Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

17 February 2004

AFGHANISTAN

• While noting the Afghan government’s determination to hold the country’s elections in June, international media report that doubts are growing over the poll’s date. Fresh doubt has been cast on Afghanistan’s plans to complete its transition to democratic rule in June by U.S. concessions that a parliamentary election may not be feasible and by NATO worries about the speed of voter registration, writes the Financial Times. “In an internal report sent recently to the UN, NATO expressed concern that the registration of voters was not sufficiently advanced. It was the first indication to date by NATO, which leads ISAF, of its concerns about the planned June poll. The Alliance gave no recommendation as to whether the elections should take place,” the newspaper says. It observes that if elections were postponed, or if only the presidential election went ahead in June, NATO would have more time to expand security to other parts of the country. “The point is the elections have to be credible,” the article quotes a NATO diplomat saying. It notes: “Gen. Jones wants the (PRTs) to be strengthened to help provide security for the registration of voters.” The newspaper adds that in Kabul Monday, a U.S. official said Washington was no longer sure if Afghanistan could be ready by June to vote for a new legislative assembly. “We don’t know whether we’ll be able to have both the legislative and presidential elections together as scheduled,” a U.S. Embassy spokesman reportedly said, adding that the U.S. mission remained confident a presidential election could happen on schedule. The article stresses, however, that Afghanistan experts acquainted with U.S. policymaking said there was talk in Washington of also letting the presidential election slip by a month of two. “Preparations for Afghanistan’s first direct nation-wide elections have gotten off to an alarmingly slow start, leading to widespread concern that voting scheduled for late June may have to be seriously delayed,” says a related article in the Washington Post. Noting that Zalmayh Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and a spokesman for President Karzai said they believed ways could be found to provide adequate security, the article continues: “One proposal, for a special national guard, has been controversial because many people fear it would re-arm former militia fighters…. A second idea, to import temporary NATO troops for the election period, was mentioned by Khalilzad Monday. However, it has not yet been seriously discussed by NATO officials.”

Focus is the current visit to Kabul by a European troika, led by EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten. Media expect that Patten will press for the PRTs to help break the opium drug trade.
A European troika, led by EU Commissioner Chris Patten, is expected in Kabul later today to call for more security and a fight against opium production, writes La Libre Belgique. The daily adds that Patten is expected to publicly call on the PRTs to get involved in the anti-drug struggle. It quotes an EU official saying, however: “The military is clearly hostile to this idea because it will expose (soldiers on the ground) to the warlords.”
“NATO military regard it as dangerous and strategically unwise to use the PRTs against the drug barons,” wrote Financial Times Deutschland, Feb. 16, adding: “The Federal government also rejects a Bundeswehr mission for fighting narcotics trade…. The EU Commission, in return, argues that the reconstruction of Afghanistan is doomed to fail if it does not include the fight against the drug problem.” EU Commission sources were quoted saying: “Resistance from the governments to additional threats to their soldiers are understandable. However, an objective analysis of the situation does not allow for any other reasonable options than to involve the PRTs also in the fight against the drug-related business.”

ESDP

• The Independent reports plans to plough up to 2 billion euros a year of EU cash into defense and security research were presented Monday, raising the prospect of Europe spending as much as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. According to the newspaper, a host of potential EU research projects, from intelligence-sharing and surveillance to efforts to combat bio-terrorism, have been outlined in a report compiled by defense and security experts for two European commissioners. The experts reportedly suggest that a new EU security research program designed to boost the EU’s technological ability to mount limited military operations, combat terrorism and police its own borders should be created. The newspaper remarked that if accepted, the plan would mark a dramatic change in Europe’s profile as a global player in defense and security.
  
  
• On March 1, French General Jean-Paul Perruche will take over from German Gen. Rainer Schuwirth as head of the EU Military Staff (EUMS), reported Paris’ Liberation, Feb. 16. The newspaper stressed that Gen. Perruche will be responsible for the “strategic planning” of military operations conducted by the EU. “His first item,” it added, “will be the EU’s takeover from NATO in Bosnia.” Noting, however, that the EU military staff is not charged with directing the forces deployed on the ground, the newspaper quoted Gen. Perruche saying: “Our job is to study what the soldiers can provide in crisis management. We are the military experts of the EU.”

“GREATER MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE”

• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Feb. 16, carried an interview with Israeli opposition leader Shimon Peres in which he reiterated his call for EU and NATO “incentives” to settle the Middle East conflict. Peres was quoted saying: “First, if Israel and the Palestinians were to become members of the EU, for the time being, this would bring peace between the two. It does not necessarily have to be full membership. After all, Israel is associated with the EU, and with Malta and Cyprus, the EU would have two outposts in the Mediterranean Sea. Second, the United States and other countries should guarantee permanent borders to be determined between Israel and the Palestinians. The third incentive would be to integrate these countries, possibly together with Iraq and Egypt, into NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program. Then we would have Atlantic support with Russian participation. And the fourth incentive is a ‘Charter Against Terrorism,’ which all Middle East states should sign, together with the United States and the Europeans.” Asked what he expects from NATO, Peres reportedly replied: “I think NATO will change. Today, it is still a classic military organization searching for the enemy. On the other hand, we are faced with terrorism, but we do not have an organization to combat it. Therefore, I think that NATO will become the organization to combat terrorism.”

In Berlin’s Der Tagesspiegel, Feb. 16, Christoph Bertram, director of the Science and Policy Foundation, praised Foreign Minister Fischer’s proposal for joint action in the Middle East.
Recalling that at a security conference in Munich earlier this month, Fischer proposed a transatlantic initiative to help the Arab world in its modernization, Bertram explained that the proposal could kill two birds with one stone: “influence America’s considerations and simultaneously again make NATO a place for western strategic thinking.” Bertram continued: “In terms of content, if it goes as proposed, the efforts of NATO and the EU to establish a network of cooperation with the states of the Middle East should be coordinated…. Possibly even more important is the procedural framework in which the transatlantic partners … should coordinate their strategy on the Greater Middle East: in NATO. It has long been deserted as a place of advanced strategic planning…. Whoever wants to retain the Alliance must make sure that the major strategic questions are brought back to NATO. Fischer’s thrust in Munich is therefore not just an initiative for the Middle East but also for the Alliance. He is right. In NATO, the partners must again discuss the new dangers and together consider not just the military instruments that are suitable for defense.”