Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

31 October 2003

GENERAL JONES-ISAF

• “NATO’s top soldier saw for himself Friday the difficulties of expanding the Alliance’s peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, which come on top of nations’ slowness to offer more troops and military hardware,” writes Reuters. Gen. Jones was sped amid tight security along primitive, dusty tracks to the northern town of Kunduz, where the first troops of a 250-strong German force arrived last week to promote a secure environment for aid and reconstruction, the dispatch adds. It notes that while ISAF’s mandate was widened this month by a UN Security Council resolution and NATO agreed to take the force beyond Kabul, Gen. Jones told reporters that political will counted for little without the resources to back it. “We will wait and see what other countries wish to get involved in PRTs,” he reportedly told a news briefing in Kabul, adding; “Obviously, if you change the mission you change the force structure and the resources that are required, so this is all part of the equation.” A related AP dispatch reports Gen. Jones said Friday that expanding ISAF beyond Kabul remained problematic, despite the Afghans’ eagerness to see the troops spread across the country to improve security. “It’s clear there is an appetite” for deployments of the troops across the country and such missions will be carried out “with greater frequency in the relatively near future,” the dispatch quotes SACEUR saying and adding: “NATO is committed to being successful here. NATO will not fail in Afghanistan.” AFP quotes Gen. Jones saying a network of PRTs is an effective way of expanding peace and security in Afghanistan. “That is clear that there is an appetite for the PRTs concept and that’s a valid and good way in which to expand peace, security and reconstruction in Afghanistan,” SACEUR reportedly said. According to the dispatch, he said he was happy about improved security in most parts of Afghanistan, although the south and southeast of the country remained of concern. The Spanish EFE news agency carries related information.
  
  
• Oslo’s NRK, Oct. 30, reported that later Friday, the Norwegian government will present to Parliament plans to send a new military force to Afghanistan. The force may be in place before the end of the year as both the United States and Britain have expressed a desire for Norway to contribute troops, the report said. It added that the Norwegian force will be part of ISAF and one of its main tasks may be to ensure security in association with the meeting of the country’s legislative assembly, which starts mid-December. The report quoted Brig. Gen. Hannestad of the Defense Staff saying: “The military is ready to send personnel to Afghanistan if the politicians ask. If the decision is made, we will be focusing on two issues. One is putting together a force which can perform the task it may be assigned. The other is ensuring the soldiers’ security.”

ESDP

• Le Monde asserts that despite opposition by many of its allies, France has started a reflection on the command structure it needs to be able to act without NATO’s contribution. According to the newspaper, the French armed forces are drawing the lessons from Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they led a multinational force for the EU. They have also just ended an exercise, codenamed Opera 03, which tested command structures as well as structures needed for the conduct of air raids adapted to the mobilization of allied countries’ national forces. The newspaper says: “Each time, it was necessary to organize a chain of command according to standards inspired by NATO procedures. For Operation Artemis, a joint headquarters, at the strategic level, was installed in Paris to operate a Force Headquarters (FHQ) with a support base in Entebbe, Uganda, a coordination cell (EACC) in Eindhoven in the Netherlands, and a multinational tactical group (GTIAM) comprising operational units and deployed in Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. For Opera 03, the French went a little further…. They experimented a Level 2 (C2 in the NATO jargon) command and control chain, which enables, for example, the management in real time of 200 air sorties, the equivalent of a full day of missions according to NATO’s criteria during the first weeks of the operations in Kosovo in 1999. For Gen. Wolsztynski, French Air Force Chief of Staff, France’s goal is to be able to propose to its allies, from 2005, an operational headquarters ‘air,’ able … to carry out planning and coordination in a similar way as what is presently done, within NATO, at Ramstein and Naples. In 2006, the goal is to reach Level 3, which is required to carry out 600 air sorties per day…. According to Gen. Thorette, the Army Chief of Staff, the Army’s goal is to create, before 2006, in Lille, a command the size of an army corps, (60,000 personnel)…. France will then be capable to assume the status of a ‘lead-nation’ able to plan and manage, for the EU, allied and joint actions, whether with or without the support of NATO and particularly that of the United States. But it is probably too early to be the ‘lead nation’ for the European force which is hoping to take over from SFOR at the end of 2004. The Europeans need NATO’s help for that.” Stressing, however, that such a command organization could correspond to the scenario for the deployment of the NRF, which the Alliance is creating and which, by October 2006, will comprise 21,000 troops able to be deployed within five days in an external operation theater, the newspaper continues: “In October, France put to NATO’s disposal eight Mirage 2000 aircraft, one surveillance aircraft, one air supply aircraft and one electronic warfare aircraft. Presently, the existing embryo of the NRF is under British command. From their talks with Gen. Jones, the French military are nonetheless under the impression that for essentially political reasons, the use of the NRF comes under the responsibility of the NATO headquarters at Ramstein and Naples. And this, despite the fact that Gen. Jones acknowledged the effort of the French armed forces to structure their commands along a model close to that of their allies.”

In a contribution to the Financial Times, Gerard Errera, France’s ambassador to Britain, argues that the biggest threat to the Alliance is not the progress of European defense. What would really threaten its future would be a weak, divided Europe, abdicating its responsibilities.
Errera recalls the polemic which surrounded an EU initiative in 1996 which resulted in NATO deciding that the Europeans could, when acting collectively, use NATO assets for military operations. He also notes that a December 1998 a summit in St. Malo, where it was agreed that the EU should be able to act, whether using NATO assets or its own, “outside the NATO framework,” also generated transatlantic tensions. Based on this, he writes: “This is not the first time progress toward European defense has been presented as a danger to NATO…. The question being debated is a simple one: when conducting autonomous operations outside the NATO framework, would it not make sense for the EU to be able to rely on its own autonomous capabilities to plan and conduct such operations?…. What followed the 1996 and 1998 initiatives was not NATO’s demise but its revitalization. After 1996, NATO made a success of its first big peacekeeping operation in the Balkans, began a new relationship with Russia and forged closer links with the wider Europe. After 1998, NATO fought a successful campaign in Kosovo and welcomed new members. Today, efforts to provide European defense with new autonomous capabilities coincide with the birth of the (NRF). From all this, it is clear that there is no question of an “EU army” (nor, for that matter, a NATO army.” What we have is a shared will among European countries to put their capabilities at the EU’s disposal whenever necessary so that it can fulfill its international responsibilities and defend its interests. The aim is not to compete with NATO, but to make the EU a serious, respected partner internationally…. All Europeans continue to see NATO as the foundation of our collective defense. The tragedy of September 11 and the common threats that we all face should spur us to mobilize the vast reserves of solidarity between the two shores of the Atlantic and to build, at last, the enduring and balanced relationship between the U.S. and Europe for which we have been striving for 50 years. European defense will progress because it is a necessity for everyone who wants a strong Europe and a lasting alliance. All the allies should be able to rally round this objective.”