Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

2 December 2003

CBRN

• Ljubljana’s STA, Dec. 1, reported that at a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels Monday, Defense Minister Grizold stressed that Slovenia had opted for participation in rapid reaction forces of the Alliance. Therefore, added the dispatch, Slovenia announced it would contribute a decontamination platoon with 25 members from the 18th battalion for radiological, chemical and biological defense. “The unit will join NATO’s multinational Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Defense Battalion, which was declared operational on the sidelines (of Monday’s NATO ministerial meeting),” the dispatch asserted.

Monday’s unveiling of the CBRN battalion drew interest.
“Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and NATO Secretary General Robertson inaugurated the new international battalion of chemical, biological and radiation protection, the training of which is to be carried out by the Czech army,” said Prague’s CT1 television, adding: “Czech units of chemical, biological and radiation protection have gained in NATO a reputation of elite troops. With a minimum number of soldiers, they are able to find out quickly and efficiently whether the enemy has used weapons of mass destruction. That is one of the reasons why the Czech Republic was entrusted with the training of the new supranational battalion with the same purpose.” The broadcast also quoted Lord Robertson saying: “NATO’s credibility depends on its ability. I’m glad therefore that we are introducing to life a new battalion which extends that ability…. The nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat is real.” The network noted that the Czech Republic will train the new NATO battalion and command it from July to the end of next year.

“NATO officials Monday launched a new anti-terror battalion to protect against chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. The unit will be able to undertake missions of up to six months and troops could be ready for deployment within five days. Around 500 soldiers from 13 countries will be available for the new battalion,” said a Deutsche Welle broadcast. In a related article, Die Welt remarks that Germany will take over command of the force in six months.

NATO

Monday’s session of NATO’s ministerial meeting in Brussels generated high interest. Media voiced the view that plans for the establishment of an EU planning cell overshadowed pleas to expand ISAF. They noted, however, that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sidestepped a potential showdown with EU colleagues over the plan.

Progress in the field of ESDP was the subject of intense discussions between the Americans and the Europeans on the margins of Monday’s NATO ministerial meeting. But the tripartite agreement concluded last week between Paris, Berlin and London, which opens the way to creating a European headquarters independent of NATO, did not evoke the fierce reaction in the American delegation that was so feared, writes Le Figaro. The U.S. defense secretary did not want to engage in a direct confrontation with his European counterparts on this topic of great sensitivity to the transatlantic relationship, adds the French daily.

Rumsfeld has played down talk of a possible rift with Europe over its defense plans. Speaking after NATO talks in Brussels, he said he was confident any separate EU military unit would not underline the Alliance, reported BBC News.

“Rumsfeld made a conspicuous effort Monday to avoid a damaging row over Europe’s military ambitions. In what was seen as a surprisingly subdued appearance in Brussels, Rumsfeld said he had been convinced that NATO’s European members would not undertake initiatives that would duplicate the work of the Alliance,” writes The Guardian. The newspaper notes that Rumsfeld and his EU allies played down talk of a transatlantic rift over the EU defense initiative, but stresses that the EU defense issue overshadowed urgent attempts to find more helicopters and 400 specialized troops to serve with ISAF.

Noting that Rumsfeld went “out of his way” not to attack a deal struck by Britain, France and Germany that would give the EU an operational military planning capability independent of NATO, The Independent speculates that his display will hearten supporters of the EU defense plan, indicating that the US has been convinced to hold off from any direct criticism of the plan.

An editorial in the Financial Times opines meanwhile that the best way for the Europeans to convince the U.S. of the merits of EU defense would be for them to enhance their military capabilities. The article says: “Now that the arcane arguments about planning staffs are out of the way, they can do that. There are some grounds for optimism. France, Italy and Spain have either switched or are switching to all-professional forces that can be more easily deployed overseas. The long-delayed project to build the A400M military transport aircraft is moving ahead. And the EU has agreed to a British-French plan for an armaments agency, one of whose tasks will be to upbraid governments that fail to meet their promises on military capabilities. This year the EU has run modest military missions in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with NATO's help, and in the Congo without any support from NATO. If next year the EU can rise to the challenge of taking on the more demanding peacekeeping task in Bosnia, the idea of European defense may finally earn some grudging respect in Washington.”

Media further observed that Monday’s ministerial meeting was also noteworthy for opening discussions on the possibility of a larger NATO role in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It emerged Monday that NATO is likely to get an important new role in Iraq next year, as Spain and Poland proposed that the Alliance assumed some peacekeeping responsibilities in the country, reports The Independent. The two nations, both of which have deployed troops to south central Iraq, raised the issue of greater Alliance involvement, notes the article, adding: “Both Spain and Poland have a direct interest in handing over control of the international sector they control to the Alliance. This would relieve them of replenishing their forces or finding other nations willing to replace them. NATO’s prospects of getting more fully involved may depend on the success of efforts to hand back political power to the Iraqis. Almost all European countries have welcomed Washington’s plans to speed up the timetable…. The second factor is the Alliance’s success in improving its grips on peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, where its ISAF has struggled to assemble the necessary military hardware.” In this respect, the article quotes one Alliance diplomat saying there would be little willingness to get involved in two, risky and under-resourced operations at once.

A related Washington Post article stresses that “NATO authorities raised the possibility Monday of taking over military operations in Afghanistan and assuming responsibility for a division of international troops in Iraq.” But, the article adds, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials indicated that no formal proposals had been presented to the Alliance, and NATO officials gave no sign of when they might be prepared to manage the wider missions. In fact, Alliance members are struggling to meet existing commitments in Afghanistan. “Providing the NATO force with troops and equipment has proved a strain, with U.S. and other Alliance officials scrambling to find enough helicopters, intelligence personnel and other resources, the newspaper stresses. It adds, however, that by late afternoon, Alliance authorities were reporting fresh pledges of troops and equipment from several members. In a similar vein, the Financial Times reports that NATO Monday finally agreed to send more helicopters and military personnel to Afghanistan after being told the Alliance’s credibility would be undermined if it failed to provide more security across the country.