Can the Afghan Army Outlast NATO's Departure?

This article by Julian Borger in the Guardian gives food for thought to those who continue to support the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Do NATO member states, and the Alliance as a whole, have the staying power and will to support the ANA in a fight with the Taliban once they have departed? It seems doubtful at the moment that the answer is unlikely to be positive, and if that is true, what has been the point of the deaths and fighting of the past ten-plus years?

North Atlantic Council Meets on Syria Crisis

The North Atlantic Council was convened in emergency session this evening, following the Syrian mortar bombing of a Turkish town and the killing of five Turkish civilians, four of them children. This statement was issued:

North Atlantic Council statement on developments on the Turkish-Syrian border
As stated on 26 June 2012, the Alliance continues to closely follow the situation in Syria. In view of the Syrian regime’s recent aggressive acts at NATO’s southeastern border, which are a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies, the North Atlantic Council met today, within the framework of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, and discussed the continuous shelling of locations in Turkey adjacent to the Turkish-Syrian border by the Syrian regime forces. 

The most recent shelling on 3 October 20l2, which caused the death of five Turkish citizens and injured many, constitutes a cause of greatest concern for, and is strongly condemned by, all Allies.

This is a clear warning to Syria that any escalation of cross border conflict will not be tolerated, as was the Washington DC and NATO sanctioned retaliation by Turkey against Syrian targets. While this meeting was not a result of Turkey invoking NATO's Article 5 common defence guarantee, the statement can be read as a clear warning to Syria that such a move may well follow any further attacks.

Turkey Retaliates Against Syria, Seeks NATO Meeting

After a mortar from Syria struck Turkey and killed a woman and five children, Turkey is reported to have consulted the United States and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, before firing back. It is also reported that Turkey is seeking an urgent NATO meeting on the crisis.

UPDATE: NATO Ambassadors meeting now at NATO HQ (9pm UK time)

The meeting is an Article 4 consultation, not an Article 5 common defence invocation.

Further Update: It is now reported that turkey has struck additional Syrian military targets in Idlib.

UPDATE: NATO Disarray in Afghanistan

The Guardian (amongst many others) has a report on events today in the wake of NATO's scramble to deal with the green-on-blue killings. It is now clear that UK Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond was not told of the change in cooperation with Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) until after he made a statement to the House of Commons on Monday.

Today, he said the change was tactical, not strategic and he didn't interfere at the tactical level. He added that nothing has really changed in UK operations. This statement is at best deeply disingenuous as Mr Hammond must have known this is a major development on the ground. The MOD has said that the US General commanding UK forces in Helmand has pre-approved the current level of tactical operations with ANSF, but this is contradicted by an ISAF statement today which said that exceptions to this rule must be approved by a senior commander.

Since there have been 12 green-on-blue attacks killing 15 NATO soldiers in the past month, it is clear that something had to change. But the way this has been handled and, at a minimum, the appearance of disarray created has undermined ISAF's mission, perhaps for good. How much of an Alliance is it when the US changes the ground rules and doesn't bother to inform a major ally and the country in which operations are taking place? Mr Hammond has been left looking out of touch and weak.

NATO Monitor agrees with Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander when he said:

"But sitting beyond that question is the deeper question: does this represent a temporary tactical response by military commanders on the ground or does it represent a more strategic shift in the mission?"If we are in a position where a regional commander is generally unwilling to grant the authority for troops to go out on patrol with Afghan soldiers, that would severely compromise the capacity of the mission to deliver its objectives."He went on: "The whole of the strategy in Afghanistan now is built around the premise that as the international forces step back, the Afghan forces can step up."That's why I think there are very serious questions for the government to answer in the hours ahead."

And the Monitor also agrees with John Baron, conservative MP who said today that the announcement "threatens to blow a hole in our stated exit strategy, which is heavily reliant on these joint operations continuing until Afghan forces are able to operate independently". 

NATO Afghan Strategy in Disarray

NATO strategy in Afghanistan is today in complete disarray. The path that the Alliance's leaders had mapped out towards withdrawal no longer seems at all clear, as the Alliance has announced in confused circumstances that the training and monitoring mission which is supposed to create the conditions for an end to ISAF combat missions is now restricted to large unit cooperation in major operations.

