Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

18 August 2003

NRF

• Citing Defense Ministry sources, Berliner Zeitung reports that Germany is ready to contribute more than 5,000 soldiers to the planned NATO Response Force (NRF). The contribution would reportedly include units specialized in detecting chemical, nuclear or biological weapons. Germany would also send minesweepers and six Tornado warplanes. “The German participation corresponds to our actual weight in NATO and our proposed future role,” the newspaper quotes a Defense Ministry report saying. Noting that the Alliance wants to set up a NRF of some 21,000 troops by 2006, capable of deploying within days to any crisis zone in the world, the newspaper adds: “The first units are planned to be operationally ready later this year. Berlin is making 1,200 navy and air force personnel available immediately, while the remaining troops will join the force before 2005.”

ISAF

• Kabul’s Arman-e Melli, Aug. 16 hailed last week’s handover of the ISAF command to NATO and expressed optimism that stability and security can be restored throughout Afghanistan and the anarchy and insecurity that exist outside Kabul can be removed as a result of this handover. “The Afghan nation is enthusiastically waiting for the effective and steady steps NATO can take in restoring a nationwide peace and security beyond Kabul,” said the newspaper, adding: “There are serious security challenges for NATO: the disarmament is not yet implemented; personal rule and hegemony of the local commanders outside Kabul have obstructed reconstruction and hamper the central government’s orders; the tension among some armed groups, particularly in the north of the country, has put security in jeopardy…. People want ISAF to focus their attention on zones where security is at risk. “

Past-week violence in Afghanistan is triggering renewed calls for NATO to expand its operations to the lawless provinces.
In an ominous sign for the U.S. and NATO, Afghanistan is living up to a reputation it hoped was buried in the past—as a brutal and lawless land, says a Reuters analysis. The dispatch stresses that the wave of violence last week, claiming at least 65 lives, has highlighted both the growing threat from Taliban remnants and other anti U.S. elements and the failure of foreign forces in Afghanistan to crush the Islamic militia and impose security. “NATO is facing tough questions about its role amid urgent calls to expand both the number of troops and its geographical scope,” stresses the dispatch.
NATO will have to rethink sooner rather than later the expansion of its reduced area of action to other zones in Afghanistan it if really wants to make reconstruction and the elections scheduled for next summer viable, wrote Madrid’s El Pais, Aug. 14. The newspaper suggested that NATO’s peacekeeping experience in the Balkans should be very useful.

With the debate on ISAF’s mandate apparently on the rise in Germany, Die Welt writes that resistance is growing among Berlin’s Red-Green coalition to expanding the Bundeswehr’s mission beyond Kabul.
“This week, an investigative team is to be sent to the northern Afghan city of Kudus to study whether German soldiers can be deployed there within the framework of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Parliamentarians of both parties are speaking against such deployment. Moreover, there are warnings by the German Intelligence Service and from the Bundeswehr leadership about expanding deployment in the Hindu Kush,” says the daily.
Deutsche Welle reported that German non-governmental organizations are opposed to sending soldiers into Afghanistan’s provinces as protection for the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) because they consider that military and humanitarian aid should be separate from one another. CARE Deutschland and World Hunger Help reportedly insist on drawing a distinction between the humanitarian assistance they provide and the Bundeswehr’s military interests in maintaining security and tracking down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, said the broadcast. It quoted the director of World Hunger Help claiming that combining civil assistance with military goals leads to an automatic conflict of interests.

Media continue to hail NATO’s takeover of ISAF as a sign that the Alliance is adapting to new threats.
The Washington Post considers that NATO’s new role in Afghanistan is a positive development for the Afghans, as well as for NATO. “By taking up command of troops in Afghanistan, NATO proves that it is moving forward: The Alliance is accepting the need to deal with the new threats that face its members, rather than those it faced in the past, and has the chance to show why it still merits a leading role in western decision-making. At the same time, the decision to shift the international force in Afghanistan from an ad hoc ‘coalition of the willing’ to a full-fledged NATO command also reflects an important shift in American understanding. Recent tensions notwithstanding, over the past half-century the Alliance has worked out methods to transfer commands smoothly and share responsibilities among countries. More professional than the United Nations and with potentially more soldiers to draw upon than the U.S. armed forces acting alone, NATO, not a rotating set of random commanders, provides the right structure to run multinational peacekeeping or military forces. In time, it might prove to be the right force for Iraq as well,” the daily insists.

