PDA

View Full Version : France Blocks U.S. on Elite Force for Afghanistan


Oh Jerusalem
06-29-2004, 07:30 AM
France Blocks U.S. on Elite Force for Afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;type=topNews&storyID=5541266)
Tue Jun 29, 2004 08:27 AM ET
By John Chalmers

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - France has blocked a U.S. bid to deploy NATO's new strike force to safeguard Afghanistan's elections, stoking tension between the two allies that fell out over the Iraq war, diplomats said Tuesday.

"France, and to a lesser extent others such as Spain, are suspicious about using the NATO Response Force (NRF)," said one envoy at the alliance summit in Istanbul.

"It says the force is not ready for this kind of environment and should not be used simply as a sticking plaster for troop shortages on routine operations."

France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.

A senior U.S. official said Rumsfeld had suggested that the alliance could sometimes use its Defense Planning Committee -- on which France has no seat because it is not part of NATO's integrated military structure -- to authorize an NRF deployment.

Such a decision would normally be taken in the North Atlantic Council, a decision-by-consensus body at which all 26 member nations of NATO are represented.

Chirac told a news conference that the NRF -- set up last year with a heavy French contingent but not due to become fully operational until October 2006 -- should only be used when there is a serious security crisis, not for Afghan-style missions.

"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.

CUTTING-EDGE FORCE

Chirac undermined efforts in Istanbul to portray the transatlantic alliance as united once more after the divisions sparked by last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, of which Paris and Berlin were Europe's fiercest critics.

Shortly after the allies had agreed Monday to help the new Baghdad government train security forces, Chirac said he still opposed a formal NATO presence in Iraq.
He also criticized President Bush's support for Turkey's bid to join the European Union, saying it was none of his business.

The NRF is being set up to give NATO the military capability to do what it could not do after the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001: strike back quickly and forcefully when an ally is attacked by a distant foe.

A cutting-edge multinational force with warships, fighter planes and eventually over 20,000 troops, it will be lethal, agile and ready to be deployed to hotspots within five days.

NATO plans to deploy a battalion of around 1,000 troops to Kabul during the elections and some 500 to its five military-backed "reconstruction teams" in northern provinces.

Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces. This means they will not be in place to help with voter registration, which has been dogged by Taliban militia attacks.

One European official said the U.S.-French tussle was more about procedure. Paris is concerned that sending the NRF to Afghanistan could set a precedent for using it as a "toolbox" whenever NATO has problems pooling forces for an operation.

"France worries ... (this) would lead to an automatism jeopardizing the principle that a political decision must be taken before NATO commits to operations such as election protection in Afghanistan," the official said.

David_in_NYC
06-29-2004, 08:15 AM
Ironic that it comes on the same day Chirac demanded that Bush not interfere in France-Turkey relations.

Oh Jerusalem
06-29-2004, 08:20 AM
Ironic that it comes on the same day Chirac demanded that Bush not interfere in France-Turkey relations.
Maybe it's not ironic. Maybe it tallies.

Mediocrates
06-29-2004, 08:23 AM
Maybe it's just the same battle fought on new ground. Maybe the official doctrine of France is to deny NATO or EU assistance in any and all venues associated with the US. Maybe this signals the beginning of a formal diplomatic disengagement between France and the US. I hope so.

RichardP
06-29-2004, 02:42 PM
Chirac is a joke; a wannabe powerbroker throwing infantile tantrums, if, things aren’t his way. Like you, Medio, I hope it’s a sign of formal disengagement between the US and France. Your post, ‘after Arafat’ was very informative and interesting, Mediocrates.

Canajew
06-29-2004, 02:57 PM
Hate to say it, but I think I agree with them on this. If this is to be a quick deploying strike force, then it should always be immediately available for that when it is needed. I also think peace-keeping should be, as much as possible, severed from the fighting military.

Part of the problem in Bosnia was thta Europe and the international community did not have the necessary forces that could be quickly deployed to address issues as they arose, and those forces that were committed were not properly trained or equipped.

What is needed for Afghanistan is simply more troops from nations committed to stabilizing the country and fighting the Islamofacists. Each country should give troops under its own national banner - no real need to use the NATO umbrella to deploy more troops.

Oh Jerusalem
07-06-2004, 12:32 AM
NATO plans Iraq mission despite Chiraq (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373451258)
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and James Drummond and Nicolas Pelham in Baghdad
Published: July 2 2004 20:48 | Last Updated: July 2 2004 20:48

Top Nato commanders are to lead the alliance's first mission to Iraq next week to prepare for the training of security forces inside the country, in spite of the objections of Jacques Chirac, the French president, to using the Nato banner inside Iraq.


A senior US official said on Friday that two American officers, General James Jones, the alliance's supreme commander, and Admiral Gregory Johnson, commander of joint force command Naples, would lead the delegation.

"We are not going to fly battalions of Iraqi soldiers out of the country. We are not going to be distracted by French rhetoric," the official commented.

But the US official, who asked not to be named, rejected media reports suggesting the pre-war transatlantic rift between the US and France threatened the commitment made at this week's Istanbul Nato summit to help Iraq's new government.

The official described Mr Chirac as having been a "little emotional" at his press conference in Istanbul when he had objected to Nato training forces within Iraq, suggesting differences between Paris and Washington were over means, not ends. He said the US welcomed the French offer to train Iraqi police in France.

The US and France, he said, were still working on ways to send additional Nato forces to Afghanistan ahead of elections planned for September. He said President Hamid Karzai wanted to keep to that timetable and the US would support him. France has objected to using Nato's rapid response force for the job.

