September 25, 2002	Wednesday	Rajab 17, 1423

WARSAW: Its core mission altered by the Sept 11 attacks, NATO is refocussing itself on combating terrorists and controlling weapons of mass destruction, US officials said on Monday, tasks that might put the alliance in position for a role in an American-led war on Iraq.

The organization’s new focus is one of the reasons Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is expected to propose to the organization that it create a rapid response force of up to 20,000 soldiers. The force would be capable of striking on 30 days notice well outside of NATO’s traditional areas of North America and Europe.

“NATO has been transformed in its thinking about its role, its structure, its mission because of what happened on Sept 11, 2001,” said a senior NATO official.

Rumsfeld also is discussing the proposal in private meetings with member nations. If NATO ministers back it, the issue would come up for a vote at a November summit of heads of NATO states in Prague, Czech Republic.

“There is a broad recognition now in the alliance — but there was not on Sept 10, 2001 — that the combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction is the single greatest threat, not just to the United States, but to every member of the alliance,” the senior NATO official said on Monday. “And we assume the great majority of threats in the future to NATO countries will not come from within Europe but from outside Europe.”

Rumsfeld met with the Poland’s president, prime minister and defence minister on Monday and is expected to meet with NATO Secretary General George Robertson and Turkish and Italian defence officials before returning to Washington on Wednesday.

NATO’s proposed new mission would create an organization capable of taking on the type of threats that President Bush says are posed by Iraq.

Asked about NATO’s potential involvement in a war on Iraq, Rumsfeld told reporters travelling with him to Warsaw on Sunday, “It never crossed my mind. We haven’t proposed it.”

But US policy-makers said they would seek support from NATO members in the event of a war, either formally or through contributions from NATO members acting outside the organization.

“Whatever we decide to do, whatever the international community decides to do, I think we would welcome the support, the political support of our friends and allies in NATO,” said a senior US defence official. “I think that’s something we’re here to talk about.”

One problem with including NATO in a war on Iraq or the Bush administration’s pursuit of terrorists is that it would change the organization’s mission of defending its member nations in their own region.

Although NATO as an organization is not involved in Afghanistan, 17 of its 18 members have played a role. The only nation not participating, Iceland, joined NATO for its protective military umbrella because it has no military.

NATO is not formally coordinating the international military mission in Afghanistan partly because of member countries’ concerns that the operation went beyond alliance rules and territory.

Those limits would end under proposals that would extend the pact outside of its traditional area of operations, revamp its command structure and reorient it to focus on terrorism and taboo weapons.

American strategists are pressing for a new, streamlined NATO structure that would transform it from an organization designed to battle a Soviet invasion of Europe to one capable of crossing the globe to rescue hostages or fighting wars in remote regions, said the US defence official.

Such changes would mirror Rumsfeld’s ongoing transformation of Pentagon military programmes, which is focused on high-tech warfare and designed to get soldiers to battle more quickly and with better coordination.—Dawn/The Los Angeles Times News Service (c) The Washington Post.