Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

22 August 2003

IRAQ

• According to AP, Foreign Minister Gul was quoted saying in an interview Friday that Turkey could send peacekeepers to Iraq, but the soldiers would go to help rebuild the country and “definitely will not be occupiers.” In comments to the daily Milliyet, Gul reportedly insisted that “a stable Iraq is in Turkey’s interest…. Turkey will have a say in Iraq’s reconstruction and will secure trade.” The dispatch notes that Gul’s comments came as Turkey’s top political and military leaders prepared to meet later Friday to consider a U.S. request to deploy thousands of Turkish soldiers to Iraq. A related Reuters dispatch quotes Gul saying Ankara and Washington had agreed in preliminary talks that any Turkish troops would control their own separate region to the north or west of Baghdad. “When the U.S. made its first proposal at military headquarters, it said, ‘you will be free.’ There will be a special sector under Turkish command and with a separate chain of command. We will decide where we serve,” Gul reportedly stressed.

Media focus on diplomatic efforts aimed at gaining support for a UN resolution authorizing an expanded international force for Iraq.
Using the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad as a rallying cry, Secretary of State Powell sought Thursday to build support for a new Security Council resolution that would persuade other major nations to contribute more troops and aid to secure and rebuild Iraq under the aegis of the American-led occupation, writes the New York Times. UN Secretary General Annan raised the possibility of a multinational force under the mandate of the UN, along the lines of what was done in Afghanistan. But he stressed to Powell the need for agreement among the Security Council’s permanent members before any proposal was formally issued, the daily claims.

The BBC World Service noted that several countries—reported to include Germany and Russia—say they want to help, but not if their troops have to serve under the U.S. military. CNN quoted a senior Bush administration official stressing, however, that “the President and his National Security Council want broad international support in Iraq for the rebuilding effort and the long-term success.” According to the broadcast, the official suggested that if some countries, for domestic political purposes, need to send their troops in under UN auspices, the United States will try to find language to allow that.

In the wake of the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad, German media are increasingly debating a German military role in Iraq.
The attack has sparked a new public debate in Germany on whether or not to deploy soldiers to Iraq if the UN or the coalition forces ask for help, noted Deutsche Welle. The German government is coming under mounting pressure to rethink its attitude toward military involvement in Iraq, added the broadcast.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung opines that following the deadly attack, UN member states, and above all the nations in the Security Council can no longer act as though Iraq is merely a problem of the United States. “The strong countries on the Security Council that can assert themselves bear special responsibility, but also Germany as a non- permanent member. Hopefully, in the wake of the attack, Chancellor Schroeder will regret his uncompromising line – ‘no participation even with a UN mandate’ – as he said at the beginning of the week. One who gives the UN no chance is issuing an invitation precisely to chaos and defeat. This policy does not serve Germany’s security, at any rate,” stresses the daily.

Charging that a troop deployment in Iraq, rather than in Afghanistan, would improve ties with the United States, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung comments: “The readiness of the German government to relieve the military burden of the U.S. forces in Iraq would undoubtedly have a positive impact on the strained relations between Berlin and Washington. It could be politically meaningful to demonstrate willingness to deploy the Bundeswehr in Iraq subject to two conditions: the ending of the Iraq conflict by the UN, on behalf of which NATO would have to guarantee security in Iraq for a transition period; and Washington’s political return to the Alliance. Washington has turned its back on it after the attack on the World Trade Center…. The West’s cohesion and power to act has prevented the world from the inferno of nuclear war. The Sept. 11 events indicate that it might have a peacekeeping function even today. It would be in Germany’s best interest to use the Bundeswehr to attack such a political objective. Instead of deploying troops in Afghanistan … the German government should consider deploying troops in Iraq, once the basic political conditions for that exist.”

The possibility of a NATO role in Iraq is also viewed by Italian media .
Il Giornale, Aug. 21, wrote: “Organized terrorism has become a new major international entity: an entity which no state and no people can ignore…. The message which the Islamic fundamentalisms are sending is clear…. In Iraq, the Anglo-U.S. intervention could introduce elements of democracy and freedom…. This must be interrupted by all means possible…. Of course, nobody has the recipe to deal with the new threat which is hanging over the five continents…. But faced with this new threat … it is necessary to reformulate foreign policies, the strategies of collective security, the intelligence systems and even political philosophies…. This is the task of Europe, if it wants to become a superpower with international tasks and responsibilities…. This military and intelligence goal could also become the new raison d’etre of NATO, after having adapted its powerful machine to tasks that are wholly different from those for which it was set up.” Reuters quotes Italian Defense Minister Martino saying in an interview that the United States has asked Rome to lobby other countries to commit forces to Iraq.