|
|
|||
|
SHAPE, 8 January 2001 |
Interview SACEUR
TV Interview with Mr. Jelle Visser,
TROS: Sir, you flew more than 147 missions over Vietnam; you spent more than 2,500 hours in the cockpit of a jet fighter. How did that shape your character? GEN RALSTON: That's a good question; I'm not sure that I can give you as good an answer as you deserve. But I do believe one thing about fighter pilots. I flew single-seat fighters through most of my career, and I think it makes you dependent upon yourself. You are there all alone, by yourself. You're flying as part of a team, as part of a flight of four, and if anything I think it probably makes you very self sufficient. You have to depend on yourself to get in, do the job, and get back out. TROS: Qualities you need when you're SACEUR? GEN RALSTON: Probably. TROS: You are the second Supreme Commander with an Air Force background. Does that mean that you have a different view on defense and NATO than your predecessors? GEN RALSTON: I don't really believe so. I would like to think that when our nation nominates someone to be Supreme Allied Commander Europe, they are looking for someone with a broad background. I have spent many years - most of the past decade - in what we call joint jobs, where I've worked very closely with the Army, the Navy, the Marines, as well as the Air Force. So I don't really think of myself as an Airman in this job as much as a combined commander, where I work with all the nations and all the services of all the nations. TROS: In 1999 there was Operation Allied Force. What do you think is the lesson NATO learned from the Kosovo war? GEN RALSTON: I think there were a lot of lessons learned. But one of the things that I think stands out above everything else is the fact that the Alliance acted together by consensus; they stuck together because they knew that their cause was just, their cause was right. And at the end of the 78-day bombing, NATO was even stronger and united. TROS: Isn't 78 days a very long period for such a powerful alliance to get Milosevic on his knees? GEN RALSTON: We were prepared to go much longer. It's however long that it took to accomplish the mission. I don't believe - certainly from my perspective in my previous job - that this was ever going to be a short, quick operation. Any time you go into combat, you have got to be prepared to stay as long as it takes to be successful. I think NATO did that, but once again, they acted together as a team; 19 governments - and not only 19 governments, but the parliaments of 19 nations - all agreed with the action. TROS: Are you satisfied with the current situation in Kosovo? GEN RALSTON: We are never satisfied with any situation, wherever it is. But let me say this: the situation in Kosovo is far better today than it was a year and a half ago, or two years ago, or five years ago. You can go into the villages, into the towns, you can feel the energy of the people as they are rebuilding their homes and rebuilding their lives. I'm very much encouraged by the progress that has been made. Does that mean that everything is as it should be? No. There is still a lot of work to be done. There's a lot of work to be done on the economic side of the house, a lot of work to be done on the political side of the house. But let's take a look at what all has happened in Kosovo in the past few months. We had a very successful election on the 23rd of September in the FRY, followed on the 28th of October by very successful elections in Kosovo itself, followed again on the 23rd of December by Serbian elections. There has been a remarkable transformation in the political landscape of the Balkans over the past three months. TROS: But there is still of course a lot of hostility in Kosovo. Shouldn't KFOR stay in Kosovo until eternity? GEN RALSTON: I certainly want to be able to turn Kosovo back over to the local inhabitants and all of the Balkans. But I do believe there's a role for KFOR as we try to maintain a safe and secure environment to allow the political situation to develop that will allow the economic situation to develop. TROS: So what do you think? How long should KFOR stay in Kosovo? GEN RALSTON: That's a very difficult question to answer and ultimately it's a political question, not a military question. But today we are very much involved in maintaining a safe and secure environment. There is plenty for us to do, and we will just have to see how that develops. TROS: NATO has often been criticized about the arrest, or non-arrest, of war criminals in the Balkans. NATO catches the small ones, but not Mladic and Karadzic. What's your comment on this? GEN RALSTON: I would tell you that SFOR and NATO are working the problem very hard, and we have had success. Would we like to get Karadzic, Mladic? True. TROS: Do you know where they are, where they're staying? GEN RALSTON: We know that they are not in Bosnia, let me put it that way. But we will continue this mission until justice is achieved. TROS: Do you know where they are? GEN RALSTON: We know where they have been, yes. TROS: And the current situation where they are? GEN RALSTON: I believe that they are in Serbia. TROS: Then it's too difficult to capture them? GEN RALSTON: We have no mandate to go into Serbia to capture war criminals. But we are very actively working the problem across all of Bosnia. TROS: So what