hops
Member
Interesting commentary form the WSJ today. We agree the U.N is worthless and weak. But, NATO?
COMMENTARY
NATO: Out of Area and Into Iraq?
Eye on Europe
By MIKE GONZALEZ
Brussels
Iraqi militia fighting in urban areas might continue to harass coalition troops even after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, as might al Qaeda operatives and any Iraqi with a grievance. Something similar happened in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and remains a constant threat there. Which raises the question of who will secure Iraq after victory. The U.S. is rightly wary of the United Nations, so that's probably out. How about NATO?
Formally involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in fact a good idea that some Europeans and Americans would like to see realized. After all, Iraqis could do worse than to have their political stability protected by the folks who guaranteed democracy in Western Europe for nearly half a century.
A question mark on this issue, as in anything these days, is Jacques Chirac, who's been even more obstructionist at NATO than at the U.N. As events on the ground in Iraq will attest, Mr. Chirac is a surmountable object. But some of his partners in the EU would like him to actually affirm any proposal to involve NATO in the military administration of Iraq.
A European official (from neither Spain nor Britain, two pro-U.S. EU countries) says that discussions are starting on how to present such a solution to Mr. Chirac. He says that most of the French president's EU partners would like to see Europe involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, and are growing weary of Mr. Chirac's constant intransigence.
Involving NATO could be presented as part of a U.N. resolution that would divide the administration of Iraq into two spheres, said this official. A civil administration would make sure that the water taps are running and the lights are on. This would not be a protectorate but a true "condominium" that would involve Iraqis with an international partner and pave the way for the total devolution of power. The second sphere would be military, involving NATO in some form.
Nothing formal has been presented. A senior official at the alliance says about "four to five" European members have approached the U.S. to see how NATO can "go into Iraq after the fighting stops." The key question for the U.S., said this NATO official, is to make sure that the alliance retains autonomy under any U.N. resolution, and is not subordinate to the U.N.
Mr. Chirac, of course, has objected to just about any plan he's seen, doing so sometimes even before Saddam himself. The latest rejection came at the close here last Friday of the latest European Union summit. To the great dismay of most of his EU partners -- if to the delight of the journalistic gallery, happy to have another Chirac outburst -- the French president threatened to veto any U.N. resolution that would "tend to legitimize the military intervention and to give to the English and American belligerents the powers to administer Iraq." The French government, sources say, would much prefer a U.N. administration of Iraq, sort of a Kosovo Two.
It would be harder for Mr. Chirac to complain about a NATO military involvement in Iraq, however, as it would meet his demands that an administration not be solely Anglo-American. Another non could also be one too many for members of his own UMP party disturbed by the way he has single-handedly destroyed relations with the U.S. UMP members of the National Assembly tell me that between a third and half of the party is in this camp. And for all of Mr. Chirac's bluster, France recognizes economic reality. It emerged yesterday that the French government and the largest business federation have set up a working group to figure out how to win reconstruction contracts in post-Saddam Iraq. "France is opposed to war but intends to fully participate in the reconstruction," a spokesman for the Finance Ministry had the cheek to tell journalists.
Involving NATO would also involve France, still officially a member of that body. Of course, unlike at the United Nations, Mr. Chirac would be bereft of his veto power. NATO's decisions are taken on a consensus basis, which means any of the 19 members can stop things merely by saying no. But Charles De Gaulle took France out of NATO's integrated military structure in a fit of Gallic pique back in 1966. That must have felt good at the time, but it also robbed France of a veto on military matters decided at the Defense Planning Committee. The DPC has been recently "rejuvenated," in the words of a NATO official, exactly to get around French obstructionism.
There are many reasons to recommend handing Iraq's military security to NATO after Saddam's regime is routed. The British and the Americans, along with the Polish and other coalition forces doing the fighting and the dying, have of course the right "to administer Iraq," to borrow the French president's terminology. But they probably would not mind help. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in December that he'd like to see NATO be involved in Iraq after the war.
