comitato          attività          studi          documenti          occidente          yata          club          forum          press          links                      @           home     English Version         

NATO's Past, Present, and Future Operations

Maj. Gen. Giovanni Marizza

Chairman NATO PBIST WG

Rome, Center for High Defense Studies, 25th September 2006

 

    1. NATO's past, present and future operations contribute to stability and this brings me to the first point I would like to emphasize: NATO means (internal) stabilization.
      If you refer to history, you can see that NATO is a free Alliance of free countries who had been previously in a situation at war with each other. Consider, for example, France and Germany and think of the war of 1870, of WWI in 1914-1918, of WWII in 1940-1945. The list of wars between those two countries is long and bloody. But the era of wars between Paris and Berlin ended when both these countries became members of the Atlantic Alliance. There are dozens of other examples: USA vs Spain, USA vs Italy, USA vs Germany, USA vs UK, UK vs Germany, Germany vs Poland, Italy vs Greece, ... It is almost impossible to find a current NATO member who has never been at war with another current NATO member.
      All those bad stories ended in 1949, when the Atlantic Alliance was born. Since the beginning, the Warsaw Pact has been an Alliance from which member countries tried to get out and NATO has been an Alliance where countries tried to get in. The NATO waves of enlargement are a sort of "life insurance": a country who is admitted to NATO is aware to join an area of stability.
       
    2. The second point I would like to emphasize is similar to the previous one: NATO means (external) stabilization.
      NATO is a very powerful vehicle of stabilization also outside the territory of its member countries. After winning the Cold War without shooting a single bullet, on February 14th, 1994, the Alliance had the opportunity to shoot its first rockets. The targets were Serbian aircraft, shot down in the skies of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
       
      The Balkans, characterized by the implosion of the former Yugoslavia, were the first region, out of the territorial competence of the Washington Treaty, to be stabilized by NATO.
      In the post-cold war scenario, where everything is inter-related, the stabilization of the Balkans has contributed also to the stabilization of the Mediterranean, Middle East and North africa.
      Five years later, in 1999, the Atlantic Alliance is called upon to fight its first, true, conventional war, again in the Balkans, again versus Serbia, who is carrying out an ethnic cleansing operation in Kosovo.
      The plan of Milosevic was not only criminal, but also absurd, because you cannot ethnically clean a country, or a province, of its majority.
       
      At this point, there is a very important detail to be stressed. NATO is usually (and wrongly) seen as the spearhead of the Western World, as a sort of Christian, armed Holy Alliance. Nothing could be more wrong. First of all, since 1952 there has a well-known NATO member country with the Crescent on its flag. And then, in both the occasions I mentioned, in 1994 and in 1999, the Atlantic Alliance intervened in order to protect muslim populations:
       
      • first the Muslim population of Bosnia-Herzegovina;
         
      • and then the Muslim population of Albanians in Kosovo.
         
      Did NATO succeed in its attempt to stabilize Balkans? The answer is undoubtedly "yes", because:
       
      • the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina has improved a lot and the responsibility for the operation there has been given to the European Union (when the EU keeps the situation in its hands, it means that the danger is over);
         
      • Kosovo, which will not remain forever a protectorate of the international community, is in a phase of definition of its final status;
         
      • the whole area is on the path towards Partnership for Peace and towards membership in both NATO and the European Union.
       
      Afghanistan is in a much more difficult and demanding stabilization phase, in comparison to the Balkans. ISAF is currently managed by NATO and the various NATO Rapid Reaction Corps are alternating in the management of the International Security and Assistance Force.
       
      Iraq is another operational theater where NATO is involved at a much lower profile. As you can remember, the "Iraqi Freedom" Operation was a dividing event not only for NATO but also for other international organizations (UN, EU) and for the international community. Two NATO countries (USA and UK) participated in the military campaign against the Iraqi regime, other NATO members were in favour of the campaign without a direct participation, other countries were definetely against the war.
       
