Nato stretching its old borders

Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is not comfortable in the role of "global cop".

But despite growing budget problems of its own, the Brussels-based military organisation, which sprang from a Cold War alliance to combat Soviet expansionism, finds itself filling gaps as the Bush Administration retreats from costly engagements such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nato's top diplomat has a ready rationale: in a world of globalised insecurity a regional approach simply no longer works.

So Nato is turning from a Eurocentric alliance into a much more flexible instrument with which "we can project stability wherever our common security is threatened".

As Nato expands its influence to theatres outside its old Cold War realm, New Zealand is increasingly being drawn into its orbit. Our troops are working alongside Nato's command in Afghanistan - the first "out-of-area mission" for the 26-nation alliance.

When de Hoop Scheffer visited New Zealand recently he suggested our provincial reconstruction team stayed on beyond its present tour due to end late next year.

He also sees a role for New Zealand in helping Nato to train Iraqi troops.

"If we look at Iraq, we have a training mission where all 26 allies are participating either by training inside Iraq or outside Iraq or by contributing financially."

On Afghanistan, it was "well outside ... New Zealand's direct area of interest - as it is for Nato, by the way.

"But we are both fighting those people who want to see Afghanistan becoming this black terrorist hole again."

The Clark Government, facing an election, has made no commitments that it would entertain a formal Nato request.

But de Hoop Scheffer hopes New Zealand will commit longer term.

New Zealand needs to stay involved because the spread of terrorism is a global issue, he says. If there was no international presence in Afghanistan "that country would restart exporting terrorism. Where does that problem end? It ends on our doorstop".

Nato is involved in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq - areas where New Zealand's special forces and peacekeepers have also been engaged.

"At this very moment we are defending the same values which are dear to New Zealand and to Nato; human rights, democracy and the rule of law."

De Hoop Scheffer also shared some insights on the need for nations to have modern military capabilities.

"Today forces that are geared mainly to territorial defence are - to put it bluntly - a waste of money," he told the Institute of International Affairs.

"What we really need are forces that can react quickly, that can be deployed over distance and then sustained over a long period of time to get the job done."

Nato itself had been pushing that kind of military transformation.

It now has a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence battalion and response force with multinational force packages in place.

"We have to arrive at a better mix of forces capable of performing both high-intensity combat tasks and the kind of post-conflict reconstruction work in which New Zealand forces have established such an excellent reputation."

De Hoop Scheffer is credited with performing a balancing role between the US and Europe during the Iraq crisis. The then Dutch Foreign Minister managed to keep the Hague onside with Washington even though the Netherlands did not commit on-the-ground troops.

In a Herald interview, he would not be drawn by suggestions that the United Nations is too factionalised and slow to make the sort of quick responses he promotes but he believes Nato's unique military organisational capabilities fall naturally out of its integrated command.

When the UN asks Nato to act on its behalf, as is happening in Afghanistan and Kosovo, "Nato will do that".

The Bush Administration is under pressure from Republican conservatives who want to see Nato, rather than the UN, used as the driver for multilateral military engagements.

At issue is the ability of UN Security Council members to thwart US proposals to directly engage in areas they consider outside America's interests.

Asked how he would steer his way through that minefield, de Hoop Scheffer replies: "I think that demand on Nato will increase and certainly not diminish. Although I want a stronger relationship with the UN, given the fact that we are more and more operating in operations under the UN's mandate, Nato will not involve itself directly or indirectly in discussions on the future of the UN."

Foreign Affairs Minister Phil Goff suggests it is in the Bush Administration's interests to see a beefed up Security Council delegating more military powers to Nato.

"It has restrictions on its own albeit quite formidable strength," says Goff. "But it also sees there are limitations to unilateral action.

"If a wider range of countries have ownership over the solution then there is a greater prospect of success."

Goff uses Afghanistan as an example where New Zealand's provincial reconstruction team relies on the US for medical evacuation and logistics support.

"Nato is seen as taking an increasing role in that area and we may well in future find ourselves working alongside Nato rather than the US.

"We'd be happy to do so provided we had the same guarantees for our personnel on the ground and logistic supplies and medical evacuation, so issues like that can be properly dealt with."