NATO would be ideal because -- unlike the U.N. -- it is an association of 19 democracies which share values we'd like to bring to Iraqis. NATO has done this kind of job before. It would establish the idea that NATO must go "out of area" if it doesn't want to be out of business. Its old theatre of operations is at peace -- save for some potential flare-up points in the Balkans. The missions of the future for this military alliance lie outside the geographic limits of Europe.
It's important that NATO not die, as it is the only organization that binds the two halves of Western civilization. It must remain active lest those who want to set up the EU as a "counterweight" to the U.S. try to usurp its role and create a rival European-only military institution. Splitting the U.S. and Europe would serve neither side and would in fact be dangerous.
Officials at EU countries say they do not want to be shut out of the reconstruction of Iraq. The reason they were aghast when Mr. Chirac spoke last Friday is that they thought they had a compromise in which the EU would start getting involved in reconstruction under the heading of "humanitarian aid."
"We want to move quickly to get the European Union involved in reconstruction, and we don't want to get bogged down by silly discussions," says an official from an EU country. Mr. Chirac's latest outburst, "seems to have put down markers that were less than reasonable," says this official, who described the French president to an "elderly uncle" who can be counted on to do outrageous things at the dinner table. "We're past the point of being surprised by him."
Speaking with his usual aplomb, Mr. Chirac also said last Friday that a "majority" of the 15 EU member states supported his anti-war position and that Britain and Spain only had a minority with them. But this is questionable.
By my count, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Ireland support the U.S. position, with France dragging Germany and Belgium into opposition to the U.S. at all forums. Let's give Paris the rest, Sweden, Austria, Greece and Finland, even though several of these have been only lukewarm toward Mr. Chirac, and let's call Luxembourg a swing vote. If Mr. Chirac has a majority, it is a very shaky one. Candidates for membership from Central Europe are arrayed against him, by and large.
On the matter of using NATO in Iraq's reconstruction, Mr. Chirac would have even fewer allies. Even German officials say the Berlin government is pondering what NATO can contribute to Iraq. Says an official from one of the supposedly "pro-French" countries: "We're trying to isolate the French, and the French are helping us do so, by isolating themselves."
COMMENTARY
NATO: Out of Area and Into Iraq?
Eye on Europe
By MIKE GONZALEZ
Brussels
Iraqi militia fighting in urban areas might continue to harass coalition troops even after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, as might al Qaeda operatives and any Iraqi with a grievance. Something similar happened in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and remains a constant threat there. Which raises the question of who will secure Iraq after victory. The U.S. is rightly wary of the United Nations, so that's probably out. How about NATO?
Formally involving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in fact a good idea that some Europeans and Americans would like to see realized. After all, Iraqis could do worse than to have their political stability protected by the folks who guaranteed democracy in Western Europe for nearly half a century.
A question mark on this issue, as in anything these days, is Jacques Chirac, who's been even more obstructionist at NATO than at the U.N. As events on the ground in Iraq will attest, Mr. Chirac is a surmountable object. But some of his partners in the EU would like him to actually affirm any proposal to involve NATO in the military administration of Iraq.
A European official (from neither Spain nor Britain, two pro-U.S. EU countries) says that discussions are starting on how to present such a solution to Mr. Chirac. He says that most of the French president's EU partners would like to see Europe involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, and are growing weary of Mr. Chirac's constant intransigence.
Involving NATO could be presented as part of a U.N. resolution that would divide the administration of Iraq into two spheres, said this official. A civil administration would make sure that the water taps are running and the lights are on. This would not be a protectorate but a true "condominium" that would involve Iraqis with an international partner and pave the way for the total devolution of power. The second sphere would be military, involving NATO in some form.
Nothing formal has been presented. A senior official at the alliance says about "four to five" European members have approached the U.S. to see how NATO can "go into Iraq after the fighting stops." The key question for the U.S., said this NATO official, is to make sure that the alliance retains autonomy under any U.N. resolution, and is not subordinate to the U.N.
