Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320-339)
21 APRIL 2009 RT
HON BARONESS
TAYLOR OF
BOLTON, GROUP
CAPTAIN MALCOLM
CRAYFORD, MS
GLORIA CRAIG,
RT HON
CAROLINE FLINT
MP, MR NICK
PICKARD AND
MR JUSTIN
MCKENZIE
SMITH
Q320 Linda Gilroy: In terms of the
NATO-Russia Council and that kind of strategic discussion, your
answer to my earlier questions suggests that it could do more
and better in that respect?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: It
could do more in terms of scope, but they have to be discussions
that acknowledge the basic principles that underpin the organisation.
Q321 Linda Gilroy: Which are as much
in NATO as in OSCE to do with human rights, democracy and governance
issues?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: And
acknowledgement of international law. Those are the barriers at
the moment.
Q322 Robert Key: Minister, I want
to turn to Article 5 issues, and the defence of NATO members.
It is quite clear that what happened in August of last year in
Georgia set alarm bells ringing right across NATO particularly
in the Baltic states. It is something of an irony that one of
the countries that feels most affected by this, Estonia, is one
of our very best allies, is fighting alongside us in Afghanistan
and pro rata is taking as many injuries and deaths as we are.
That is a record of which they can be very proud. We wish many
more NATO members would take their obligations as seriously because
most of them do not. The Secretary of State for Defence said in
a written ministerial statement on 30 March, that the proposal
for a NATO Allied Solidarity Force would "be taken forward
in the wider work of the NATO response force". We were told
on the website AlertNet that there would be 3,000 troops involved.
Can you confirm that that sort of number is what the Secretary
of State has in mind?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: As
the Allied Solidarity Force, the actual number being talked about
is 1,500 in strength.
Q323 Robert Key: Is that 1,500 in
a permanent state of readiness or 1,500 in training?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: This
is still an idea and it has not gone through all of its stages.
You referred to the impact of Georgia on some of the other countries.
Your analysis is right; it has concerned a great number of them
quite significantly. You mentioned Estonia and you rightly said
that it was one of our best allies. It is working very successfully
with us in Afghanistan and we are very pleased to be working so
closely with them. We wish that some of the other NATO countries
would perform as well as Estonia, but the proposal on the Allied
Solidarity Force is basically one of reassurance to those countries
that are concerned about being on the borders and feel that Article
4 or 5 is important to them. It is important to remember that
NATO has never been offensive and wants to reassure its members
that it understands their concerns and has changed very significantly.
Since 9/11, our main threats have been very external, asymmetric,
terrorism and issues of that kind. Therefore, when we look at
NATO and how it has to respond, we have to look at more expeditionary
approaches to our own needs and protection. That in itself has
caused some countries to be concerned about Article 5 protection.
Therefore, I think it is right that we look to reassure them.
The new approach in the form of the Allied Solidarity Force is
not against any specific potential threat; it is there as an act
of reassurance and solidarity. That is why it has been suggested.
It has been discussed at some stage but not in fantastic detail
as yet. It is a relatively recent proposal and one that so far
has had a good reception but the detail must still be worked out.
Q324 Robert Key: Reuters has said
that the NATO Secretary-General will put this to Ministers in
June. Is that right?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: The
Supreme Allied Commander Europe will do that.
Q325 Robert Key: If it is approved
by Ministers and we have this standing arrangement in future there
would be explicit contingency plans to deploy that force if necessary
in the case of any military action by Russia against NATO members.
Is that a reasonable assumption?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: You
are saying "by Russia".
Q326 Robert Key: Yes—or anybody
else.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: It
is not aimed specifically at Russia; it is anybody.
Q327 Robert Key: Are there any NATO
contingency plans for the defence of non-NATO members as well?
What would happen if there was another Georgia?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: That
begs the question whether people would behave provocatively and
disproportionately. In one sense another Georgia is not just an
issue for NATO but for the United Nations and every international
organisation. International organisations have responsibilities
as well as limitations, but it would not be a matter simply for
NATO.
