HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/54770.html Prepare an international force Frederick Bonnart International Herald Tribune Tuesday, April 16, 2002 NATO and the Mideast -A robust external military presence, sufficiently impartial to be acceptable to all, is required. It will have to be international, highly disciplined and well-equipped....The only organization that could rapidly supply such a force is NATO. Consisting of Europeans as well as of Americans, it could be acceptable to both sides. -As in the Gulf War, NATO organizational and procedural arrangements would be used, although the assets would have to be exclusively national. The chain of command is already in place. In the Pentagon's distribution of American worldwide military responsibilities, the Middle East falls to the U.S. European Command. Its commander in chief is General Joseph Ralston, who is also NATO's Supreme Commander Europe, with his headquarters at Mons, Belgium. -The NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo are valuable precedents in this case. BRUSSELS The Middle East crisis looks intractable at present, but sooner or later it will have to end in a form of accommodation. The first step has to be a cessation of hostilities, regardless of whether a cease-fire is tied to other negotiations. Both sides would then have to feel sufficiently secure to proceed without a continuation of the cycle of violence. The rapid insertion of an impartial external force is therefore essential. Secretary of State Colin Powell has offered American observers to help monitor an agreement. But in the present climate of heavy bloodshed and widespread hate and fear, mere observers are unlikely to be sufficient. Also, Americans are not considered to be impartial by all. A robust external military presence, sufficiently impartial to be acceptable to all, is required. It will have to be international, highly disciplined and well-equipped. The only organization that could rapidly supply such a force is NATO. Consisting of Europeans as well as of Americans, it could be acceptable to both sides. But this conflict is so far removed from NATO's treaty area, and so sensitive, that the organization is not even prepared to consider an intervention. However, most member nations would be willing to participate in an undertaking which stops the violence and provides the conditions for a peaceful solution, and which at the same time removes a threat to their vital national interests. A coalition of the willing, under American leadership, on the model of the Gulf War coalition could certainly be raised. There would be no question of such a force imposing peace from the outside. The essential prerequisites are: full commitment by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to a cease-fire, their agreement to the presence of such a force, and a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Participation by Russia would be extremely important. As in the Gulf War, NATO organizational and procedural arrangements would be used, although the assets would have to be exclusively national. The chain of command is already in place. In the Pentagon's distribution of American worldwide military responsibilities, the Middle East falls to the U.S. European Command. Its commander in chief is General Joseph Ralston, who is also NATO's Supreme Commander Europe, with his headquarters at Mons, Belgium. The military forces of member nations have interoperable equipment and are well practiced in cooperation and common procedures, as are many of the 30 partner countries, of which Russia is one. The NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo are valuable precedents in this case. However, an important difference is likely. The operations in the Balkans were carried out with a minimum of own casualties, but an intervention in this case might prove costlier. Since Palestinian and Israeli extremist factions oppose all negotiations, and since neither side has full control over such groups, individual acts of terrorism will continue to take place, regardless of agreements made by leaders. Armed attacks on each other, as well as on the international force, would probably occur. Although rules of engagement would have to allow robust armed action whenever the safety of their personnel is threatened, casualties among intervention troops would be inevitable and could be numerous on occasion. So leaders of contributing countries would have to rally the will of their own populations when body bags began to arrive. Reaching agreement on an interim solution, let alone a peace treaty, is likely to be a protracted process; participating governments must therefore be prepared to maintain their commitment for a long time. The United States and European countries already deploy troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan, in addition to other national commitments; involvement in this crisis would put a heavy strain on their military resources. The costs of such an operation would thus be considerable. However, as ever more lives are lost, essential infrastructure is ruined and mutual distrust grows daily, the cost of inaction would be far greater. The time is past for verbal strictures. Western countries must now convert them into action. Planning and preparation will take time. Agreement in principle for it needs rapidly to be obtained, and preparatory action should begin forthwith. The writer, editorial director of NATO's Nations, an independent military journal, contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
