NATO in Iraq: a very well defined role

The NATO training mission in Iraq (NMI) has been temporarily suspended due to the recent developments in the country. In my opinion, it should remain frozen for a few more days or even an additional couple of weeks. That would give time to all participating countries to do a proper assessment of the situation and take a more informed decision about the future of the mission. In an ideal world, it should not resume until the political stalemate within the Iraqi government isn’t resolved. But that can take a long time.

The critical issues regarding this mission are its own protection – it must be clearly assured – and the views of the Iraqi leaders. They must state, without any ambiguity, that they want the mission to continue its work.

In any case, it seems to me out of the question to expand the scope of the mission and combine the training with a more operational approach. This is no combat mission and it should remain as such. Any suggestion or request, from any member state of NATO, to transform the role of the mission into a fighting force should be firmly opposed.

At the end of the NATO Day

As I look at leaders ‘meeting, and the way they look at their own forces, always over-estimating the capacity of their forces and inter-states cooperation, I want to shout that too much confidence on your abilities defeats you in the end. It has always been like that and I see no reason for it to be different this time.

The approaches towards the future of European defence

When it comes to European defence, it is not either the US or Turkey that count. It is basically how the issue is seen by the French, the Germans and the Poles. The British, with the Brexit imbroglio, have somehow stepped aside. Each one of these three nations lead a different school of thought on the matter. And, in many ways, the Poles are more influential than what many outside analysts think. On top of that, they tend to voice positions that are not too far from the feelings we find within the US side. In this context, the strategy must follow a gradual approach, step by step, starting with less controversial areas. And it has to consider what should be the future of NATO in the Europe of tomorrow.

New approaches to the Armed Forces

This week, we were engaged in a discussion about the future shape and configuration of the armed forces in contexts such as those we find in Europe. The starting point was that tomorrow’s defence will be very different in terms of means and personnel from what we have seen in the past. We should not be preparing for future conflicts the same way we have been doing during the last twenty years or so. Tensions and hostilities will be much more complex than they have been in the past.

I will not go into the details of the discussion this time. I just want to mention that one of the issues was about the participation of the armed forces in domestic security patrolling. Something we saw in recent years in France, above all, but also in Belgium and elsewhere, soldiers walking side by side with the Police – or on their one, no Police personnel being around – in the streets and shopping malls of our cities.

This remains a major point of disputation. I am not in favour. I do not think military personnel should be doing routine patrols that are very much within Police’s territory, unless there is a special emergency. But several senior military officers are for it. And some politicians as well, for reasons that have more to do with political gain than with increased levels of security.

The debate is not closed.

Europe and the world powers

The way the international relations have been shaped during the last few years shows that the European Union must above all protect its interests. For that, stronger coordination among the member States is essential.

More than ever it is obvious that big countries in the world have their own strategic goals and those goals might not coincide with the European ones. They might even challenge our own intent, values and objectives. It is therefore critical those big countries be met by a strong will and a clear position on the European side.

That’s a big challenge for the next five years in Europe. Yes, five years, but such time horizon should be part of a longer vision for Europe.

It would be a mistake to try to minimise the geopolitical challenges we face. This is no temporary difficulty, not just because A or B is in power now, in big county Y or Z. This is a firm new trend we should consider strategically.

Europe is different from Russia, China and India. Also, from the USA. That’s the reality that is clearly in front of us. We should seek partnerships with each one of these countries, as we do with other parts of the world. But such partnerships cannot be based on naiveté. Above all, they must be based on a proper balance of power – and power means in the world of today much more than just military might. But it also includes a military dimension, of course.

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.

Assange and the legality of some cover operations

Julian Assange’s predicament leaves no one indifferent, in our part of the world. He has scores of supporters. Also, plenty of detractors. His personality, not just his deeds, is deeply controversial. I will not enter that discussion.

However, I recognise that, thanks to his initiative, it has been possible to demonstrate that a good number of actions taken by powerful Western governments, under the cover of national security and defence, surpassed the limits of what can be considered legitimate. Basic rights and values have been shaken by such actions.

