Internal reorganisation leads to a struggle for power as the old members of the alliance fight their corners

Date: 03/07/1997

APART from making room for new members, NATO also faces some major decisions about what to do with the old ones.

The Madrid summit will aim to make some of the most fundamental internal changes to the organisation since its inception, and could yet find itself unable to agree on how to carry them out.

The first challenge is a complete redesign of the alliance's European command structure to take account of the kind of leaner, smaller-scale missions NATO is likely to face in the medium-term future.

The second, complementary change is the creation of a 'European security and defence identity' (ESDI), which will allow European nations to act on their own but to use US military equipment.

Under the restructuring plans, NATO's Europe command will be divided into two major sub-units.

The Northern headquarters will be housed at Brunsen in the Netherlands and headed by a European on a rotating basis, while the Southern command will almost certainly be led by an American admiral despite strong pressure from Paris to give the job to a European.

Beneath these, the number of sub-regional units will be cut down from 65 to 24, resulting in a rather undignified scrabble for posts and commands by different nations.

Complicating matters, the redesign is intrinsically linked to Spain and France's integration into the organisation's military arm, leading to some angry turf battles between existing NATO members.

A major sticking point, for example, is whether Spain should be granted military control of the Canary Islands and, as a result, their maritime approaches.

If Madrid succeeds in its aim, Portugal would lose almost half of its waters and consequently a great deal of influence within the alliance. Without the Canaries, however, Spain may well think twice about re-integration.

Similar battles are likely to be fought all over again when France chooses to re-integrate, perhaps within five years, according to insiders.

Another, more 'traditional' argument is currently raging between Greece and Turkey over the number of headquarters which they control in the eastern Mediterranean. This is exacerbating already strained relations between the uneasy neighbours.

It is ironic, NATO diplomats point out, that such niggling internal struggles are being fought just at a time when new members are being invited in.

Neither does the friction bode well for the kind of European solidarity that NATO leaders hope to foster through the creation of an ESDI.

Since last year, the organisation has been fleshing out the mechanisms to make its European elements 'separable but not separate' from the alliance mainstream, so that they can deal with localised operations in which the US does not wish to take part.

“What they have in mind is the kind of operation where nationals have to be airlifted from trouble spots, or troops have to guard humanitarian supplies,” said a NATO spokesman. “This is clearly not designed for major Bosnia-type operations, which require all the allies.”

The idea is that for light tasks, Europe could go ahead by itself under Western European Union (WEU) structures, but using American equipment.

At Madrid, details of how NATO and the WEU will transfer assets and political control for European actions will be finalised, formalising already quite substantial links between the two bodies.

Summiteers will also define the role of the European deputy head of SACEUR - Europe's Supreme Allied Command in Mons - who will be given the official task of leading and coordinating Euro-missions.

The third, although formally separate element of the ESDI will be the creation of special temporary 'combined joint task force' headquarters to deal with the day-to-day running of specific humanitarian missions.

The question is whether all of this will be possible at all, given the clearly differing approaches to Europe's defence role which were demonstrated at last month's Amsterdam summit.

Although NATO insiders do not feel that failure at the Intergovernmental Conference to agree on the Union's defence need pose any specific problems for the ESDI, as they are separate issues, it is clear that politically Europe is still unready for a united defence role.

The continent which, lest we forget, was destroying itself only 50 years ago, still seems to need the presence of the United States to hold it together when it comes to military security. Europe's blatant failure to cooperate on military technology, which was cited as an objective in the new treaty, is just the most clear demonstration of an insularity that still pervades its countries after years of economic integration.

Pessimists need not fear too much, however. No matter what the ESDI turns out to be, it is quite clear that the US, while formally washing its hands of European security matters, will keep a paternal and reassuring arm on Europe's shoulder for some time to come.