This follows the deaths of six NATO soldiers on Sunday (see report here) in green-on-blue attacks, bringing the total of NATO soldiers killed by their allies this year to over fifty. it also follows a major Taliban assault on Camp Bastion, when six harrier jump jets were destroyed, and two badly damaged. Hangars and refuelling stations were also attacked and NATO personnel, including the commander of the squadron involved, killed. (see report here)

So far, so clear. The security situation in country is not improving, and the Taliban is showing an ability to mount well coordinated attacks at a major NATO target. What followed next is extraordinary and shows the confusion within NATO.

In a statement to the House of Commons UK Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond said:

Our servicemen and women are doing vital work protecting the UK from the threat of international terrorism. Our strategy is clear. We are mentoring and training the Afghan army and police to deliver security to their own people. This will allow our forces first to withdraw into a support role and then to come home. The Taliban hate this strategy and seek to wreck it through insider attacks. They aim to disrupt the collaboration with Afghan forces, which is at the heart of our strategy. We cannot and will not allow the process to be derailed.Our partnering with the Afghan national security forces involves risk, but it is essential to success.

However, apparently on Sunday (at least according to the New York Times) orders were issued to NATO forces that training and mentoring will now happen at the battalion level and above. Mr Hammond appeared unaware of this, or did not see fit to report it to the House of Commons. The Afghan government was not told, and learned of the policy switch in news reports.

The New York Times reported that:

At a news conference on that trip, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said: “We are concerned with regards to these insider attacks and the impact they are having on our forces.” Gen. John R. Allen, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, "has reflected that in the steps that he has taken," Mr. Panetta said.

NATO has subsequently clarified that smaller unit cooperation in the field is still possible, but authorisation for such mission - even at the platoon level - will have to be given by a 2 star general. This is a major change, since platoon and company commanders have previously been able to order such missions. it will greatly hamper the ability of NATO ISAF to support their Afghan allies. The BBC World Service has reported this morning that an Afghan unit last night requested medevac after a vehicle hit an IED. US forces in the area refused the support, no doubt fearing an ambush, and a medevac they could have provided in 30 minutes took Afghan national forces 6 hours to provide. It doesn't much imagination to see that this will hit morale, and make Afghan forces much less willing to conduct combat operations and even routine patrolling.

Afghans are apparently dismayed by the change, as the New York Times reports:

Afghan soldiers were not reassured by such talk. Three interviewed as word spread Tuesday said their many of their units were not yet ready to fight alone – an assessment shared by the Pentagon — and could be in deep trouble without close coalition assistance.

The curtailment of partnered operations is “a big problem for the Afghan Army,” said Maj. Salam, an officer based in western Afghanistan who asked that he only be identified by his rank and last name. 

“We rely on the Americans for everything,” he continued. “The army is not in a level to carry out military operations independently, we still need their support. I do not buy the lies that the MOD officials are trying to sell us and the public — we are in the field and we know how difficult it would be for the army without Americans.”

This weekend may come to be seen as a major turning point. British Conservative MP Colonel Bob Stewart, famous and highly regarded for his service in the army in Bosnia, has called for UK forces to be withdrawn as soon as possible. There is no doubt that he reflects majority public opinion. NATO has lost the PR war, and while winning the tactical engagements is losing the war on the ground too.

It seems very unlikely that NATO will be able to leave behind a stable government with fully functioning security forces in control of its national territory when it leaves. So what does this mean for NATO? The destruction of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the toppling of its Taliban ally had been accomplished a decade ago. if they can't leave a functioning government able to survive on its own after 2014, then what were the next ten years of combat for? And what future is there for NATO expeditionary missions when this one has failed so badly? How can NATO missions even be mounted when the US behaves in such a unilateral fashion and leaves its allies swinging in the wind, as Phillip Hammond now is? These are the kinds of questions that need answering today.

Should Israel Joint NATO?

Haaretz has published an op-ed recommending that Israel could find a structural solution to its security problems by taking membership of the Atlantic Alliance.

The arguments advanced in the article are interesting but not entirely compelling to NATO Monitor.

While it seems logical that Israel would be far less scared of Iran if it had NATO membership, there are major problems that would need to be overcome. Principle amongst these is the issue of relations between Israel and Palestine.

