The U.S. Must Pressure Europe on Afghanistan and Iran

Tag : shielding machine

The war in Afghanistan and the looming Iranian nuclear threat willbe priority issues for the United States as President Bush crossesthe Atlantic this week for what is likely to be his final tour ofEurope. He will meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, FrenchPresident Nicolas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister SilvioBerlusconi, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
The trip is an important opportunity for the President to press keyEuropean allies to contribute more troops and resources to theNATO-led effort in Afghanistan. The English-speaking members ofNATO are bearing an overwhelming proportion of the burden inAfghanistan as most European countries refuse to play a full role.This is an unsustainable situation that is causing deep strains inthe Alliance and weakening the fight against the Taliban.
President Bush should also use this trip to call upon EuropeanUnion member states to join the United States in a tough sanctionsregime aimed at halting Iran's drive to develop a nuclear weaponscapability. With its extensive support for international terroristgroups such as Hizbollah and Hamas, its open threats to wipe Israel"off the map," and its ambitions to become a nuclear power, theIranian regime poses this generation's greatest state threat tointernational security.
Successful resolution of these two critical matters will not onlyrevitalize the transatlantic alliance, but also strengthen twocritical fronts in the campaign against Islamist terrorism.
An Unequal Burden in Afghanistan
The United States, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia (a non-NATOcountry) currently provide 35,680 of the 52,900 troops serving inthe NATO-led International Assistance Force (ISAF): over 67 percentof the total. Europe and the rest of the world provide just 17,200soldiers, or less than a third. [1] This unequal state of affairs is causing tensions in thetransatlantic alliance, and the Canadians, who have alreadysuffered heavy casualties, have threatened to pull their troops outof the country unless they are reinforced by troops from Europe. [2]
Britain, which still has 4,000 troops in Iraq and is severelyoverstretched militarily, has over 8,500 soldiers serving inAfghanistan: more than the rest of the major Western Europeanpowers combined; Germany has sent just 3,370 troops, Italy 2,350,France 1,670, and Spain 800. The British even dispatched theirthird in line to the throne, Prince Harry, to southern Afghanistan,where he fought for several months before a media blackoutshielding his presence was broken.
There is also the critical issue of who is actually doing thefighting. Most military operations against the Taliban are beingconducted by the British, Americans, and Canadians (withsignificant frontline support from the Dutch). As of February thisyear, these three countries had lost almost 650 troops since 2001(85 percent of total fatalities). The rest of ISAF combined hadlost a total of 115 soldiers (15 percent). [3]
Many European nations, including Germany, continue to operate undera system of "caveats" that are drawn up by some NATO members tokeep their troops out of harm's way. German forces, for example,are based in the north of the country, far away from the mainbattlefields. In fact, British media have reported that Germantroops are not permitted to travel more than two hours away from amajor medical facility and that Luftwaffe helicopter pilots arebarred from flying at night, with a requirement to be back to baseby mid-afternoon. [4]
Such limitations on engagement ignore the reality that NATO is amartial alliance, not a peacekeeping organization. The stakes areextremely high, and there is a danger that, in light of the combatrestrictions placed on some NATO troops, the brutal Taliban, backedby al-Qaeda, will reassert control over vast areas of the country.Not only does ISAF need thousands more troops to be sent to thewar-torn Afghan nation, but continued success against the Talibanspecifically demands that combat-ready troops be deployed acrossthe southern province of Helmand, where much of the key fighting iscurrently taking place.
Germany Must Strengthen Sanctions Against Iran
In addition to revitalizing Continental NATO members' participationin combat operations throughout Afghanistan, President Bush willseek the support of key European allies for the strengthening ofsanctions against Iran.
Europe and Germany in particular hold the key to increasingeconomic pressure on the Iranian regime. In recent years, Iran hasderived roughly 35 percent of its total imports from the EuropeanUnion, and European exports to Iran are worth over 12 billion eurosa year. [5]
Germany is Iran's biggest trading partner, with exports worth over4 billion euros in 2006, and therefore is capable of exertingextraordinary economic leverage over Iran. According to a 2007report by the Realité EU think tank, [6] which compiled information from several sources including theGerman–Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, a staggeringfive thousand German companies do business with Iran, includingheavyweights such as Siemens and BASF. Two-thirds of Iranianindustry relies on German engineering products, and the GermanEngineering Federation (VDMA) boasts of German machine constructionexports to Iran worth 1.5 billion euros in 2005, with an increasein 2006.
Unfortunately, Berlin has yet to demonstrate a firm willingness topressure Iran.
In fact, Germany remains the weakest link in the West'sconfrontation with Tehran. Despite the huge economic clout thatBerlin wields with Iran, the Merkel administration has not been atthe forefront of international efforts to force the Iranian regimeto relinquish its nuclear aspirations. In contrast to FrenchPresident Nicolas Sarkozy's emphatic denunciations of MahmoudAhmadinejad's highly provocative statements, Angela Merkel hasappeared weak-kneed and indecisive. As a result, the EuropeanUnion's policy of "constructive engagement" toward Iran, championedby Merkel and her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder, has been aspectacular failure.
Tehran's strategy will seek to splinter Western opinion regardingany potential economic pressure, thereby weakening the likelihoodof sustained international sanctions outside of the United Nations.Iran's rulers know that they can rely on both Russia and China toblock sanctions at the Security Council and are hoping thatinternal divisions within Europe will hamper the imposition ofEurope-wide measures. The success of the Iranian nuclear programsrelies upon a divided West; it is critical that in the coming days,President Bush remind the Merkel administration of this fact.
No Alternative to Action
Failing to deal with the Iranian threat will result in immenseconsequences: a nuclear-armed rogue state ruled by fanaticalIslamist extremists that will have no qualms about using its powerto dominate the Middle East or to arm a wide array of proxyinternational terrorist groups. It is a vision of the future thatcannot be allowed to come true, and the European powers,particularly Germany, must reject appeasement in favor of anassertive policy of zero tolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions.This is a time for tough resolve from the German Chancellor andother key leaders in Europe: Weakness and indifference will onlycomfort such a brutal terrorist regime.
At the same time, Europe's major powers can and must do more on thebattlefields of Afghanistan. If this does not happen, theconsequences for the future of the NATO Alliance could be dire.France's offer of an additional 700 French troops is a step in theright direction, but it is not enough to make a significantdifference on the battlefield.
Europe's failure in Afghanistan threatens to tear NATO apart, inwhich case the most effective international organization of ourtime could become irrelevant. It is time for Chancellor Merkel,President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Berlusconi, and other Europeanleaders to fully commit their troops and resources to winning thewar against the Taliban. For the sake of the Alliance and thebroader war against Islamist terrorism, there is no alternative.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. , is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, adivision of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute forInternational Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.