Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

28 June 2004

NATO-SUMMIT

Media report that Iraq dominated the NATO summit Monday as the United States handed over power early to a new Iraqi government. They highlight that in a statement Alliance leaders formally agreed to offer training to the security forces of the new government. They generally stress that there were no details in the statement on the Iraqi training deal and that it falls short of the role Washington had sought for the Alliance. The view, however, is that leaders appear to have put behind them past rows over Iraq in an attempt to play up harmony. Media also report that the NATO leaders agreed to boost ISAF and transfer SFOR to the EU at the end of the year.

AFP notes that the pledge to help train Iraqi security forces had been widely expected after diplomats thrashed out a carefully-worded accord over the weekend. It stresses that the phrasing of the agreement specifically left it open for such training to occur inside or outside Iraq. The United States was reportedly pressing to leave the door open for measures beyond merely training security forces in the future, the dispatch adds, quoting a U.S. defense official, saying on condition of anonymity: “We are hoping the (NATO) secretary general will task the military authorities to say what else can be done, what is the spectrum of options in addition to training that the Alliance could do to assist the new Iraqi government.”

The number of NATO instructors to be deployed and the timing of the operation were unclear, but the move will give NATO a military presence on the ground in Iraq for the first time, says AP. But adds the dispatch, the decision falls well short of U.S. hopes that NATO would assume a major military role in Iraq, perhaps by taking over the multinational division currently run by Poland. A related Reuters dispatch agrees that “the deal on helping Iraq falls far short of the boots-on-the-ground role Washington had sought for the Alliance.” In a similar vein, BBC News remarked that “the deal falls far short of the peacekeeping role that Washington had originally been pushing for.”

While Iraq is dominating headlines, reports AFP, NATO leaders underlined that Afghanistan remains NATO’s priority. The dispatch quotes a senior official saying NATO chiefs agreed on a “major expansion” of ISAF to reach 10,000 troops during the planned September elections period. The forces available to ISAF would be increased to 10,000 from the current 6,500 troops, the official reportedly added. According to the dispatch, he said ISAF would now take command of additional PRTs in four northern areas of the country where it already runs one PRT in Kunduz. Further expansion into western Afghanistan was now also “actively being pursued,” the official further said. The plan could lead to the setting up of a forward support base in the western city of Herat, which would in turn permit the rapid setting up of additional PRTs under ISAF command in the region, he added. “NATO is meeting its commitments to provide increased security to support the Afghan government, to support the upcoming elections,” he insisted.

In a statement Monday, NATO leaders said they had agreed to wind up the SFOR peacekeeping mission in Bosnia at the end of the year and welcomed the EU’s offer to take it over, reports AFP. “The decision to end NATO’s nine-year mission in Bosnia marks its success in ending the war and keeping the peace in that country,” the dispatch quotes the statement saying.

Media also centered on the summit’s security, reporting that Turkish police had clashed violently with hundreds of anti-war protesters attempting to march on the summit venue.

Remarks by Gen. Jones ahead of the summit generated interest.
In Kabul Saturday, Gen. Jones said he hoped Alliance leaders would give the green light for up to 2,000 extra troops to begin deploying in Afghanistan before planned September elections, reported AFP. He said he expected the NATO summit to meet its commitments to expand ISAF beyond Kabul, added the dispatch, further quoting Gen. Jones saying: “We’re hoping that as a result of the summit there will be commitments that will allow us to start the expansion. I’m cautiously optimistic about that.” The dispatch further reported that asked when the expansion could begin, he replied he thought that “probably within 30 days … we would be moving forces.” The dispatch added that talking to reporters accompanying him on an eve-of-summit visit to Afghanistan, Gen. Jones said he hoped for sufficient pledges in Istanbul to allow ISAF to take command of at least five PRTS in northern Afghanistan. In addition to Kunduz, he reportedly said, these would be at Faizerbad, Mazar-I-Sharif, Baimana and in theory at Bamiam. According to the dispatch, he added he had asked for five C130 transport planes, a number of helicopters, medical facilities for Kabul, some quick response force companies and intelligence and reconnaissance units. In addition on a temporary basis, for the period around the planned September elections, he had asked for a battalion—about 800 men—for about 90 days.

Gen. Jones toured Kabul and beyond Friday and Saturday in a flurry of briefings in advance of the summit, writes the Stars and Stripes. “He came away from Kabul with two impressions confirmed: Despite troubles, Afghanistan is better than its rap; and that for NATO to fulfill its lofty hopes of reforming the former militant theocracy, member states will have to spend money,” says the newspaper.

Welt am Sonntag, June 27, quoted Gen. Jones saying in an interview (done on June 26—PIO) that in Istanbul, “we will celebrate the progress since the Prague summit… for example the restructuring of the NATO command structures and the creation of the Response Force. Furthermore, we will discuss the problems deriving from these developments. With regard to Afghanistan, the expansion of the mission, the assignment of further PRTs in the provinces as well as more security for the elections will be discussed. We will also discuss the changes of the Mediterranean Dialogue, maybe also the new definition of the ‘Partnership for Peace’ program. Iraq too will be touched upon.”

The Istanbul summit appears to have put NATO’s future in the spotlight.
Under the title, “NATO’s role will lessen unless members ‘make good’ Afghan neglect,” a commentary in The Times stresses: “ The summit will yield one answer…. If (NATO heads of states and governments) drum up an adequate commitment to Afghanistan, NATO has a future. If they don’t, it doesn’t. A second, even more important, question is whether the secretary general … manages to persuade members to change the rules so that they share the costs, no matter whose forces are sent into action.”

“Can NATO restore its reputation in Iraq?”, asks The Daily Telegraph, adding: “ If, in short, NATO training makes as little difference to Iraq as its peacekeeping forces have to Afghanistan, … we will be faced yet again with the question … ‘what is NATO for?’ It was perhaps inevitable that the Alliance would find itself paralyzed during the Iraq war, but there is absolutely no excuse for inaction now. NATO’s future, as well as Iraq’s, is at stake.”

The Christian Science Monitor comments that if the summit offers only help in training Iraqi troops, rather than sending actual soldiers, it will be less of a rebuff to Washington than a sign of how hard the Alliance is finding its new role as global policeman.

The Guardian considers, however, that what the Americans are seeking in Istanbul is the legitimacy that a NATO connection will confer on the Iraq project. Such a connection would also have the function of locking in those NATO countries that already have contingents in Iraq, but that, facing a disturbed public opinion at home, might be tempted to withdraw in the future. And it would also help the Bush administration to rebut accusations in the presidential campaign that it has persistently failed to consult its allies, says the article. The device contemplated is a NATO response to a request from the new Iraqi government for help in training and equipping its forces. The true requirement is not for training—it is unclear whether Iraqi forces have any real need for trainers other than the American and British ones they have already got—but for NATO visibility, it adds.