Would Israel, in return for the security embrace of NATO, be prepared to end the de facto siege of Gaza? Would it be prepared to allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state with properly contiguous territory on the West Bank, and working connections to Gaza?

Would Israel be willing to forego sabre-rattling military options like its periodic wars in Lebanon?

In summary, would Israel be prepared to mature sufficiently as a state to take up the serious responsibilities of a state receiving the Article V security guarantee that NATO offers? Would it be prepared to act in a completely different way, not threatening to drag its allies into war at every turn?

Would Israel gain anything from NATO membership? After all, it already has strong links with the US and other NATO allies. Haaretz lists 7 exercises in which NATO members and Israel jointly participate this year:

The seven exercises involve the special forces (an exercise known as JCET ), the navy (three exercises - Noble Dina, Noble Melinda and Reliant Mermaid ), the marines (Noble Shirley ), the National Guard (an exercise in responding to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive attack ), and a combined forces operation that includes ballistic missile defense drills (Austere Challenge, which includes the Juniper Cobra and Juniper Falcon exercises ). The latter, scheduled for October, is the one that the United States recently scaled down drastically, from a planned 5,000 troops to possibly as few as 1,200.

Would Israel share NATO's assessment of its security situation? With PM Netanyahu exploding into overblown rhetoric at every opportunity it seems unlikely. As Haaretz reports, Admiral Stavridis NATO's Supreme Commander, shares the assessment of his analysts that Israel is currently more secure than at any time since 1948. Hardly the outlook of the Netanyahu government which proclaims regularly that the second holocaust is coming.

Looked at from the Arab side, would Israeli membership of NATO be seen as aimed against Arab states or as part of a process to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours by providing the Israel with the security it needs to allow such a process to happen?

These are questions worth exploring, as any potential solution to the security morass in the Middle East is worth exploring. But NATO is certainly a long way from going down this path.

Libyan Weapons Arming Regional Conflicts

IPS news service has a piece following up on a theme that NATO Monitor has followed regularly over the last year. Weapons from Libya, which have proliferated across the region as a result of the insecurity in Libya caused by the NATO-assisted overthrow of the previous regime, are fuelling conflicts from Mali to Syria. The article notes that:

“All of the militias are involved in selling weapons. There is no law in Libya, still no functioning government, and the country’s security forces are too weak to control the situation, so selling weapons is regarded as legal by many of the rebels,” said Ridwan, a former rebel who fought with Tripoli’s Suq Al Jumma Katiba (brigades). 

“Many of the fighters got greedy following the war and believe they are entitled to compensation for the sacrifices they made for their country as they believe the government has abandoned them,” Ridwan, who did not give his last name, told IPS. 

“The guys sell an AK-47 on the black market for 1,000 Libyan dinars (800 dollars). An anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back of a pickup truck goes for between 8000-10,000 LD. Most of the weapons are smuggled to the borders, especially Turkey.”

NATO Monitor is not arguing that the overthrow of Gaddhafi was a bad thing, simply that consequences such as the weapons proliferation resulting from the conflict should have been foreseen and measures taken to minimise the problem. NATO could have taken steps to work with regional governments to help them better secure borders. It could and should have done more to ensure that Libyan arms dumps were destroyed. these are lessons that need to be well learned before the next such war.

Green on Blue - a Symptom of the Real Problem

The news that Prince Harry has redeployed to Afghanistan as an Apache helicopter commander as thrown a major spotlight on the risks in the upsurge of green-on-blue killings of NATO soldiers by their Afhgan colleagues.

This follows hard on the heels of the announcement from the US, as reported in papers like the Washington Post, of the suspension of training for Afghan recruits to enable better vetting procedures to be put into place. This follows a dramatic rise of such killings this year, with 45 NATO personnel killed by Afghan colleagues so far this year, as against 35 in the whole of 2011 - and a total of 101 since 2007.

Journalists are writing stories to try to explain this phenomenon like this one in Scotland's Herald, and this one in a Channel 4 blog, in which an anonymous Afghan officer says:

“I understand why our men are shooting US and NATO soldiers. I too have been personally hurt by the way American forces behave towards my soldiers, our villagers, our religion and culture. Too many of them are racist, arrogant, and simply don’t respect us.”