can you do when you know that they're in Serbia? What can NATO do? GEN RALSTON: NATO can keep pressure on the political authorities within Serbia to cooperate with the ICTY. I think this is being done, and I'm hopeful that as Serbia rejoins the European community, they will in fact live up to their obligations to turn over those people who have been indicted for war crimes. TROS: Same story for Mr. Milosevic? GEN RALSTON: True. TROS: Right now there is a hot issue in the news. Dozens of NATO soldiers who were deployed in the Balkans are suffering from leukaemia caused, some say, by NATO ammunition - ammunition that contained depleted uranium. Some of those soldiers have died. What's your comment on this? GEN RALSTON: I am saddened when any soldier dies, for any reason. But one has to look at the causes of leukaemia, look at the causes of leukaemia in the civilian population - civilians who have never been to the Balkans or never been around depleted uranium. You have a certain level of leukaemia and cancer that occurs in the general population. One has to look at that level versus what has occurred with the troops that have been in the Balkans. So I think one has to look at that first of all. Secondly, let me talk about depleted uranium for a moment. Here is an A-10 round of ammunition from a 30mm round. For your viewers, this is what we're talking about. This is a shell, a piece of ammunition, that is used in an A-10 airplane. This is the cartridge, where the powder is; this doesn't go out of the airplane. This is the projectile that we're talking about - a very small projectile. And in the case of the depleted uranium, it's an even smaller piece of this that goes inside. It is in there not because it's uranium, not for radioactivity, because its radioactivity is much lower - and I'll come back to that in a moment - than what occurs in the normal soil. But it is a very dense material, and that's what is needed to penetrate armor. So this shell that we've got here has been in existence for over 30 years, with our troops loading the airplanes, storing the ammunition. It is not a radioactive shell. TROS: Are you saying there is no link, no connection, between the ammunition used by the Americans and the leukaemia victims? GEN RALSTON: That's certainly my understanding of it. And again, this is a scientific and medical issue, not a military issue. But this problem has been studied extensively for the past 30 years. It's been looked at in even greater detail since the Gulf War. And we are cooperating fully here at SHAPE and NATO to provide all the information we've got about this. But again, this is a scientific and medical issue. Let me talk a little bit about the radioactivity issue, because when people talk about uranium that's the immediate thing that they focus on. If you look at average soil, you have four tons of natural uranium per square mile. That's just the natural soil. The depleted uranium that is inside this shell here has 40 percent less radiation than the natural radiation occurring in the soil. So this is not a radiation hazard at all. Now, depleted uranium is a heavy metal just like lead, mercury or any others - you shouldn't ingest it, you shouldn't eat it, you shouldn't breathe it. So that is an issue that needs to be looked at, but in my view there is not a connection between the leukaemia and depleted uranium. We have provided the information to the United Nations. The United Nations has sent a team into Kosovo, for example. They have made their measurements, they are working on their report, and the report will be released later this year. So we'll have to wait and see what that says. TROS: You are the SACEUR, but you are also the commander-in-chief of
all the American forces deployed in Europe. Some people are afraid of
President-elect George GEN RALSTON: No, I don't think you should fear another policy at all, for the following reasons. Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell said during the announcement of his nomination that the United States will in fact do a review of their commitments, and they will make appropriate recommendations back to the President and the President will make whatever decision that he has to make. So it's premature for me to speculate on what that review might show or what decisions the President might take. But I can also tell you that every four years the United States undertakes a review of its national military strategy - the Quadrennial Defense Review. The last one was conducted in 1997, and in my previous job I played a role in that. By law, there needs to be another Quadrennial Defense Review. The results of that are due to the Congress of the United States in September 2001. So within the next nine months that review will be conducted and they will look at what is the appropriate level of US troops that should be forward deployed in Europe, in Asia, and in the Middle East, what missions should they be given, and so forth. This is something that's done routinely every four years. It will be done again. The incoming Administration certainly has the responsibility to take a look at the national strategy and at the way the troops are being deployed. We will provide our input into that review, and they will make a decision. But no, I do not believe that Europeans need to fear a new strategy. TROS: Why not?
