|
|
|
 |
|
|
| HOME |
| NUCLEAR AND WMD |
| TRANS-ATLANTIC SECURITY |
| WEAPONS TRADE |
| BASIC PUBLICATIONS |
| ABOUT BASIC |
 |
BASIC's NATO UPDATE27 November 2006 The NATO Riga Summit is the start of a process of assessment of NATO's transformation efforts. The German Chancellor, Dr. Angela Merkel, for example, is one of a growing number of political leaders that is calling for a review of NATO's Strategic Concept in 2008 or 2009 (ten years after it was elaborated at the Washington Summit in 1999). BASIC has been working on a range of NATO-related transformation issues in recent years, including: the NATO Response Force; operations in Afghanistan; Ballistic Missile Defense; nuclear policy; the Prague Capabilities Commitments and capability improvement; the Alliance's political development, and especially transparency and accountability issues; and the Global Partnership and future priorities. Against a background of NATO's expanding operational activities, BASIC will analyze the Alliance's process of transformation and identify priorities for NATO's reform agenda in the years ahead. As part of this new focus on the Alliance, BASIC is upgrading its ad hoc NATO email updates to a monthly service. This new monthly update will be similar to BASIC's other regular updates on Biological Weapons, Missile Defence, and Washington Nuclear issues. The NATO email updates will provide a news review of the most critical challenges facing transatlantic security and point the reader to additional resources. To see BASIC's other email updates, visit http://www.basicint.org/update/index.htm To add or remove an email address from BASIC's NATO Update list, please contact clindborg at basicint.org with the subject heading "subscribe" or "unsubscribe from NATO list." ~~~ Afghanistan is dominating the agenda at the Riga Summit on November 28-29. Policymakers and analysts have said numerous times that NATO's mission in Afghanistan is the litmus test for the purpose and prospects of the Alliance in its post-Cold War incarnation. With so much pressure on NATO to save-the-day in Afghanistan, Heads of State are unable to tend to all of the matters that they might have planned when they originally scheduled this year's summit. Therefore, the topics listed below cover more than what is at the top of the Riga agenda.
While Heads of State are focusing on Afghanistan, they are also covering capabilities issues and considering "global partners" (see below). NATO is not inviting Russia or aspirant countries to the summit. This BASIC Update on NATO focuses primarily on Afghanistan, with a brief review of other important issues facing the Alliance.
AfghanistanIn the lead up to the Riga Summit, NATO's Parliamentary Assembly met in Quebec, Canada on November 13-17 and the focus was on Afghanistan. The Parliamentary Assembly International Secretariat released a Press Communiqué, declaring: "NATO's Afghanistan Mission is in Trouble." The title was intended to add a sense of urgency before Riga, but was also warranted. As of the end of October, about 3,700 Afghans and more than 115 international troops have been killed since the beginning of 2006, according to BBC and AFP articles. These figures are much higher than last year. The BBC reported that dozens of Afghan civilians were killed during NATO operations in October. Some of the deaths reportedly occurred because of NATO bombing raids on the southern part of the country. RFE/RL reported that local Afghan officials estimated between 50 and 90 deaths happened as a result of the bombings. The Parliamentary Assembly also called for a "Political Initiative on Afghanistan" for the summit. According to the Press Communiqué, the initiative should balance security, military, and reconstruction efforts, strictly apply international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, improve coordination on international institutions, devise common policies toward leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and increase effectiveness of NATO's joint operations, including meeting troop requirements. On October 5, NATO extended its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations to include the east of Afghanistan. The expansion meant that the Alliance is now responsible for over 31,000 troops throughout the country. The Boston Globe reported that over 10,000 US troops that were part of Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan (OEF-A) automatically came under NATO command on the same day, leaving about 8,000 US troops to continue fighting under OEF-A. The most violent parts of Afghanistan have been in the east and south, where Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces continue to hold sway. As noted in the Washington Post, British, Canadian, Dutch and US forces in the south have been exposed to some of the most intense fighting. Lt. Gen. Richards was quoted in The Independent as saying that British forces have been involved in some of the fiercest fighting since Korea. "We did not expect the ferocity of the engagements … [W]e have greater firepower, so we tend to win, but, of course, they can take their losses while our casualties will invariably lead to concern back home. You also have to think that each time we kill one, how many more enemies we are creating. And of course, the lack of security means hardly any reconstruction is taking place now, so we are not exactly winning hearts and minds." The escalation in violence impelled some, including the Financial Times, to call for many more troops. Among those who thought NATO forces should have been greater in number included General [the] Lord Guthrie, who said, as reported in The Observer, "…to launch the British army in with the numbers there are, while we're still going on in Iraq is cuckoo." However, not