ESDP-BALKANS

• “EU representatives in Bosnia are no longer deluding themselves: ‘The United States does not want to hand over SFOR’s command to the EU before 2005,” wrote Vienna’s Der Standard, Aug. 14. The newspaper added: “Originally, the EU wanted to take over SFOR’s command in the spring. But after the transatlantic controversy over the right procedure in Iraq, the Bush administration, which initially welcomed a stronger EU role in southeastern Europe, apparently changed its course…. Gen. Jones also described a change of command as ‘too early’ last week. (A SHAPE spokesman) confirmed that there are ‘no plans, not even over the medium-term,’ to hand over the command in Bosnia to the EU.”

Sueddeutsche Zeitung asserts meanwhile that “the United States is using NATO to prevent ‘Old Europe’ from developing its own security policies.
“There is already a crisis looming behind the scenes. All it takes for the conflict between NATO and the EU to break out in public is an adequate reason. As soon as the next humanitarian crisis escalates in Africa, as soon as another skirmish breaks out in the Caucasus region, chances are NATO and the EU will start squabbling,” says the daily, adding: “From a superficial point of view, this will seem like a ridiculous competition between two Brussels-based bureaucracies that envy each other for the glory of doing good deeds in a bad world. However, there is indeed more at stake. At least from the point of view of many Europeans, this will in the end decide who will keep order on the old continent…. Only at the beginning of the year, the responsibilities seemed to be divided both clearly and harmoniously. A bundle of paragraphs, referred to as the ‘Berlin-Plus-Agreement’ by security experts, defines in great detail the cooperation between NATO and the EU. The main principle is that the European Rapid Response Force may only be dispatched if the Alliance as a whole is not deployed militarily. This gives NATO – and thus its largest member nation, the United States –a kind of right of first refusal for every crisis mission.... However, Washington has an uncanny feeling when it comes to such independent actions, especially after the argument about the war in Iraq. That is why the US is now trying to put a stop to every independent European initiative. Again, the barrier is called the ‘Berlin-Plus-Agreement.’ It is true that the original purpose of this NATO-EU treaty was to spell out under what conditions the militarily deficient Europeans would be allowed to resort to the advice and equipment of the experienced Alliance in case of a peace mission. The example of the EU mission Concordia in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has proven that this works reasonably smoothly. But the Bush administration obviously intends to change NATO's permanent offer to lend the EU units, if necessary, a better battle dress uniform into imposing a straitjacket instead. The Europeans are expected to first ask NATO for permission whenever they would like to move out of their barracks on their own initiative under their blue and gold star banner and even then, when the EU does not require any NATO coaching. By doing so, Washington wants to prevent the Old World from developing even the most rudimentary form of an independent security policy. And some EU governments have even contributed to stirring up the big brother's suspicions even more with their clumsiness. In April, the way how France and Germany, together with Luxemburg and Belgium, staged their four-party-summit in order to find reasons for a new defense union, was a provocation. Their objective, to create a core Europe that is capable of acting militarily in the event of a crisis, has harmed more than it has helped. It remains sensible, and it lies in the vested interest of the US, that the rich Europeans should shoulder more responsibility. However, Washington cannot bring itself to embrace this strategic insight. Consequently, the US is delaying the scheduled change of guard in Bosnia: although the Europeans (as NATO allies) provide almost all SFOR personnel, it is said in the US that the EU forces are not mature enough to secure the peace. Even in the case of Moldavia, where the EU plans to support the fragile reconciliation of two ethnic groups, Washington imposes its veto. Washington has to take a decision now: Does it want the Europeans as partners – or only as compliant stooges under the tutelage of the United States?”

IRAQ

• The Turkish General Staff plans to send to Iraq a division comprising two brigades totaling 10,000 or so servicemen and has calculated that it will cost around $60 million to keep this many troops there for one year, wrote Istanbul’s Hurriyet, Aug. 17. The newspaper noted that it is not clear whether Turkey or the United States will foot the bill as worked out by the General Staff. It claimed that the matter is expected to be taken up with U.S. Senate and House of Representatives delegations expected in Ankara next week as well as with Gen. Jones, who is supposed to be in Ankara on Sept. 3.