      The NATO country closest to Iraq, I mean Turkey, was in a very sensitive position, because it was worried about the possibile implications of the Kurdish problem. One of the most delicate moments was when the Turkish Parliament refused, on March, 1st, 2003, to give American troops the permission to use the Turkish territory in order to attack Iraq from the North. That moment produced some attrition between Washington and Ankara.
      Today the "Iraqi Freedom" Operation is carried out by a Coalition of the Willing, and several NATO members participate in the Coalition, obviously on an individual basis and without the flag of the Alliance.
      NATO, as an Alliance, is involved in Iraq only with the so-called NATO Training Mission, NTM. This mission has the task of helping the Iraqi Armed Forces to become modern and efficient, building and organizing the local military academy and providing advice and equipment (I recall, for example, the dozens of tanks T77 provided to Iraq by Hungary).
       
      I would like to stress again the importance of Turkey. The particular position and the strength and efficiency of its armed forces have made Turkey one fundamental pillar of the Alliance during the Cold War. Today, Turkey is not less important because it is still surrounded by potential crisis areas: Balkans, Caucasus, Iran, Irak, Middle East, Mediterranean Sea. So, the security of Europe depends on the security of Turkey. It is not a mistery that in the past there has been some attrition with Greece. When two neighbouring countries have bilateral problems, it is advisable to either have them both within the same regional organization, or keep them both outside.
      From this point of view, the behaviour of NATO has been very wise, because in 1952 both Greece and Turkey were admitted to the Alliance at the same time.
      On the other hand, we must say that the behaviour of the EU has not been at the same level of wisdom, having kept Greece within the Union and Turkey, till now, outside. It is my personal opinion that allowing Turkey to join the EU as soon as possible is not only advisable, but would be for the benefit of everybody.
       
    3. The third point I would like to emphasize is about a possible NATO involvement in Lebanon. You may remember that historically Israel has always refused interposition forces at its borders. This refusal was based upon the low level of efficiency of UN troops. If you want a good example of low efficiency, just think of UNIFIL.
      During the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, something new happened: during the last days of the conflict, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed, for the first time, the deployment of an international force. Not a UN or EU force, but a NATO force. The reason is probably the universally recognized high level of efficiency of the NATO Forces, who - unlike UN or EU - would be able to disarm Hezbollah. This proposal took NATO itself by surprise; actually the Alliance didn't accept the involvement, because it would have been perceived, in the area, as a Western and pro-Israeli force.
      The solution, as you know, has been the reinforcement of the current UNIFIL mission, called UNIFIL 2, where the number 2 probably means "between 2 forces: hammer and anvil". The risk is that this Force may do nothing else than permitting the arms race for the next round. At that point that force will be exactly "between hammer and anvil".
      If I may share with you another personal opinion, the Lebanese crisis has been a lost opportunity not for NATO, but for a specific NATO initiative: I'm referring to the Mediterranean Dialogue. Why not employ an interposition force representing both NATO members and the countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue? With the exception of Israel, of course, because Israel is an involved party. But I don't see any serious reason for not employing military units coming from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, along with NATO forces.
       
    4. The fourth point is linked with the previous one and regards the possibility for Israel to join NATO. Sometimes this question has come out in official and non-official fora. Last January, Mr. Aznar, former Spanish Prime Minister, proposed again the idea. Also in Italy there are many political leaders in favour of this membership: Mr. Berlusconi, Mr. Pannella and others, who support also the candidacy of Israel in the EU. The idea is good, but unfortunately it is not practically feasible. It is impossible for not less than three reasons, one of which is related to NATO and the third one to Israel itself.
       
      • First reason. The NATO enlargement has the purpose of exporting stability, non importing instability. Admitting Israel, NATO would undoubtedly import instability. NATO, in fact, would be suddenly in conflict with the majority of the muslim world, without drawing a single cartoon about the Prophet.
         
      • The second reason is linked to the first. It's true that Israel has a lot of positive requisites for joining the Alliance: it is a democracy, it has a market economy, there is a democratic control over the armed forces, it has very efficient and powerful military structures,... but it lacks a fundamental one: the absence of conflicts with its neighboring countries. Remember that out of 23 countries of the Arab League, 18 don't recognize the existence of Israel.
         