And that brings back a fundamental question that remains unresolved in our democracies. The systems in place do not ensure a proper democratic, ethical and legal control of some undercover operations carried out by special military forces, or by specific police and intelligence services within the security apparatus. It has become obvious that our parliaments are not prepared to exercise such oversight. They intrinsically lack the competence and the political strength to carry out that role. And the justice machinery is basically in the same position of weakness.

I think it is time to envisage the creation of a constitutional body that would bring together a small number of elders, a group of sages who have reached the end of their professional ambitions and careers, and have behind them an immaculate life history, a public image of great credibility. This would be a top-level group mandated to oversee and assess complex legal and ethics practices as carried out by special government agencies. Such independent panel would report to an appropriate parliamentary committee.

This move would certainly respond to some key interrogations that we ought to deal with, based on what Assange and Wikileaks have revealed.  

Kim's vital agenda

You meet, negotiate and believe in Kim Jong-un at your own risk. And that’s a very high level of risk, I should add. Nevertheless, it must be done, and surely, with no illusion about the person who is sitting on the other side of the table.

Kim’s ultimate objective is to remain in power. He has no other option, if one considers the criminal and violent actions that he has behind him. Power means impunity. Absolute power means total impunity. In such circumstances, he is determined to decisively tackle anything that might challenge his goal.

I think he believes that the vital threat to his continued control of the North Korean system comes from the other side of the border, from South Korea. Not because of South Korea’s military might, no. It is because of the economic success and the type of society that South Korea represents. That, sooner or later, will end up by having a major impact on the attitude of the population in the North. It has the potential to be the key source of instability.  

Therefore, he wants to keep some kind of superiority vis-à-vis the South. And the only one he can bet on is on the military side. But for that, he must get the Americans out of South Korea. That’s what he is trying to achieve.

At the same time, he is also looking for an end to the economic sanctions. He knows that the sanctions bite. They make the comparison between the standards of living in the North and the South even more dangerous.

These are two elements that must remain at the centre of any future round of negotiations. And please, no illusions, no unnecessary warmth. 

Our neighbour, Vladimir Putin

Again, on defence, it’s clear to us in the EU that one of the key military objectives of Russia is to look stronger than they really are. That’s why they spend so much human and capital resources on mixing facts and fiction. Part of their strength is indeed a fact. On the other side, a good deal of it is just a story that is being told to scare us. It is the Potemkin Village approach. It has a long history in Russia. But it produces results.

The Russian armed forces are ten years ahead of us, in the EU, in terms of cyber warfare. That’s for sure a reality. The rest, it is yes and no. But the truth is that they keep compelling us to increase our spending in military matters. In this kind of game, we cannot take risks. We better be prepared.

Fake, constructed or true, the fact of the matter is that the threats coming from Vladimir Putin must be taken seriously. And he knows that. Smart fellow, he is. And we, in many ways, look like amateurs. Just kicking the ball when it comes in  our direction.

EU's collective defence

The issue of collective defence is again a major concern for many European countries. It has to take into account a good number of major new developments. A more assertive Russia. A new level of foreign policy coordination between Russia and China, a policy that is clearly in competition with the Western interests and approaches. The fake news, the political interference and the funding of populist and far-right radical movements. The growing political gap and related tensions between Europe and Turkey. The situation in the Middle East and the Northern part of Africa. Terrorism. The US unprecedented new official policy towards defence cooperation with Europe. And the very hesitant, ambiguous views of the citizens regarding military expenditures.

And I would add one more, that is often left aside: the inept political direction provided by the EU leaders, particularly when it comes to articulating defence and security, military forces, intelligence and police services.

Syria: looking ahead

Regarding the Syrian complex crisis, it´s obvious that Assad and Putin believe in the military solution. And they are now close to achieve the military control of a good deal of the territory.

That option might result for a while, but it cannot resolve the deep divisions existing in the country. It does not address the overwhelming call for inclusiveness and democracy coming from so many segments of the population. It only suspends and postpones the crisis.

I am not sure Bashar al-Assad realises he must open up and engage in political dialogue, after winning on the military front. This should be the key message the EU leaders should put across to him. For that, they have no alternative but to re-engage the contacts with the strongman in Damascus. The channels of communication between the EU and Syria ought to be re-established.

