|
||
|
SHAPE News Summary & Analysis 29 August 2003
The following clippings are from today’s News Summary & Analysis
Britain to Set Out Vision for EU Defense in Rome Judy Dempsey, In Brussels Britain and France will on Friday start setting out their vision of how the European Union can play a much stronger defence and security role once it expands from 15 to 25 countries next year. A meeting in Rome, bringing together Europe's top defence and foreign policy experts from national ministries, may also bring the opening shots for the EU's intergovernmental conference that opens in the Italian capital in October. "Defence is going to be very important in the IGC," said a German official. "This brain-storming session in Rome should start giving us some sense as to where the member and candidate countries stand over issues such as enhanced defence co-operation and collective defence and how we can improve military capabilities." The meeting, however, could expose differences and ambiguities between London and Paris over the future role of the EU's European Security and Defence Policy and its precise relationship with the US. The two capitals together launched ESDP in 1998 as part of a long-term goal of giving the EU a defence and security arm to complement its economic and political institutions. Five years later, although the countries work closely on defence issues, they still see the EU's links with the transatlantic military alliance of Nato differently, particularly after the US-led war in Iraq. Today, for example, Britain, will circulate a three page "food for thought paper" to 24 countries (Denmark has an opt-out clause for defence matters) setting out its case for creating a permanent EU military planning "cell" of military and other staff at Shape, Nato's planning headquarters outside Brussels. France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany are not enthusiastic about the idea since they believe the European Union's ability to act autonomously from Nato could be restricted if the institutional arrangements between Nato and the US were further tightened. The four countries last April held a mini-summit in Brussels where they called for an EU planning headquarters separate from Shape. Britain and the US immediately accused the summit leaders of trying to break Europe's links with Nato. British officials reject any suggestion that the proposal for an EU cell in Nato was anti-French. Said one: "Britain was involved in the French-led EU force in Congo this summer. "The cell would reinforce existing EU capacity provided to its military staff." The Guardian UK tries to head off plan for EU rival to Nato Ian Black in Brussels Britain
is today seeking to head off attempts by France and Germany
to forge ahead with an independent European military initiative
that it fears will weaken Nato. Paris and Brussels have called for the EU to plan and mount its own operations. They have backing from Belgium and Luxembourg - which form part of what pro-Nato critics call the "gang of four" of EU countries who opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq. Britain's proposals in response, submitted at the request of the Italian EU presidency, agree that the EU should be able to plan operations, but only from Nato's headquarters near Mons, Belgium, still called Shape (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) as it was at the end of the second world war. British officials admit that the central idea of a document entitled Food for Thought is deliberately intended to undercut the Franco-German-Belgian idea for an independent EU "planning cell" in Tervuren, a suburb of Brussels. They warn that the Franco-German drive will annoy the Americans and create unnecessary duplication between the EU and Nato. Britain and France jointly pioneered the idea of EU defence after the 1999 Kosovo war highlighted the yawning military gap between the US and Europe. Progress has been made in setting up new institutions and procedures and modest peacekeeping missions have been mounted in Macedonia and Congo. Plans are also under way to create a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force. It had been hoped the EU could also take over the far larger Nato-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia next year, but that is now in doubt. Amid tensions between Paris and London, British officials are frustrated that the Franco-German plan - initially seen as an empty gesture after the divisions of the Iraq crisis - is still being pursued. Defence is one of the most controversial items in the EU's draft constitution, which is due to be finalised in negotiations between all 15 member states starting in October. Britain opposes proposals by the "gang of four" for a "solidarity clause" for victims of armed aggression, similar to Nato's article 5 on mutual defence. Tony Blair has described this as one of Britain's "red lines". He can count on the support of Nato loyalists such as the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Denmark as well as neutral or non-aligned states. It is a sensitive issue in Britain, as the Conservatives argue that any sort of EU defence initiative will damage Nato. Geoffrey Van Orden, Tory defence spokesman in the European parliament, said: "None of this makes any military sense: it is pure politics and the loser will be the transatlantic alliance and Britain's wider security interests. "The French are likely to agree the trivial British proposal for a 'dedicated EU planning cell' while giving up none of their own ambitions. We are then likely to face the worst of both worlds - an EU trojan horse inside Nato as well as expanding and duplicative EU structures outside." FINANCIAL TIMES Bush Aims to Mend his European Fences By James Harding The White House is planning a series of face-to-face meetings next month between President George W. Bush and some of his most awkward counterparts in Europe. US officials say the sessions planned with Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany are not intended as a co-ordinated rapprochement with leaders who have proved obstructive critics of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's treatment of the UN. But as Washington seeks further international support to stabilise and rebuild Iraq, the meetings will prove a critical test of Mr Bush's handling of the transatlantic relationship. Mr Bush is expected to meet Mr Putin at Camp David in the last week of September, amid quiet concern in Washington over what is supposed to have been one of the main achievements of the administration's foreign policy. White House officials said the meetings were simply part of Mr Bush's continuing work tending to important and complex relationships with key allies. US and foreign diplomats suggest Mr Bush, who has made much of the personal relationship he has