Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

20 May 2003

NATO

• Czech Radio 1 carried Defense Minister Tvrdik saying Tuesday that the Czech Republic is to take charge of forming the first NATO multinational battalion for protection against weapons of mass destruction. “The battalion should be formed immediately, so that it can start functioning as of January and that it becomes operational in the middle of next year,” Tvrdik indicated. Earlier, Radio 1 reported that the United States and NATO had turned to the Czech Republic with a proposal to form the battalion, which will be part of NATO’s Rapid Response Force. In a related dispatch, Prague’s CTK news agency quotes the head of the Czech chemical forces saying the battalion’s size will be established after talks with the NATO partners. The May 19 edition of Army Times quoted Gen. Jones saying in an April 28 meeting with defense reporters in Washington that NATO plans to create a new reaction force this fall capable of responding to crises near and far. Gen. Jones said he will create the NATO Response Force as an air, land and sea unit positioned for the gamut of missions in hot spots in and out of the European region, noted the article, adding: “(Gen. Jones) is trying to shake things up in the Alliance’s military command, seeking to make it relevant in a new era. His job, as he has pointed out several times in recent weeks, is to propose changes that make ‘military sense,’ regardless of what political impact those moves may or may not have…. Now, ‘NATO bashing’ is commonplace, but (Gen.) Jones believes the Alliance is vastly ‘underappreciated’ and, with major tweaking, could again play a significant role.”

In a contribution to Welt am Sonntag, May 18, NATO Secretary General Robertson stressed that NATO continues to be the only credible instrument of peace and, in spite of all criticisms, NATO can be relied on in stormy times.
“After the dust of the Iraq war has settled, we must take stock of its repercussions for the Atlantic Alliance. In my opinion, the latest events provide evidence that there is no substitute for close and active cooperation between Europe and the United States. If we want to keep alive into the present century the peace and security built up in the preceding one, NATO presents itself as the only credible instrument for this purpose,” Lord Robertson wrote. While admitting that he is familiar with the “fashionable argument that the United States is no longer in agreement with the Europeans on the future of NATO,” Lord Robertson continued: “I see no far-reaching differences today between the objectives on the two sides of the Atlantic or between the old and new Europe. We are in agreement that global instability concerns us all, wherever we live…. Worldwide threats are growing. Terrorism is spreading in intensity on an international scale and is assuming increasingly apocalyptic, deadly forms. The proliferation of biochemical and nuclear weapons will become an increasingly greater challenge in the new century…. During the past year, we have taken decisive steps to combat this danger. I mention just two of the most sweeping changes with respect to our security: the formation of an equal, functioning partnership between NATO and Russia and agreement that NATO must be prepared to operate outside its traditional sphere of influence in Europe.” Lord Robertson also insisted that in 2002, NATO moved closer to a realistic effort to forge those tools that it needs to do its job. “The case of Iraq has proved that the priorities that we set in Prague were correct: precision weapons, control of the battlefield, chemical and biological defense capability, in-flight refueling aircraft, and heavy transport planes,” he stressed. Regarding the strategic relationship with the EU, he noted: “Joint capabilities could help us form the two organizations into twin pillars of a security cooperation in this new century.” Lord Robertson also defended the Europeans against criticisms that they no longer have the political will to use their capabilities, stressing: “NATO and its European members are increasingly playing key roles. Operations are being conducted in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean region. NATO has just ended it AWACS surveillance flights in Turkish airspace and the deployment of its antimissile system to protect Turkey against an attack on Saddam. What started with a flare-up of public criticism changed into a success story: NATO did what it was supposed to do—it protected its members.”

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal charges that shaken by trans-Atlantic discord and the absence of a single unifying threat, NATO is changing the way it conducts business, seeking to heal recent wounds and remain relevant as a military alliance.
Members’ unity of purpose has all but disappeared over the past few years as the allies faced a series of international crises sketching NATO consensus to a breaking point, says the article, adding: “That has forced NATO to scale back its mission, refashioning itself as an all-purpose military and political toolbox that can be tapped by ad-hoc coalitions involving some—but not all—NATO countries. ‘NATO’s integrated structure creates a reservoir of working, planning and training together that is irreplaceable. The Alliance itself can call upon this rich reservoir or, as seems increasingly likely, coalitions of the willing can be drawn from it,’ Secretary of State Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.” Claiming that within NATO’s Brussels headquarters this gradual shift toward a less ambitious mission is apparent, and it invites both optimism and concern about the Alliance’s future, the newspaper continues: “NATO supports the French-led EU peacekeeping mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. And EU foreign policy chief Solana said Monday that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has requested use of the EU’s crisis management force in Congo to help with fierce internecine fighting…. Last week, Poland asked NATO for limited help in running the Polish peacekeeping sector in Iraq. For NATO, this kind of gradual, limited support to one or more active allies is increasingly becoming the template of operations. It allows the Alliance to get around rancorous political debates that would be inevitable if, for instance, NATO wanted to plant its flag in Iraq and take over the peacekeeping mission in its entirety. But there is a price. Serving as a toolbox to individual member nations or ad-hoc coalitions means that NATO forfeits political control of the operations.”

ESDP

• The Financial Times reports Germany, France and Italy called Monday for the loosening of the EU’s strict public spending rules to bolster Europe’s military capabilities The three countries reportedly argued that military spending was being curtailed by the stability and growth pact, which underpins the Euro by limiting expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The dispatch recalls that the Commission has ruled out easing the regulations—the Maastricht criteria—by excluding defense from overall expenditure.

A declaration by EU defense ministers Monday that the EU’s rapid-reaction force is ready for a full range of peacekeeping operations generates high interest. Media focus, however, on the ministers’ purported acknowledgement that hardware shortfalls could make it hard to send and protect the troops and on reports that the EU is considering a UN request for it to send troops to Congo.
EU defense ministers acknowledge there are serious military shortcomings which prevent them to declare their 60,000-strong rapid reaction force fully operational, writes La Libre Belgique. The newspaper adds that in an effort to fill the technological gaps, the ministers set up 10 working groups. Germany will take the lead in the fields of strategic air transport and search and rescue operations. Britain will take care of headquarters. Portugal will examine special forces. France will take care of drones, claims the newspaper, adding that according to Defense Minister Flahaut, Belgium has expressed interest in the field of humanitarian operations. The newspaper observes that the EU has deployed troops in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia since February and probably will do the same in Bosnia in 2004. Furthermore, it adds, several European countries plan to deploy troops in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
A related Reuters dispatch quotes EU security chief Solana saying he had been authorized by the defense ministers to look at the political and military feasibility of sending an EU force to Congo “to consolidate what already exists from the United Nations deployed there.” According to the dispatch, an EU official said Solana had recommended the ministers take seriously a proposal that the EU send up to 5,000 troops He reportedly said, however, that military planning had not started.
The Independent quotes Solana saying the EU would consider sending a brigade of troops to support an emergency UN force in the eastern Congo, where fighting has left hundreds dead and thousands of people homeless and hungry.

BALKANS

• According to AFP, ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte warned former Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic Tuesday to surrender or face imminent arrest. “I want to tell him that it is time now to voluntarily surrender,” she reportedly told a news conference in Sarajevo, adding: “I believe now that NATO is doing a lot and there will be an imminent arrest. That’s why I am calling for a voluntary surrender.”