NATO offers to help to train Iraqi security forces

Producer: Felix Tan
First broadcast: 28 June 04, Radio Singapore International

Leaders at the two-day summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO in Istanbul have offered to help train new Iraqi security forces.

However, it is still unclear whether training would be on Iraqi soil or not as NATO members France and Germany have said that they are unwilling to send troops into Iraq.

So, why are France and Germany still determined not to get involved in the Ira crisis?

Felix Tan put this question to Professor Ray Nicols (RN), former head of department of politics at Monash University in Australia:

RN: “I think one has to go back to the beginning of the build-up to the US invasion, which is just over a year over ago now. And remember how adamant France and Germany both were against the invasion. They argued that it was not justified, that there should only be an operation on the auspices of the UN and the UN had not really sanctioned what President Bush was doing. To a large degree, France and Germany have both held that position. Now it is true that they have tried very hard to cultivate good relations with the Bush administration compared to what they were a year and a year and a half ago. And certainly, things have… but it had been a strong point of French foreign policy - almost regardless of who is President or Prime Minister for at least 50 years now - a legacy of the old Gaullist position - a fear of American hegemony being right at the centre. Germany has been different, of course… Germany has been the staunchest US ally for years, but one must remember that the Chancellor won his last election and got back in office by opposing the US involvement in Iraq. So, none of this is new and most of it is to be expected.”

But do you think that we might see NATO splitting up, I mean not disintegrating, but splitting up because of the obvious disagreements between the members over the Iraqi issue?

RN: “I think a lot of people wonder whether or not NATO has perhaps reached its used-by date… one wonders what is its justification now - 10 years after the end of the Cold War. There has been a great of talk among the major military powers in Western Europe about combining to create some EU military force. Now, that is still more on the drawing board than it is in reality. But it does indicate a capacity to think outside the confines of NATO. NATO is something, which the US has held on to because it is a useful title for the US to operate many of its European connections. Whether the EU continues to think that way, especially with its expansion is a dubious question. Now, the Eastern countries have joined the EU more recently and are sympathetic towards the idea of NATO because they see it as historically as a defence for them against the threat of hegemony from Russia… but things change and that may be one of them.”

Although some NATO members have said or at least agreed to help train the Iraqi security forces, how will such an event take place - even now they cannot decide where the training will take place, whether on Iraqi soil or out of Iraqi soil?

RN: “Well, that is one of these fine points that has to be decided and I suspect they will reach some point of agreement. But I also think that one has to realise that there is less than great enthusiasm on the part of European countries for its involvement in Iraq, even on a training basis. Again, it is a question of whether or not the UN is really the dominant force - not just the titular, legitimating power - but the actual force in Iraq. And that is clearly not the case. It is clearly the United States and to a lesser degree, Britain and then to a much lesser degree, the other countries that are giving support. And as the formal hand over to the interim Iraqi government approaches - we are just two days and some hours away from that now - it does not look at though the security situation has improved. If anything, it looks as though it is deteriorating and it is hardly surprising that a lot of countries would be uneasy about getting involved. Although, of course, it is also the sad case that the mess having been created… someone does need to pick up the pieces.”

The looming beheading of the three Turkish hostages in Iraq, what position will this situation put Turkey in?

RN: “Turkey is in a very difficult position. It has been for many years now attempting to get into the EU itself and there is a very mixed set of attitude within the EU. The issue is partly cultural, it is partly religious, it has a large population and it would become the second most populous country if it joins the EU. And of course, there is the issue of religious differences. But Turkey is also seen by many people as the absolutely crucial bridge between the Islamic countries of the Middle East and the traditionally Christian countries of Europe - that is the position it has occupied for many, many years. It is worth remembering that Turkey has specific problems of its own. The largest of course is the threat of Kurdish independence movement. The movement that would break off bits of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey and create a new Kurdistan - a new national homeland for the Kurdish people who have been struggling against the majorities, which dominate them in all sorts of areas. It is worth also remembering, more specifically, that when the US invasion of Iraq began, the Turks refused to allow the alliance to come in through Turkey to use Turkish airspace and Turkish grounds for an incursion on the northern border. Now, there was a compromise that was eventually made and the coalition invading Iraq did get some logistics support and access through into northern Iraq through Turkey, but that was the most dramatic stance for the Turks to make and it certainly altered the nature of the invasion quite radically. That is well in everyone’s memories. It is hardly surprising that the Turks see themselves as not simply in a difficult position, but somewhat beleaguered.”