The wider problem is that the US and NATO have no place in Afghanistan in 2012. Had the war there been confined to the toppling of the Taliban and the establishment of a government with wider legitimacy across the country, followed by an early exit, then these problems would not have emerged.

The desire to build a nation, and the cackhanded way that goal has been pursued, has led to a long term occupation and the consequent killings of thousands of innocent Afghan civilians. When the utter contempt of western soldiers for Afghans is figured into the equation, then strong resistance including green on blue killings was inevitable given time.

NATO has no goal left in Afghanistan except to get out without being completely humiliated, and even that looks harder to achieve by the day. Soldiers are now being killed an a near daily basis for no good purpose whatsoever, and the starkest manifestation of that are the green on blue incidents. Better training and better vetting will have no effect. NATO estimates that just 25% of these killings are Taliban plots, as if that shows their security works. Insisting, for example as here in the words of Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow that most of these killings are personal affairs and that the Afghan-NATO alliance remains solid. Instead it just highlights how unpopular foreign forces are in country. It also highlights that gap between the  Karzai government and the Afghan people.

Want to stop the green on blue killings? It's time, beyond time, to leave.

NATO Appoints Special Rep. for Women, Peace and Security

NATO has announced the appointment of Norwean diplomat Mari Skåre Special Representative of Secretary General Rasmussen for Women, Peace and Security. This demonstrates a new level of commitment for the Alliance to implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on that topic.

Including a gender perspective in NATO missions has been done at the operational level in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and is increasingly important with the kinds of missions that NATO is now undertaking. This new appointment raises the political profile of UNSCR 1325 issues at NATO HQ, which is something to the good.

NATO's Failure to Plan for Aftermath of War Evident, Dangerous in Libya

The unintended consequences of NATO's intervention in Libya last year continue unabated, as shown in a recent Guardian piece on the hundreds of armed militia groups that now pervade the country.

These militia groups are well armed, have refused to come under the control of the National Transitional Council (itself largely run by ex-Gaddhafi supporters who were smart enough to turn coat early). They now run secret prisons where detainees are tortured, the kill with impunity and are making the country ungovernable.

These consequences of the break up of the Gaddhafi regime were entirely foreseeable, and yet NATO failed to plan for them. Any rational plan for a successful end to the war last year needed to include organisation of the security sector under the control of the interim government to prevent just the current circumstances arising.

NATO has taken pride in its military efficiency in helping to oust Gaddhafi, and has refused responsibility for events that have happened since. But the state of semi-conflict and instability to the south of the Mediterranean is a security risk for Alliance nations - to ignore it and do nothing about it is untenable - especially since Mali, another country negatively impacted by NATO's Libya mission has descended into chaos and is now a rallying point for Al Qaeda followers across the Maghreb.

The conclusion - NATO needs to plan for all aspects of interventions it undertakes, not just the bits it wants to do. This particularly applied to Libya where the mission was notionally protection of civilians under a UN mandate (although NATO quickly used that to effect regime change). Civilians continue to suffer and die in Libya, and NATO nations bear some of the responsibility for creating the circumstances that allow that.

In Libya, it has a mess it should be working hard to sort out. If it doesn't then, in the long run, it could get bitten.

Guardian Live Blog on NATO Meeting and other Middle East Issues

The Guardian is running a live blog which will include details from the NATO meeting on the Turkey-Syria crisis. You can find it here.

NATO Consultations Today on Syrian Shootdown of Turkish Jet

Turkey will this morning put its case before the Ambassadors of the North Atlantic Council. Turkish politicians have said that Turkey will seek an Article V mutual defence declaration from the Alliance that this was an attack on all of NATO. For example, according to the AP, Deputy PM Bulent Arinc told journalists that:

"No doubt, Turkey has made necessary applications with NATO regarding Article 4 and Article 5. It should be known that within legality we will of course use all rights granted under international law until the end. This also includes self-defense. This also includes retaliation many-fold. This includes all sanctions that can be applied to the aggressor state under international law. Turkey will not leave anything out on this issue. The public should be assured."

