NATO reshuffle sparks fierce turf battle

Date: 01/05/1997

By Mark Turner

AN INSTITUTIONAL battle between transatlantic military chiefs this month has made the parallels between EU and NATO expansion even more apparent, although perhaps deceptively so.

During a hectic April, which saw nine of the famous '16±1' meetings where eastern applicants pleaded their case for membership, NATO's warriors found themselves at loggerheads over the future administrative shape of the European command.

On the table are proposals to reduce Europe's four command levels to three, streamline the sub-regional command structure, and divide the continent into two regional units instead of three. Northern command would be housed in Brunssum, in the Netherlands, while the southern headquarters would be in the Italian city of Naples.

The resulting all-out rush for the jobs which would remain has moved the discussion sharply from a technical level to a more political arena.

Although not central to the enlargement of NATO in the same way as the current Intergovernmental Conference is crucial to EU growth, internal battles within an alliance they hope to join must seem all too familiar to eastern membership candidates.

As NATO shifts its post-Cold War role from defence against the threat of a massive Russian invasion to policing and peace-keeping, it is clear that some profound changes will need to be made.

Forty of NATO's 65 headquarters are earmarked to disappear, increasing efficiency but leaving its members fighting to retain their current levels of staff and influence. A NATO spokesman was keen to downplay the scale of the in-fighting, saying: “We certainly had intensive discussions with no final agreement, but I would not call this a dispute.” But the debate which has erupted, even before political leaders have officially had a chance to look at the proposals, took many by surprise.

NATO hopes to reach a compromise when foreign ministers meet in Portugal at the end of May and defence ministers convene in Brussels in June.

If the issue is not settled by then, it will have to go to NATO's summit in July, already faced with a heady menu of eastward expansion and Russian sensitivity.

Twelve states formerly under Russia's sphere of influence are clamouring to join the alliance, ten of which also feel they should be given membership of the EU.

Although in formal parlance the two processes are separate, most of the applicants see their twin bids as two sides of the same coin. This view is reinforced by the fact that the front runners for NATO membership - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - are also likely to feature in the first wave of EU enlargement.

But despite the similarities, NATO accession is widely seen as an easier task than joining the Union, which involves passing and implementing a vast number of internal market laws.