Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

25 August 2003

NRF

• It is now known that in the buildup phase, Germany will provide about one-fourth of the total of approximately 20,000 soldiers of the NRF. However, in addition to the military-technical side, there is a also a political one, which is less frequently mentioned. For instance, possible restrictions of the Bundestag’s participation rights, wrote Die Tageszeitung, Aug. 23. The article recalled that the Federal Republic is one of the few NATO states that may send soldiers to a deployment only after an express prior approval by Parliament. But, it stressed, “this so-called parliamentary provision could soon prove to be technically incompatible with Alliance obligations: the first units of the NRF are to be able to reach any location in the world within only five days.” According to the newspaper, Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces Chief of Staff) Gen. Schneiderhan admits that it could become “a bit tight” if a deployment is decided in a short time and, for instance, Parliament is in summer recess. Asked if the law should be changed, he reportedly stressed that this is an issue for politicians to settle. The newspaper is optimistic, however, that “they will settle it--and, with the ‘factual force’ of new Alliance obligations, will declare a restriction of parliamentary rights irrefutable.” Viewing plans for the NRF against the background of the establishment of a European rapid reaction force, the newspaper continued: “Some observers see in the buildup of the NRF an indication that Washington is willing to continue taking NATO seriously. Yet no one doubts that, in view of the superiority of the U.S. armed forces, all NRF operations will be under the command of the United States. But is the U.S. actually concerned only with strengthening NATO--or is it simultaneously trying to prevent the buildup of a joint EU force?…. Must both projects not perforce be in competition, since intervention forces do not grow on trees and NATO states already complain off and on about reaching the limit of their capabilities? Gen. Schneiderhan does not see this danger: ‘I am convinced that all that is compatible. We are not surprising each other, we coordinate,’ he stressed.”

ESDP

• The Times asserts it has learnt that Britain will propose the creation of a dedicated EU military “planning cell” to strengthen Europe’s defense capability, but to be based at SHAPE headquarters to avoid undermining the Alliance. According to the newspaper, the move is Britain’s opening shot in what is set to be a bitter battle this autumn with France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, which have formed a breakaway group to press ahead with plans for an autonomous European force. Citing unnamed British officials, the newspaper says such a cell would give the EU “a proper identity” while dissipating support for the rival project. Under existing procedures, EU defense officials can only advise ministers on whether a European force should be deployed. Once the political decision has been taken, NATO takes on full responsibility for military planning, the newspaper notes. It adds that Britain has circulated its proposal to all 25 EU members in a paper entitled “Food for Thought,” before a meeting this Friday in Rome.

IRAQ

• As Ankara mulls joining an international security force in the country, writes AFP, Turkey’s civilian and military leaders said Friday it was a priority for Ankara to see stability and order reinstalled in Iraq. The dispatch adds that the declaration came in a statement issued after a meeting of the National Security Council, whose agenda was dominated by a U.S. request to Turkey to send soldiers to Iraq. “Turkey sees an immediate end to instability in Iraq and the reestablishment of public order in that country a priority policy goal and is watching developments,” the statement reportedly read. The dispatch notes that the Council refrained from making a formal call for the dispatch of troops to Iraq, but said it would meet again in September to discuss regional developments. The call was reportedly widely interpreted to mean that the decision on the troop deployment was referred until next month. Milliyet, Aug. 24, claimed that delicate issues remain ahead of a parliamentary motion on sending troops to Iraq. Among other things, the newspaper notes that even if Turkish forces were to assume responsibility for a region and become the dominant force there, they would be part of a system of hierarchy that would be headed by a U.S. general. Stressing that solving this problem can only happen through clearly and unequivocally laying down the terms for cooperation and coordination between the Turkish command responsible for law and order in the area and the U.S. command staff, the newspaper added: “It would be hard to say that the question-and-answer traffic passing between the Turkish and U.S. authorities has worked out these details…. It can be said that gaps … will begin to become clear when Gen. Jones comes to Ankara at the very beginning of September…. However, at this point one needs to point out that a very odd situation exists in relations between the Turkish and U.S. military authorities. U.S. military forces in Iraq are subordinate to CENTCOM, based in Florida. Yet, the Turkish General Staff is conducting talks not with CENTCOM, but with EUCOM…. It will take until the middle of September for the outcome of talks being conducted on various tracks and the date needed by the government in order for it to make its final decision to be placed on the table. In this situation one can say that the decision to submit the motion to the National Assembly might well be put off until the end of September.”

German media continue to urge the Federal government to support a NATO role in Iraq under a UN mandate.
According to Financial Times Deutschland, Aug. 22, Germany’s willingness to send its forces to the Gulf region under a UN mandate would give a boost to those in the Bush administration who have come out in support of a considerably wider UN role and international cooperation in Iraq. “Berlin should link its readiness to dispatch German military forces to the demand that NATO be given a similar role in Iraq as it has in Afghanistan. NATO would provide the United States and the Europeans with the military infrastructure required for a mission of such dimensions. It would also force the U.S. to consult its partners in the framework of the NAC and overcome its unilateralist reflex. The dual international legitimization through the UN and NATO would finally make the difficult domestic decision in favor of a German military mission easier,” stressed the daily.

An editorial in Welt am Sonntag, Aug. 23, opined: “The U.S. is moving toward the UN and hence also toward its ‘renegade’ European partners and is compelled by events to continue to do so. The Federal Government would be well advised to support this development…. But Berlin does not see that its hour has come. Officials refer to Germany’s commitment in Afghanistan and categorically rule out a Bundeswehr participation in the pacification of Iraq even in the scope of NATO. If the Federal Government persists in this, it will not only be failing to utilize the chance to help overcome the transatlantic quarrels that it partly caused. It would also have to ask itself whether the German interests actually lie in the boulder-strewn wilderness of the Hindu Kush or in the pacification of the economically much more interesting Iraq.”
The German government remains under mounting pressure to rethink its attitude toward military involvement in Iraq, reported Deutsche Welle. The broadcast noted, however, that in an interview, Chancellor Schroeder again reiterated that there are currently no plans to send German soldiers to Iraq.