However, he also said that Turkey does not want to go to war over the incident. Further reporting from the Guardian yesterday showed Turkey increasing pressure on NATO for support, as it was said that Syria had also fired on search and rescue planes looking for the downed jet and its pilots. The Guardian also had some explanation of why Turkey is going to NATO:

Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "The downing of a plane by one of Turkey's neighbours is unprecedented. Turkey is going to Nato and the UN security council to appease Turkey domestic opinion."On the bilateral level, it has no tools left. All the Syrian diplomats have been expelled and Turkey has no representation in Damascus any more. Its only option is to seek support from Turkey's partners in the multilateral arena."Statements of solidarity from western capitals will help Turkey fulfil two objectives: they will assuage domestic public opinion and Turkey can also use the incident as proof that the situation vis-a-vis Syria will remain volatile and unsustainable as long as Assad is there."

The EU condemned the shooting down on Monday, but will not take more substantive action at this time. Russia, not surprisingly, appealed for restraint from NATO with Ria Novosti saying that Foreign Minister Andrei Zolotov had said that nothing should be done to make a political solution impossible. Which, given Russia's arming of the Syrian government, is pretty rich.

All in all it seems likely that NATO will offer support to to Turkey, and condemn the shooting down of their plane. But since Turkey admitted the plane had strayed into Syrian airspace and there is no evidence this is part of a wider attack on Turkey, let alone the Alliance, military action is very unlikely. This incident may, however, make Turkey more likely to offer covert support to rebel groups. It also reduces the political area Syria has for maneouvre.

ACUS on Why NATO Won't go to War with Syria

James Joyner at the Atlantic Council of the United States has written a blog post explaining why NATO will not use the Syrian downing of a Turkish jet as an Article V casus belli. it seems to NATO Monitor that this section of his post is particularly noteworthy:

Instead, the operative word that almost certainly disqualifies this incident from an Article 5 response is "attack." Turkey was engaged in aggressive action along its border with Syria during a particularly tense situation and flew into Syrian airspace. While shooting down the plane was almost certainly an overreaction--the Assad government has said as much--it's hardly an "attack."

Ultimately, like the "high crimes and misdemeanor" threshold for impeachment set forth by the US Constitution, it's a judgment call. In the former case,  the House of Representatives makes the call; in the latter, it's the North Atlantic Council.  

But it's virtually inconceivable that the NAC would deem this to be a qualifying "attack." First, Article 5 couches the response in terms of "the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." An overly aggressive defensive action by Syria--especially a one-off--would not seem to qualify. While the Turkish pilot would certainly have been within his rights to use deadly force to protect himself, a retaliatory strike at this juncture by Turkey--much less its NATO allies--would be in violation of the UN Charter. 

Second, borrowing language from Article 51, Article 5 specifies the rationale for the use of force as "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Given that the incident is already contained--that is, not likely to be followed by any sort of follow-on action by Syria absent further provocation--said security already exists. Indeed, a NATO or Turkish response would make the area more, not less, secure.

The whole piece is worth reading and the analysis seems very sound, especially given the quiet reaction to the incident from NATO foreign ministries to date.

Updated: NATO Ambassadors Will Meet Over Shot Down Turkish Plane

Updated 20.30 BST

Turkey has asked NATO Ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council for consultations over the Syrian shooting down of a Turkish F-4 jet. NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu confirmed that the North Atlantic Council will meet to discuss the case on Tuesday June 26.

The Turkish F-4 jet was shot down on Friday 22 June, with Syria claiming it was in Syrian airspace and Turkey saying it was conducting an open exercise to test their national radar systems over international waters.

Article 4 of NATO's founding treaty reads:

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Turkey has previously raised the possibility of invoking NATO in its defence after Syrian forces fired over the Turkish border. (See this previous NATO Monitor piece) While no automatic action will follow from the Article 4 consultation, the possibility of NATO assisting Turkey to guard against Syria does exist. 

However, Russia is standing by its Syrian ally, not least to guard its military access to the port of Tartus, the Russian Navy's only Mediterranean base. Any NATO action could have serious consequences for its relationship with Russia, so NATO leaders are likely to continue to act cautiously as they have been doing. The Telegraph website reports diplomats as saying that Turkey is not likely to seek NATO military action, but rather political support for action it chooses to take itself.