Analysts in Washington suspect Mr Chirac, and possibly Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, will refrain from offering substantial aid for Iraq before the US presidential election in November.

"Basically, at [Nato's summit in Turkey] we saw an attempt to mask disagreement through agreed statements. In reality, the divisions within Nato remain," commented Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution. "Those who opposed Bush before the war have no incentive to support him now. This is partly because they believe the course embarked upon is bound to fail."

The transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's interim government this week has prompted some Arab countries to consider participating in peacekeeping.

Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister, was reported to have written to the leaders of Bahrain, Oman and Morocco asking them to join other countries in the UN-sanctioned force.

Oman and Morocco, however, have for the moment refused. But Yemen and Jordan have signalled that they could respond positively to an Iraqi request. Reuters reports: The US army has charged four soldiers, three of them with manslaughter, over the drowning of an Iraqi prisoner, officials said on Friday.

Newspaper reports in Colorado, where the soldiers were based, said they were accused of forcing two Iraqis to jump off a bridge in the city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, on January 3.

David_in_NYC
07-06-2004, 01:04 AM
Maybe it's just the same battle fought on new ground. Maybe the official doctrine of France is to deny NATO or EU assistance in any and all venues associated with the US. Maybe this signals the beginning of a formal diplomatic disengagement between France and the US. I hope so.
I sure hope so. The Wall St. Journal had a long, detailed opinion piece on the subject recently, too, which said basically that we should give France the Cheney treatment.

I think the US, and all other free nations, need to withdraw from any policy-making body that includes France. France's international power is almost entirely due to the institutions funded by the USA. It is an appropriate cost that they should lose that power as the consequence of abusing it.

golani
07-06-2004, 01:14 AM
"The NRF is not designed for this. It shouldn't be used just for any old matter," he said. He has added that an overt NATO presence in Afghanistan could in itself exacerbate security problems during the elections.

.
[/i][/QUOTE]

HE KNOWS ... :rolleyes:

Mediocrates
07-06-2004, 05:29 AM
The NRF is a backstop plan to fill in for a decades long EU plan of creating the "RRF" or rapid response force". The NATO alternative was used because after nearly 20 years of trying to create the RRF it is still vapor. There are a few problems with this:

Funding - the EU would have to outspend the US as a portion of GDP for the next ten years to build a credible force.

Mission - on this they are right, there is no clear doctrine for what they would do. What would it 'respond' to?

Command - there is no real defined command structure outside of NATO and no organized approach at all in light of a mission gap.

Politicalization - mission selection is bound as we see now to become highly politicized and would lead the NRF/RRF either to paralysis or to serve purely political-economic-nationalized ends.

Mediocrates
07-06-2004, 05:31 AM
I sure hope so. The Wall St. Journal had a long, detailed opinion piece on the subject recently, too, which said basically that we should give France the Cheney treatment.

I think the US, and all other free nations, need to withdraw from any policy-making body that includes France. France's international power is almost entirely due to the institutions funded by the USA. It is an appropriate cost that they should lose that power as the consequence of abusing it.


I think if we merely admit to one another that we each follow radical different national foreign policy agendas it would help. After all nothing works like success. The US has emerged as the sole superpower and we believe that we can spread that success to the rest of the world. Europe - to be fair is enjoying the longest period of time SINCE THE ROMAN EMPIRE of not butchering each other. So this is what they believe they are supposed to spread around the world.

Binyamin
07-06-2004, 05:46 AM
Maybe the official doctrine of France is to deny NATO or EU assistance in any and all venues associated with the US. Maybe this signals the beginning of a formal diplomatic disengagement between France and the US. I hope so.
It seems like Reuters is scared of this, and they went out of their way to remind us that America won't, or can't, act independent of France:
...stoking tension between the two allies...
"...France's opposition to a proposal that could help resolve NATO's problems finding troops to make the September polls safe exasperated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pushed the idea hard at a meeting of allied defense ministers.
A senior U.S. official said Rumsfeld had suggested that the alliance could sometimes use its Defense Planning Committee...
Chirac undermined efforts in Istanbul to portray the transatlantic alliance as united once more ...
Shortly after the allies had agreed Monday...
The NRF is being set up to give NATO the military capability to do what it could not do after the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001: strike back quickly and forcefully when an ally is attacked by a distant foe. Diplomats said allies had not yet committed all those forces.

Binyamin
07-06-2004, 05:50 AM
I think the US, and all other free nations, need to withdraw from any policy-making body that includes France. France's international power is almost entirely due to the institutions funded by the USA. It is an appropriate cost that they should lose that power as the consequence of abusing it.Its not just France. The U.N. would also lose all its power if the US withdrew.

Mediocrates
07-06-2004, 05:56 AM
Yet according to Judith Klinghoffer's reading of the BBC, France is increasingly isolating itself.

http://hnn.us/blogs/3.html

LE MONDE - FRANCE ISOLATED ON IRAQ


As I have previously noted, US is winning ugly strategically - This item is from the BBC press review which labels it "France's dilemma:"

Under the headline "Splendid isolation", France's Le Monde says the Iraq issue is confronting President Jacques Chirac with "a highly difficult diplomatic equation".

The president, it says, has to work out a way of "maintaining his opposition to the war without appearing to be shamefully nostalgic for Saddam Hussein".

His dilemma is "how not to oppose the reconstruction of a 'sovereign' Iraq without reneging on his original position".

As a result, at the Nato summit in Istanbul "France found itself isolated in its refusal to accede to America's requests and in its blunt criticism of George W. Bush's public pronouncements."

<unfortunately the embedded link is broken>