Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

6 November 2003

NATO-ESDP

• “France is straddling the fence between NATO and ESDP. In or out? Rather one foot inside and one foot outside. Relations between France and NATO have always been complicated since Paris withdrew from the military structure in 1966,” observes French daily Le Figaro. The article adds: “At the beginning of the 21st century, at a time when NATO … is looking for a new identity, Paris is issuing numerous contradictory signals with regard to the Alliance. On the one hand, France is moving closer to NATO. It is one of the major contributors to the NRF…. A French military mission was also included last month in ACT … based in Norfolk, Virginia. On the other hand, Paris has assumed the leadership of the group … which wants to create an autonomous European headquarters distinct from NATO…. By militarily and politically straddling the fence…, France gives an impression of confusion and ambiguity.” The newspaper quotes Francis Gere, director of the Institute of Diplomacy and Defense, explaining: “These two positions are not incompatible. It is possible to avoid all unnecessary duplication of the Alliance and to acquire an autonomous defense…. The goal pursued by France and other European countries is to establish a structure which will make it possible to guarantee the security of EU countries and future members. The establishment of a European staff headquarters is a logical decision.” Noting, however, that the building of ESDP also depends on the use of existing fundamental resources, the newspaper stresses that as Gere explained, France’s move toward NATO thus enables Paris “to connect countries that will not countenance any idea of a European security outside NATO,” such as Poland. The article continues: “Sources at the Defense Ministry regards France’s involvement in the Alliance’s renewed structure as an impetus to the European defense project. In other words, ‘what is good for NATO is good for European defense, too.’ Involvement in the NRF would enable France to enhance European interoperability. ACT is regarded as a tool which will help France and its European partners improve their performance. France, which intends to remain a major and active player on the world scene, needs to stay in the loop, by taking part in the Alliance’s reform.” The newspaper quotes one source familiar with the issue saying: “Unless we take this turning point now, unless we become involve in the Alliance’s renewed structures, we will miss the boat. What is at stake is our ability to be a lead nation within the EU. But though France wants to have its own say about NATO’s transformation, it is unwilling to cross ‘the red line,’ to rejoin its military command structure.”

Two U.S. dailies call on British Prime Minister Blair to break what they see as a deadlock regarding the establishment of an EU military headquarters independent from NATO.
In a contribution to the Wall Street Journal, Julian Lindley-French, a member of faculty at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, writes: “It is undoubtedly the case that part of the French rationale for proposing a quasi-independent operational planning and command structure for European defense remains the eventual demise of NATO and the weakening of the American presence in Europe. However, even the French do not want to return to the bad old days of early 2003 and they are not as anti-NATO as their clumsy rhetoric would suggest…. It is time for a British idea to break the stalemate…. Here’s one. Britain will agree in principle to an EU headquarters for planning and command military headquarters. But it will only let it become operational when all the other EU countries have fulfilled their commitments to improve their military capabilities. Only then would such a headquarters have anything worth planning for. Then Britain will insist that any such headquarters be entirely NATO compatible and physically located in a building at (SHAPE) where NATO carries out its own planning. There is no need to reinvent the planning wheel. Only Tony Blair’s Britain can propose such a blueprint. If it is not enough for the French, then so be it…. In any case, the other Europeans will see it as a fair deal…. If it upsets the Americans, then they will have to live with it. The United States can no longer demand improvements in European capabilities and yet refuse to accept the political consequences of such improvements—a stronger European voice. Strategic responsibility alone will enable Europeans to generate the strategic self-confidence they need to be good allies and partners. Strategic self-confidence will ensure an effective trans-Atlantic partnership that makes Europeans allies worth America having. Britain can break the deadlock over European defense that is paralyzing the EU, NATO and the transatlantic relationship.”
In the International Herald Tribune, Philip Gordon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, writes: “The best option for resolving the current impasse remains for Blair to persuade proponents of an independent headquarters to shelve their plan for now and instead try (to make the Berlin Plus) compromise work…. A second-best option would be for Britain to agree to an EU planning operation, or even join it, but to persuade Paris and Berlin to physically locate it alongside NATO’s to ensure compatibility.”

IRAQ

• According to Reuters, Democratic presidential contender retired Gen. Clark Thursday recommended Thursday that the United States appoint an allied high representative to guide Iraq’s reconstruction while shifting the military operation to NATO forces under U.S. command. The International Herald Tribune prints an adaptation of a speech by former President Clinton to Yale university in which he said meanwhile: “I still believe that we ought to see if the UN can take over security in Iraq, ask NATO to handle it, and involve countries that opposed the military conflict but who are part of NATO. If they came in, it would prove that we were all trying to build a multiparty, multiethnic, and multitribal democracy in Iraq.”

ISAF

• AFP quotes a NATO source saying Wednesday that Iceland has offered to take over coordination of Kabul’s international airport from ISAF. Iceland has led a multinational force managing Pristina airport since March as part of KFOR. Reykjavik has proposed to do the same in Kabul after Germany expressed its intention to end its management of the airport in February, the source reportedly said.