|
SHAPE
News Summary & Analysis
8
December 2003
ESDP
- In the
wake of last week’s NATO ministerial meetings, the New
York Times, Dec. 7, noted that after months of acrimony,
Europe and the United States are modulating their tone and
struggling to work more cooperatively on the divisive issues
of Iraq, Afghanistan and ESDP. The article suggested
that the conciliatory stance on the U.S. side is motivated
at least in part by the urgent need to have NATO countries
contribute more troops and money to Iraq and to deliver promised
and much needed troops and equipment. But, it added, there
is also a universal recognition among NATO members that the
rift both within the Alliance and between Europe and the United
States has to be repaired if the Alliance is to remain viable.
On the European side, the article observed,
French President Chirac is looking for ways to play
a more active role in the Alliance and even in Iraq.
The article added: “In a 90-minute meeting with
Sen. Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Chirac laid out situations in which France might
be willing to help out in Iraq, according to an official
familiar with the meeting…. Chirac also reportedly
told Biden that France had requested the appointment of two
French one-star generals to NATO’s command structure,
one in SHAPE, the other in Norfolk, Va., as a sign of willingness
to work more closely with Washington on security matters.”
According to the newspaper, a senior NATO military
officer confirmed the French request. He reportedly
noted that the American armed forces consider the French military
the most expeditionary army in Europe and are eager to expand
military cooperation in the Alliance.
Media
center on reports that neutral countries are challenging the
EU’s defense plans.
The four neutral countries of the EU have joined forces to challenge
attempts to include a mutual defense clause in the EU’s
new constitutional treaty, wrote the Financial Times, Dec. 7.
The article recalled that the proposed clause, similar to NATO’s
Article 5, states that if a member state is attacked, other
member states are automatically obliged to provide assistance
in accordance with the UN charter. It added that Austria, Finland,
Ireland and Sweden say this clause undermines their neutrality.
In a related article, the Irish Times, Dec. 6, reported that
the EU’s four neutral member-states have told the Italian
presidency they cannot accept a mutual defense clause in the
new constitutional treaty. Their four foreign ministers have
written to their Italian counterpart proposing a change in the
wording of the relevant article, said the newspaper.
Insisting that “the EU should not become a defense union
with treaty obligations requiring member states to come to each
other’s aid,” Stockholm’s Svenska Dagbladed,
Dec. 6, wrote: “NATO is still the lynchpin of European
security. It does not need to be replaced or duplicated. NATO
needs to be preserved…. Together, the EU and the United
States are a very strong couple. Alone, the EU is weak, and
considerably weaker than a unilateral United States….
It is important for Europe to be able to mobilize more military
capability and be willing to use it in crisis situations….
The experience of military campaigns in the Balkans shows that
greater coordination is also required if the EU is going to
be able to handle crisis management. This in itself does not
have to be problematic. The difficulties start when what is
supposed to be a complementary security-policy instrument starts
turning into a replacement for NATO.”
UNITED STATES-TROOP
BASING
- The
Stars and Stripes writes that bogged down by logistical
limits and skepticism in Congress, the Pentagon appears to
be slowing down its plan to move U.S. military forces out
of western Europe. Last week, the newspaper stresses,
Pentagon officials acknowledged what many military insiders
in Europe have been saying for months: The massive transformation
to pull most Army forces out of Cold War-era bases must happen
slowly, and it must happen with the consent of Congress and
America’s allies. The article continues: “The
Pentagon’s language is far different from last spring
and summer, when it was flush with confidence from what seemed
to be a quick victory in Iraq. That’s when … Gen.
Jones … offered a sweeping vision of ‘transformation’
in Europe.”
TRANSATLANTIC
RELATIONS
- According
to The Guardian, European officials are set to clash
with their U.S. counterparts this week during discussions
over Europe’s plans to develop a satellite network to
rival the U.S.-controlled Global Positioning System (GPS).
The newspaper notes that known as Galileo, the new
constellation of satellites will challenge the U.S. monopoly
on satellite positioning services. News of Europe’s
intentions provoked strong objections in the US, which claims
the plans pose a threat to national security, stresses the
newspaper, adding that the U.S. relies heavily on GPS in war
zones to guide troops and munitions to their targets. To prevent
enemy forces also benefiting from GPS, U.S. and allied forces
tune into a specially encrypted military signal while jamming
the second, publicly available GPS signal. The U.S. fears
that Galileo, which would offer a free positioning service
to anyone, would make such tactics ineffective, the newspaper
adds.
|
