3/13/09

This week marked the 10th anniversary of NATO’s expansion into the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Their inclusion into NATO helped stabilize the region, consolidate democracy, and firmly put these countries on the path to membership in the European Union. Yet, after eight years of neglect from Washington, the Alliance is struggling to redefine itself to address the challenges of the 21st century. In Afghanistan, the situation has deteriorated and NATO is now split over how to go forward. Beyond Afghanistan, NATO faces fundamental questions about its future direction; its relationship with states on the alliance’s borders; and its ability to overcome operational challenges, from technological disparities between members’ militaries to the difficulty of effectively operating with so many members. Yet revitalizing the Alliance is crucial to America’s security. The U.S. needs strong allies to help share the burden of maintaining international security and, despite the challenges of recent years, with more than 30,000 non-U.S. NATO troops in Afghanistan and an important stabilizing role in Eastern and Southern Europe, NATO remains irreplaceable. There were important signs this week that efforts to reinvigorate the Alliance are beginning. France’s announcement that it will become a full member of NATO after more than 40 years, the collaboration between the Obama administration and NATO in its Afghanistan strategic review, and the announcement of high profile and experienced American officials to key U.S. positions, all signal the lasting importance of the most successful military alliance in history.

NATO’s efforts have been critical to stabilizing Europe following the collapse of communism. NATO has been a powerful force for reform and stability following the collapse of communism in Europe.  As Phil Gordon, the newly appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, testified before the Senate last year, “I believe that the process of NATO enlargement, begun in the early 1990s, has contributed to security and prosperity in Europe. The incentive of NATO membership has led aspiring countries to reform their political systems, liberalize their economies, root out corruption, resolve territorial disputes with neighbors, rationalize their military establishments, and improve minority rights. Once in the alliance new members have contributed troops for vital NATO missions in the Balkans and in Afghanistan and many sent forces to join the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. In turn, NATO membership has reassured their populations of political and military solidarity with the United States and members of the European Union, enabling them to focus on improving the well-being of their citizens rather than worrying about the types of military threats they had lived with for centuries.” While he was ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns summed up its achievements this way: “Closer to Europe NATO is justifiably proud of ending two Balkans wars, stopping ethnic cleansing, sending war criminals to The Hague and bringing peace to the region.” [Philip Gordon, 3/11/08. R. Nicholas Burns, 12/19/03]

The alliance faces a tall agenda:  must meet immediate challenges, agree on a fundamental strategy, and improve its interaction with countries outside its borders. As the New York Times writes, “Even under President Obama, there will still be serious arguments between the United States and its allies, on such issues as Afghanistan and how to deal with Russia and the NATO candidacies of Ukraine and Georgia. In many ways, NATO has been drifting since its post-cold-war enlargement, taking on major commitments like Afghanistan without a serious debate over the alliance’s strategy and purpose.”  NATO leaders met at Davos and “agreed that the 60-year-old alliance faced a twin practical and intellectual challenge: practical results in Afghanistan and a long-term vision. But there was little agreement on what such a future vision should be. One participant said that NATO should focus on its one-for-all/all-for-one philosophy as articulated in Article 5 of its founding charter and not enlarge too fast. Another said that on the contrary, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, already operating out of its area, should go more global in its membership as well and become the military arm of the United Nations whenever the world body could not intervene. A third wanted to make it a community of values and democracies, while a fourth suggested regional NATO satellites.” As the Atlantic Council writes, “Each time new challenges have arisen, NATO nations have sought a new consensus on the changing strategic environment and how to address it together by crafting a guidance document, or ‘Strategic Concept,’ for the Alliance. Yet NATO’s current Strategic Concept, its sixth over the past sixty years, was adopted in 1999 – before the September 11 assaults and anthrax attacks in the United States and major terrorist attacks in Europe, before transatlantic dissonance over the invasion of Iraq, before Alliance engagement in Afghanistan, before additional waves of NATO and EU enlargement, before cyber attacks on Estonia, before the reappearance of an assertive Russia and many other global trends.”  Critical to NATO’s future is enhanced coordination and interaction with countries outside of the Alliance, like Russia. “NATO must find ways to manage its differences with Russia, Mrs. Clinton told the meeting. But she also said the alliance should continue to keep the door open for membership by Ukraine and Georgia despite Moscow's opposition.”  [NY Times, 3/7/09. NY Times, 1/30/09. Atlantic Council of the US, 2/09. WS Journal, 3/5/09]

Recent positive signs have demonstrated the new administration’s commitment to the transatlantic partnership NATO alliance. Within the past few days, world leaders have reasserted their interest in the vitality of NATO. First, “President Nicolas Sarkozy announced Wednesday that France intended to become a full member of NATO, 43 years after Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of the alliance’s military command and threw NATO, and American forces, out of the country. ‘Because it is in her interest and because it is her choice, France will take her full place, that of an ally both free and in solidarity, independent but engaged, a country that assumes all its responsibilities, everywhere and speaking to everyone, at the service of our values and of peace,’ Mr. Sarkozy said.” Second, the Obama administration has nominated two high-profile experts to important NATO positions:  Ivo H. Daalder, NSC adviser and Europe expert, as United States ambassador to NATO, and Alexander Vershbow, former ambassador to Russia, NATO and South Korea, as assistant secretary of defense overseeing the Pentagon’s relationship with NATO. Finally, the Obama administration this week pledged explicit consultation and partnership on the most pressing issue of the day, the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  Vice-president Biden said in Brussels, “President Obama ordered a full-scale strategic review of our policy with regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted that we consult with our allies and partners so that we produce a truly common vision of how to proceed. And that's what I had the privilege to do today at the North Atlantic Council. I heard from our allies. I heard the concerns and they listed their priorities. And I pledged to them, as I pledge to all Europeans now, that we will build their ideas into our review, which we expect to present to President Obama before the end of this month, in preparation of the NATO summit in April.” This type of consultation is a dramatic shift in America’s approach from over the previous eight years. [NY Times, 3/11/09. NY Times, 3/11/09. Joe Biden, 3/10/09]

What We’re Reading

China is worried about the value of U.S. Treasuries and urged the Obama administration to guarantee the bonds’ security.  Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said that China is also prepared to use new economic stimulus measures at any time, and has plenty of “ammunition” against the global financial crisis.

U.S. stocks are rising, but new numbers show Americans lost wealth at a “staggering” rate in 2008.  Sweden will help bailout Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

American envoys try to defuse the political tension in Pakistan between Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif.  A drone strike killed 24 alleged local Taliban in Pakistan.

As the Obama administration works on its strategic review of the situation in Afghanistan, the new strategy is expected to include more emphasis on Pakistan and offering incentives to wean away many Taliban-linked insurgents.

Britain’s contact with Hezbollah “vexes” the Obama administration, which may not have been informed of the overtures.

The Pentagon announced that it will spend $400 million to develop a “spy blimp” to provide better surveillance.

Commentary of the Day

Les Gelb writes about how the U.S. can get out of Afghanistan without losing, but says that ensuring that Afghanistan is not a sanctuary for terrorists is not an achievable goal.

Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, and Kimberly Kagan look at how to “surge” in Afghanistan and win decisively.

The LA Times explains how U.S. involvement helped bring Somalia to the crisis it’s in now.

William Tucker thinks closing Yucca Mountain is an opportunity to redefine nuclear waste and develop a complete reprocessing capability.