NATO’s Defense Ministers met earlier today in Brussels.  Here is an update on some key issues that BASIC is following along with links to more in-depth coverage.

 

• Nuclear Arrangements
• Afghanistan
• Sudan
• Iraq

 

NUCLEAR ARRANGEMENTS

As part of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels, representatives also gathered under the heading of the Nuclear Planning Group.  According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which published a report titled, U.S. Nuclear Weapons In Europe, the United States still has about 480 nuclear bombs deployed on the continent.  The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune first covered the story.  These papers reported that even NATO Supreme Commander General James Jones has supported withdrawing U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe.

 

Regrettably, the Nuclear Planning Group's Final Communique of June 9 reveals that the Ministers simply re-confirmed the status quo: “[W]e reviewed the status of NATO's nuclear forces and the work of the High Level Group and reaffirmed the continued validity of the fundamental principles governing NATO's nuclear policy and force posture as set out in the Strategic Concept.”  To recap, these policies were recently described by former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara as “immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and very, very dangerous in terms of the risk of accidental use."

 

Dr. Ian Davis, Executive Director of BASIC, commented:

 

“Coming in the wake of inaction at the NPT Review Conference in New York, this latest head-in-the sand approach to nuclear non-proliferation is deeply troubling and confirms a democratic deficit at the heart of NATO and other international institutions tasked with promoting arms control and collective security. The continued presence of U.S. nuclear weapons has, in part, also resulted in Russia declining to discuss their ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon holdings and dismantlement. The failure to address this situation in Brussels today is nothing short of intolerable.”

 

There is a high degree of consensus on what should be done—stricter controls on civilian nuclear power programs, penalties for states who walk away from the NPT, and the club of five nuclear states keeping their past promises to disarm. As regards the latter, removal of the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe is an obvious first step.  Also, despite the Member States’ commitment to transparency in the 2000 NPT Final Document, NATO continues to fail to publish details on the number of nuclear weapons remaining in Europe.

 

Now, the NRDC, along with BASIC, the Arms Control Association, and the Oxford Research Group have written to NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, requesting that he initiate a dialogue within the alliance on the withdrawal of all U.S. sub-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.  In tandem, they also called for the Defense Ministers to begin exploratory talks on this issue during the NATO-Russia Council meeting on June 9.  For more information, go to the following Web page: Call for NATO to Withdraw All Tactical Nukes from Europe.

 

 

AFGHANISTAN

Shortly after the terrorist attacks against the United States in September 2001, the United Kingdom stood ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with the United States as they led the invasion into Afghanistan.  When the United States turned its focus from Afghanistan to Iraq - which weakened its ability to dedicate resources to restoring stability in Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden - it left NATO and other countries to undertake peacekeeping in the country through the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).  NATO acquired command of ISAF in 2003.  More recently, NATO forces took command of security and reconstruction efforts from U.S. forces in western Afghanistan in late May.  Nevertheless, the United States still leads 18,000 troops as part of a coalition of countries engaged in combat throughout Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom. 

 

As Afghanistan continues its post-conflict reconstruction process, the U.K. government has become increasingly concerned about Afghanistan’s return to poppy production and the influx of heroin into European drug markets.  Over ninety percent of the heroin that enters the British drug market now originates from Afghanistan.  Yet, the United States is reluctant to have NATO as a whole take on drug eradication.  Leaders are also aware that poppy production is a delicate issue because the crops are a major source of revenue for farmers in this country struggling to rebound from economic destitution.  Regardless of what happens with deliberations between the United States and the United Kingdom over drug eradication and the question of NATO involvement in such a mission, according to a report from Yahoo! News/Reuters, there have been discussions regarding British troops potentially taking over two U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in the South next year when the United Kingdom gains command of the ISAF.  Plans for a takeover of the two PRTs, however, have not been confirmed.

 

Leaving the Afghan government to spearhead attempts to lessen poppy production with aid from foreign donors, the United States is hoping to have NATO eventually take on more than a peacekeeping role as it does currently through the 8,000-9,000-member ISAF, and adopt an additional combat role (separate from ISAF) that could be similar to activities under Operation Enduring Freedom.  In conjunction, NATO is currently examining a plan to expand its forces into southern Afghanistan in 2006.  During a recent meeting at the White House, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer iterated that these plans were being taken seriously.  According to the Washington Post, if NATO moves into Afghanistan’s southern and border regions, where insurgents are most active, alliance-led forces may need to engage in combat.  According to NATO Spokesman James Appathurai, as mentioned in the Washington Post article, NATO would then need to create ‘”two task forces with separate missions, but brought together near the top under one command” … and would require revising the military rules of engagement to allow combat by ISAF.’

