NATO's operation "recovery" against pirates in Somalia

(BRUSSELS2, analysis) "Recovery", the word is actually not too strong. Piracy has indeed been rife on certain coasts off Somalia for several years. And, at least several months, that it becomes critical. 71 attacks since the beginning of the year, about half of which resulted in the capture of the boat (61 attacks in the north, 10 attacks in the south). And, all of a sudden, NATO decided to act! The decision was not announced (in Budapest on October 10) but the boats were immediately set in motion and crossed the Suez Canal on October 15... How fast! Just when the European Union sees the road cleared for the implementation of a military operation intended to counter piracy, the British having lifted their opposition (see: The format of the EuNav anti-piracy operation (Somalia) is becoming clearer).

Amazing coincidence!

Until a few days ago, according to EU sources, nothing like this was planned. "We have repeatedly asked NATO what it intends to do. And we have never been told even the intention to think about an operation...until last Friday" so says a diplomat. Proof: the World Food Program (WFP) has repeatedly alerted all responsible military interlocutors - European and Western in particular - on its need to ensure the safety of its boats which supply Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Although the EU has integrated this request into its planning for the military operation in preparation, NATO has never responded (as an organisation). So when the PAM found itself short of escort - between the Danish mission and the Canadians, in July, there was nobody... Even recovery, when the néerlandais announced in mid-October that they were going to send a ship to accompany the WFP. It became a decision of NATO which accepted that this boat is detached from its permanent group. Which is strong enough!

The Marking "on the panties"

Media tinkering

The operation announced by NATO in Budapest is more media tinkering than a real desire to intervene. NATO's permanent rapid reaction group, SNMG2 (dependent on HQ Naples) had planned to visit ports as part of the Istanbul initiative, in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. United. As if the Euro-Atlantic military organization – which remained at arms length when Georgia was attacked by Russia – was looking for a reason to justify its existence (read another analysis).

NATO and EU in "competition" on the conflict in Georgia

The EU Foreign Ministers, in the middle of August, had they not immediately met (August 13) that the Euro-Atlantic organization also wanted to bring together “its” Foreign Ministers. Done on August 20 (Basically the same + the United States and Canada.). The declaration was a little more warmonger, with "the decision to suspend the meetings of the NATO-Russia Council" like the Russian participation in certain exercises. But nothing more... The Russian diplomatic mission continued to taunt the organization by continuing to organize press meetings in its delegation office which is located within the NATO compound in Brussels! And nothing concrete came. Apart from American "humanitarian" aid boats which have rather disrupted the humanitarian aid; rotations from several organizations, such as the WFP, were already being organised.

The EU "global" method

In this escalation, the strength of the EU (and of the French presidency) has been its global method (diplomatic, civil-military, humanitarian, economic). The "negotiation", live in Moscow and Tbilisi, led by Sarkozy and Kouchner, with the Finnish Stubb, president of the OSCE (read his story) and signature of a ceasefire plan by the two belligerents, under the aegis of the EU, on August 12, announcement of additional humanitarian aid by the Commission, European summit on September 1, new information meeting of Foreign Affairs in Avignon on September 4 and new negotiations in Moscow at the highest level to "specify" the Russian withdrawal measures on September 8, European green light for the deployment of EU observers on September 15, and finally withdrawal (more or less successful) of the Russians on October 10 on their pre-war positions, etc. All these initiatives mark a certain European maturity on crisis intervention and have made the difference despite a few attempts at "tacking down" ( rugby rule of course) in order to recover the ball...

Resentment erupts

NATO, for its part, remained paralyzed, the gun at its feet, both by its lack of a global method, of civil and diplomatic arms, and by the electoral campaign in the United States. On September 14, the Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, usually rather very polite, indulged in confiding his criticisms in the Financial Times, In half-words, he calls into question the Sarkozy-Medvedev plan, believing that he left too much leeway to the Russians and is "not acceptable". Before denying it a few hours later (the journalist had misunderstood!).

NATO wants to show its effectiveness

While the EU Defense Ministers are in an informal meeting in Deauville, devoted to capacity building, particularly in the air - with the sharing of future A400M aircraft and the modernization of the existing helicopter fleet - NATO announces, by press release, the completion of its "strategic transport" program, C17. A coincidence certainly... Specifying that 12 countries will participate, two of which are not members of the organization but members of the EU (Finland and Sweden).

A few questions to ask yourself...

The existential problem of NATO

It can indeed be infuriating for a major military organization like NATO to see the European Union's "small" security and defense organization (ESDP) - which has barely a few hundred men in its ranks (General Staff and administration) - tumbling onto its territory and managing to set up, in one year, three operations - Chad, Georgia, Somalia - where NATO cannot intervene, for strictly political reasons, holding on its side too marked American; while she herself is bogged down in a difficult "Afghanistan" operation.

Question of credibility, efficiency, use of public funds

Even if it seems normal, from a strictly organizational point of view, certain questions must be asked, if only for the credibility of the existence of these two organizations. When we speak of duplication of means or lack of coordination, shouldn't we then look for them rather on the side of Boulevard Léopold III (headquarters of NATO) than on Place Schuman (headquarters of the European Union)? In these times of budgetary restrictions, of financial, economic (and social) crisis, shouldn't we begin to ask ourselves the question of what the 12 agents of the organization are doing? What are they for ? How the money used is used well? So many questions that will one day have to be answered.

(NGV)

NB: in a sometimes exaggerated way, certain newspapers specializing in euroscepticism (The Sun, Bild in particular) attack the European Union on these financial questions (to the nearest euro). Strangely on NATO, no question or investigation of this type has ever been made...