Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

15 June 2004

NATO

• German weekly Der Spiegel, June 14, carried an interview with NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer in which he viewed NATO’s future role in crisis territories and the forthcoming Istanbul summit. Asked whether the summit should be postponed because “little is likely to come out of it,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer reportedly replied: “There is no reason to think so. We are going to be talking about major issues, such as NATO operations, improved operational capabilities for our troops, and of course our foreign policy context, such as Iraq.” In Istanbul, he was further quoted saying, the government leaders will be talking about Iraq and the role of the international community. Asked whether, as NATO secretary general, he was in favor of the Alliance’s becoming engaged in Iraq, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said: “If either the Iraqi government or the United Nations, or else both together were to ask NATO to take on a role there, then I would say we cannot slam the door in the Iraqi government’s face. It would be very odd if NATO did not seriously discuss such wishes.” He added: “I wish to keep the right priorities: First, I intend to hear what the Iraqi government wishes of NATO…. We are moving into a phase where the Iraqis will be deciding things for themselves. Then NATO will have to discuss the options, for example in those areas in which the German government is already offering cooperation now, over training the police and the armed forces.” Regarding Afghanistan, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer was quoted saying: “I am sure that, in addition to the German reconstruction team already present in Kunduz, NATO will agree to send four further ones.” While acknowledging difficulties in obtaining contributions from nations, he expressed confidence that “we will manage it.” Discussing the current security situation in Afghanistan, he continued: “Responsibility for Afghanistan lies first and foremost with President Karzai and his government. NATO is playing only a secondary role there…. NATO on its own cannot turn Afghanistan into a stable country. It is a matter of credibility of the international community.” Reacting to the interviewer’s observation that “Gen. Jones put it in terms of formula: Unless we can pacify Afghanistan, we do not even need to set foot in Iraq,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer commented that “(Gen. Jones) is right on that.” He insisted that “we cannot afford to lose Afghanistan or Iraq.” Asked whether he favored sending the NRF to Afghanistan to safeguard the elections, he said: “That might in theory be possible. I do not rule it out. We need combat-ready reserves outside Afghanistan, in case of crises—as we saw in Kosovo.”

AFGHANISTAN

• The government is prepared to send troops to Haiti and to strengthen the Spanish contingent in Afghanistan, thus heeding the calls made to Madrid by the Latin American countries on one hand and NATO on the other, reported Madrid’s El Pais, June 14. The daily claimed that the two decisions, although independent of each other, must be taken simultaneously, since some items like helicopters have been required for both operations. The deadline for taking these decisions is June 28, when the NATO heads of state and government meet in Istanbul, it added. NATO has committed itself to reinforcing its presence in Kabul and taking charge of five PRTs to facilitate Afghanistan’s elections, the newspaper recalled. It remarked, however, that “the lack of sufficient contributions by the allied countries has put a tight squeeze on NATO, whose credibility is at stake if it is unable to meet its commitments.” According to the newspaper, government sources take it for granted that the Spanish response will be positive, given the interest expressed not only by NATO but also bilaterally by allies such as the United States and France. The Spanish government, however, reportedly rules out taking charge of a PRT—that is, taking control of an Afghan province—on the grounds that it is an extremely high-risk mission and that it prefers to focus its contribution on Kabul. “NATO has a major shortage of helicopters and transport planes in the Afghan capital, and this could be partially addressed by Spain,” the newspaper concluded.

A commentary in German daily Financial Times Deutschland, June 14, argued that “NATO inactivity endangers Afghanistan’s reform process.”
“Western states are giants when it comes to making promises, yet dwarves when they have to keep them. This must be the impression of all those in Afghanistan who want to advance the political reconstruction process in their country,” the newspaper said, adding: “(Western states) have promised to send five new PRTs to the country, so that elections can be held there, which would be an important step on the way toward establishing a democratic government. Yet when the festive speeches need to be translated into troops and materiel, Brussels is suddenly quiet. NATO’s leading military representative has already warned the ambassadors of the Alliance that, should nothing happen, the already deferred election date must be postponed again. Should President Karzai be forced to do so, this would be a clear victory of Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists…. Later this month, the 26 heads of states and government will meet at the NATO summit in Istanbul. Should the political and military promises made earlier not be replaced by binding commitments by then, (fundamentalists) will have reason to celebrate. The states in the region will have learned a bitter lesson: when they want to reform their countries, they are well advised not to rely on the futile speeches given by representatives of the rich West.”

Reflecting on the forthcoming elections in Afghanistan, Kabul’s daily Arman-e-Melli, June 13, opined that “fear and the threat of guns, the shortage of international financial assistance, the ineffectiveness of NATO, continuous Taliban and Al Qaeda threats … are all factors which will result in the elections not being held on time or in their legitimacy being called into question.”
“Only three-and-a-half months remain before the general elections. The process of ensuring stability in Afghanistan is moving ahead with scant resources and, contrary to the expectations of the people, NATO has not succeeded in dispatching peacekeeping forces to all provinces of the country or in preventing terrorist infiltration from the other side of the border. People are still crossing the border in large numbers and committing acts of murder, looting and destruction,” the newspaper asserted.

In a contribution to the International Herald Tribune, Barnett Rubin, director of studies at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, writes that “when Afghan President Karzai comes to the White House Tuesday, the most convincing show of support he could receive from President Bush would be a statement lifting the pressure on Afghanistan to hold its elections before the U.S. presidential election.” Under the title, “Let the Afghans vote when they’re ready,” Rubin adds that Bush’s statement should be accompanied by clear commitment to the total demobilization of militias, building a national administration, extending an international security umbrella to the provinces and establishing an anti-drug policy that cuts off profits to traffickers while providing livelihoods for farmers who depend on opium. “The advantages of a credible election are obvious. The goal of the transition process has been to create successively more legitimate Afghan governments, culminating in a fully representative government chosen through free and fair elections. It is becoming increasingly obvious, however that elections in September would not be free or fair. The experience of post-conflict operations shows that elections without security and sufficient political consensus on the rules of the game lead to governments that are less legitimate and effective, not more,” stresses Rubin.