everyone thought adding more military forces was the solution. Amb. Robert Barry (Ret.), BASIC Board Member, argued in BASIC Comment that a focus on other needs, such as police training and a revitalized Afghan leadership, would go far to improve the situation. Moreover, European countries that are members of both the European Union and NATO heeded the call to send troops to support the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. With demands for European troops in Lebanon, Africa, and some remaining in Iraq and in other peace operations, finding extra troops for Afghanistan has become extremely difficult. In September, Julianne Smith explained in this CSIS article the reluctance of European leaders to send more troops into Afghanistan. A major controversy has brewed over the caveats that some countries have assigned to their forces. According to an article in the Washington Post, Canadian Brig. Gen. Tim Grant said that the NATO-led force would be more effective if member countries lifted restrictions that prevented their troops from fighting in southern Afghanistan. For example, Germany has not allowed its forces to participate in combat and has consequently avoided sending its troops to the more violent south. On November 22, Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated Germany's refusal to shift German troops to the south, despite calls for more troops in the region. In addition to force caveats, NATO-ISAF is suffering from a shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan. The Scotsman reported on October 16 that UK troops are hiring private helicopters to meet requirements. The Financial Times reported on November 1 that the United Kingdom would send more helicopters by next spring to alleviate the shortage. AFP reported on British Prime Minister Tony Blair's visit to Afghanistan on November 20 to show support for British troops and NATO efforts in the country. The transcript of the Prime Minister's speech was posted to the 10 Downing Street Website. NATO continues to run Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which are supposed to support the Afghan government by providing security and sometimes training and humanitarian assistance. This combination varies among different PRTs, as noted in a recent Atlantic Council Report on NATO stabilization and reconstruction operations. NATO and US officials inaugurated the newest PRT on November 21. This 25th PRT is located in the town of Kalagush, which is in the eastern province of Nuristan. On November 2, NATO hosted a meeting on Afghanistan reconstruction. Representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank and partner countries joined the discussion, with a press conference afterward. NATO has requested EU assistance with training police and judiciary, as reported by the Associated Press on November 24. NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, General James Jones said during a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations on October 4, "Anything we do militarily is perishable if it's not accompanied by reconstruction." As quoted in this International Herald Tribune article, NATO's Secretary-General summed up his understanding of the challenge in Afghanistan, "There is no military solution. The answer is development, nation-building, building of roads, schools. That is the answer for Afghanistan."
Comprehensive Political Guidance and CapabilitiesNATO leaders have been reviewing a brief document called the Comprehensive Political Guidance (CPG), which broadly assesses the future international security environment and lays out a range of missions that NATO should be expected to fulfill in the coming decades. The CPG is not as detailed as the 1999 Strategic Concept, but is intended to provide leaders with a more up-to-date framework. NATO Spokesman James Appaturai compared the CPG to the Strategic Concept, explaining that "It's not as binding, and it is not as comprehensive. Even though it has that in the title." Some analysts and political leaders are calling for a review of the Strategic Concept in time for the 60th Anniversary of NATO in 2009, as argued in this report from CSIS. Alliance leaders will probably announce in Riga that the NATO Response Force is fully operational. The Alliance already used the NRF while it was a work in progress. The NRF assisted the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in September 2005 and only about one month later, assisted Pakistan after a devastating earthquake hit that country. At full operational capacity, the NRF has 25,000 troops, and should be able to deploy on 5-days notice and sustain an operation for at least 30 days. Robert Bell writes in NATO Review that although the Alliance may be declaring the NRF fully operational, the Alliance will still encounter challenges with making the force work. NATO has sought to cope with strategic airlift shortages and the United States has proposed a consortium of C-17s for use by the Alliance. The consortium would supply four C-17s and would complement the existing agreement that many NATO members have under the Strategic Airlift Interim Solutions program, which provides Antonov An-124-100 transport aircraft. The much-anticipated Airbus A-400M, which is supposed to fulfill Europe's strategic airlift requirements, is not scheduled to be ready until 2010. See the NATO press release on the proposal for the consortium of C-17s. Other capabilities programs that NATO leaders are considering include a stabilization and reconstruction initiative, special operations forces, and a Middle East military training initiative. Some of these possible activities are discussed in a CSIS article by Simon Serfaty and in a speech delivered by Norwegian Defence Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen.
