Germany: AFGHANISTAN OVERSHADOWS NATO MEETING

Offered by:




Allies Deeply Divided on Eve of Summit

As western leaders prepare to gather in Riga for the NATO summit, the alliance is deeply divided on Afghanistan. While the Americans and British want a military solution, the Germans are lobbying for their brand of development aid backed by armed troops.

The United States president was connected by secure video line to the situation room of the German chancellery. Only a handful of senior staff were allowed to attend as George W. Bush and Angela Merkel discussed the state of the world.
The situation in Iraq, the nuclear dispute with Iran, the crisis in Lebanon -- they left out none of the issues that Western leaders are grappling with. Finally the chancellor turned to the most sensitive issue on her mind.
Yes, the situation in Afghanistan was difficult, but the German army was doing an important job in the north. That's where 40 percent of the Afghan population lives. With almost 3,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, she reminded the president, Germany was one of the biggest troop contributors and was making a major contribution to civil reconstruction and had already trained 16,000 police officers.
The chancellor explained Germany's policy of combining security with reconstruction. Military involvement was important but at the end of the day the West needed to fight for the Afghans' hearts and minds, she said. The president listened intently -- and changed the subject.
Massive pressure on Germany
Among allies, arguments among the top decision-makers are frowned upon and avoided. Rows usually take place among the mid-level government officials. It's here that Washington has been exerting massive pressure on Germany even in the two weeks since the video conference. Germany should start taking part in the often lethal fighting in Afghanistan. The Americans are being backed in their call by their most obedient allies -- the British. It has emerged that there have been several requests below the official NATO level for the German army, the Bundeswehr, to deploy in the south. They were rejected.
Merkel's government has now gone on the offensive. Last Thursday, Germany's ambassador to NATO in Brussels sent a confidential message back to Berlin saying that he had, "as instructed," strongly represented Germany's position in the NATO council the previous day and had rejected the view taken by the Americans. Afterwards several ambassadors had praised him for standing up to the Americans, he reported.

In every speech and every interview they give, Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier try to tell the public that Germany is beyond any reproach in Afghanistan. Steinmeier told British members of parliament visiting Berlin, "I don't want to let myself be berated" for the reconstruction work Germany is doing in Afghanistan. On the face of it, the offensive has been successful. Last Thursday, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer -- who had been among the most vocal critics of Germany's position -- backtracked in a telephone conversation with Merkel. He later said in public remarks in Brussels that the Germans weren't the first port of call when it came to providing more troops for southern Afghanistan. "That could have come sooner," a disgruntled Steinmeier said in Berlin.
Desperate show of unity
De Hoop Scheffer, a Dutchman, desperately wants to prevent the row over Afghanistan from overshadowing the NATO summit in Riga. Every two years the leaders of the world's mightiest military alliance meet to present themselves as a club of friends. This year is to be no different. Bush and Merkel, Britain's Tony Blair and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan want to spread confidence and demonstrate unity when they gather for the group photo in Latvia's capital on Wednesday.
But such displays have rarely been as false as they appear this year. NATO's leaders are deeply divided and at a loss. The fall of the Soviet Union 15 years ago deprived the alliance of a common enemy and of a purpose, and has confronted them with a lot of key questions.
Is NATO predominantly a political alliance or a classic defense alliance? Who is the enemy? Radical Islamists, aspiring nuclear powers like Iran, or even Russia? What should Washington's influence be, how can the burdens be balanced between America and Europe? Is there a division of labor under which one side is responsible for war and the other for armed development aid? Where should NATO end -- at the European Union's eastern frontier, in Georgia or possibly in Australia, Japan or New Zealand?
The governments have stashed away this crisis of purpose in files marked "Confidential" and "Secret". The final communiqué has of course already been completed, apart from minor details. It has already been decided that the summit will be a success. But this success comes at a high price -- and the deep divisions aren't being tackled.
Afghanistan a test case
That applies in particular to the alliance's most pressing problem. Afghanistan has become a test case. If the alliance fails there, "NATO will be finished," says former US presidential advisor Brent Scowcroft. But it's precisely Afghanistan that is highlighting how differently the partners view the role of the alliance.
The Germans in the north are trying to demonstrate how it's possible to rebuild a small developing nation through painstaking, armed development aid. In the south, by contrast, the British, Americans, Dutch and Canadians are incurring losses in a bloody campaign against the Taliban and their allies.
The war in Afghanistan has claimed the lives of 350 US soldiers, 42 Canadians and 41 British troops. The alliance tends to maintain a shamed silence about the number of civilian casualties of its battles. But the Americans' own allies are starting to criticize US military tactics, saying the bombing raids and violent house searches are mobilizing the civilian population against the NATO troops.

(Click on the title to see the entire article)