By STEPHEN CASTLE
The United States was to outline plans overnight to transform Nato from a defensive military pact into an alliance able to tackle rogue states and terrorist threats, complete with a new, 20,000-strong rapid reaction force.
The proposal, to be unveiled at an informal meeting in Warsaw, could be the last chance for the 19-nation alliance to rescue itself from post-September 11 irrelevance.
But Washington's plans to remodel Nato will present a dilemma for some Nato countries, with Germany and France uneasy about Washington's apparent desire to see alliance forces take pre-emptive action against ill-defined terrorist threats. Berlin and Paris may want guarantees that a Nato rapid reaction force would act only in accordance with United Nations resolutions.
The US blueprint for Nato reform was to be presented by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who also planned to use the meeting to solicit support for a military strike against Baghdad. Iraq, however, was not formally on the agenda, which centred on the need to revamp Nato's forces and structures.
Rumsfeld envisages a force of 20,000 US, Canadian, European and Turkish troops being on standby at all times, ready to deploy within one to four weeks anywhere in the world.
He described the new capability as "a quick-reaction force that would be able to respond to a problem in a matter of days, rather than weeks or months".
Jerzy Szmajdzinski, the Polish Defence Minister, said the US wanted to create a force with three main elements: ground troops, Awacs radar planes and shared allied intelligence.
Naval forces are expected to be included in the unit, which would be highly trained, very mobile and equipped with protection against chemical and biological warfare.
One Nato source said the unit would be "capable of going anywhere ... to fight its way in and leading for others to follow".
The idea blends two themes: post-September 11 US concern about rogue states and weapons of mass destruction, and the need for Nato to reform its outdated Cold War structures and outlook.
"We don't need static forces waiting for an attack from eastern Europe, we have to target terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, which are the biggest threat to Nato," said one Nato diplomat. "What is required are agile and responsive forces and command structures."
Officials expected the US plan to get a broad welcome in principle. One Nato diplomat argued: "No Nato country has the money to update and if we were, multilaterally, to finance certain capabilities, and if we had a rapid reaction force which would use these capabilities, Nato's military importance could be strengthened."
But the issue of how and when a rapid reaction force would be deployed and whether it would take pre-emptive action is more divisive, with Britain among those supportive of a tough American stance. "I don't think that self-defence is worth a damn if you are about to be obliterated," said one senior diplomat.
That is not a view shared by the re-elected Government in Germany, whose relations with the US have taken a nosedive lately.
Nato officials have played down fears that its new rapid reaction force would be a rival to the EU's plans to set up a 60,000-strong corps, to be operational next year. The European force is designed for peace-keeping and crisis intervention rather than to act as an aggressive fighting force.
But many of the same capabilities are required for both forces, so troops or equipment earmarked by European nations for the Nato rapid reaction unit could also be used for EU missions.
- INDEPENDENT
Story archives:
Links: War against terrorism
Timeline: Major events since the Sept 11 attacks
US wants revamped Nato pact to fight terror
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
