Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

23 January 2004

NATO

• “NATO chief seeks to repair Alliance. French is reintroduced at meetings as new leader faces Iraq war scars,” reports the Wall Street Journal. “When Jaap de Hoop Scheffer took over as NATO secretary general earlier this month, one of the first things the Dutchman did was to start holding the Alliance’s meeting in French as well as English. It was a small gesture, but symbolically important,” the daily notes. It quotes Mr. de Hoop Scheffer saying, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that he came to NATO saying he views it as part of his job to build bridges and ensure that the Alliance can run smoothly and effectively following one of the most troubled periods in its history. Suggesting that while Mr. de Hoop Scheffer plays down the political importance of reintroducing French at NATO meetings, his language capabilities are likely to prove a big plus, the article quotes him saying: “When it comes to atmospherics, I suppose it is important that when I meet le Président de la Republique I can speak with him in French, and when I meet with the Bundeskanzler later this month I can speak with him in German.” The article comments: “Mr. de Hoop Scheffer may find the wind at his back when it comes to keeping key nations such as the U.S. and France committed to NATO. The U.S. appears to have renewed its interest in the Alliance since it became involved in rebuilding Iraq. France, meanwhile, seems increasingly enthusiastic about an Alliance about which it traditionally has been wary. NATO diplomats say France is pushing to have two, two-star generals appointed to NATO’s military transformation command, which is working on how NATO’s new reaction force will be equipped, what its military doctrine will be and ensuring that U.S. and European forces can work together…. At the same time, France is already the biggest contributor to the (NRF)…. An early test of Mr. de Hoop Scheffer’s bridge-building skills will be whether the U.S. agrees to let France take up a key position in the transformation command, without first reintegrating into NATO’s military chain of command.” The newspaper further quotes Mr. de Hoop Scheffer saying, however, that his first job is to make sure at a Feb. 6 meeting of NATO defense ministers that the member states make good on promises to provide more helicopters for ISAF. Military advisers are scheduled to recommend how ISAF should be expanded beyond Kabul, the newspaper notes, warning that if the planners advise a big expansion, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer could face a major challenge in getting NATO members to stump up the troops, heavy lift and other equipment needed. The dispatch also quotes NATO diplomats saying that later this year, the EU is expected to take over from SFOR, with the possibility that the NRF will be put into the field for the first time to make sure the handover goes smoothly. Another possible deployment for the force that is being discussed, they reportedly said, is to provide security for the Athens Olympics.

Reports that NATO wants to develop its Mediterranean dialogue are generating high interest. German media appear to welcome the initiative.
Eastern expansion is not yet concluded and already one hears voices demanding a stronger NATO engagement in the Middle East. The idea comes from the United States which, since Sept. 11, 2001, increasingly ponders how the Middle East can be stabilized, writes Die Welt. The newspaper stresses: “There are no objections to that. On the contrary: Europeans also have realized that the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf is the area from which most dangers loom for Europe—from terrorism to the use of weapons of mass destruction. A partnership between NATO and the most important players in the Middle East could provide a certain measure of stability and help prevent future conflicts between the individual partner countries. In addition, NATO would be given a field of tasks that could lead it out of the shadowy existence from which it still has not completely freed itself, despite its Afghanistan mission.”

Elsewhere, the newspaper says, under the title, “NATO is to pacify the Arab world”: “The Alliance is debating plans to seek participation of Mediterranean countries and even Gulf states. The U.S. wants NATO to play a bigger role in the future in stabilizing the Near and Middle East…. The arc of crisis, to whose stabilization the Alliance is to contribute in the future, could reach from Morocco to Pakistan. Initially, the issue would not be to send troops, but to conduct joint exercises, to provide support with regard to planning and equipment, to foster military and civil cooperation. The U.S. had repeatedly proposed to the allies the idea to employ NATO as a regulatory power in the entire Near and Middle East region. It was last proposed by the U.S. in the NAC in November. The U.S. concept of an ‘enlarged Mediterranean dialogue’ is based on a decision made at the Prague summit to substantially improve the ‘political and practical dimensions’ of the already existing relations between NATO and a number of Mediterranean countries—Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Egypt, Israel and Jordan. In concrete terms, that means: closer cooperation in matters related to security and especially terrorism. The Prague decision has, however, been only marginally implemented. NATO planners are now considering the possibility to tie the seven closer to NATO using as a model the PFP program—and possibly even including a few Gulf states in this program.” The article highlights that Turkey has a key role to play on the road to a new NATO. As a regional power, it could promote the establishment of closer ties between its neighbors and the Alliance—and thus occupy a prominent position within the Alliance, it stresses.

“The old NATO is on the point of reinventing itself,” writes the Financial Times Deutschland, noting that the “Greater Middle East” concept proposed by the Americans aims at a considerable strategic reorientation and offers the big chance of uniting the different political foci and capabilities of the Alliance partners and to orient them toward the new security policy requirements. The article says: “The future security risks for the Alliance lie, above all, in the Middle East. It is in the common interest of all Alliance partners to jointly defuse the various hotbeds of conflict in this region. In the Middle East, the Americans have relied primarily on themselves and their undisputed military strength. In contrast, the Europeans have stressed, above all, the need for ‘soft’ strategies: diplomatic involvement, humanitarian aid, support for the establishment of new civilian and state structures. However, both approaches are not mutually exclusive. They can supplement each other very successfully, as was shown in Afghanistan or in the negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program. For the Americans and for the Europeans, it would be useful to institutionalize this cooperation under the roof of NATO. For Europe, this is probably even the most promising path to give non-military approaches greater weight. The reorientation would also give Turkey a new key role as a geographic frontline state.” The article concludes: “Of course, the political superstructure for such a new NATO must first be developed systematically….. In its current state, NATO would be completely overstrained with involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance. Still, this may change in the longer term. Much depends on the Germans, who have been acting only as a military light-weight so far, despite their economic importance. If Europe is to become the engine of a new Alliance, the Germans must get involved more strongly”.

The Washington Post claims meanwhile that for now, the White House’s sounding of European governments have generated interest and skepticism. “European policymakers tend to doubt whether Bush’s goal of democratic government in the Middle East is achievable in the near future; they also point out that Arab governments might be reluctant to sign up for cooperation with NATO or pledge themselves to political change,” says the daily.