This air of caution is borne out by Guido Westerwelle's declaration that the main need is to avoid escalation. The US has issued a statement of support for Turkey, with no mention of NATO action. France has yet to ract at ministerial level. British Foreign Secretary William Hague, for example, issued a statement about the shooting down saying:

The Assad regime should not make the mistake of believing that it can act with impunity. It will be held to account for its behaviour. The UK stands ready to pursue robust action at theUnited Nations Security Council.

Since action in the UNSC gives Russia a veto over any action, this would imply that the UK wants a political rather than a military response to this incident. Careful action in a situation where numerous regional and global powers have an interest is to be applauded. However, NATO is also constrained by its inability to command a UN mandate in Syria, largely because of Russian and Chinese objections to NATO's overstretch in Libya, where a protection of civilians mandate was used to overthrow the Gaddhafi regime. NATO Monitor will watch for progress in this case on Tuesday.

Lord Browne Leads Excellent Debate on DDPR

Former Defence Secretary (Lord) Des Browne initiated a  debate in the Lords this week on the Defence and Deterrence Posture Review (DDPR),asking he government:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the NATO Deterrence and Defence Posture Review and the implications of clarifying NATO's deterrence posture for European security and the relationship with Russia.

 It's a question worth asking, and one the government had done its best to ignore, not least because the outcome of the DDPR was a complete mess. As Lord Browne said;

As part of the necessary "real change", NATO spent the year before Lisbon rewriting the alliance's main doctrine-the strategic concept-but it did not finish the job in time for Lisbon. The alliance managed to agree that, "as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance".The apparent clarity of that statement masked an inability of member states to agree on key issues about NATO's nuclear deterrence. At the same time, NATO agreed to,"develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence". However, that, too, hid significant differences about the role of ballistic missile defence in the alliance's future mix of capabilities.

Browne also highlighted the divisive nature of nuclear and missile defence politics in the Alliance, a theme NATO Monitor has regularly returned to in past posts. He also noted that no progress had been made at the Chicago Summit on the withdrawal of US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. Indeed, as he said, the Obama administration is now embarked on a upgrade programme for the B-61 bombs based in Europe and the US, which will make them more accurate and suited to warfighting, tailored deterrence policies.

NATO Monitor is bound to point out that this stands in stark contrast to President Obama's past undertakings that he would not introduce an y new nuclear capabilities into the arsenal, and to his Prague speech of 2009 calling for nuclear disarmament. It is also worth noting that President Bush, condemned for his nuclear weapons policies withdrew hundreds of B-61 bombs from Europe, while Obama has withdrawn none.

Several Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour peers spoke during the mini-debate, mostly in agreement with Lord Browne and agreeing that the government should stake out a strong position in favour of nuclear disarmament in NATO, and friendship and cooperation with Russia. All were concerned that the government had had nothing to say on the DDPR since it was initiated by the Lisbon Summit in 2010.

Ending the debate, Lord Howell of Guildford, an FCO minister, defended the government, the DDPR and the status quo:

The threats that we must be ready to counter come from many different directions and in many different forms. The capabilities available to us have certainly broadened. The DDPR has presented a timely opportunity to reassess NATO's defence and deterrence capabilities to ensure that they are able to respond to the modern, multipolar world. That means not only where they have come from and where we are now, which is the realistic moment that we live in, but the future as well.

 It was pleasing to see a peer of Des Browne's experience leading a debate, and recommending sensible security building policies grounded in arms control measures and cooperation with a potential adversary. It is deeply to be regretted that a president with a Nobel Peace Prize is unable to offer the same kind of leadership, leaving NATO with not one but three nuclear use doctrines.

The whole debate can be read at: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2012-05-29a.1096.0&s=ddpr#g1107.0

Summit Fails to Overcome NATO-Pakistan Divisions

Pakistani President Zardari has left Chicago without agreeing to allow NATO supply convoys through Pakistan to restart.

Zardari met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and raised a number of issues that are important to Pakistan.  He said that before convoys can resume that the US must apologise for the cross border attack at Salala last year, which killed a number of Pakistani soldiers. He also said that US drone attacks against Taliban and other targets inside Pakistan must stop, as they violate Pakistani sovereignty and are causing political and social problems through the civilian casualties they bring. Finally, Pakistani sources said that the government wants $500 per truck compensation when convoys restart, although some sources have mentioned figures between $2500 and $5000 per truck.

