NATO in Crisis
Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, tvalasek@cdi.org
Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty obligates the NATO allies to consult whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the security of one of its members is being threatened. Turkey invoked this clause this week for the first time in NATO’s history, in an unsuccessful attempt to initiate planning within the alliance for a possible Iraqi missile attack on Turkey. It is different from Article 5, which declares that an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all, and has been generally interpreted as a mutual defense assistance clause.
The good news is that France, Germany and Belgium blocked Article 4 action, not Article 5, which would have meant a likely beginning of the end for NATO. The bad news is that Article 4 is only slightly less important -- and the current impasse is already being mentioned as one of the -- if not the – gravest crises in NATO's history, threatening its credibility as a defense alliance.
The dissenters' formal arguments to the North Atlantic Council (NAC), NATO's highest decision-making body, are classified, but enough information has leaked to put together a reasonably accurate picture of what transpired. In the cases of Germany and Belgium, both countries feel that formal NATO planning for defense of Turkey would amount to acceptance of, in the words of Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, "the logic of war." They oppose the slightest hint or suggestion that war against Iraq is inevitable, while pushing for UN arms inspectors to be given more time to seek and destroy Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. They feel that the United States is using NATO to influence the outcome of UN Security Council deliberations on Iraq's compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441.
This argument has found little support among other NATO members -- not just the United States and Great Britain -- but even among European countries otherwise skeptical about the war in Iraq. Their position could be summed up as: war is likely, NATO is expected to defend its members, and planning for such an eventuality is a prudent and reasonable thing to do, regardless of what we think of the Iraq war. The risks associated with denying such a request -- and putting NATO's credibility in doubt -- are not proportionate to the value of making an oblique point on U.S. policy toward Iraq.
NATO’s commitment to Turkey is thus "collateral damage" from what is otherwise an attack on U.S. policies towards Iraq. Belgium has even stated explicitly, through its foreign minister, that the veto had nothing to do with the "legitimate security of Turkey." Yet there is one country among the dissenters, however, that seems to have NATO itself as much in its sights as it does the U.S. policy on Iraq -- France.
Unlike Germany, France does not seem categorically opposed to the war on Iraq per se (the French Air Forces are reportedly attaching allied identification friend-or-foe (IFF) devices on their aircraft to enable them to fly missions alongside U.S. fighters in the case of war). But France seems determined to block NATO from expanding its missions beyond Europe. In fact, the same day France denied Turkey's request for assistance planning, Paris also blocked NATO from assuming a more prominent role in the peacekeeping force in Kabul, arguing, according to the London Financial Times, that NATO should not have any "out of area" responsibility, not even peacekeeping. French officials have told the Paris media that planning for assistance to Turkey by alliance members should be done bilaterally, outside NATO.
There seems to be a consensus in NATO that the players have all backed themselves into their respective corners, and will not change their positions without a significant outside development. Such a development would most likely come as a result of the next report by Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei to the UN Security Council on Iraq's compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441.
The immediate outlook for NATO is bleak. The alliance has experienced other crises in the past, but few concerned the basic founding principle of NATO; the "all for one, one for all," spirit embodied in Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Over the past 18 months, NATO has seen Article 5 invoked and ignored by the United States (on Sept. 12, 2001; the day after the New York and Washington attacks). Now another NATO ally has invoked Article 4, and three allies have essentially blocked NATO attempts to help. No matter what their reasons, the outcome is that the NATO commitment to defend its members, once considered rock-solid and essential to NATO cooperation, now seems dangerously unreliable.
|
Anniversary of Child Soldier Treaty Marked on Hill
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
On Feb. 12, the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Child Soldiers Protocol, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a briefing on the issue of child soldiers. The briefing focused on the use of child soldiers in Burma, Colombia and Northern Uganda, as well as implementation by the United States of the Child Soldiers Protocol.
Speakers at the briefing included: Andre Surena, Asst. Legal Advisor for Human Rights and Refugees, Office of the Legal Advisor, U.S. State Department, who spoke on U.S. support for the Optional Protocol; Jo Becker, from Human Rights Watch, who spoke on the situation of child soldiers in Burma; Adam Isacson from the Center for International Policy who described the use of child soldiers in Colombia; and Jane Lowicki from the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, who highlighted the child soldiers problem in Northern Uganda.
The United States formally ratified the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict on December 23, 2001. The Protocol requires states parties to "take all feasible measures" to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of 18 years do not participate in hostilities; prohibits the conscription of anyone under the age of 18 into the armed forces; requires states to raise the age of voluntary recruitment from 15 and to deposit a binding declaration of the minimum age for recruitment into their armed forces; prohibits the recruitment or use in hostilities of children under the age of 18 by rebel or other non-governmental armed groups and requires states to criminalize such practices. To date, the Protocol has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 46.
But even with the existence of a treaty on child soldiers, children are not exempt from service in government militaries or armed opposition and guerilla groups. Current estimates find approximately 300,000 children are currently fighting in over twenty armed conflicts around the world.
The briefing highlighted three of the most egregious cases of child soldiers use in the world. In Northern Uganda, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has forcibly abducted thousands of children from their homes and schools for use as soldiers in its war against the Ugandan government. One source estimates as many as 4,000 children have been abducted since June 2001. Burma is believed to have the largest number of child soldiers in the world, with an estimated 70,000 boys serving in the government’s army. Armed opposition groups in Burma also recruit children, although the number is far smaller. In Colombia children have been used as soldiers for decades. Experts believe 6,000 to 14,000 children are currently being used as soldiers by armed groups, paramilitaries and militias.
Speakers at the briefing offered specific policies that the United States government could undertake to prevent the continued use of children in these three areas. In Colombia, it was recommended tjat the United States look to expand on previous aid programs for rehabilitation of former child soldiers. In the 2000 Plan Colombia aid package $2.5 million was provided through USAID to provide treatment, education and shelter to hundreds of children. But the program has received no new funding since 2000. It was recommended that funding not only be renewed, it should be increased to $5 million to reach a greater number of demobilized children in more reception centers.
It was further recommended that the Department of Human Rights, Democracy and Labor undertake an independent investigation into the widespread forced recruitment of children by Burma’s national army. The findings of this investigation could then be made available to the United Nations Security Council, which has asked the Secretary General to submit a report by October 31 regarding parties to armed conflict that recruit or use child soldiers. It was proposed that next month the United States urge the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to request the appointment of a U.N. special envoy for the abducted children in Northern Uganda. The envoy should be encouraged to conduct “shuttle diplomacy” between the LRA and the Ugandan government with the aim of securing the release of all those abducted by the LRA as children, and to seek an end to future abductions.
Even with an international treaty, the problem of child soldiers continues. U.S. leadership on the issue is one step in stopping this horrible practice.
|
WEEKLY DEFENSE MONITOR HOME 
