[A-List] The end of NATO?

[Michael Keaney]

Nato squabble puts damper on shake-up
Meeting starts under a cloud following Iraq conflict, writes IAN BRUCE
The Herald, 12 June 2003

THE biggest shake-up in Nato's 54-year history will this week be
overshadowed by haggling over national retention of key headquarters and
their attached jobs.

Amid doubts over America's commitment to Europe in the face of the threat of
global terror, a two-day meeting of the 19-nation alliance starts today in
Brussels.

It was designed to create a leaner, meaner command framework for the
organisation and streamline procurement of the equipment and rapid
deployment forces needed for military operations in the 21st century.

Instead, the first defence ministers' meeting since the Iraq war has already
deteriorated into a dogfight over which countries will keep the main bases
and the kudos and employment they generate. Nato's relevance in a new age of
hi-tech warfare has effectively been sidelined before the conference even
starts.

Tensions over the pecking order have been exacerbated by US announcements of
a rethink on the size and disposition of its overseas garrisons and a move
towards "lily-pad" bases manned by a relative handful of troops where
pre-positioned tanks, artillery and equipment rather than men would be
stockpiled. The Pentagon is in the final stages of a planned exodus from its
traditional and expensive German deployment to smaller forward bases in
Bulgaria, Qatar, and Kyrgyzstan from which strikes could be launched or
re-inforcements funnelled to trouble spots in days rather than months.

The 60,000-strong US military presence in Europe is likely to be scaled down
to 20,000 and concentrated on the hub airbase at Ramstein in southern
Germany and one or two airfields in the UK.

Nato's own plans, agreed in principle at a summit in Prague last November,
are meanwhile placing their own strains on alliance relationships.

They call for a reduction in the number of regional headquarters from 20 to
11. The catch is which countries are to lose them.

Spain, Greece and Turkey are at the centre of the in-fighting.

The Spanish want to retain their Madrid air operations centre, provisionally
scheduled for closure. Greece stands to lose one at Larissa. Both are
suspicious that the Turks, because of their strategic geographic location on
the edge of both Asia and the Middle East, might get a better deal.

The one section finalised in advance is that there will be three joint
regional headquarters at Naples, Brunssum in Holland and a smaller naval
version in Lisbon, Portugal.

Six satellite commands are also to be established, three in southern Europe
and three in the north.

A senior alliance official said yesterday that he was quite optimistic that
an acceptable agreement would be hammered out by the weekend, but he
admitted that "the politics remain to be sorted out".

The US attitude to the alliance may be coloured more by progress reports on
members' efforts towards acquiring the long-range transport aircraft, field
hospitals and precision-guided bombs and missiles vital for a modern, agile
military geared to respond to instant threats and crises.

Lord George Robertson, Nato's outgoing secretary-general, said at the
weekend that Europe could hardly blame America for taking unilateral action
when the entire alliance spent barely half the amount devoted by the US
government to defence.

"Only a Europe that is strong militarily will be listened to in Washington,"
he added.

US commanders turned down offers of troops from its European allies for the
campaign in Afghanistan because their technology was at least a generation
behind.