Nato: Afghanistan could spoil the Obama party

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC News website

Warning to US allies from Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

As Nato approaches its 60th anniversary, there are signs of tensions ahead if the concessions on security policy already put in hand by President Obama are not matched by a greater commitment to the war in Afghanistan by other member states.

President Obama might find that his international honeymoon, even among his closest allies, is short.

He will be welcomed by some Nato governments keen to see the new US approach to the world in action, though some others in eastern Europe, still worried about Russia, will not want all the attention to be concentrated elsewhere.

But Afghanistan threatens to spoil the party.

In a speech in Brussels on Monday, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said bluntly: "I cannot accept that the US has to do all the heavy lifting... Europe too has to step up with more forces and when that is not forthcoming, more on the civilian side."

Showing willing

The kind of deal envisaged by the secretary general is that in return for President Obama meeting many of the demands by his European allies - the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the prohibition on waterboarding, the review of rendition flights to ensure compliance with US obligations - those allies must step up to the plate (to use the baseball metaphor) when it comes to Afghanistan.

President Obama is intending to switch the main American effort from Iraq to Afghanistan and wants to repeat the surge policy that had an effect in Iraq.

European countries have been unwilling to commit further troops

But this requires more combat capability and key Nato countries - France and Germany notably - have been unwilling to commit significantly to the frontline.

Even Britain, which is already engaged in "heavy lifting", might not send as many reinforcements as the Americans want.

The Nato chief said: "If the Europeans expect that the United States will close Guantanamo, sign up to climate change treaties, accept EU leadership on key issues, but provide nothing more in return, for example in Afghanistan, than encouragement, they should think again. It simply won't work like that."

If Nato allies falter now, the long term implications in terms of separating the United States from Europe could be severe.

Nato is committed to fighting the Taleban and was never engaged in Iraq, so the Americans are unlikely to be as tolerant of excuses in Afghanistan as they had to be in Iraq.

Troubling issue

The issue is emerging as a potential troubling one at the 60th anniversary summit to be held in early April in the French city of Strasbourg and the German town of Kehl on the opposite side of the border.

The sites were chosen for their symbolic significance as they were fought over in three wars between the old enemies and modern allies.

That Nato should now be debating what to do about a war in the faraway country of Afghanistan while celebrating peace in the heart of Europe shows how far the alliance has moved - and how its role in the world is changing.

Mr de Hoop Scheffer was keen to claim that Nato had a role to play way beyond its original responsibility of protecting Western Europe from an attack by the Soviet Union.

"The world is not suddenly more peaceful," he said. "International terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the growing numbers of failing states are not just the obsession of a few."

He even suggested that Iran and other regional players be brought in to help in Afghanistan, an intriguing prospect upon which he did not elaborate.

[e-mail]