Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

15 October 2003

NRF

Media focus on the inauguration of the NRF, echoing the message of NATO officials that in the framework of NATO’s transformation, the force will be a catalyst for change. However, media continue to point out that while the NRF must be able to deploy to a crisis area within five days, political procedures in some Alliance member nations may delay that deployment.

NATO launched its elite Response Force Wednesday, reports AP, quoting Gen. Jones saying, at an inauguration ceremony in Brunssum: “The creation of the initial NATO Response Force … is an important sign that the Alliance is rapidly changing to meet the new threats of this century. The (force) will give the Alliance the military capability to do what it could not do before—insert military forces into a deteriorating situation earlier in a crisis, with more speed at greater ranges, with more sustainability than ever before…. The (NRF) represents the vehicle that will drive the full transformation of the Alliance from an organization designed for territorial defense to one that can confront today’s multiple threats.” The dispatch observes that the inauguration marked an important departure for the Alliance, which for most of its 54-year history, has focused on the Soviet threat to Europe. Now, it adds, “it is getting its first multinational military unit combining air, land and sea power for use anywhere in the world on short notice.” The dispatch notes, however, that although allied nations have moved swiftly to set up the force, NATO officials say some now need to streamline political procedures to prevent delays in the force’s deployment. It adds that speaking to reporters, Gen. Jones warned that nations that were not politically ready to deploy forces quickly could be excluded from the new force.

“NATO inaugurated Wednesday a Response Force designed to dramatically extend the Alliance’s reach in the global fight against terrorism” reports AFP, quoting Gen. Jones saying at a ceremony at which he handed over the colors of the NRF to its first commander, Gen. Deverell: “The passing of the colors to General Deverell will mark what I consider to be one of the most important changes in the NATO Alliance since the signing of the Washington Treaty.” According to the dispatch, Gen. Jones stressed that the force represents “an unambiguous commitment of the Alliance’s intent to stay militarily relevant in a global context,” adding: “For the first time in its history, the Alliance will have a joint/combined air, land, and sea and special operations force under a single commander.”

Gen. Jones’ remarks are also noted by Reuters, which stresses that the “prototype” of the force unveiled on Wednesday is not ready for high-intensity combat. But, the dispatch adds, officials say that, even in its infancy, it could be deployed for non-combat rescue operations and humanitarian crises, or as a show of force to deter aggression.

A related BBC World Service broadcast stressed that the NRF has two main purposes. It is intended to be a standing pool of air, land, and sea units able to deploy to a trouble-spot at very short notice. But it is also an important vehicle of transformation—a vehicle for change. In this respect, the broadcast stressed: “(The NRF) is intended to address one of the Alliance’s main military problems; NATO has lots of soldiers but relatively few of them are actually trained, ready and equipped to be deployed beyond their own borders. The NRF will act as an important catalyst for change. National units will train and then be part of the force for some six months, after which other units will take their place. This constant rotation will mean that troops from many countries will have to meet the stringent standards set for the new force. Over time, this will create a much larger pool of units, all with significantly enhanced mobility and equipment.” The program concluded that “the Alliance looks set to remain the only multinational military player capable of deploying and sustaining forces either in support of its own political goals or those of the UN.”

The inauguration of the NRF also prompted the BBC to visit a Czech-led NBC battalion that will be part of the force. Noting that the Czech army unit is practicing for its role “at the cutting edge of NATO’s plans for the future,” the network commented: “The NRF is the Alliance’s response to the challenges and threats of the 21st Century. It will be a standing force, kept on the highest level of alert, ready to be deployed at just five days’ notice, anywhere in the world, to meet threats from terrorists, mount peacekeeping operation, evacuate civilians or help out in natural disasters. The NRF is led by Gen. Jones, who describes today’s threats as ‘insidious and asymmetric.’ Terrorist attacks around the world in recent years have persuaded NATO chiefs that only a highly mobile force like the NRF can mount an effective defense.” In what it described as “a political flight in the ointment,” the program remarked that the force might be ready for deployment in just five days. But at the moment NATO takes all decision—about deployments and other matters—by consensus. And that can take a long time. The program continued: “The argument within NATO in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq suggests that the NRF will only be able to be used in uncontroversial situations—at least for as long as NATO continues to take decisions by consensus. There are many political and military figures in the United States who argue that it is time to abandon the need for unanimity, which will become even harder to achieve when seven new nations join the Alliance next year.” Noting, however, that critics fear that the U.S. wishes to use the NFR as a sort of police force, to allow the Americans to intervene around the world by proxy, the program quoted British defense expert Sir Timothy Garden warning: “If NATO is to be a stick for the United States to beat the Europeans into submitting to an American view of the world, then the Alliance is doomed.” A commentary in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Oct. 14, said meanwhile: “It is no small matter that the United States used (an informal meeting of Alliance defense ministers) at Colorado Springs for a map exercise dealing with the deployment of the NRF. The hosts had planned the scenario of the exercise in such a way that the obstacles that could prevent the implementation of the mission became clear. The time needed for the political decision-making process proved to be one…. Whether and how the parliamentary proceedings could be accelerated may be different in each country concerned. However, all are confronted with one question. That is, whether, under the pressure of such a situation, the vote of the Parliament becomes a formality that has to be speedily handled (because the real decision is largely anticipated by the preparations of the Alliance) or whether the deputies will not only have the time for the consideration of arguments, but also the possibility to say yes or no. This is especially important before a military intervention that no longer necessarily serves the purpose for which NATO was founded, that is collective defense.” Warning the U.S. administration against attempts to “tie the NATO partners more closely to itself by trying to reduce their scope for making decision on military operations, in order to align their policy with its own in this roundabout way,” the article continued: “One possibility could be the abundance of powers of the NATO supreme commander…. He has the planning sovereignty for operations of the Alliance. Thus, there is the possibility that he has military plans developed to pursue political goals, in order to be able, if necessary, to confront the partners with accomplished facts and to bind them to the leading power…. Such a course of action would involve high risks for the preservation of the Alliance.”

ISAF

• One day after the UN Security Council approved a resolution to expand peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan beyond Kabul, said Deutsche Welle, ISAF Commander Lt. Gen. Gliemeroth told reporters the dangers for German troops are increasing. “I believe that the risk for ISAF here in Kabul has grown in recent months due to the fact that there are (new) threats that we can’t totally defend ourselves against,” the program quoted Gen. Gliemeroth saying. According to the program, he cautioned that ISAF had monitored a steady increase in the number of terrorist threats in recent months, which was a sign that a considerable number of guerrilla fighters had infiltrated the area. Stressing, however, that Gen. Gliemeroth and other military leaders are greeting the expansion of ISAF’s mandate despite the perils it entails, the program continued: “According to Gen. Gliemeroth, the presence of the troops in the province will provide protection for aid workers as well as those providing training for the country’s burgeoning police and military forces, which the international community is seeking to have in place to safeguard national elections slated for next year. Regarding plans to send Bundeswehr soldiers to Kunduz, he said that although the area is considered relatively secure, there is plenty of work for the Bundeswehr there. He noted that the stationing of German soldiers in Kunduz will also free up soldiers to secure other, more dangerous parts of the country so that reconstruction efforts can start there, too.”