Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

16 October 2003

NRF

• AFP reports that in an annual report released Wednesday, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said the NRF “will give the Alliance the capability to project force rapidly in strength over distance.” The dispatch adds, however, that the report warned that NATO must come up with new ways of making decisions if it is “to have credibility in the future as it reforms and defines new structures and missions.” Noting that “while the military commanders are trigger-ready to deploy (the NRF) wherever and whenever needed, one potential problem may be in taking the political decision to send the force into a crisis,” the dispatch continues: NATO works by consensus, so any decision must be agreed by all member states. In some countries, national Parliament must authorize any foreign deployment of troops. At last week’s informal meeting of NATO defense ministers in Colorado Springs, ministers agreed to study ways of speeding up this decision-making process, with results expected by December. Earlier, Deutsche Welle reported that Defense Minister Struck had dropped his original plan to have a small body of cross-party parliamentary defense experts decide future Bundeswehr missions abroad with NATO’s rapid reaction operations. There is reportedly no majority in the collation for such a move, which would curtail the right of Parliament as a whole. The network stressed, however, that Struck is still insisting that the government should be able to decide unilaterally to send small contingents of soldiers on, for example, NATO’s AWACS reconnaissance plane missions, while still giving Parliament the right to withdraw these soldiers at any given time.

Wednesday’s inauguration of the NRF continues to receive wide coverage in the world press. Media are hailing the new force as a milestone in the transformation of the Alliance. However, enthusiasm appears to be diminished by a realization that the decision-making process in some Alliance countries for deploying troops abroad may undermine the force’s ability to deploy within five days.
Pan-European television network Euronews, which showed footage of the NRF’s inauguration ceremony, commented: “The NRF is designed to be deployed within five days. Gen. Jones says some countries with lengthy parliamentary procedures for authorizing military action abroad have agreed to consider making exceptions.”
Marking a milestone in its metamorphosis into a global military player, NATO Wednesday inaugurated a rapid-response force that could go into trouble spots anywhere in the world, writes the Wall Street Journal. But, the newspaper adds, the new force’s mobility is hampered by the military and political handicaps that European governments must fix to make the contingent truly capable of quick action. Most of NATO’s European member nations lack key military hardware, such as long-haul transport planes and secure communication gear, that soldiers need for far-flung missions. Moreover, the newspaper notes, in some European countries overseas military deployments are subject to parliamentary approval, a political process that can drag on for months and undermine the whole point of a rapid military response. The article acknowledges, however, that for an alliance that spent decades preparing for a massive land war against the Soviet Union on the European continent, the creation of the NRF is a significant step toward embracing new kinds of military missions. The article continues: “Gen. Jones described the launch of the force as ‘one of the most important changes in the NATO Alliance since the signing of the Washington Treaty over 50 years ago.’ NATO military officials hope the launch of the force will encourage European governments to restructure their armed forces toward greater mobility and change the way political decisions on international deployments are made.”
Also describing the inauguration of the NRF as “a milestone” for the future security of the United States and its NATO allies, the Washington Times reports: “Organized, trained and equipped for a number of combat and stability missions, the NRF will provide the Alliance with new and relevant capabilities for today’s challenges. With the understanding that the security challenges were profoundly changed, NATO agreed last year to form the NRF. That decision, reinforced by the declaration made at NATO’s summit in Prague in November 2002, is as remarkable as NATO actions in the Balkans, the invocation of Article 5 (after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks), and sending forces to Kabul. Had the NRF been in existence on Sept. 12, as Gen. Jones notes, that force would have no doubt been employed in the fight against terrorism. But there are obstacles. NATO is based on consensus. Each member holds a veto…. (This) is not helpful in a world that is dynamic, with dangers entirely different and likely to arise unexpectedly—and probably more than one at a time…. Gen. Jones rightly predicts that the NRF is NATO’s future. However, negotiating that path with 26 different nations will be daunting. The challenge is making NATO as effective and relevant an Alliance in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century. And, Gen. Jones and his military and civilian colleagues will only succeed if each nation fully remains committed to these ambitious goals. This will determine NATO’s future, and to a large degree the security of the United States.”
The Financial Times observes that NATO Wednesday “shook off another legacy of the Cold War era by launching a rapid reaction force capable of being deployed in five days self-sufficient for a month and going anywhere in the world.” Noting, however, that the NRF has forced several countries to reconsider how decisions are made to send troops abroad, the article adds: “ Gen. Jones said the success of the NRF depends on all member countries adapting their national legislation that would allow troops to be deployed within days. Several countries are required to seek parliamentary approval before sending troops abroad on any mission. In some cases, it can take weeks to win such approval, a system Gen. Jones believes negates the principle of the NRF.” Gen. Jones is quoted saying: “In order to participate in the NRF, it is clear we need a complementary political process to deploy in five days. This has to be resolved on the national basis…. If adjustments are required, they will have to be made, otherwise their participation will have to be called into question.”
Gen. Jones praised the NRF as the most important change since the creation of NATO in 1949. However, the truth is that some countries must adapt their decision-making process for this force, writes Brussels’ Le Soir. In a similar vein, De Standaard notes: The NRF is considered as a means to modernize the European forces. However, there is a problem with political procedures in countries which need to seek parliamentary approval prior to deploying troops abroad.
Under the title, “Response Force is NATO reply to EU army,” The Daily Telegraph writes meanwhile that NATO inaugurated a global strike force Wednesday “in an effort to retain the Alliance’s relevance as the EU forges ahead with its own autonomous defense policy.”

ISAF

• The German Cabinet met in Berlin Wednesday to approve the planned deployment of German peacekeeping soldiers to the northern Afghan region of Kunduz. The meeting, which followed Monday’s extension of ISAF’s mandate, resulted in Chancellor Schroeder’s coalition government approving a plan to deploy 230-450 soldiers on a peacekeeping mission on the ground in northern Afghanistan, reported Deutsche Welle. Defense Minister Struck is hoping that the Bundeswehr’s Kunduz mission can begin before the end of this month, following formal approval by Parliament next Thursday. If the Bundeswehr mission proves to be successful, NATO leaders are planning as many as eight more similar missions around other towns, the broadcast added.