http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=46538&group=webcast
Strategic importance of European ports in US military deployment against Iraq
by Mischa van Herck 12:31pm Thu Nov 14 '02
The main European harbours are set to play a vital role in the war
preparations against Iraq. They can only be 'replaced' at a very high cost.
Its is clear that without at least the passive collaboration of Belgium and
Europe a war against Iraq would be impossible. The ports of Northern Europe
will be filled with military equipment, supplies and ammunition.
'Victory is the beautiful bright coloured flower. Transport is the stem
without which it could never have blossomed'
(Winston Churchill)
On the August 17 and 18, 1990, the First Division Ready Brigade (DRB) of
the 101 Airborne Division of the US army was sent in all urgency to Saudi
Arabia to discourage an invasion by Iraq. This logistic movement included
2742 soldiers, 117 helicopters and 123 pallets of hardware with the help of
heavy C-5 and C-141 Air Force planes.
However, the movement involved in the Desert Storm Operation obviously
dwarfed what at the time was a seemingly impressive transport movement.
Rapid transport-ships of the US navy and ships of the Ready Reserve Fleet
carried more than 2000 tanks, 2200 other armoured vehicles, 1000
helicopters and many hundreds of different pieces of mobile artillery to
the Persian Gulf. Roughly 85 percent of ammunition was transported by sea.
And an important part of that US and British military transportation went
through the European ports.
Military logistics of the 21ste century
Lieutenant General Roger G. Thompson of the United States Transportation
Command expressed himself in lyrical terms on the logistic efforts of the
Europeans during the Gulf War. In his speech at the Belgian port of Antwerp
on April 27 1999 he declared: "you in Europe supported this massive
transportation effort in so many ways: bus companies delivered our troops
to airfields; the ports of Northern Europe were filled with military
equipment, supplies and ammunition; the Rhine river became a water highway
for thousands of items of rolling stock; railroads contributed their
capability; because we had so many of our own trucks either fully utilised
or sent to Saudi Arabia, the armies of Holland, France, Belgium and Great
Britain offered their truck units to assist; border clearance procedures
were streamlined to allow our convoys and trains to pass more rapidly;
airports and airlines also contributed;"
The speed and the scope of military deployment are of crucial importance in
limiting human and material losses and in deciding a victorious military
outcome. Hence the demand for an enquiry by the American Congress to
determine the logistic needs for the US army in the 21st century. This
'Mobility Requirements Study' (MRS) advised the construction of - initially
20 but later reduced to 19 - supplementary logistics ships. Those ships are
called 'Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off Ships' (LSMR). Eight of those
ships are used in 'prepositioning operations'. This is a permanent presence
at sea of great quantities of military equipment near to potential or acute
areas of conflict (the Army Prepositioning Afloat programme or APA). The
task of the other eleven ships consists in the rapid transportation of
reinforcements from the United States of America or from the Army War
Reserves (AWR) situated outside US territory. One of these AWRs - called
AWR 2 - is located in Europe and spreads over six localities namely:
Brunssum, Coevorden, Eygeslhoven and Vriezenveen in the Netherlands,
Bettembourg in Luxemburg and Zutendaal in Belgium. It is no accident that
these are located near the two "main North European ports, Antwerp and
Rotterdam.
Apart from the LSMR and the ships for the transportation of troops
pertaining to the US Marine Corps, we want also to stress the importance of
the ships of the National Defence Reserves Fleet (NDRF) and of the Ready
Reserve Force. Those are former commercial transport ships which have been
kept in reserve in the US or overseas and which can become operational
within four to one hundred and twenty days in moments of crisis.
The US Army also contracted American merchant ship owners to guarantee its
logistical needs in 'peacetime' (Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement or
VISA). Since the war preparations against Iraq the US Army has approached
the international chartered market. Lloyd's of London announced four times
at the beginning of August 2002 the intentions of the US Navy to charter a
big roll-on-roll-off ship. It was clearly specified that those ships had to
enter three ports in North and South West Europe.
The North Atlantic sea-lane is the most important logistical route for
military deployment in the Middle East. This route includes the ports of
Antwerp, Rotterdam and Bremerhaven (Germany). An American strategic study
mentions the following:
'Strategic lift is the critical lifeline for the Central Command, and is
essential to the success of our operations. At over 7000 air miles and 8000
sea miles, the extraordinary distances from the US amplify the immense
difficulties of moving a force in response to a regional crisis or
contingency. As demonstrated during recent operations in the Gulf Region
and in Somalia, strategic lift must remain a high priority.