That´s my advice as the EU prepares to chair another conference on Syria.

Such conference must not be just about humanitarian assistance coupled with a mere statement reiterating past options. Options that time has shown to be as good as dead ends.

Moreover, it is not a great idea to link in the same conference two different matters: humanitarian needs should be discussed in a different forum. Not good to mix them with politics.

Kim Jong-un, a dangerous provocateur

Kim Jong-un is above all a provocateur. But a dangerous one, let's be clear. His repeated provocations have created a very delicate situation in his part of the world. And that's a complex region, at it's at the centre of fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests of very powerful countries.

In my opinion, he is not reading the current international situation with smart eyes. Political circumstances have deeply changed. As the intelligence about his most strategic means of power and military capabilities has also changed.

He still believes that China will shield him from any military action coming from outside. In addition, he is convinced that his threats of retaliation against South Korea will discourage others from intervening in the North. He might have a point. However, I am no longer sure that such point is strong enough. 

Dangerous times in the Korean Peninsula

The North Korea´s dangerously aggressive posture remains a major issue in the international political agenda. Consequently, the UN Security Council met yesterday on the matter. This was a meeting at the ministerial level as to demonstrate the seriousness of the most recent developments related to the country.

The US approach to make use of extreme diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang deserves support. Diplomacy passes through Beijing. The key to convince Kim Jong Un to abandon the accelerated missile and nuclear programmes is held by China. Therefore, the efforts on the diplomatic front must focus on very close contacts with the Chinese leadership.

It is also true that China does not appreciate a deeper US presence in the region. In particular, it remains strongly opposed to the THAAD missile deployment that the US has launched in South Korea. But that disagreement should not be an excuse. China must use all its leverage on North Korea.

The US additional show of force can be justified by the recent threats coming from the North. It should also be recognised that it contributes to intensify the atmosphere of crisis. But it is also obvious that the main cause of tension comes from Kim´s options.

The North Korean leader must understand that the American policy has changed. It is in his own interest, besides the interests of his fellow citizens.

In the last few hours there have been some noises regarding direct action against Kim himself. I would not be surprised if it is confirmed that such action is under review. However, that or any preventive strike – and we have been further away from a strike than we are today – would cause hell in the Peninsula, and in the region.

I trust that people who decide about these matters fully understand what is at play.

Trump´s most pressing international challenges

This week, President Trump has been directly trapped by Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Both dictators decided to challenge the incoherence that defines the global policy of the new US President. Assad with sarin, the gas that he dropped from his airplanes and killed scores of innocent people. A true war crime, by all measures. Kim by firing a new missile towards the Sea of Japan, just a few days prior to his powerful neighbour´s visit to Florida for a first meeting with the big man from Washington.

He is also being challenged by Vladimir Putin. This special, unique strongman created the most absurd “explanation” to excuse the war crime committed by his ally in Syria. And decided to continue to block any action the UN Security Council could have taken on this appalling crisis.

The US President cannot limit his response to these major challenges to words of condemnation and expressions of outrage. They are essential, indeed, but not enough at this stage. He came to the White House as man of action and determination. He has now to show his resolution. Actions ought to match the promises.

But he has very narrow options.

The first one is about prioritising. He has to focus on one of his challengers and show that man that Trump means business. And that priority as things stand now should be about Assad. It must combine diplomatic initiatives, including a serious push for an international commission of inquiry, with other political measures and direct military pressure. The package has to be multifaceted, clear in its purpose, well explained to everyone but also limited in its range, in its initial stage. 

EU and Defence: additional considerations

Taking into account the ongoing discussions on military budgets, I went back to the text approved at the NATO Summit of 2014, in Wales. The paragraph 5 of "The Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond" is quoted below. It´s worth a careful reading of its words.

"We recognise that these steps will take the necessary effort and funding. In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed."

This commitment follows the recognition stated in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. I quote it as well.

"We will continue to invest in modern and deployable armed forces that can operate effectively together and at a high level of readiness to fulfil NATO's tasks, in full accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act." 