      • Third reason. What's the opinion of Israel itself? NATO cannot admit Israel without asking its opinion. I think Israel is not interested in the idea, because historically Israel has always privileged the multi-bilateral relations; that's why I suppose that being tied within an Alliance would be too restrictive for it. In an Alliance like NATO, everything has to be decided by consensus: for Israel it would be very difficult to obey to a common nuclear policy. And it would be impossible for it to carry out unilateral "sensitive" activities. I think that having outstanding military capabilities is, for Israel, more than enough.
       
      Approaching the conclusions, the future NATO operations will be numerous but difficult, also because of the mistakes of the past.
       
    5. And this allows me to to come to the fifth and last point I would like to stress. Today, NATO is fighting against the mistakes of the past. Today, NATO is obliged to do also the job of two regional organizations that don't exist anymore. I'm referring to two Alliances:
       
      • SEATO (South Eastern Asia Treaty Organization);
         
      • and, above all, CENTO (CENtral Treaty Organization).
         
      Now, let's dig a little bit in the history, because history is always rich of lessons to be learned. As you may remember, at the beginning of the Cold War a "security belt" of regional alliances was established in order to contain the Soviet Union: NATO from the West, CENTO from the South and SEATO from Southwest, according to the policy of the so-called "containment". Between those three alliances, there was a territorial continuity, thanks to two important pivot-countries:
       
      - Turkey (here, again, you can see the strategic importance of this country), who belonged at the same time to NATO and CENTO;
       
      - and Pakistan, who belonged both to CENTO and to SEATO.
       
      Out of the three alliances, CENTO, with the perspective of today, was perhaps the most important one. Born from the Baghdad Pact, it was composed of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and United Kingdom (the USA was an associate member) and the headquarters was located in Baghdad. In 1959, after the overthrowing of the monarchy in Iraq, Baghdad withdrew from the alliance and the headquarters was transferred to Ankara. 1979 was a fundamental year: in January the Shah of Persia Reza Pahlevi was exiled, in February a certain ayatollah Khomeini arrived from his exile with an Air France flight, and Iran became a shi'a theocracy, something intolerable for Iraq, where, in the same year, a certain Saddam Hussein took the power. With the ayatollas in power, Iran went out of CENTO and the alliance was disbanded.
      After the disbandment of CENTO, the Soviet Union was no longer "contained", so it was free to expand southwards. In fact, on Christmas day, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. With CENTO alive, the Soviet Union would never have made such a step.
      In 1980 the war between Iraq and Iran began, and a new special corps, called "Hezbollah" was established against Iraq and then transferred to Lebanon against Israel. As you can see, the origins of the Israeli-Hezbollah war of the summer 2006 can be traced back to the Iraq-Iran conflict of the Eighties.
      After the fall of the Soviet Union, the bi-polar world was over and local conflicts, such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, had an opportunity to proliferate. With CENTO alive, Iraq would have never done suche an enterprise. Everything else is history of today.
      Seen with the eyes of today, CENTO was not only a sort of containment for the Soviet Union, it meant also stability for the whole area. In addition, it was a good system in order to have and maintain a moderate, non antagonistic Islam, an allied Islam, not in opposition to the West. Wit CENTO alive, we wouldn't have seen Talibans, Mullah Omar, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, Mujaheddin being exported to Algeria and to Bosnia-Herzegovina. With CENTO alive, you wouldn't have seen the terroristic attacks of New York, Madrid, London, Casablanca, Istanbul, Sharm El Sheikh, Beslan and the future ones. Having permitted, with superficiality and resignation, CENTO to lose a piece after another, has been a tragic mistake, which has originated other mistakes, in a sort of "chain reaction". We are still today suffering the consequences of those mistakes.
      Today, NATO is one of the main actors facing those problems. A powerful tool in the hands of NATO is the Mediterranean Dialogue. I wonder if it would be advisable to enlarge this good initiative to include other countries, and, not being a diplomat, I can afford to speak clear and say the names of those countries: Lybia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.
       
      Concluding, what will be NATO's operations of tomorrow? In my opinion there will be a sort of "division of labour" among International Organizations:
       
      • UN will do low intensity operations (PK);
         
      • EU will carry out medium intensity operations (NEO, stabilization and reconstruction, nation building);
         
      • and NATO will carry out high intensity operations (peace enforcement) not limited to a specific geographical area but worldwide.