Going Global and NATO EnlargementThe Associated Press has reported on US President Bush's proposal to have an expanded NATO partnership with Australia, Finland, Japan, South Korea and Sweden. Because these countries have already helped in NATO's areas of operations, it is thought that the Alliance should offer some type of formal acknowledgement for these countries. Beyond showing of symbolic ties, the proposal is supposed to permit closer military ties and allow them to train together more intensively, as suggested by US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns during a State Department press briefing. In October, Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier wrote an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune, arguing that NATO should go further and open its membership to all who seek it if they meet requirements that the Alliance establishes. Charles Kupchan, also in an International Herald Tribune article, argued that NATO should focus on improving its current operations and avoid taking on big plans for opening up membership to the entire world because doing so would strain the Alliance's resources. France has led several other NATO members in voicing skepticism about global plans for NATO, as mentioned in this Guardian article from November 25. Even though Australia has been one of the countries that has been mentioned as a contender for membership in a global NATO, Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has said that his country should be an "outside partner," rather than seek to become a full member of the Alliance, as noted in an article from The Age. The Riga Summit is not inaugurating new members. This past summer and fall, the Secretary-General met with representatives from the three most serious contenders for membership: Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia (FYR). The New York Times reported that leaders from the three countries were hoping that they might receive invitations at Riga to join the Alliance, but the Secretary-General said back in July that such invitations would not be issued until 2008. The US government has pushed for Georgia and Ukraine to become members in the Alliance, although these two countries have not gone through a formal membership process yet. Deep opposition has come from Russia. Moreover, Georgia has suffered from instability that would make meeting membership requirements difficult, as mentioned in an article by the Caucasus Reporting Service. Ukraine faces internal opposition to joining NATO. See Vladimir Socor's article on political posturing over Ukraine's foreign policy, including toward NATO.
Missile Defense and Nuclear Weapons in EuropeNATO leaders are reviewing the Missile Defence Feasibility Study, which was delivered in May. The proposed system is meant to integrate with the US Ballistic Missile Defense system. (Back in May, BASIC called for the study to be made public.) Oliver Meier explains in an article for Arms Control Today (July/August 2006) that European NATO members will need to decide soon whether to replace their aging fleet of dual-capable aircraft, which can deliver nuclear weapons. The same article notes that Alliance Heads of State are unlikely to change course on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe during their Riga meeting. At the June 8 meeting of the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group, NATO leaders reaffirmed in their Communiqué that the Alliance continues to place "great value" on the nuclear forces based in Europe.
Relations with the European Union and RussiaAlthough EU-NATO relations are not specifically a major part of the Riga agenda, competition between the two institutions is still a concern, especially given the revived calls for a larger European army. In early November, for example, the International Herald Tribune posted an article about a German politician calling for a European army with 100,000 troops. The army would be independent with a single command. And the Financial Times reported on Polish ideas for a European army of the same size, but one that would be linked to NATO. Russia remains concerned about NATO expansion eastward, as mentioned in the above sections on Georgia and Ukraine. The NATO-Russia Council is not meeting at the Riga Summit, and enlargement issues are not expected to take up any serious portion of the schedule. However, the European Union and Russia held their own Summit on November 24. EU and Russian leaders discussed a range of issues, including trade and cooperation on security. A press release on Finland's EU Presidency Webpage summarized the outcome of the summit.
