-Caveat Lector- >From Int'l Herald Tribune: Paris, Monday, December 7, 1998 U.S. Urging Allies To Refocus NATO Europe Skeptical About Aiming At Weapons of Mass Destruction ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Steven Erlanger New York Times Service ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration is urging its European allies to embark on an initiative to combat weapons of mass destruction as an example of the kinds of new threats a modernized, post-Soviet NATO must deal with in the next century, senior American and NATO-country officials say. In a Brussels meeting this week of the North Atlantic Council, designed to set the agenda for the 50th-anniversary NATO summit meeting here in April, the Americans will propose a new NATO Center for Weapons of Mass Destruction, commonly referred to as ''WMD.'' The center will be a clearinghouse for increased intelligence-sharing by Washington intended to produce a more unified assessment of the threats posed both by states like Iran or Iraq and ''non-state actors,'' like terrorist groups of the kind led by Osama bin Laden. But the Americans are also pushing greater alliance collaboration to deter weapons of mass destruction and to defend allied populations and territory against them. Proposals include alliance vaccines, advanced protective outfits for the military, detective equipment and other collaborative research and development, so each country of the alliance does not have to bear the cost of covering every contingency on its own. ''This is a microcosm for the new NATO, and for its larger debates and dilemmas,'' a senior American official said. ''We're trying to ensure that NATO makes it effectively and relevantly into the new era.'' But the debate over weapons of mass destruction and what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should do about them is also a microcosm for a more controversial discussion over how far NATO should move beyond its traditional role - the collective defense of its members' territories - to what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a memorandum to American ambassadors, calls ''the broader concept of the defense of our common interests'' - both in Europe and beyond. NATO questions of mandate and reach are particularly sensitive after the Soviet collapse and while Europe pushes for a stronger political identity, with some muscle to match. While the United States and its overwhelmingly superior logistics and intelligence are considered mandatory for collective NATO action in Europe, whether in Bosnia or Kosovo, some Europeans also fear being made a junior partner to American strategic interests elsewhere such as the Middle East. But American and British officials insist such fears are considerably and politically overblown. They argue that no one is trying to redefine Article 5, which mandates collective defense against attack, but to examine new ways, in this new world, that Article 5 could be triggered. While a Russian tank invasion is no longer a threat, a missile attack against Rome with a biological warhead on it would qualify as an Article 5 attack. ''Some don't like the idea because it might mean NATO using force to take out weapons or facilities in Iraq,'' said a senior American official. ''But we're not talking about that, but lower-key things, like heightening awareness and how NATO operates if there is an attack.'' The alliance's current ''strategic concept,'' which defines its military and political mission, was last revised in 1991, before the Soviet Union finally collapsed, and still talks of ''strategic balance in Europe.'' All NATO's 16 members - soon to be 19 with the addition of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - agree the concept needs updating. And President Bill Clinton wants to unveil the new doctrine, together with a simpler statement of NATO's purpose designed for voters instead of generals, at the April summit meeting he will host. ''We're not in the game of strategic balance anymore, but of collective defense and the extension of security beyond our borders,'' said a senior NATO-country diplomat. That means NATO's enlargement to the east, its partnerships with nonmembers, in the Partnership for Peace or the relationship with Russia, and operations like Bosnia and Kosovo, the diplomat said. But it does not mean NATO tramping into the Middle East in pursuit of biological weapons that might someday be used, he said, as the French originally feared. ''Early American ideas that NATO might globalize itself have faded,'' the diplomat said. ''We're talking of retaining NATO as an effective European instrument.'' American officials argue that NATO is an alliance based on consensus in any event. ''If member countries don't want NATO to do something, then NATO won't do it,'' an official said. Even senior French diplomats say they no longer believe that Washington is pushing the American-dominated NATO to be the instrument of ''a new Holy Roman Empire,'' as one put it. The current French concern is the so-called ''mandate question,'' to try to ensure that NATO does not define itself in the new strategic concept as able to act without reference to the United Nations Security Council, where five countries hold a veto, including France. While the alliance agreed to threaten to bomb Serbian positions to halt the violence in Kosovo, it did so without a Security Council resolution. The legal basis in international law was ''humanitarian intervention'' to prevent the deaths of thousands of ethnic Albanians. But while the U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke called Kosovo a precedent, German and French officials say it was merely a special case. And the Americans for now are happy to agree and take the pragmatic, case-by-case approach, without theology. Washington is eager that the mandate debate not limit NATO's flexibility and render any military action subject to a Chinese or Russian veto in the Security Council. That would not only be self-defeating, an official said, but would ''drive Congress around the bend.'' But most European countries, as well as Canada, prefer NATO to act, when not specifically in self-defense, under a Security Council resolution. Between now and April, officials say, there will be some language agreed upon that could refer simply to NATO acting on ''a firm legal basis,'' or, as likely, there will be no language on the issue at all. ''If you try to overcomplicate this,'' a senior American official said with asperity, ''you will succeed.'' Even the American initiative on weapons of mass destruction is not without controversy. While few European officials question the importance of the issue in the next century or object to more intelligence-sharing from Washington, they do have a set of concerns. They do not want this WMD initiative to overshadow the April summit; they do not want the Americans to act as if European countries have done nothing to protect themselves and their populations; they do not want the Americans to scare European publics to death; and they want NATO initiatives to enhance, and not duplicate or supersede, existing institutions dealing with such weapons. These institutions, like the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Nuclear Suppliers Group, concentrate on export controls of dangerous materials. Most European countries prefer to concentrate on perfecting and tightening such controls, and not militarizing the fight against proliferation, a European official said. That is why recent comments by Defense Secretary William Cohen, rejecting German and Canadian calls for NATO to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons, caused a small tempest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then there's the story from the Washington (DC) Times (via Drudge) reporting the U.S. is protesting the transfer of missile technology by the Chinese to the Iranis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ A<>E<>R The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