And I would underline the following points:

-             Interoperability and readiness are key dimensions in terms of greater joint effectiveness;

-            Additional defence expenditure is linked to economic growth;

-             Budget allocations should be reviewed to respond to new priorities and up-to-date military approaches and to ensure a more appropriate funding of the new roles of the armed forces as required by a new type of threats;

-            The 2% goal is a guideline and it should be gradually build up to 2014; it cannot happen in the short term;

-           The States must be willing to participate in joint operations and be perceived as able to rapidly respond to needs as they arise, taking into account the capabilities of each nation.

I also find the references to the UN Charter and to the Helsinki Final Act essential. They should be continuously recalled.  

On domestic security matters

The concept of “war against terrorism” is not appropriate for our European societies. We are not at war. We have a very serious challenge in terms of domestic security. But it is a security issue to be dealt with by the police and the internal intelligence services. War would mean a major disruption of normalcy. We want to keep the same routines and be convinced that the security services are indeed equipped to match the challenge. They might of course be supported by the armed forces. But that support has to be much smarter than just placing a few soldiers in shopping malls and other public spaces. The politicians need to understand that the military can do much better things than just standing out there.

The EU Army: No, thank you!

The talk about building a “EU army” is not wise. It is another example of the high propensity some Europeans leaders have when it comes to shooting themselves on the foot.

The EU defense is very much linked to the strengthening of NATO and also to a clear political will to put some key assets and some highly specialised military people together in a common pool.

To invest resources on a separate EU force is too divert and spread out resources that are already very scarce. It will result in a weaker NATO and in an extremely ineffective EU military establishment. We should oppose that. 

Turkey: a major shock

The fast moving circumstances in Turkey are now a major headache for that country´s Western allies. Actually, it is more accurate to say that today´s situation is causing a massive shock in our leading circles. Our leaders cannot believe their eyes. They see a level of revenge that is just unacceptable. And they also see that the key institutions of Turkey are under a very serious attack. That starts with the Armed Forces, which are now extremely fragile, confused, frightened and humiliated. That´s certainly not good at all for a country that is located in an extremely complex and dangerous region of the world. And we can expect more complications in the days to come.

Learning from Putin

During the last many days I have been fully taken by a major military exercise. As a civilian and someone who has a very good number of years on the shoulders, the exercise leaves me a bit worn out, by the end of the day. But it is interesting to see how the top officers respond to a complete set of new challenges that in the world of today go far beyond just military means.

The military campaigns have changed and today´s world calls for a different approach to operational design. Plans have to be complex and combine a good number of actions, many of them within the civilian realm.

In many ways, Putin is one of those political leaders that fully understands the new ways of waging “war”. To pay detailed attention to his modus operandi gives us a chance to learn a few techniques that make sense.

The only problem is that we might learn some methods from him but cannot agree on his approach to international relations. 

More on the strategy against the terrorists of the Islamic State

We usually emphasise that each national crisis should have a political response and end up with an agreement between the parties. In the case of Syria, it would be, at this stage, a serious mistake to insist on a political solution. The situation has reached such a dramatic level that the only way forward, for the moment, is through a military approach. Politics and diplomacy have to wait. They will come later.

The goals to be achieved are clear: to destroy the self-proclaimed Islamic State and protect the civilian population from further violence. These objectives do call for a major allied armed offensive and also for a change of tactics when it comes to the Assad regime.

On the military side, my writing of yesterday is clear. I can only add that we just have to make sure that those who will take the decision to go for the force option have the support of the popular opinion in their countries. And then ask those leaders to move fast.

On Assad, it is time to make a difference between the man and his people. The headman will have to go. The key criminals that have directly supported him must be brought to justice as well. But we need to find ways of bringing his ethnic group, the Alawites, and all those who are around the administrative and security machineries on board, on our side, as long as they have no real crimes in their hands. They should be part of the solution. If they are not they will be, soon enough, because Assad´s collapse is getting closer, the next mass victims of the brutes that only conceive death as the appropriate punishment  for those who are different.

It is indeed time to think strategically. And be strong.