Peace Support Operations and TrainingIn September, Reuters reported that NATO was increasing patrols in Kosovo as decisions were moving forward on the status of the territory, where the Alliance maintains a peacekeeping operation of 16,000 troops. An article from the International Crisis Group warns that a decision about Kosovo's status should not come later than January 2007, or otherwise the relative stability that has been experienced in the region may not last. NATO will need to assess whether it will maintain such a large presence if and when Kosovo becomes independent. According to this NATO article, the Alliance will continue to support African Union peace operations in Darfur by providing strategic airlift until at least December 31. Despite peace operations efforts from international organizations, on November 23, UPI reported that the UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief had concluded that security in Darfur was becoming worse. Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister met with NATO's Secretary General on November 21 in Brussels. While the alliance does not have major plans to expand its operations in Iraq, especially with many members having opposed the Iraq War and resources now being pulled among so many other operations, the Secretary reassured Iraq's official that NATO would continue its training of Iraqi security forces and provide equipment assistance. NATO contributed to the establishment of Iraq's new National Defence College, which opened on September 3.
Will a New US Secretary of Defense Mean a New US Approach to NATO?After the failure of the Republicans to keep the House and Senate in US mid-term elections on November 7, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stepped down. The results of the elections were in part seen as a rejection of President Bush's foreign policy, especially in Iraq. Rumsfeld has served as Secretary of Defense since the beginning of the Bush Presidency and of course he was a key architect behind the Administration's approach to NATO. He has frequently been remembered for his remarks about "Old" and "New" Europe, which reflected a philosophy that alienated some European leaders, especially in France and Germany. The US refusal to have NATO lead its initial mission in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 was interpreted as being a rebuff of the Alliance. Instead, the Bush Administration became known for relying on "coalitions of the willing." It is being speculated that under new leadership, the Defense Department could reverse the course of "going it alone" or relying on "coalitions of the willing." Instead, a new Secretary of Defense would be expected to reach out to NATO allies again. This could mean that Europe will be expected to do more, as suggested in an article by the International Herald Tribune. However, because President Bush will stay in office for only two more years and the new Secretary of Defense will not be expected to stay in office any longer, and with presidential and congressional election campaigning beginning in about six months, US leaders may have a difficult time pushing many new foreign policy initiatives. Also, see this article by Col. Dan Smith, US Army (Ret.) that explains why a change in leadership might not bring drastic changes in overall US foreign policy.
Recent Publications on NATOBell, Robert,
"Sisyphus and the NRF," NATO Review, Autumn 2006. Binnendijk,
Hans, "Transatlantic Homeland Defense," CTNSP/INSS Special Report,
National Defense University, May 2006. Burwell, Frances
G.; Gompert, David C.; Lebl, Leslie S.; Lodal, Jan M.; and Slocombe,
Walter B., "Transatlantic Transformation: Building a NATO-EU Security
Architecture," Atlantic Council Policy Paper, March 2006. Colston, John, "NATO Transformation - Capabilities for the 21st Century," Presentation before the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), July 20, 2006 http://www.saclant.nato.int/events/seminars/06rusi/colstonnotes.pdf Daalder, Ivo
and Goldgeier, James, "NATO: For Global Security, Expand Alliance,"
International Herald Tribune, October 12, 2006. Gallis, Paul,
"NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance," CRS
Reports for Congress, August 22, 2006. Kamp, Karl-Heinz,
"Waiting for Another Day," The World Today, November 2006. Kuchieda, Jean-Pierre,
Rapporteur, and Tekelioglu, Mehmet, Co-Rapporteur, report submitted
on behalf of the Defence Committee, Western European Union Assembly,
"European Forces in Afghanistan: Learning Lessons," June 20, 2006. Kupchan, Charles,
"How to Keep NATO Relevant," International Herald Tribune,
October 5, 2006. Nelson, C. Richard
(Principal Author and Project Director), "How Should NATO Handle
Stabilisation Operations and Reconstruction Efforts?" Atlantic
Council Policy Paper, September 2006. Serfaty, Simon,
"The NATO Riga Summit: A Renewed Commitment to Transformation,"
CSIS, October 2, 2006. Smith, Julianne,
(Principal Author), "Transforming NATO (…again): A Primer for the
NATO Summit in Riga 2006," CSIS, November 2006. US House of
Representatives, The Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats,
Committee on International Relations, "United States and NATO: Transformation
and the Riga Summit," May 3, 2006. Weitz, Richard,
"Towards a New Turkey-NATO Partnership in Central Asia," Turkish
Policy Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 2, Summer 2006.
|
|
BASIC
UK: The Grayston Centre, 2nd Floor, 28 Charles Square London
N1 6HT, +44-(0)20-7324 4680 |