The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Dangerous fuss about nothing much Frederick Bonnart IHT Monday, February 17, 2003
NATO crisis
BRUSSELS The differences between the United States and some European allies over action in Iraq have caused a crisis in NATO which could do it irreparable damage. Accusations have been made and language used that endanger an institution which has been the cornerstone of American-European cooperation for half a century and remains today their most important asset for common endeavors.
A genuine difference of opinion exists, but much of the rancor is caused by lack of knowledge of simple facts and inadequate understanding of alliance procedures. It is high time for leaders and politicians to calm down, moderate their language and look reality in the face.
NATO has weathered many crises. France's withdrawal from the common military structure in 1966 meant a redeployment of inadequate allied military formations faced by superior Soviet forces. The introduction of Pershing 2 and cruise missiles in the 1980s severely tested alliance unity. The long dispute between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean weakened the southeastern flank for many years.
The present crisis is on a different, far graver scale for two reasons. The allies are no longer constrained by an immediate threat to their existence as independent nations; and powerful elements in and near the present American administration increasingly reject international institutions. Unless serious and rapid remedial action is taken, the crisis could lead to NATO's demise
The facts of the dispute are simple. In December an informal U.S. request was made in Brussels for eventual NATO assistance in the form of six measures, including the despatch of AWACS aircraft, Patriot missile batteries and chemical and biological warfare protection units to Turkey. The other measures concerned relief of U.S. forces from certain commitments and additional protection of U.S. military installations.
Last Monday the NATO secretary-general, George Robertson, tabled a proposal for the council to instruct its military authorities to make contingency plans for such measures. Three member countries (France, Germany and Belgium) dissented.
Turkey then invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. But this article merely states that if a member country considers itself threatened, the parties will "consult together." That, in fact, is precisely what they have been doing.
The storm of fury that has erupted in Washington is completely unjustified. Full agreement exists for the need to ensure that Iraq possesses no prohibited weapons and adheres to United Nations decisions. The argument is about methods, not objectives.
The three dissenting governments believe that war is not inevitable and that the inspection process should be given more time. Additionally, France proposed a control regime for Iraq which would obviate the need for military action altogether.
They consider that giving the requested instructions to NATO military authorities would be seen as a NATO move toward participating in a war, and would thereby make war more likely.
They have not rejected the proposal entirely, but they consider that Turkey is not at present under threat. Their leaders have reaffirmed support for Turkey, in accordance with Article 5 of the treaty, should it be in danger. One may disagree with this position, and indeed it is hard to see why a simple instruction for precautionary planning cannot be given to NATO's military authorities without arousing suspicions of a political commitment. Contingency planning is a main responsibility of military authorities in peacetime.
However, the three countries' attitude is completely consequent, and it should be examined and countered by careful arguments based on facts and logical analysis. Instead, Washington has produced loud accusations, many of them unproven or patently artificial, on the one hand, and insults for the dissenters on the other. Dissent from an American position by friends and allies is neither a crime nor an inimical act. Those making disparaging remarks about "old Europe" should remember that the values which Americans now claim as their own came to them from this old Europe, and that some of these countries are more successful in applying them than is the United States.
Administrations on either side of the Atlantic are transient, and the bonds that tie the United States to the old European allies are older and deeper than intergovernmental ups and downs. The writer is editorial director of the independent military journal NATO's Nations.