Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

7 April 2004

ESDP

• According to the Financial Times, EU defense ministers confirmed Tuesday that the EU’s military planning headquarters and defense agency will be in place by the summer. The planning cell, agreed at December’s EU summit, will have its own military and civilian staff. But it will be able to rely on personnel and experts from the multinational headquarters located in Britain, France and Germany. It will also have a small cell at SHAPE, in case the EU conducts missions that will have access to NATO assets, says the article. It adds that the new defense agency, headed by Nick Whitney from Britain’s Defense Ministry, is supposed to make more effective use of Europe’s military capability and, like the planning cell, will be based in Brussels. It will look at practical ways to improve defense capabilities and reduce duplication through more coordination on research and development, procurement and acquisition of armaments.

BALKANS

• AFP reports NATO appealed over Bosnian Serb television Tuesday for information on war crimes suspects following a recent attempt to arrest fugitive former leader Karadzic. Clips broadcast on the television reportedly sought to encourage viewers to call a hotline to the ICTY and provide information on alleged war criminals. They then showed a house of cards collapsing and a voice saying: “It is just a matter of time until we get you. Soon.” The dispatch quotes an SFOR spokesman saying the television campaign was designed to “increase support for operations to capture those indicted for war crimes.” NATO has broadcast similar clips in the past, but the latest campaign follows last week’s failed attempt to arrest Karadzic, the dispatch remarks.

Media focus on EU foreign policy chief Solana’s announcement that NATO will continue to be responsible for tracking down indicted war criminals after the EU takes over the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.

EU defense ministers confirmed Tuesday that NATO will remain in charge of capturing suspected war criminals, reports AFP. EU foreign policy chief Solana denied that the decision amounted to a “lack of trust” in the EU’s ability to catch such criminals, adds the dispatch, quoting Solana saying: “After so many years of being there… (NATO) would like not to finish the job without doing something that they have been trying to do for a long time…. It’s not a lack of trust … it’s a wish to finish the job that they started.”

Describing the decision as “a victory for the Americans,” French daily Le Figaro writes, that “at a time when the EU is preparing to carry out the most important peacekeeping mission in its history, the United States insisted that NATO should keep a headquarters in Sarajevo.” Limited to about 200, the allied presence will be tasked with tracking down war criminals and with the struggle against terrorism. To the Europeans’ dismay, the Americans will keep their military base in Tuzla where prisoners will be interrogated before their transfer to the ICTY, the newspaper notes, adding: Europe is left with the most difficult task: keeping the peace on the entire Bosnian territory, where ethnic tensions can erupt at any time, as was shown last month in Kosovo. NATO has promised to help the EU in case of need. This partnership will be made official at the NATO summit in Istanbul in June.

• KFOR is redeploying around Serb enclaves to prevent new riots in Kosovo, writes Le Monde. The daily observes this is a return to the situation of June 1999 and 2000 when a massively deployed KFOR was trying to prevent revengeful ethnic Albanians from expelling some 200,000 Serbs from the province. Last month’ interethnic violence saw the troops coming out of their barracks to again guard churches and Serb villages, stresses the newspaper.

In a contribution to the Washington Times, Goran Svilanovic, the foreign minister of Serbia and Montenegro, writes that last month’ violence against the Serbian population in Kosovo jeopardized UNMIK and the efforts of the international community aimed at a peaceful resolution of the problems of the province.
“For the moment, the situation in Kosovo is calm. The international forces in the province have hopefully regained full control on the ground, But how long can the fragile peace last?,” Svilanovic asks and adds: “For Kosovo, we must seek a solution that can be long-lasting and acceptable to the Serbs, Kosovo Albanians, our neighbors and the whole region. For such a solution to be found, careful consideration and the involvement of the international community are necessary. In the meantime, if the Serbs and other non-Albanians are to remain in the province, additional efforts are required, as well as additional institutional guarantees. In this regard, we consider decentralization and territorial autonomy as a potential and necessary step toward stabilizing the situation and securing the survival of Serbs and other minority communities in the province. The UN Security Council will have to define the appropriate political and security guidelines for the civilian and military missions in Kosovo in these new and difficult circumstances.”

IRAQ

• The Financial Times suggests the current unrest in Iraq complicates U.S. hopes of persuading NATO to take an active role in the country. Recalling that at NATO last week, Secretary of State Powell publicly suggested a bigger role for NATO, the newspaper says the proposal was being considered, at least in some of the “new” countries. It stresses, however, that “this was before the terrible riots and fighting between U.S.-led coalition troops and supporters of … Moqtada al-Sadr, a radical cleric, that could plunge the country into chaos and possibly bring its dangerous fragmentation.” The article continues: “If the U.S. wants NATO to take an active role in Iraq, it will have to ask itself the following: will NATO be seen as yet another U.S.-led coalition, or will the Iraqis really see the Alliance as a force that can bring stability? Diplomats are far from certain that NATO would be welcome in Iraq since the Alliance might be seen as yet another neo-colonialist power. The other issue is NATO’s own ability to act. If some of its members cannot even deliver a few helicopters to (ISAF), how can the U.S. really expect the Alliance to deliver large numbers of troops and equipment to Iraq? And if resources are diverted from Afghanistan, what are the hopes for bringing stability to Afghanistan? The violence and insecurity in Iraq have prompted several NATO countries to question the Alliance’s involvement in the conflict. Iraq would need to see a radical improvement on the ground for NATO to take a role there in the immediate future. The omens, for the moment, look miserable, leaving the United States with few options but to call up more reserves for a war that has no long-term strategy or international support.” A related AP dispatch suggests that fighting in Iraq presents a major test of the resolve of America’s partners to stay the course in the country. It also considers that the mounting unrest will also test the U.S. strategy of avoiding traditional alliances and international institutions in favor of “coalitions of the willing” in a military conflict. “Washington’s inability to bring along its major partners in NATO into the Iraq conflict means the United States has no ready pool of well-trained reinforcements—apart from its own troops—in case the Pentagon decides more forces are necessary to maintain order. Even if Washington can hold on to most of its partners, it is unlikely they would be able to provide thousands of new troops if more are needed,” says the article.