forged with the Russian president, has become lukewarm towards Mr Putin. Administration officials are said to be alarmed at the recent assault on business and attacks on the press in Russia, and disappointed that Mr Putin has stood behind France and Germany on Iraq. "The president has cooled [towards Mr Putin]," says one person closely involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Everyone is worried about the negative trend." His comments echoed those of another, recently privy to a conversation with Mr Bush on the subject. Conservative figures in Washington's foreign policy establishment, he said, have begun to question what Mr Bush has to show for his very public friendship with Mr Putin. "There is a view that at the first sign of any American weakness, the Russians return to form," he said. Russia has been consumed in recent weeks by government raids on the offices of Yukos, the country's largest oil group, and the arrest of its chief shareholder, in a battle that has depressed the market and pitted prominent corporate figures against Kremlin associates of Mr Putin. The president, who is well ahead in the polls for re-election next March, has remained above the fray. Mr Bush's meeting with Mr Chirac is scheduled to take place over lunch in New York on September 22 or 23, according to French officials. The get-together between Mr Bush and his most obstinate critic over Iraq will come in the margins of the UN General Assembly. Mr Bush is due to address the UN on September 23 and officials say he will reprise the "challenge" he made in September last year to the international community to join the fight on international terrorism. French officials say Mr Chirac met foreign policy advisers this week to discuss the meeting with Mr Bush, which was proposed when the two men last talked face-to-face at the Group of Eight summit in Evian in June. The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Schröder, which is likely to be a 30-minute get-together in one of the meeting rooms in the UN building, is being viewed by diplomats and White House officials as "an ice-breaker". The personal relationship between Mr Bush and Mr Schröder has been notoriously bad and the leader of the world's sole superpower and the leader of Europe's largest economy have not had a one-on-one meeting since May 2002.
THE GUARDIAN France calls for transatlantic charter to mend rift on Iraq Amelia Gentleman in Paris France
has called for the creation of a transatlantic charter, designed
to set out new principles for improved relations between Europe
and America, as the latest initiative aimed at mending the rift
suffered during the debate on Iraq. "We are in a new strategic environment and certain fundamental elements of our relationship have changed," he said. "Our response to threats may differ on points; our conception of the role of the UN is not always the same." This troubled climate demanded a fresh approach to improving relations. "We have a new history to write," he said. "Perhaps the moment has come to base a new European-American partnership on a transatlantic charter." The document would set out a new framework for dialogue, highlight areas where cooperation could be better, and "improve procedures for the better management of differences", as well as promoting better contacts between politicians, business leaders and intellectuals. His plea for a revitalised relationship with the US came as the conclusion to a speech setting out foreign policy priorities for the next year, an indication of the importance Mr De Villepin places on reforging the bonds destroyed when France tried to stop Washington's march to war earlier this year. The idea of a transatlantic charter was first suggested by President Jacques Chirac in 1996, but it has never been implemented. The idea of its revival triggered scepticism yesterday. "When politicians run out of ideas on how to fix relations, they reach for charters," one commentator said. Guillaume Parmentier, the director of the French Centre on the United States, said: "These charters can only work if both parties are ready to compromise. The US is not ready to be constrained in any of its actions by a new diplomatic charter." Mr De Villepin,
for his part, stressed again yesterday in his speech that the
UN should play a leading role on Iraq - repeating the arguments
that led to France's threat to veto a UN resolution authorising
an attack earlier this year. THE WASHINGTON POST U.N.
Envoys Cautious on New Force In Baghdad By Colum Lynch UNITED
NATIONS, Aug. 28 -- Key members of the U.N. Security Council
reacted cautiously today to Bush administration efforts to solicit
broader international financial and military support for the
occupation of Iraq, saying the United States must move more
quickly to relinquish power to Iraqis and grant greater authority
to the United Nations. De Villepin's reaction followed remarks by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage that the administration is exploring the idea of allowing a U.N.-mandated multinational force in Iraq that would operate under the command of a U.S. general. Speaking in Paris, de Villepin did not rule out the possibility of supporting the U.S. initiative, but he made it clear that France wants to see the United Nations more firmly at the center of the postwar reconstruction. "It is not enough to deploy more troops, or more technical or financial means," he said. "A real change of approach is called for. It will involve setting up a real international force with a mandate from the U.N. Security Council." The administration is under increasing pressure from Congress to broaden the number of countries involved in bringing security to Iraq and paying for its reconstruction. Armitage's remarks -- in an interview with journalists on Tuesday -- signaled that the administration might be willing to drop its insistence that the United States maintain total control over military, political and economic matters in Iraq and grant some authority to the United Nations. The administration is engaged in an internal debate over expanding the occupation force in Iraq and whether the United Nations should be allowed a greater role. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is leading efforts to attract tens of thousands of foreign troops from India, Pakistan, Turkey and other countries, but the campaign has been stymied by the countries' insistence that the United Nations be granted a greater role. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others at the Pentagon said more troops are unnecessary, and the White House said today that the proposal discussed by Armitage was one of several options. "That's one of many ideas that are floating around, and no decisions have been made on any of those ideas," Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, told reporters in Crawford, Tex., where President Bush is vacationing at his ranch. Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said he was "not aware of any specific discussions" on the proposal. "The objective of continuing to internationalize the coalition is one everybody shares," he said. "There's going to be a variety of ways we'll want to consider on how you do that." The administration's leading political and military allies in Iraq, Britain and Spain, are also urging the United States to yield greater authority to the United Nations, particularly over the political transition from Saddam Hussein's government. "We are realistic and we know that the United States cannot disappear from Iraq overnight or in two months because it will be chaos," said Spain's U.N. ambassador, Inocencio F. Arias. "If the United States is ready to give a bigger role to the United Nations, that would be good because that would be appreciated in the council." Germany indicated that the idea of a U.N.-sponsored multinational force under U.S. command is a positive first step, but said the United States needs to permit more "burden sharing" in Iraq. "It's very interesting and I would say it goes in the direction that I think we have been advocating for some time. Perhaps it reflects some new, different thinking that is taking place in Washington," said Germany's deputy U.N. ambassador, Wolfgang Trautwein. "But so far it just restricts itself to the security side and we have always said that security, politics, economic -- they are all interlinked." Staff writer
Vernon Loeb in Washington contributed NEW YORK TIMES High Cost of Occupation: U.S. Weighs a U.N. Role By DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 — In weighing a greater United Nations hand in the military occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration is acknowledging that the mounting costs of the operation, in both human and financial terms, are too great for the United States alone to bear. Until now,
the "vital role" that President Bush has promised
for the United Nations has been limited, by American design,
to a marginal contribution. But now the American need for troops
and dollars that only other countries can provide is prompting
a real reconsideration of those old, narrow lines. But after four months in which the American occupation of Iraq has exacted a heavy toll, and with no end in sight, the new American approach to the United Nations can be seen as a call for help in the face of a politically intolerable arithmetic. "We're 95 percent of the deaths, 95 percent of the costs, and more than 90 percent of the troops," Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Delaware Democrat, said in a telephone interview today. "The costs are staggering, the number of troops are staggering, we're seeing continuing escalation of American casualties, and we need to turn to the U.N. for help, for a U.N.-sanctioned military operation that is under U.S. command." With nearly 140,000 American soldiers still in Iraq, the military costs alone are running at nearly $4 billion a month, administration officials have said. More American troops have been killed since major combat operations ended than during them, at least 64 of them by hostile fire in a guerrilla resistance that shows no sign of dissipating. And while the administration had hoped that Iraqi oil revenues might cover the cost of reconstruction, that optimism has faded to the point that L. Paul Bremer, the top American official in Iraq, said this week that the country would need "several tens of billions of dollars" from the United States and other countries in the next year to help in the rebuilding. To enlist outside help in footing that bill, the United States will convene an international donors conference in Madrid in late October, with a preliminary meeting scheduled for next week in Brussels. But many experts say it will raise little of the needed cash unless the United States offers donors a bigger hand in how the money is spent, whether that occurs through the United Nations or in some other way. "It's hard to believe that the big donors will write a check to support an American occupation over which they have no control," said James B. Steinberg, who served as deputy national security adviser under President Clinton and is now director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. That the United States would want help from other nations in peacekeeping in Iraq and rebuilding its economy is not in itself a surprise; the administration made clear from the start that it hoped to enlist a "coalition of the willing" outside the United Nations, which it deeply mistrusts for its refusal to support the American invasion in the first place. Indeed, even now, a multinational division is assembling in southwestern Iraq to replace the United States Marines, who are scheduled to leave in early September. The division is led by the Poles and will have brigades that are commanded by the Ukrainians and the Spanish. Other nations contributing troops including Bulgaria, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Thailand. Apart from that force, however, what has been unexpected is the reluctance of other countries to send troops in substantial numbers to Iraq without a fresh United Nations mandate. And together with the burdens imposed by the continuing attacks on the occupying forces and the country's infrastructure, the result has been a heavier cost than the administration had foreseen. As recently as May, the administration had hoped by this fall to reduce its troops in Iraq to just 30,000, or less than a quarter of those it now expects to keep in place for the indefinite future. Winning a new Security Council mandate is now seen as important enough an American goal that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell interrupted a vacation last week to travel to New York to meet with Kofi Annan, the secretary general. A mandate would allow American commanders to call on troops from countries like India and Pakistan that opposed the war but may be willing to contribute troops to a force if it is approved by the United Nations. Such a mandate might also open the way for the enlistment of a NATO force, including Turkey, Mr. Biden said today. But it
is far from clear whether the administration would be willing
to make the concessions necessary to enlist the support of Security
Council members like France and Russia, which have said a wider
United Nations role in Iraq would have to include real power.
ASSOCIATED PRESS Afghan leader wants to press ahead with plan for loya jirga in October By MATTHEW PENNINGTON KABUL,
Afghanistan (AP) _ Afghan President Hamid Karzai REUTERS Afghan
constitution postponed, elections may be too
1447 280803
GMT
|
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