Mr. Chirac, of course, has objected to just about any plan he's seen, doing so sometimes even before Saddam himself. The latest rejection came at the close here last Friday of the latest European Union summit. To the great dismay of most of his EU partners -- if to the delight of the journalistic gallery, happy to have another Chirac outburst -- the French president threatened to veto any U.N. resolution that would "tend to legitimize the military intervention and to give to the English and American belligerents the powers to administer Iraq." The French government, sources say, would much prefer a U.N. administration of Iraq, sort of a Kosovo Two.
It would be harder for Mr. Chirac to complain about a NATO military involvement in Iraq, however, as it would meet his demands that an administration not be solely Anglo-American. Another non could also be one too many for members of his own UMP party disturbed by the way he has single-handedly destroyed relations with the U.S. UMP members of the National Assembly tell me that between a third and half of the party is in this camp. And for all of Mr. Chirac's bluster, France recognizes economic reality. It emerged yesterday that the French government and the largest business federation have set up a working group to figure out how to win reconstruction contracts in post-Saddam Iraq. "France is opposed to war but intends to fully participate in the reconstruction," a spokesman for the Finance Ministry had the cheek to tell journalists.
Involving NATO would also involve France, still officially a member of that body. Of course, unlike at the United Nations, Mr. Chirac would be bereft of his veto power. NATO's decisions are taken on a consensus basis, which means any of the 19 members can stop things merely by saying no. But Charles De Gaulle took France out of NATO's integrated military structure in a fit of Gallic pique back in 1966. That must have felt good at the time, but it also robbed France of a veto on military matters decided at the Defense Planning Committee. The DPC has been recently "rejuvenated," in the words of a NATO official, exactly to get around French obstructionism.
There are many reasons to recommend handing Iraq's military security to NATO after Saddam's regime is routed. The British and the Americans, along with the Polish and other coalition forces doing the fighting and the dying, have of course the right "to administer Iraq," to borrow the French president's terminology. But they probably would not mind help. U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in December that he'd like to see NATO be involved in Iraq after the war.
NATO would be ideal because -- unlike the U.N. -- it is an association of 19 democracies which share values we'd like to bring to Iraqis. NATO has done this kind of job before. It would establish the idea that NATO must go "out of area" if it doesn't want to be out of business. Its old theatre of operations is at peace -- save for some potential flare-up points in the Balkans. The missions of the future for this military alliance lie outside the geographic limits of Europe.
It's important that NATO not die, as it is the only organization that binds the two halves of Western civilization. It must remain active lest those who want to set up the EU as a "counterweight" to the U.S. try to usurp its role and create a rival European-only military institution. Splitting the U.S. and Europe would serve neither side and would in fact be dangerous.
Officials at EU countries say they do not want to be shut out of the reconstruction of Iraq. The reason they were aghast when Mr. Chirac spoke last Friday is that they thought they had a compromise in which the EU would start getting involved in reconstruction under the heading of "humanitarian aid."
"We want to move quickly to get the European Union involved in reconstruction, and we don't want to get bogged down by silly discussions," says an official from an EU country. Mr. Chirac's latest outburst, "seems to have put down markers that were less than reasonable," says this official, who described the French president to an "elderly uncle" who can be counted on to do outrageous things at the dinner table. "We're past the point of being surprised by him."
Speaking with his usual aplomb, Mr. Chirac also said last Friday that a "majority" of the 15 EU member states supported his anti-war position and that Britain and Spain only had a minority with them. But this is questionable.
By my count, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Ireland support the U.S. position, with France dragging Germany and Belgium into opposition to the U.S. at all forums. Let's give Paris the rest, Sweden, Austria, Greece and Finland, even though several of these have been only lukewarm toward Mr. Chirac, and let's call Luxembourg a swing vote. If Mr. Chirac has a majority, it is a very shaky one. Candidates for membership from Central Europe are arrayed against him, by and large.
On the matter of using NATO in Iraq's reconstruction, Mr. Chirac would have even fewer allies. Even German officials say the Berlin government is pondering what NATO can contribute to Iraq. Says an official from one of the supposedly "pro-French" countries: "We're trying to isolate the French, and the French are helping us do so, by isolating themselves."