"NATO Obviously Has to Move Ahead" 

An Interview with NATO's Jamie Shea

By Chris Lindborg
BASIC

Editor's Note:  Immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5, which stipulates that an armed attack against one or more members of the alliance shall be considered an attack against them all.  The U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan has intensified the debate about NATO's role in the post-Cold War world:  while NATO countries have made military contributions to the Afghan campaign, the alliance has not taken a formal role in the action.  In an interview with BASIC Reports on March 15, Dr. Jamie Shea, Director of Information and Press for NATO, discussed the organization's role in the ensuing war on terrorism and how this contribution will influence NATO's purpose in a security environment shaped by new threats. 

New Challenges for an Old Alliance 

Q: What are the greatest challenges for NATO during its participation in the war on terrorism?

A: There are three challenges.  The first one, of course, is supporting the United States and the coalition in the current campaign in Afghanistan until such time as the al Qaeda network has been totally eliminated. . I think NATO's record here has been good.  You would expect me to say that, but I think that is true.  It's given the Americans what the Americans have asked for: over-flight rights, use of ports, the AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] planes here in the United States, and of course, it invoked Article 5, which was a significant measure to declare that the terrorist attack henceforth can be considered as the old-fashioned territorial invasion of a NATO member state.  That's a very big conceptual step forward.

The second thing, of course, is that NATO now has to look at how it can improve its capabilities to deal with terrorism.  Obviously we've got to look at [whether] our troops [are] sufficiently protected.  Do we have the right vaccinations in the event of a biological or chemical attack?  How can we detect the presence of these agents?  For instance, how can we deal with the airspace challenge of coping with a hijacking before the plane is steered into a major building like the World Trade Center?  How can we share intelligence in order to better track the movements of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction across our territory? ... Therefore, I think there are ... various areas where NATO obviously has to move ahead, so that our forces are better equipped to deal with these kinds of issues that are very different from the major tank battles that were predicted for the Cold War period.

I think the third problem is that Sept. 11 brings us back to an old problem in NATO which has not gone away, but which requires urgent treatment: the question of defense capabilities per se.  [This is] not necessarily connected directly with terrorism.  We have seen the United States pull ahead, spending $48 billion more, [which is] 40% of world defense expenditure - more than NATO, China and Russia combined. 

The danger there is that there will be a kind of unbridgeable chasm between the Americans and the Europeans, which will make coalition operations more difficult.  We won't be able to communicate [and] we won't be inter-operable. . The Europeans spend $150 million a year, which was about half of the U.S. defense budget prior to Sept. 11, but it is calculated that they get only 10-12% of what the Americans get in terms of output.  Clearly the Europeans have got to see how they can reorganize defense spending to specialize, for example, in roles to have more common procurement, to have more common assets, because otherwise there will be these transatlantic gaps.  The Americans have got to look at how they can share technology with the Europeans so that we [can] preserve critical areas, like transport, communications, air defense, air operations, special forces operations, [and] the ability to work together. 

European Defense Spending

Q: How will the war on terrorism influence defense spending in Europe?  What level of defense spending is needed to meet current security requirements?

A: It depends on what the level of ambition is.  If the Europeans want to be a superpower like the United States, then they probably need to spend 6-7% of their GDP [Gross Domestic Product] on defense, which is not realistic . but Europe does not have to be the equivalent of the United States.  Europe is different:  [it has] different types of politics, [and] a different cultural environment. ...

If it is not to be a superpower, then what is the level of ambition?  The level of ambition has to be two things.  First of all, the Europeans should have the ability to undertake robust military operations where the United States does not want to be involved [in] the sort of Bosnia-type missions or even Kosovo-type missions. 

Secondly, the Europeans should have the ability to project forces to work with the Americans in places like Afghanistan where we clearly identify common threats.  They should have enough capability to be considered by the Americans as serious players.  That of course means developing their transport capabilities, making their forces more deployable, [and having] better equipment.  For example, in many NATO countries today, the equipment is older than the soldiers.  If you look for a comparison, the United States spends eight times more on its soldiers every year than the Europeans. . Europeans have 1.2 million troops on paper, but very few of them are actually deployable, particularly for periods of up to a year. . Of course, [we need] modernization, transport capabilities, more drones like the United States - like the Predator, the Global Hawk - more suppression of air defenses, precision guided weapons, which are lacking, [and] sea lift. ...

There is often a tendency for Europe to believe that you have to triple the defense budget to get these kinds of things.  It's not true.  Let me give you one example.  You know the JDAM [Joint Direct Attack Munitions] system?  It's a kit that guides a bomb. ...  It costs $18,000, but it transforms a dumb bomb into an extremely accurate bomb, which the Americans have used.  It's not a big investment, but it makes a quantum difference in your effectiveness.

Is NATO Up to the Job?

Q: Richard Lugar, a Republican senator in the U.S. Congress, has argued, "NATO itself has played only a limited, largely political and symbolic role in the war against terrorism. ... Rightly or wrongly, the legacy of Kosovo has reinforced the concern that NATO is not up to the job of fighting a modern war."  What would you say to critics who agree with this statement by Sen. Lugar?

A: I think that like all statements, there is an element of truth, but also an element of exaggeration.  The first thing of course is that NATO has done everything that the United States has asked it to do in the war on terrorism.  The Americans have not made any request to NATO that has not been granted. . The Americans asked for eight things: over flight rights, support, protection, the AWACs aircraft that NATO sent to the United States, etc., and all of those things were granted. 