Reports have said that the President framed these as issues of rebuilding trust:

In his nearly hour-long meeting with Clinton, Zardari said that the goal of establishing a long-term, sustained and durable Pakistan-US equation would remain elusive till the issue of trust deficit continues to haunt the relationship, said the presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Babar. 

"Bridging the trust deficit, the president said, was a must for Pakistan re-joining counterterrorism cooperation with the international community," Babar said after the meeting between Zardari and Clinton on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Chicago, which is being attended by leaders of more than 60 countries.

Following the meeting with Clinton, President Obama refused to meet with President Zardari, as did NATO Secretary General Rasmussen. NATO Monitor cannot understand why they would do this. The Guardian reported the White House as saying this was normal:

The White House national security spokesman, Ben Rhodes, asked at a press conference if Zardari had gone to Chicago under the misconception he would see Obama, replied that Obama's schedule was busy. He said issues such as the reopening of supply lines were not normally dealt with at presidential level. Rhodes said: "The invitation to attend this summit was extended by Nato of course. We obviously supported that. It's important for Pakistan to be here because as we contemplate the future of the region, they are obviously going to be a part of that picture.

Bringing the President of a country important to your war aims halfway round the world, only to refuse to meet him, can only be described as crassly bad diplomacy. It will weaken Zardari at home, and inflame anti-NATO and anti-US sentiment there. The US knew what the demands were before asking Zardari to fly to Chicago, so why were they so unprepared to meet them. Better that President Zardari had stayed home than this be the outcome.

NATO needs the Pakistani supply routes open now to save money, but in a few months time they will need them to bring soldiers and equipment out of Apkistan. Undoubtedly the price just went up steeply.

BBC Summary of NATO BMD Programme

Johnathan Marcus of the BBC has written a good summary of some of the issues surrounding NATO's BMD programme. You can read it here. It contains a great quote from Professor Ted Postol about the lack of missile threat to Europe:

However, a leading expert on missile defence technology, Professor Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, believes that this potential threat has been much overstated. 

"The fundamental long-term threat from Iran is from nuclear weapons. But for now Iran does not have the bomb. A ballistic missile without a nuclear weapon," he says, "is like a terrorist bomber without an explosive vest."

AP - NATO Summit in Three Paragraphs

The AP summarises the NATO Summit in three paragraphs. Good job!

Turkey Stands up for Itself in NATO

Turkey came close to blocking EU reps Jose Manual Barroso and Herman van Rompuy from attending the Summit in Chicago. The two received very invitations, but even now they are restricted to sections of the Summit dealing with Afghanistan, reports VOA.

Clearly Turkish anger at continued blocking of their negotiations to join the EU was behind this move, but it wasn't their first piece of muscle-flexing in the run-up to Chicago. Previously AFP had reported that Turkey refused Israel a place at the Summit:

The Turkish official, who requested anonymity, told AFP earlier Monday: "We have not agreed to this. We don't think Israel should take part in such a forum," adding: "NATO is an alliance to which Israel does not belong." 

Turkish press reports said Israel wanted to take part in the key summit as a participant in the Mediterranean Dialogue cooperation programme with NATO.

This was denied by NATO spokespeople who claimed that there had never been any intention to invite Israel, despite their place in the Alliance's Mediterranean Partnership. However, it is clear that there was at least the possibility that Israel would be represented at the Summit, even if no official invitation was ever sent. This row is the latest manifestation of the declining relationship between the two previously close partners.

It has also been reported recently that important Turkish politicians have publicly advocated Macedonian membership of NATO in the face of continued Greek refusal to countenance such a move.

It seems that these might be signs of Turkey's importance to the Alliance in a vital neighbourhood, and of the increasing confidence of the current government in NATO.

Are NATO's Global Partnerships the Way to Relevance?

George W Bush didn't really believe in NATO. After 9/11, when the Alliance announced it had invoked its Article V common defence clause for the first time, he (and the rest of America) essentially took no notice. What he believed in was coalitions of the willing. So, instead of letting NATO go to war with the US in Afghanistan, an informal coalition of allies did. The result was the sidelining of the Alliance, and a United States that felt it didn't have to listen to anyone before using military force. The same was later true of Iraq, although it is very doubtful that NATO would have agreed to that particular venture, and the US learned the limits of supposedly unfettered power in a very hard way. Bush's attitude fit the unipolar moment, at least for the right, and was symptomatic of how large Empires behave.