 

In the meantime, NATO is preparing to expand its ISAF presence during the next few months in preparation for Afghanistan’s September 18, 2005 parliamentary elections.  NATO is planning for a temporary deployment of an additional 2,000 troops prior to the elections to support the Afghan National Army.  See the recent May 2005 report by the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office and CARE titled, NGO Insecurity in Afghanistan, and Development Gateway’s Afghanistan Reconstruction Web site for background on the chronically dangerous conditions across the country.

 

 

SUDAN

Since February 2003, at least 180,000 people have been killed in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, where fighting has continued between pro-government militia and rebel forces. In May 2005, the International Crisis Group commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of U.S. attitudes regarding the crisis in Darfur.  Among the 1,000 Americans polled, 76 percent favored “NATO logistical and troop support for an expanded African peacekeeping force.”  For more details on the poll results and background on the Darfur crisis, go to ICG’s Crisis in Darfur page.

 

In response to increasing international calls for action to stop the violence, NATO is developing plans to assist the African Union (AU) in its peacekeeping mission in Darfur.  About 300 members of NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly unanimously backed the NATO decision to offer possible support to the African Union mission that is intervening on a peacekeeping basis to halt the civil war.  Earlier, on May 26, the Secretary General participated in a donors conference in Ethiopia for the AU’s Darfur peacekeeping mission.  The AU hopes to increase its troop presence from 2,500 to 7,700 by early this fall. (Financial Times, June 8, 2005).  While NATO does not have plans to send peacekeepers to Darfur, it is planning to offer assistance that could include: strategic airlift; training, such as command and control and operational planning; and improvement of the ability of the AU’s mission in Darfur to use intelligence.  NATO leaders have been making clear that the AU will take the lead in the Darfur operation.  In addition, NATO Supreme Commander General James Jones attended a one-day meeting in Rwanda, where he discussed plans for the airlifting of Rwandan peacekeepers to Darfur and possibly training them (Air Force Times.com/Associated Press, June 2, 2005).

 

Plans to assist the AU have incurred some complications. The Financial Times reported on June 8 that NATO and the European Union (EU) may experience another rift, this time over the Darfur mission.  According to the article, “While the United States and Canada want the airlifts to be coordinated by NATO – which would give the alliance’s ‘branding’ to the operation – France would like it to be coordinated by the EU.”   NATO is hoping to work through this problem before the airlift start date, currently set for July 1, 2005.  Earlier, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on the last day of a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting that NATO and the EU “… would look ridiculous if – 10,000 people a day are dying  - and we are not working very closely on this.”  The International Herald Tribune reported on June 9 that progress had been made on this matter, and that NATO will now take the lead without objections from Member States who would like the EU to have the higher profile for the mission.

 

 

IRAQ

NATO continues to train a select number of Iraqi security forces, with a staff of about 360 (which may increase). The program so far has remained limited because of transatlantic differences over the Iraq invasion and continued U.S.-led policies toward the country.  Still, the program is working toward training 1,000 Iraqi officers inside and 500 Iraqi officers outside of the country per year, in addition to providing military equipment.  In a substantial research report by Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iraqi Force Development: The Challenges of Partnership in Nation Building, he examines the long haul of building the security forces. The report is a “working draft” that goes beyond NATO operations, and it may be updated in the future. The NATO training program’s official Web site, NATO Training Mission – NTM-I, is also occasionally updated.

 

Both NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer and U.S. President George Bush, during a meeting one week ago, agreed that they would not force the issue of bringing NATO into a combat role in Iraq.  In regards to the transatlantic rift over expanding NATO’s role in Iraq, the Secretary General has sought to halt the endless bickering over the issue, telling the International Herald Tribune: “Look at the Iraqi training mission for officers. All the countries politically endorse what we are doing. Some do the training inside, others outside. My bottom line is that the discussion of coalitions of the willing, as far as I am concerned, is finished.  As long as the mission or operation of NATO is supported politically by all 26 allies, that is the important thing.”

 

In a related story, the first Bosnian troops joined the U.S.-led Coalition effort in Iraq on June 1.  These volunteers will destroy unexploded ordnance and ammunition (San Diego Union-Tribune/Reuters, June 2, 2005).  While Bosnia has suffered its own struggles with war and it is not currently a NATO member, it does seek to join the alliance.  Its willingness to send the 36-member ethnically–mixed contingent to Iraq is seen as one of the tests the country needs to pass on its road to becoming a NATO-candidate country.

 

 

Thanks to BASIC staff Ola Torson Lindberg, Dr. Ian Davis, and Matt Martin for their contributions to this update.

 

For more information, please contact: 
Chris Lindborg, BASIC Analyst in Washington

e-mail: clindborg at basicint.org

tel: +1 202-546-8055, x102

http://www.basicint.org