NATO and Rumsfeld’s public support
Arvamus | 01 Oct 2002  | Tõnu NaelapeaEWR
Last week, on Sept. 25th, in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on International Relations : Europe Subcommittee expressed support to NATO and endorsed seven candidates for membership.

The following is an excerpt from H.Res. 468 in “affirming the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), supporting continued United States participation in NATO, ensuring that the enlargement of NATO proceeds in a manner consistent with United States interests, and for other purposes. // ... //Therefore, based on the information available, the Subcommittee should consider endorsing the candidacies of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.” The committe pointed out in its lengthy report the various specific abilities of candidate countries, and how they can complement NATO forces, all counched in ensuring new geopolitical realities.



US. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chose that same date to address the NATO question at his daily briefing. While, of course the eyes and ears of the media are focusing on the Iraq question, thus allowing little if any coverage for NATO expansion affairs it was reassuring that Rumsfeld took the time to talk to the media oulining the key issues at the NATO defense minister’s meeting in Poland.

On September 25 the defense ministers of the 19-member ( at present) alliance met in Warsaw, the last major ministerial-level event held in preaparation for the alliance’s November 21-22 summit in Prague. This will be the first time a NATO summit will be held in a former Warsaw country.

Rumsfeld indicated that the alliance is grappling with impiortant structural changes, making direct reference to expansion, noting by name all seven candidate states endorsed in H. Res 468. Of course, being the politician that he is, he would not give any indication to how he would play his personal hand. Rightfully so, as this should be decided by all members of the alliance. It is a given, that new members will be accepted, and the work performed by the Baltics in preparation has not gone unnoticed, even by the Defense Secretary’s cautious standards. It seemed that he is heeding his colleagues suggestions on the Hill.

Rumsfeld addressed at length the relations that a new NATO might have with Russia, this in the context of the terrorism question.

Indeed, the Defense Secretary seemed not to trule out joint NATO and Russia co-operation in that struggle. The new security challenges in the uncertain period aheead, especially with public European opposition to a US strike on Iraq, most notably in Germany, (where opposition proved to be the difference in the recent re-election of Gerhard Schröder) and on the streets of Tony Blair’s Britain, the USA’s staunchest ally.

Rumsfeld noted: “To be ready, NATO will need 21-st century capabilities. In that connection we did discuss [in Warsaw] the possible creation of a NATO response force that could give the alliance a capability to deploy a significant fighting force in a matter of days or weeks rather than in months and years.”

The ministers discussed the reform of command structures, eliminating unneeded bases (to reassure Russia?) as well as command structure and forces as the means to reorient NATO - members present and future - to deal with new threats.

Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin presented a detailed briefing of Iraq’s weapons at the same meeting.

Thius is where the Baltics and their special small expedition forces, expertise in de-mining, engineering and communication, world leading status in canine intelligence (bomb-sniffing dogs) more, can serve a valuable role.

As we count down the weeks leading to Prague, one hopes that the Iraq question does not entirely overshadow the Summit and expansion. With the support from numerous House and Senate committees and a strong lobby, these weeks will be tense for Balts but should deliver the desired outcvome of alliance membership, if Rumsfeld is to be taken at his full word.



 
Arvamus