Secondly, Afghanistan is not a unilateral U.S. operation.  There are more EU troops in Afghanistan today than American troops: the British, Canadians [sic], Germans and French are involved in combat operations, not just peacekeeping operations.  The Europeans have put in a big chunk of the money for rebuilding Afghanistan, which is essential if the country is not to go back into a black hole situation, which is what happened after the Russians left in 1989. .

Defeating terrorism needs high-tech military operations, but you cannot defeat terrorism with high-tech military operations alone.  If you look at the overall picture, the Europeans are carrying their share of the burden. . Europe has arrested 1,300 terrorist suspects.  There is a lot of intelligence sharing and a lot of cooperation with the United States.  So, I think as this goes on, which it will do, the United States and Europe will be more involved and I think the European contributions will go up and up and up.  Quite frankly, we should not rush to judgment on the basis of one campaign, which may turn out to be the easiest. "

Yugoslavia's National Healing Yet to Begin

By Predrag Simic

With funding shortfalls, disputes among experts, and slow progress on achieving its mandate, Yugoslavia's Commission for Truth and Reconciliation has made a sluggish start in its effort to promote healing after the wartime atrocities during the civil conflict of the 1990s.

Trying to address the need to publicly face the events of the past decade, Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica established the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation on March 29, 2001 as the first attempt to deal with the heritage of the decade of wars in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).  Following the experience of Chilean and South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, Kostunica sought to open public debate on the causes and consequences of the bloody wars that swept over Yugoslavia during the 1990s, resulting in over 200,000 people killed and more than two million refugees or internally displaced persons.

Complex Mandate for Complex Task
According to Commission coordinator and noted Belgrade history professor Ljubodrag Dimic, the body's purpose is to "eliminate many causes and forms misunderstandings [sic] and establish trust between social groups and peoples by establishing the truth." 

To keep the process transparent, the Commission intends to regularly organize public discussions, debates and hearings and publish documentation on the atrocities committed during armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, following the South African and Chilean models. At the end of its term, a final report and recommendations will be presented to the government and the public. 

In its investigation, the Commission and its working groups will use professional fact-finding teams that would carry out field research, interview actors and witnesses and collect testimonies. Six working groups are expected to investigate the escalation of the crisis in the former SFRY during the 1990s; research human rights abuses; examine social, psychological, and religious factors; explore the role of public opinion, the media and hate speech used to mobilize people for violence and war; and examine the impact of international influences.  According to its agenda, the Commission will carry its task through several phases. In the first phase, it will focus on the collection of documents, testimonies and other relevant data. In the second phase, it plans to identify and analyze major issues and controversies, and lastly it will present the results of its work. It intends to complete its work in three years.

Initially, 15 distinguished persons were selected for the Commission.  In addition to Dimic's appointment, Alex Borane, former President of the South African Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, is a foreign adviser to the Commission.  Participation in the Commission's work is on a voluntary basis and the independence of its members and their integrity will be carefully guarded.  The body will be autonomous and independent from state organs and administration, as well as political actors in power or in opposition.

Kostunica noted that the challenges to the Commission are enormous.  One huge task involves bringing the crimes to light and condemning the perpetrators to establish a healthy environment for political and social rehabilitation in Yugoslavia.  He also emphasized another goal: "To prevent the entire history of [the] 1990s [from being] interpreted [according to] wartime propaganda and thus prevent reconciliation among the Yugoslav nations and successor-states."

Difficult Road to Achieving Goals With such a complex task at hand, several obstacles have hindered the Commission's progress.  Due to budgetary problems, the Commission only recently started its work. Unlike the South African Com-mission that had considerable financial and human resources at its disposal (a $15 million budget and 400 employees), the Yugoslav Commission initially had a modest budget, and only through the support of several Western foundations managed to raise the necessary money to begin its work. 

In addition, the anticipated activities of the Commission provoked some controversy, with several members resigning shortly after they were appointed. Because the Commission was not given the right to criminally prosecute perpetrators of grave breaches of humanitarian and war laws, Belgrade law professor Vojin Dimitrijevic stepped down from the Commission. Tibor Varady, Yugoslavia's Chief Legal Counsel in the Foreign Ministry, resigned due to a conflict of interest, while Latinka Perovic, a liberal activist since the 1960s, refused to join a governmental institution.  Almost a year after it was established, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is only now taking its first practical steps forward to help Yugoslavia heal the wounds of its past.  At the beginning of 2002, it published its draft program and invited the public to testify about crimes they had witnessed.  Even though the Commission promised to hold regular press conferences and that the members would maintain regular contacts with the media, in the past year only three press conferences were held. 

International Outreach Required
As part of its work plan, the Commission intends to enter into dialogue with international organizations and institutions, including the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).  Cooperation between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the ICTY is one of the main concerns for the new leadership that rose to power after national elections in October 2000. Their difficult relationship is the main obstacle to the full normalization between Yugoslavia and a number of Western countries, as well as Yugoslavia's entry to the Council of Europe and other European organizations.

Experts feel that the Commission's work, if completed successfully, will alleviate traumatic experiences of the population across former SFRY and lead to reconciliation within the FRY, between the country and neighboring peoples and states, and the international community.  In public statements, members of the Commission note that exposing the lies and prejudices that caused the civil conflict will help develop a climate of tolerance in which individuals, society, and the state will work together towards a more promising future. "

* Predrag Simic is Foreign Policy Advisor to Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica.

Back to BASIC Publications home page