SHAPE
News Summary & Analysis
26
April 2004
ISAF
- Spain
considering options for increasing its forces in Afghanistan
IRAQ
- Multinational
force to hand over control of two provinces to U.S.
troops
GREATER
MIDDLE EAST INITIATIVE
- Reality
intrudes on U.S. vision for Middle East
|
ISAF
- NATO
has asked Spain to increase its military presence in Afghanistan
and take charge of an Afghan province. According
to military sources, NATO’s aim is to create by June
five PRTS, which will help consolidate the authority of the
Afghan state beyond the confines of Kabul, reported Madrid’s
El Pais, April 24. The Defense Ministry is drawing up plans
to increase its presence in Afghanistan, the newspaper said,
adding that the preferred option is to participate in the
general headquarters of the Eurocorps with a maximum of 300
personnel. The sources were quoted saying, however, that Spain
would have to reinforce its military presence in Afghanistan
because the Eurocorps has committed itself to relieving Canada
in command of ISAF. The article continued: “The
Defense Ministry has prepared a range of options for the prime
minister to choose depending on the degree of commitment he
wants to undertake. The minimum option involves participating
in the Eurocorps HQ, which will be established in Kabul for
a period of six months, extendible to a year. Spain will have
to send a minimum of 70 personnel, if it confines itself to
filing staff posts, and a maximum of 300 if it adds a company
for the protection of the HQ. But the real political decision
is taking over commitments outside Kabul. Spain has not decided
yet whether it will take on the responsibility for a PRT,
but the sources consulted said that if it did, it would be
in cooperation with another European country.” The Boston
Globe writes that while the Alliance has agreed to set up
and take command of five PRTs in the north and west by the
end of June, it has struggled to wheedle key and costly equipment
such as transport planes and helicopters out of allies. “The
reluctance of the allies to offer resources for Afghanistan
has dented the credibility of NATO’s first mission outside
Europe or America,” the newspaper stresses. It notes,
however, that on Monday U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns
stressed that Afghanistan had to be the Alliance’s top
priority because the stakes were high. “(Burns) said
Washington wanted NATO to take on responsibility for PRTs
commanded by Operation Enduring Freedom. After NATO has moved
into the restive south and west to take on these teams, there
could be a merger between ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom,”
the article continues.
IRAQ
- AP quotes
a spokesman for the multinational force in Iraq saying Monday
that U.S. troops will permanently take command of
the two Iraqi provinces that have been controlled by Spanish-led
forces. The U.S. soldiers will take over in Najaf
and Kadisija provinces around May 27 after the expected withdrawal
of some 2,000 troops from Spain, Honduras and the Dominican
Republic, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Polish-led
multinational troops reportedly said. He added that Poland
will be left in command of about 8,000 troops in three provinces
instead of five. Against the background of the planned
Spanish withdrawal, The Times claims it has learned that senior
Whitehall officials have drawn up a highly complex series
of options for Britain’s role to be expanded. “If
the British remit is to move north, taking in hotspots such
as Najaf, defense sources said one option for ministers was
for Britain to take over command of the central south division,
currently led by a Polish general,” the newspaper says.
It adds that one suggestion is that Britain could
ask NATO to allow the British-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
(ARRC) headquarters in Germany to be released to take over
command from the Poles. Noting that although
it is a NATO headquarters, 60 percent of the staff are British,
the newspaper quotes one defense source saying: “So
it could be used as a British force.”
GREATER MIDDLE
EAST INITIATIVE
- According
to the Christian Science Monitor, just weeks before the Bush
administration plans to roll out its Greater Middle East Initiative
at a series of international summit, the plan is in trouble.
Three factors—worse-than-expected violence in Iraq,
the president’s surprise alignment last week with Israeli
leader Sharon on West Bank settlements and other sensitive
issues, and the continuing deterioration of America’s
image among Arabs—have reportedly thrown the plan off
and punctured enthusiasm for pursuing it. The article stresses,
however, that the initiative is still expected to provide
the theme for the G-8 summit the White House is hosting in
June, and to figure in NATO and U.S.-EU conclaves the same
months. A commentary in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April
24, stressed meanwhile that a possible “NATO Gulf initiative”
rests on resolving the Middle East conflict. Many factors
determine what will happen with regard to a substantial relationship
between NATO and the Arab world in general, beyond the existing
discussion forums, and the states in the Gulf region in particular,
said the newspaper, concluding: “Military and security
policy cooperation that NATO will enter into with individual
states of the region must be seen to complement the political,
economic, social, and ideological modernization requirements
confronting the states and societies in the Gulf region and
the Middle east…. How reforms can take root and what
the West, together with NATO, could do to achieve this …
without intensifying the conflict—this is a question
that is just beginning to be answered.”
|