Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

23 February 2004

GENERAL JONES

Gen. Jones’ meeting with South African President Mbeki generated high interest. Media linked the meeting to the fight against international terrorism. They centered on Gen. Jones’ message that Africa was “a logical place to be concerned about.” Cape Town e.tv, Feb. 20, carried Gen. Jones saying: “We had a very productive meeting…. As we are successful in different parts of the world and moving (terrorists) out, they are going to go somewhere, and Africa is a logical place to be concerned about.”

The president’s press office announced Sunday that terrorism was on the agenda at a meeting in Cape Town last week between President Mbeki and Gen. Jones, reported Johannesburg’s SAPA, Feb. 22. The report quoted a presidential spokesman saying Mbeki assured Gen. Jones that terrorism was very much an issue on the African agenda following the acceptance of the African Convention Against Terrorism by the African Union.

International terrorism has come under the spotlight at a meeting between President Mbeki and Gen. Jones, reported Safm Radio, Feb. 20.
Reuters, Feb. 20, said: “The commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Gen. Jones, met President Mbeki on Friday for talks on America’s new security strategy in Africa to combat terrorism, according to military officials. ‘Africa is the logical place to be concerned about,’ Gen. Jones told local television after the meeting. The United States sees Africa as a soft target for terror networks due to weak institutions, poor security and policing and long stretches of unguarded coastline. Gen. Jones has been touring Africa both in his capacity as EUCOM commander and as (SACEUR).” The dispatch also quoted the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria saying in a statement that Gen. Jones’ visit and earlier ones to Morocco and Nigeria were significant “as the U.S. military and NATO are assessing the increasing strategic importance of the African continent.”

NATO

• According to AP, President Chirac said in an interview with the Hungarian newspaper Nepszabadsag Monday that while France would examine any request for the Alliance to offer support to countries that send their own troops to Iraq, it does not see a role for NATO as a whole. “We still do not see the conditions in which a NATO engagement would be possible,” Chirac reportedly said. However, he did open the door for a NATO role once power is restored to Iraqis and if it is approved by the UN, saying: “The future Iraqi government would have to make the request and the UN decide to entrust the mandate to any NATO force.”

Asked in an interview with Berliner Zeitung, Feb. 21, what NATO could accomplish in Iraq militarily that the present allies cannot, Chairman NAMILCOM Gen. Kujat was quoted saying: “NATO is already present in Iraq through its member states. Eighteen of the soon-to-be 26 members are there, and the Alliance is providing technical support. What NATO can do in addition to this is a question of the political will in the member states.” Addressing Berlin’s concern about military involvement in Iraq, Gen. Kujat reportedly noted: “The question of participation does not necessarily arise for Germany. First of all, it is undecided what sort of command structure is needed. There are headquarters in which Germans are not represented. It is also conceivable that headquarters could be specially created for a mission in which the participating states filled the positions in turn.” Asked what it would mean for Alliance solidarity if Berlin stays out, Gen. Kujat was further quoted saying: “The first thing is the political decision as to whether NATO is ready at all to assume responsibility in Iraq. A shared decision on that is very important for solidarity in the Alliance, and I have no doubt it will be possible. It is only in the second stage where the issue arises as to which countries are willing or able to provide forces. This decision must be made by the countries themselves, and they are free in doing so. That is not primarily a question of solidarity.”

A New York Times article, which stresses that “NATO is back,” observes that NATO’s role is expanding at the urging of the U.S. Noting that the Bush administration is turning to NATO to expand its mandate in Afghanistan and play a substantive role in Iraq, the daily adds: “Until NATO took command of (ISAF), NATO was in the midst of an identity crisis, uncertain of its role, its future and what constituted a military threat in the post 9/11 era. Its role in stabilizing Afghanistan represents NATO’s first ‘out of area’ mission beyond Europe; Iraq would be the second. The United States wants NATO to deliver on an ambitious plan to extend its peacekeeping presence outside Kabul and create links with the U.S.-led offensive operation in the south, which is struggling to rout the remnants of Taliban rule. It also wants NATO to take command of the 9,500-strong multinational brigade in central Iraq and possibly the larger British-led operation in the south. The goal is for NATO to make a headline-grabbing commitment to both missions at the NATO summit meeting in Istanbul.” The article adds, however, that the problem in expanding NATO into Iraq is that it already has failed to persuade countries to do enough in Afghanistan. It continues: “Gen. Jones told a Senate committee last month that Afghanistan was a ‘defining moment’ for the Alliance as it adopted a broader global agenda, but then complained that NATO members were not providing enough troops for the country’s reconstruction…. Senior NATO officials said that on Wednesday, Gen. Jones presented NATO members with a wish list of what it need to enable NATO to deploy in five provincial cities. NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer also has acknowledged his failure so far to persuade NATO nations to send more troops to Afghanistan, saying Tuesday that force protection was a continuing problem. No member of parliament in any NATO country would approve the new request for troops if there was not an answer to the question, ‘Who will come to the assistance’ of the troops ‘in extreme circumstances,’ he said.” The article, which also claims that France now sees NATO as a vehicle for projecting its own military and political power and repairing its American ties, further says: “In recent weeks, the United States quietly has welcomed two French one-star generals onto the staff of the (NRF)…. Gen. Jones pushed hard for the administration to grant the French request that the two generals be placed, but the issue was so divisive that President Bush himself had to make the final decision, according to a NATO official.” The newspaper highlights that while France is not part of NATO’s military command structure, “with about 2,000 troops in the first rotation of the … NRF, France is the force’s largest troop contributor.”

• In connection with a visit by a NATO AWACS and crew to the Republics of Latvia and Lithuania, Feb. 23-25, the Web site of the Lithuanian daily Kauno Diena publishes a report entitled “Eastern neighbor has no reasons to fear.” The report stresses that Defense Minister Linkeviecius gave assurances to Russia that there were no grounds for concern. “The aircraft will come to demonstrate its technical capabilities. This simply cannot pose any threats to anybody or to any kind of security,” Linkevicius is quoted saying. The report also quotes the Commander of the Lithuanian military air force (KOP), Col Mazeikis, saying that the aircraft would be staying at the KOP first base at Zokniai airport upon arrival from Latvia. “Let’s say that this will be a working visit of the aircraft to the countries which will shortly join NATO,” he reportedly added. Earlier, Moscow’s Itar TASS, quoted Linkeviecius saying, in a similar vein, in a radio interview: “The plane will arrive in Lithuania to demonstrate its technical possibilities. There are no reasons for Moscow’s concern about the demonstration flight.” Itar TASS, Feb. 20, reported that the Russian Foreign Ministry criticized the Baltic republics Friday for refusing to allow Russian observers to take part in the AWACS demonstration flights. The dispatch quoted the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Information and Press saying: “Given the sensitivity for Russia’s security interests of such measures close to the Russian border, an official request for Russian observers to take part in the flights was submitted in a timely manner. In response, we were told that this was impossible…. The organizers referred to objection from the host countries…. This fact must be regretted since it goes against the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.”