Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

24 November 2003

NATO

• A conflict about NATO’s decision-making structures is in the offing between the U.S. and the European allies, reports Financial Times Deutschland. According to diplomats and military personnel of the Alliance in Brussels, adds the newspaper, the U.S. wants decisions to be made based on a simple majority within the NATO Council and to reduce the influence of the Military Committee. The newspaper adds that the foreign policy spokesman of Germany’s SPD Party parliamentary group confirmed in an interview that the U.S. administration has addressed this subject “already through informal channels.” The article notes that until now NATO member nations have made their decisions based on a consensus principle which grants every member a veto. It quotes unidentified officials saying, however, that Washington now wants to turn its back on the “holy principle.” The newspaper stresses that among other things, Washington fears that lengthy parliamentary procedures could turn the NRF into a “lame duck.” According to the newspaper, it is also said in Brussels that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wants to grant the SACEUR more freedom. However, the newspaper notes, the SACEUR depends on the directives issued by the NATO Council and the planning guidelines of the Military Committee.

ESDP

• In a commentary in Helsinki’s Helsingin Sanomat, Nov. 21, Finnish Navy Capt. Jyrki Berner viewed the EU’s Operation Concordia in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and insisted that the lessons learned from the operation must be put to use. Capt. Berner, the operative director of planning at the EU command Element at AFSOUTH, wrote: “In the operation both independent and joint decisions of the EU and NATO have been tested for the first time in practice. Even though the number of personnel in the operation was small compared with other peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, it is strategically very important both for NATO and the EU. It has been an ideal laboratory for creating practical models and procedures for the military cooperation between the EU and NATO that has been developing for over 10 years…. Concordia was implemented with the support of NATO. It is hard to imagine that it would have been so successful without it. Now that the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is making decisions focused on closer defense cooperation and plans are being made to transfer (SFOR from NATO to the EU), it is worth taking a close look at the experience and lessons learned from Concordia before making any hasty decisions. In the light of my own experiences, the Finnish policy seems reasonable: it aims at closer cooperation with the EU as far as military resources are concerned, but it does not support creating a defense core. The policy has wide support among the essential members of NATO as well…. At the IGC, Finland should propose politics of small steps. To reach a compromise, the Petersberg Tasks could be divided into two groups. For operations that need to be implemented rapidly and/or short-term rescue, search and humanitarian operations, the EU needs capability to implement operations on its own or to have national planning and implementation capability. Extensive and long-term operations should be implemented, as before, with the support of NATO and preferably with multinational command arrangements. The experiences of Concordia have been so positive for NATO as well that there is a wide consensus among its most important member countries for taking the EU’s planning and command elements that had been created for Concordia on a temporary basis and building them permanently into the military structures of NATO. It would contribute to guaranteeing that NATO resources could be made available to the EU.” Berner also observed that Concordia’s field operation was led by the French, but that in the higher leadership, the input of Finnish, Austrian and Swedish officers was significant in the hands-on command of the operation.

TERRORISM

• According to the Financial Times, Greece is preparing to deploy 10,000 soldiers in support of the 40,000 police on duty at next summer’s Olympic Games, in the biggest security operation of this kind ever mounted. The force reportedly includes a battalion trained in dealing with nuclear, chemical and biological attacks, including a possible strike at the Olympic stadium itself.
  
  
• According to U.S. and European intelligence officials, reports the New York Times, the recent surge in terrorist strikes on “soft targets” like consulates, banks and synagogues in places like Turkey and Saudi Arabia paradoxically reflects the success that the United States and its European allies have had in disrupting Al Qaeda, especially its leadership structure. The officials reportedly said they regard Al Qaeda as less capable than before of striking at U.S. embassies, military targets and landmarks that were the hallmarks of its campaign before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But, they said, the terrorist threat has evolved into a broader phenomenon than before, with a new strategy of attacks by loosely affiliated groups against highly vulnerable targets. The shift to softer targets does not make Al Qaeda and its followers any less dangerous, the officials cautioned. They said there was deep concern in the United States and Europe that the United States and its allies were facing more—not fewer—terrorist foes than before. The killing and capturing of Al Qaeda leaders is failing, they reportedly said, to keep pace with the number of angry young Moslems willing to carry out suicide attacks.

TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS

• President Bush’s address in London last week propelled his administration closer to embracing the multilateralism without which transatlantic relations cannot be repaired, writes the Washington Post. The newspaper notes that with the U.S. need for help in Iraq steadily growing—and an election approaching in which the tattered state of U.S. foreign relations could become a Democratic campaign theme—there are signs that the White House may be somewhat more inclined to choose cooperation with allies over its own ideological agenda.