Q328 Mr Havard: To be clear about
the Allied Solidarity Force of 1,500 people—which will pack
a huge punch against Russia—it seems to me that it is as
much a political force as a military utility except in pretty
small conflicts, frankly. It may be a political manoeuvre and
maybe a successful one in terms of engaging Russia in taking a
better attitude to a number of things; and it may reassure some
of the other Eastern European states, but beyond that that is
it.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: There
is a lot of truth in that.
Q329 Mr Havard: It need not frighten
the Russian bear too much.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: It
is a sign of how you would make it clear at a very early stage
in any potential confrontation that there was a wide range of
international players willing to take on an issue and show their
solidarity on any particular point.
Q330 Mr Havard: But it is as much
a political commitment as a military one?
Group Captain Crayford: You are
right. Our proposal is for a small, rapidly deployable task force
of 1,500 personnel—within the wider NATO Response Force.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: With
flags from lots of different members.
Group Captain Crayford: They would
be dedicated to Article 4 and 5, but with essentially a limited
political task.
Q331 Chairman: What is the NATO Rapid
Reaction Force for?
Ms Craig: This would be part of
the NATO Response Force.
Q332 Chairman: Has the NATO Rapid
Reaction Force ever been deployed?
Ms Craig: Not in anger; but it
was deployed to Pakistan to help with earthquake relief in 2005.
Q333 Chairman: Have not the problems
of the NATO Rapid Reaction Force been caused by things like the
need to refer any deployment the Bundestag in Germany for example?
Would this be any different? Why do we create a new organisation
to do something that an existing organisation is already failing
to do?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: This
is a sub-role of all of that and it is something that potentially
would be more acceptable all round. Part of the problem of NATO
and the EU is to try to get the structures that underpins all
these things. You can spend a lot of time looking at what the
structure should be but when you have a situation you have to
respond. Many people are very surprised at the speed with which
Operation Atalanta got under way because there were not the structures
to create it. Yet where there was political will it was possible
to get that operation moving quickly. I believe that that is typical
of a lot of the institutional problems. Where there is the political
will very often things can happen.
Q334 Chairman: Is it not a problem
that every time something difficult like Georgia happens, we look
at the idea of battle groups and realise that they do not really
take off. We look at the idea of the NATO Rapid Reaction Force
and realise that that does not take off, so we create a new structure
that itself is unlikely to take off because it is easier and simpler
to resort to the idea that something bad has happened and so we
should create a new structure than take a political decision within
a large number of countries and do something?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I think
that what I have just said about piracy proves that if there is
political will, you can take decisions very quickly.
Q335 Chairman: So, the creation of
a structure was not particularly helpful?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Yes;
we just responded quicker.
Q336 Mr Havard: To be clear, the
Allied Solidarity Force is part of a sub-unit of the Rapid Reaction
Force. How does that work in terms of the commitments that are
made to put people into it?
Group Captain Crayford: The UK
proposal at this stage, which has gone forward to SACEUR for consideration
as part of his wider review of the NATO Response Force—his
options will be delivered to the defence ministers in June. Our
proposal would form part of the existing NATO Response Force ceilings
but dedicated to an Article 4/5 role, to allow the remainder of
the NATO Response Force to deal with non-Article 5 crises management-type
operations.
Q337 Mr Havard: So, the UK's commitment
of numbers of people to the Rapid Reaction Force will be no different
because of this proposal from what it was before?
Group Captain Crayford: That is
correct.
Mr Pickard: To answer both questions,
part of the aim of this is to assist the deployability of the
NATO response force because some of the political arguments used
in the past have been that we cannot deploy the NRF because it
is required at home. Making a small part of the NRF specifically
relevant to the Article 5 argument allows us to deploy the rest
of the NRF where necessary and counter some of those arguments
other nations have made.
Q338 Chairman: So, the Deployable
Response Force will now be down to 1,500 people?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: No;
the deployable people ring-fenced under Article 5 will be that
number.
Q339 Mr Havard: Of the NATO Rapid
Reaction Force?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: The
rest will be available.
Chairman: The Russians will really worry,
will they not?
| 