Because of the great distances involved and limited theatre infrastructure
in the AOR, the en route support structure provided at European strategic
ports is vital to our ability to meet our operational commitments.' (our
emphasis; quoted from: US and USCENTCOM Strategy and Plans for Regional
Warfare, Anthony H. Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International
Studies, April 1998; page 7)
Diplomatic and legal conditions
Military hardware alone is not enough to resolve those military and
logistical problems. The USA has to invest relentlessly in maintaining and
developing diplomatic relations with its allies. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation plays a pivotal role in this respect. NATO was created in 1949
as an alliance directed against growing Soviet power in Europe. Since the
disintegration of the Soviet Union NATO has been confronting a crisis of
identity. The vision of the US of NATO's future is very clear. The US wants
the alliance to become an instrument of their military hegemony in the
world. More precisely, NATO needs to guarantee free access to vital
logistical infrastructure. That's why the US pressurises the alliance to
move outside of its territorial boundaries. Another study confirms this:
'The debate over NATO's mission has concerned whether and how to transform
an alliance traditionally focused on the defence of members' territory into
an alliance that is also capable - and willing - to respond to the crises
that threaten the allies' collective interests near their territory, or
even farther away. Some observers have summarised NATO's post Cold War
prospects by the phrase "out of area or out of business.'
'NATO will become the reservoir of multinational expertise and essential
infrastructure to conduct the rapid deployment of task forces to respond to
a wide array of crises.' (our emphasis; quoted from : Strategic Assessment
1996: Elements of U.S. Power; Chapter Ten: Security Relationships and
Overseas Presence).
The September 11 events have accelerated this evolution. On October 4, NATO
ambassadors decided to activate article 5 of the Treaty. This meant that
all harbours and airports would be open to American military
transportation. Despite the fact that European civilian infrastructure and
personnel had become a logistical necessity they were still considered a
security liability. Therefore the US wants the legal framework of NATO
members to be adapted to meet the new security demands. Let's quote again
from the strategic military documents:
'With the terrorist actions that occurred in 2001 and the corresponding
heightened concern for the safety of MSC (Military Sealift Command) ships
in the MSCEUR Area of Responsibility, Command Counsel was extensively
involved in force protection/anti-terrorism (FP/AT) planning and
coordination with COMSC and other European commands. Major issues addressed
including defining the legal parameters for use of civilian mariners and
contractor security forces in FP/AT actions and possible legal implications
of these efforts, advising on weapons and self-defence training for
civilian mariners, and assisting in Command negotiations on FP/AT
responsibilities for MSC assets while in the MSCEUR Area of
Responsibility.' (our emphasis; quoted: from The U.S. Navy's Military
Sealift Command, Europe; 2001 in Review, p.33)
This has meant for instance that in Belgium the highest magistrate of the
'main port' of Antwerp decided in September 2002 to prohibit all trade
union demonstrations on the main roads leading to the harbour. The Minister
of Interior also announced a new law which would give private security
companies more powers. Moreover we have discovered lately that the US army
envoys wanted the environment legislation to be adapted to circumvent the
necessary inspections and security reports from local civil servants. This
will mean increased risks for dockworkers, fire fighters and other
personnel in the harbour.
Political consequences
The European harbours, and in particular the so-called 'main ports, are set
to play a vital role in the war preparations against Iraq. They can only be
'replaced' at a very high cost. Its is clear that without at least the
passive collaboration of Belgium and Europe a war against Iraq would be
impossible.
This fact has far-reaching political consequences. In many, if not all,
European countries the question of the war preparations against Iraq is
dividing political parties and governments. The leaders of the 'socialist
parties' claim they are opposed to the military solution against Iraq, at
least in words. But there is no doubt that once the diplomatic manoeuvres
inside or outside the United Nations have been exhausted these parties will
rally behind the US/UK attack. 'We have done everything we could' will be
their reply. The reaction of the Green parties will not be very different.
This will be sheer hypocrisy! As they are fully aware of the above
mentioned facts, a genuine opposition to the war would mean closing the
European ports to US and British troops and military hardware. The absence
of Belgian or German warships in the waters of the Middle East does not
mean these counties are not participating in the war effort. In the
Netherlands a ship being used for US military transportation was spotted
two weeks ago in the port of Eemshaven. This has led to parliamentary
interventions. Both the ministers of Interior and Defence replied that the
ship was there for civilian purposes and that the US marine soldiers on the
ship were in the port for 'recreation'.
At a recent press conference, Vonk, a Belgian dunny paper, also denounced
the use of the Antwerp harbour for military purposes and it is waging a
campaign of young people and trade unionists against the war and against
capitalism. The launching of an Anti-War Committee in the same city
attracted some 50 young people last week.
The trade unions in Europe and the antiwar movement, if they are really
serious about their opposition to the war, should therefore call for and
organise a trade union boycott of military transportation in the harbours
and demand the dissolution of NATO itself.