TROS: One of the main topics in the European Union right now is the creation of a European Rapid Reaction Force without US involvement. Are you in favor of such a force? GEN RALSTON: I have tried to be supportive of what the European Union is doing, because I do believe it's appropriate for the Europeans to play a greater role in the defense of Europe. TROS: Burden sharing. GEN RALSTON: Of course. One of the things that you need to do, and that we have said, is that as you set up this force it needs to be done in a way that doesn't detract from the effectiveness of the NATO Alliance. And I believe that SHAPE Headquarters, where we are now, certainly can play a role in making sure that we haven't double-tasked units and that the European Union is not counting on a battalion that is committed under a NATO plan, for example. I believe there is a role for us to play in terms of planning. We could invite the EU members that are not members of NATO - Finland, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, for example, to send planners here to SHAPE, and we could work out a plan under the direction of the Deputy SACEUR who will always be an officer from a European Union nation. Then that plan could be provided direct to the European Union. At the same time, it would go to NATO, and you would have a common set of options for the two political bodies to make a decision on whether or not this should be done by the EU or should be done by NATO. It also gives you a way to sort out the use of NATO assets that would be needed by the European Union. And there may be a reason for the non-EU NATO members to participate in that mission as well. TROS: But suppose there is no link, there is no involvement. There are two separate bodies - the European Reaction Force and NATO, separately. What would be the dangers, do you think? What would be the impact for NATO? GEN RALSTON: I think it would be a very bad mistake if it was set up that way, because I do believe there would be a great potential for double tasking of units. I think there would be a great potential for confusion at the political level when people are looking at military options that could be done. And I don't believe there would be an adequate mechanism for the use, or the discussion of the use of, NATO assets by the EU in an EU-led operation. So unless you have a common linkage between the two organizations, I think you run great dangers in those three areas. TROS: How do you see NATO enlargement? What's the next step?
TROS: But what do you think of it? Are they ready? GEN RALSTON: Every country is a unique situation. They all have various states of reform, various amounts of interoperability; their geography is different in each case. So you can't generalize across the range of aspirants. I think our last expansion was very successful. The three countries that most recently joined NATO have moved forward rapidly. They are continuing their reform; they're continuing to be interoperable; they're providing their troops in the Balkans on NATO missions as we speak. And I think it is a step forward. So we will continue to look at all of the aspirants and make our recommendations known to the political authorities when they ask for them. TROS: Is it in military terms still possible to cooperate with so many countries? Now we have 19 members. Suppose there will be three new members in the future? Is it still possible for you to be commander of such an enormous force with so many different countries, so many different soldiers, officers, etc.? Wasn't that also a problem during Allied Force? GEN RALSTON: But it was certainly a problem that was overcome, and it worked very well. And let me ask you the question this way: how many nations do we have involved in Kosovo today? We've got 39 nations that have their troops on the ground in Kosovo as we speak. Not all of them are from Europe, but it's working extremely well. We're working well together. So is that a fatal flaw? No, it's not a fatal flaw at all. TROS: Your Army colleagues are a big fan of General Ralston. "Joe Ralston is as good as it gets. Maybe he's the greatest guy since General Patton. He will literally go the extra mile to shore up a relationship." What will be your next career move? GEN RALSTON: I am focused solely on being the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. That is my entire focus. I have been very fortunate to have had a full career up to this point, and I can think of no better way of ending my career than trying to be a successful Supreme Allied Commander Europe. TROS: Thank you.
TROS: They don't know what an A-10 is. They don't know that it's a tank buster or exactly what shells it uses, etc. They don't know. I think the Italians are the problem. They're lighting up the fire. GEN RALSTON: It's an emotional issue. What we're trying to do is provide the facts as best we can…. TROS: Thank you very much. |