This is a Financial Times piece on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's eagerness for NATO to lead Polish troops in Iraq. The article briefly considers France's hesistation, as well as Germany's. They are waiting for Iraq to have some sovereign stauts.
It seems to me that NATO will readily accept a (near) future role in Iraq. I don't think France & Germany (or Belgium) are as reluctant now that the US has gone to war compared to their veto of defense for Turkey in the run up to war. Also, I think Poland's presence places pressure on France and Germany.
Rumsfeld gave the speech in Munich. He outlines a broad, and optimistic vision for NATO's future (including more expansions).
Rumsfeld attempts to draw Nato into Iraq
By Judy Dempsey and Peter Spiegel in Munich
Published: February 6 2004 22:53 | Last Updated: February 6 2004 22:53
Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, called on Nato to take over command of the Polish-led multinational force in south-central Iraq, the first public attempt by Washington to draw France and Germany into the country since the invasion.
Mr Rumsfeld was speaking on Friday after a special meeting of Nato defence ministers attended by all 19 members and the seven countries that will join the alliance in April.
Although he said there was no timetable for the Iraqi operation, Nato officials said they hoped to get agreement by the time the alliance holds its June summit in Istanbul. US officials hope that the handover can take place before sovereignty is returned to the Iraqis on July 1.
Although Nato's participation would not change the military balance in Iraq, it would have political significance, bringing recalcitrant European allies, particularly France, back into the fold.
Nato's presence would also help secure legitimacy and support in the region for the US presence in Iraq.
A move to take the Polish sector could be followed by a proposal to subsume the British-controlled southern provinces, based in Basra, creating an all-Nato flank south of Baghdad.
Jerzy Szmajdzinski, Polish defence minister, said he hoped the handover could happen this year, a view shared by other Nato members. Nato provides command-and-control assets to the Polish headquarters, but is not present on the ground.
Mr Rumsfeld was supported in the meeting by other Nato members, but declined to say who they were. Nato diplomats said backing came from several of the countries already in Iraq, including Poland, Italy and Spain.
Ministers from Germany and France did not join in the discussion, diplomats said. One said there was optimism that France may come on board "once you have a sovereign Iraqi government, things change. Things that are not possible now may be possible then".
A senior French official confirmed Paris would be ready to send troops "if the conditions were right". "It depends on how power is transferred back to the Iraqi people, what role the United Nations will have, and under what conditions the Iraqi government would invite Nato to take over the command," he said.
Germany, however, would find it hard to send troops, since Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, has promised his soldiers would not bear arms in Iraq.
Despite Mr Rumsfeld's optimism, Nato's new secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was unwilling to re-open wounds caused by deep and bitter divisions inside Nato over Iraq.
"Let's take things step by step. Let's see the political developments inside Iraq. It will depend on what the Iraqi government would or would not like Nato to do," he said.
Posted by Roya Aziz at February 8, 2004 03:09 AMI will try to post European press reaction in the comments section. Reports weren't out as of yet.
Posted by: Roya at February 8, 2004 03:11 AMGood.
A follow-up would be great.
In view of the article there is a difference between France who might send troops if the right conditions are met, and Germany in which Shröder was elected thanks to his opposition to the war. Why do you think that Poland's presence places pressure on them?
This Guardian link gives a good round up of press reaction (mainly from Europe) in response to Rumsfeld's speech in Munich. It comes from columnists and editorial pages. The reactions give a good idea of the tension at Munich. It appears not much has changed since a year ago, when the TransAtlantic split began to deepen.
I think Poland's presences places pressure on Germany and France because it is part of the administration's loving New Europe. While the traditional European powers are holding to their anti-invasion stance, here's a new EU country looking for the benefits of working with Washington. Maybe it's not pressure per se. Perhaps it will prompt Germany and France to ignore or marginalize Poland in their home (EU) territory. Too simple a view?
Re France and Germany's positions on their roles in Iraq. I think Shroeder would sign up if there was an international presence and the Germans can appear as peacekeepers, not as servants of the occupiers.
Posted by: Roya at February 9, 2004 10:18 PM