If NATO cannot deliver as a credible force, how can EU?

By Simon Taylor

Date: 10/06/04

WHILE the world's leading powers bicker over how to sort out the mess in Iraq, there is near-universal agreement that restoring stability in Afghanistan is a top political priority, even among the countries who opposed the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein.

Yet NATO, which has identified re-establishing security in Afghanistan as a test of its credibility in its post-Cold War role, is struggling to drum up the necessary equipment and experienced troops to deliver on its rhetoric.

Where, then, does this leave the EU and its ambitions to run much smaller peacekeeping operations? Surely if NATO members can't deliver for Afghanistan, even with the political pressure of the commitments they have made, the prospect of credible EU military operations is grim indeed.

The security situation in Afghanistan, outside the capital Kabul and the town of Kunduz, is minimal and the outlook for stabilization and the cementing of democracy is not encouraging. Elections are scheduled for sometime this autumn but, so far, less than 8% of the population have been registered to vote.

To improve the security situation, NATO, which took over command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) last August, is aiming to extend ISAF's coverage by establishing a total of five 'Provincial Reconstruction Teams' (PRTs) - units made up of soldiers, civil engineers and other specialists - in the country's north and west where the security situation is more stable.

But it is clear that the initial target of getting the PRTs up and running by the time of NATO's Istanbul summit (28-29 June) will be missed and that the elections provide the new deadline.

NATO's difficulties in mustering the forces and equipment needed have been exemplified by the Alliance's initial failure to assemble sufficient helicopters - essential in Afghanistan's mountainous terrain - even though the European members of NATO alone have over 2,000 choppers in their inventories.

The Alliance also faces shortfalls in forward operating forces, strategic airlift, logistical and intelligence support as well as communications.

Given the above, what hope is there that the EU, with its array of militarily neutral members states, can deliver on smaller operations?

Given that EU member states will not put more money into their defence budgets to make up shortfalls in terms of equipment and highly trained forces, the success of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) relies on more effective pooling of resources, better interoperability and joint procurement initiatives.

But the challenge of turning commitments into troops and kit on the ground is a major one.

Analysts agree that the problems NATO has faced are also issues for the Union's nascent defence forces.

Major-General Graham Messervy-Whiting, former chief of the EU's military staff - now deputy director at the Centre for Studies in Security and Diplomacy at Birmingham University - says: "In the sense that [for NATO and the EU] you have one set of forces and one set of capabilities, if one organization is having problems, then the other is too."

But he rejects the idea that NATO's difficulties over ISAF and the PRTs necessarily mean that the EU would be condemned to ineffectiveness, partly because so far the EU has tried to be realistic about what it can do.

He points out that the EU faces far less problems in taking over from NATO's peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, not least because the area is geographically part of Europe, so there is less reliance on air transport to get troops and equipment in place.

Nevertheless, the most difficult parts of any military mission apply equally to a tough operation, such as Afghanistan, or an ostensibly easier one such as Bosnia.

One of the issues delaying progress on the PRTs is the question of extraction forces, ie being able to get personnel out of dangerous situations.

"Extracting people in a hostile environment at night, etc, is very much at the top of end of what you're doing," comments the former EU chief of staff, adding that it requires highly trained soldiers - precisely the ones who are in shortest supply.

He explains that the same concerns surrounded the EU's peacekeeping mission in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Messervy-Whiting also questions whether there is as much commitment among NATO members to sorting out Afghanistan as is claimed.

"Afghanistan is an operation where NATO is being pushed by the US to do more - and you could argue that not everyone in NATO is keen to do that," he says.

NATO's new Secretary-GeneralJaap de Hoop Scheffer has already expressed his frustration at member states not delivering on their political commitments.

The former Dutch foreign minister is expected to table proposals at the Istanbul summit to ensure these are rapidly honoured.

Meanwhile, analysts point out that the shortfalls encountered by NATO are precisely those identified by the EU in its ongoing examination of its capabilities.

One EU official argued that the shortfalls are well known and being addressed, not least through the new Defence Capabilities Agency, which should be signed off later this month.

"The agency is there to make sure that the capabilities process delivers," the official added.

In one sense, the EU has protected itself against the danger of failure and disappointment by tailoring its ambitions to what it is realistically capable of doing.

But Messervy-Whiting insists that the EU - by setting new deadlines for capabilities of 2010 and focusing on smaller battle groups of 1,000-1,500 troops rather than the 60,000-strong Rapid Reaction Force - is not in the process of lowering its ambitions.

"This is a better definition of ambition," he says. "It's more realistic, setting a bar which is quite high but which all EU-25 can aspire to meet, thereby forcing the pace.

"I would be positive about any approach which aims for an incremental improvement. That's how the EU works."

• Simon Taylor is a Brussels-based freelance journalist.

• Primary Source