By the time President Obama was elected that moment had subsided and NATO ISAF was running security forces in Afghanistan (although notably not US counter terrorism operations). NATO Europe hoped it would be seen as more relevant. But ISAF was never NATO alone, many more countries were always involved. And European nations were both generally unwilling and also unable to project enough power alongside the US to be the only global allies.

Now the US is selling a vision of NATO where it will operate globally, with different partners for different missions. On May 17, James J. Townsend Jr., deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy, told Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service reporters about the partnerships plan:

The summit also offers a chance to celebrate NATO partnerships outside the alliance, which greatly extend the organization’s reach, he said. 

“NATO has established partnerships globally that not a lot of people know about,” Townsend said. “Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea have been very helpful to the alliance, particularly in Afghanistan, and in other places.”

The DoD reports Secretary Rasmussen as saying:

Tomorrow, on the second day of the summit, Rasmussen said, “we will meet 13 of our most active partners around the globe, from Europe to Asia and the Middle East, because today’s security challenges are global and they need global solutions.” 

NATO will continue to cooperate with partners from around the world, building on successes “so that we can provide more security for NATO, for our partners, and for the world,” he added.

Fred Kempe of the Atlantic Council of the US certainly believes that the creation of a web of partnerships around the global hub of NATO is the way forward. He has written recently that:

The expected discussions of NATO leaders this weekend about how best to wind down their decade-long Afghan military operation and about how to maintain sufficient defense capabilities, despite growing budget cuts, risk leaving the impression of an alliance in retrenchment or decline. That’s hardly an inspiring or helpful message for a U.S. president heading home to Chicago at the beginning of his re-election campaign. 

By contrast, NATO’s efforts to broaden and deepen cooperation with capable partner nations can be rolled out as a pro-active, forward-looking initiative that has NATO going on offense for a new era. So that no one misses his notion of NATO at the core of a global security network, President Obama and his allies will stage an unprecedented summit meeting with 13 partner nations – from South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia in Asia-Pacific to Jordan, Morocco, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East and North Africa. Also present will be five European states that aren’t members of the alliance but routinely contribute to alliance activities – Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. 

What they’ll be trying to do is give teeth to an agenda for NATO that I first saw discussed in detail by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in a major Foreign Affairs article in October 2009. He argued against those who wished to expand NATO into a global alliance of democracies. He said that would dilute the crucial importance of the U.S.-European connection, which still accounts for half of the world’s economy, and that none of the world’s rising powers would be likely to accept membership in a global NATO. An ideologically defined democratic alliance would needlessly draw institutional lines between the U.S. and, for example, China. 

“NATO, however, has the experience, the institutions, and the means to eventually become the hub of a globe-spanning web of various regional cooperative-security undertakings among states with the growing power to act,” he wrote. “In pursuing that strategic mission, NATO would not only be preserving transatlantic political unity; it would also be responding to the twenty-first century’s novel and increasingly urgent security agenda.” 

It would also rescue the alliance from geostrategic irrelevance.

There is no doubt that NATO's international command structures have been flexible enough to incorporate troops from many other nations in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan and in Libya. But the real question is political. Do NATO nations want to carry on doing this kind of mission. Very few wanted to participate in Libya, and even support for an Alliance role was very grudging. Afghanistan has come close at times to breaking Alliance unity for good. the caveats that some nations have placed on troop use have been deeply resented by those that played a fuller part. Some, such as Canada and the Netherlands, have terminated their participation there in frustration.

And the truth is that the more NATO strays from the defence of Europe, the less its member states have in common politically. Their goals are simply not the same. And that shows in what states are willing to do. the unity of the Cold War, when the mission was clear, and everyone understood it in simple terms, has long gone. Even the defence of Europe looks very different in Tallinn than it does in London or Lisbon or Ankara.

NATO is a finely honed military tool looking for a rationale to stay in existence. And this partnerships arrangement shows how difficult that search is proving.