany on how such a move would affect relations with these critical trading partners,” adds the newspaper.

U.S. TROOP BASING

• Sueddeutsche Zeitung quotes Daniel Coats, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, saying in an interview Monday that a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Germany should not be regarded as a means to exert political pressure. The decision in this regard will be made based on strategic and pragmatic considerations, it will not be motivated by feelings of revenge, he reportedly said. The decision to relocate certain elements of the troops had been made as early as back in the 1990s. They would be made in view of the changed threat situation following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, he added.

In a contribution to the Financial Times, U.S. Sen. George Allen, chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes that the war against Iraq, won with the assistance of Romania and Bulgaria, with Slovakia and with Poland, provides a window into the future showing how the U.S. may allocate permanent force structures in Europe.
The experience of the Iraq war prompts an important question as we plan for future conflicts: Do U.S. bases in European countries that are longstanding members of NATO provide the best possible locations for American forces? The answer is that, while the U.S. unquestionably should retain forces there, we must also consider new options, including in the south-east of Europe, Allen stresses and concludes: “Now is the time for the U.S. to re-evaluate its bases in Europe. It should do this not to punish any ally who did not agree with it, or simply to reward its newest allies, but to serve its own strategic interests. The new democracies of Europe offer the opportunity, strategic advantage and shared values that will help us to win the next conflict—or deter it altogether.”