Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

9 September 2003

GENERAL JONES

• Sofia’s Khorizont Radio, Sept. 8, carried Bulgarian Army Chief of Staff Gen. Kolev announcing that Gen. Jones would soon be visiting Bulgaria to examine the country’s potential to provide bases for the United States. Gen. Kolev was aired saying: “We could show (Gen. Jones) what we could potentially offer. I am talking about airfields, both operational and those we have suspended from use; warehouses that we have emptied so that they could be used anew; as well as grounds for training of troops.” In the words of Gen. Kolev, added the broadcast, Gen. Jones will not visit any other Balkan countries. From Sofia, where he will arrive within 10 days, he will depart directly to Washington and report to the Pentagon and the White House on the possibilities for new U.S. bases in the Balkans.

ISAF

• According to the Financial Times, NATO countries gave a guarded response Monday to calls by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for ISAF to expand its mandate beyond Kabul. “NATO countries on Monday said they were in no rush to move outside Kabul nor formally raise the issue at the (NAC)…. They said any NATO role outside Kabul depended on all 19 NATO members agreeing to expand the UN mandate,” the article asserts. One unidentified Alliance official is quoted saying: “An expanded ISAF mandate will be formally on the table once we are sure everyone is for it. The UN would easily agree to it since it has been wanting NATO to move outside Kabul for months.” The article also quotes officials saying they had to make sure they had adequate resources such as troops and transportation to go beyond the Afghan capital.

IRAQ

• In the wake of President Bush’s speech Sunday in which he called for international assistance in Iraq, media examine possible scenarios for international involvement. “If the U.S. really wants others to share a significant burden in Iraq, NATO is likely to be its best vehicle, with real military assets and plenty of soldiers,” writes Time. Pondering whether the Europeans could intervene, a commentary in Paris’ Le Figaro stresses: “Two European divisions are present in Iraq. One, British, participated in the war and is occupying the Basra region. The other, commanded by the Poles, has been put in place since this summer. It includes a strong Spanish and Ukrainian participation plus other, smaller contingents. Two ways are envisaged to strengthen the European contingents. The first would be an intervention by NATO, which has just extended it zone of operations outside Europe for the first time by taking over command of (ISAF). The second would see a direct intervention of French or German contingents.”

ESDP

• According to the Christian Science Monitor, the recent unrest in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia challenges Operation Concordia. In the wake of recent violence, Concordia is testing not only the EU’s political will but also the endurance of the military forces cobbled together by member states, the newspaper claims and adds: “The past two weeks have seen a spate of bombings in Skopje. On Sunday the government launched a crackdown on ethnic Albanian militants in the north of the country that killed several gunmen. The renewed violence poses a challenge for a force that was supposed to serve as a deterrent. EUFOR soldiers do carry light arms, but their limited mandate only allows for self-defense. Their main mission is to monitor and report, and, in that spirit, EUFOR has moved close to the scene of Sunday’s events.” The U.S. daily highlights that despite Concordia’s small size, political and military analysts have been watching it closely. “Concordia is the first concrete (ESDP) move and, with the U.S. progressively withdrawing from traditional European bases and EU-US relations on a roller-coaster, the stakes could not be higher,” the newspaper observes. Athens’ I Kathimerini warns meanwhile that a resurgence of armed conflict between ethnic Albanians and Slavs in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is looming on the horizon again. The article says: “While international attention is focused on the Middle East, the situation in the country is rapidly worsening The EU, the U.S. and NATO have other priorities…. Greece, which knows the region far better, and which has a vital interest in its pacification and stability, must act. The government must inform, warn and mobilize its EU partners, so as to activate mechanisms for averting crises.”

Media continue to center on discussions within the EU on a proposal agreed in April by France, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg to establish an EU military headquarters independent of NATO in the Belgian town of Tervuren and a British counter-proposal for the establishment of an EU military planning cell at SHAPE.
Reporting on a meeting of EU defense ministers at Garda Lake on Friday and Saturday, Belgian daily De Standaard, Sept. 8, remarked: “It was striking that highly placed German delegation members questioned in the lobbies whether a separate EU military headquarters in Tervuren, detached from NATO, makes sense. The WEU was also a separate European structure but it was scarcely used, it was said.”

“Britain is proposing the establishment of an EU planning cell at SHAPE. Belgium and France want an independent EU command center,” wrote Berliner Zeitung, Sept. 6. The newspaper stressed, however, that EU diplomats said both concepts are not necessarily incompatible.
A commentary in De Standaard, Sept. 5, viewed the pros and cons of the possible establishment of an EU defense headquarters at Tervuren. According to the newspaper, the main arguments in favor are: If the EU wishes to exist politically, it must have its own defense--There is no reason why the Europeans should not be able/be allowed to talk autonomously about defense and conduct military planning. Autonomous planning would give the Europeans a sense of responsibility. The plan for a European headquarters does not conflict with “Berlin plus”--the agreements within NATO on a European defense identity. European planning which begins already with the identification of the equipment required, is essential in order to protect the European arms industry. The main arguments against “Tervuren” are: The plan is not serious militarily because, out of its four advocates, there is just one—France—that has a credible defense and decent budget for defense expenditure. To talk about a European defense but let your armed forces slip down to an inadequate level, as Belgium and Germany are doing, is not credible The proposal by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg creates no better prospects because it does not even give a guideline for minimum defense expenditure. In NATO there are the means and space for autonomous European military planning. A new headquarters is a duplication of effort and hence a waste of money. It is thanks to NATO that the European armed forces are geared to each other and can operate smoothly together.