Ian Davis of NATO Watch has issued a policy brief on Smart Defence, the latest in his series of such briefs in the run-up to the Summit; and another on the defence and deterrence posture review. Well worth a read.
Saturday, 19 May 2012
DDPR3: Fomer Sec Gen Robertson Still a Nuclear Hawk
A short paper on nuclear aspects of the Defence and Deterrence Posture Review (DDPR) that former NATO Secretary General George Robertson has co-authored for the Atlantic Council of the US is an egregious example of hawkish, Cold War thinking on nukes.
The paper is a badly written hodge-podge of arguments for the indefinite retention of US nuclear weapons in Europe, and ad hominem attacks on politicians such as Germany's Guido Westerwelle who have dared to question the status quo. Unfortunately, it does represent a significant strand of opinion on the hawkish end of the US debate, and would likely represent US policy if Mitt Romney were to get elected, so needs to be read.
The paper recommends that NATO should indefinitely retain some nuclear weapons in Europe, and negotiate allowance for this with the Russians. It is unable to explain why the Russians should be prepared to balance their remaining 2,000 or so tactical nuclear weapons against the 200 or so that the US maintains n Europe; while ignoring the many hundreds more the retain the US.
The paper says NATO should simply stop talking about nuclear weapons after Chicago, and blames Westerwelle for a debate which it says has split the Alliance. this is to to ignore the factors on nuclear policy that have split the Alliance since the end of the Cold War. Current nuclear arrangements in NATO freeze the Alliance into a two-tier membership. New members in Eastern Europe are not permitted to have nuclear weapons deployed on their soil, nor to engage in nuclear sharing programmes. This results from promises made to Russia by the Alliance, and by the US alone, during the expansion debates in the 1990s. This is resented in eastern Europe, and divides the Alliance.
Secondly, there is no appetite in western European publics for the basing of US nuclear weapons on their soil, or for the expenditure that nuclear sharing states undertake to maintain their nuclear sharing programmes. Indeed, it seems likely these programmes will simply wither away over the coming coming decade or so as these states, particularly Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, fail to add nuclear capability to new aircraft they purchase to replace ageing fleets.
Thirdly, Robertson argues that the solidarity of the Alliance continues to require widespread European participation in Alliance nuclear strategy and basing of weapons, whereas active participation has been dropping away for years. Even the UK, a staunch ally, has had all the more than 100 US nuclear weapons that used to be based at airbases there removed. Most NATO allies do no more than turn up for briefings of the Nuclear Planning Group.
Finally, the paper argues that NATO must concentrate on beefing up conventional defences and defence spending, while ignoring the fact that nuclear basing and nuclear sharing consume significant resources that European nations can ill afford, and are indeed one of the true distractions from the ability to pursue the conventional spending he wishes to see. Turkey still allows US basing of nukes, but dropped its participation in nuclear sharing some years ago for these (and other other) reasons.
Robertson is a member of the European Leadership Network, and theoretically supports multilateral nuclear disarmament. Yet here he argues for a multilateral agreement with Russia to permanently maintain nuclear arms. It's more than a little illogical. he does so in the company of Franklin Miller, a former US nuclear official so dedicated to maintaining the UK bomb he got a got a knighthood from Tony Blair, and who finished his government career helping George W Bush oppose arms control. The other author is Kori Schake, a former NATO and George W Bush administration official. The company Robertson keeps these days explains his promotion of policies far outside the European mainstream.
So file the paper away and hope Mitt Romney doesn't win in November!
The paper is a badly written hodge-podge of arguments for the indefinite retention of US nuclear weapons in Europe, and ad hominem attacks on politicians such as Germany's Guido Westerwelle who have dared to question the status quo. Unfortunately, it does represent a significant strand of opinion on the hawkish end of the US debate, and would likely represent US policy if Mitt Romney were to get elected, so needs to be read.
The paper recommends that NATO should indefinitely retain some nuclear weapons in Europe, and negotiate allowance for this with the Russians. It is unable to explain why the Russians should be prepared to balance their remaining 2,000 or so tactical nuclear weapons against the 200 or so that the US maintains n Europe; while ignoring the many hundreds more the retain the US.
The paper says NATO should simply stop talking about nuclear weapons after Chicago, and blames Westerwelle for a debate which it says has split the Alliance. this is to to ignore the factors on nuclear policy that have split the Alliance since the end of the Cold War. Current nuclear arrangements in NATO freeze the Alliance into a two-tier membership. New members in Eastern Europe are not permitted to have nuclear weapons deployed on their soil, nor to engage in nuclear sharing programmes. This results from promises made to Russia by the Alliance, and by the US alone, during the expansion debates in the 1990s. This is resented in eastern Europe, and divides the Alliance.
Secondly, there is no appetite in western European publics for the basing of US nuclear weapons on their soil, or for the expenditure that nuclear sharing states undertake to maintain their nuclear sharing programmes. Indeed, it seems likely these programmes will simply wither away over the coming coming decade or so as these states, particularly Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, fail to add nuclear capability to new aircraft they purchase to replace ageing fleets.
Thirdly, Robertson argues that the solidarity of the Alliance continues to require widespread European participation in Alliance nuclear strategy and basing of weapons, whereas active participation has been dropping away for years. Even the UK, a staunch ally, has had all the more than 100 US nuclear weapons that used to be based at airbases there removed. Most NATO allies do no more than turn up for briefings of the Nuclear Planning Group.
Finally, the paper argues that NATO must concentrate on beefing up conventional defences and defence spending, while ignoring the fact that nuclear basing and nuclear sharing consume significant resources that European nations can ill afford, and are indeed one of the true distractions from the ability to pursue the conventional spending he wishes to see. Turkey still allows US basing of nukes, but dropped its participation in nuclear sharing some years ago for these (and other other) reasons.
Robertson is a member of the European Leadership Network, and theoretically supports multilateral nuclear disarmament. Yet here he argues for a multilateral agreement with Russia to permanently maintain nuclear arms. It's more than a little illogical. he does so in the company of Franklin Miller, a former US nuclear official so dedicated to maintaining the UK bomb he got a got a knighthood from Tony Blair, and who finished his government career helping George W Bush oppose arms control. The other author is Kori Schake, a former NATO and George W Bush administration official. The company Robertson keeps these days explains his promotion of policies far outside the European mainstream.
So file the paper away and hope Mitt Romney doesn't win in November!
DDPR2: Former European Leaders Adopt on NATO Deterrence Posture, Challenge Alliance to Lead Disarmament
Forty-Five members of the European Leadership Network, a network of former Prime, Foreign Defence and other Ministers (with a few retired generals) have published a declaration ahead of the NATO Summit on the Alliance Defence and Deterrence Posture Review.
The tone of the declaration is forward leaning. It warns NATO that:
However, digging into the detail it is possible to discern some troubling elements in the suggestions the ELN makes for progress. They equate Russian elimination of warheads with the consolidation of US warheads to fewer sites in Europe, and eventually to the US - something they must know Russia would not agree to.
They also call for an adaptation of NATO's nuclear sharing programme. Under that programme, the US helps equip and train the air forces of The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy to use nuclear weapons. The US deploys nuclear weapons to those countries to be handed over to them at time of 'general war' - an old Cold War concept that has little or no meaning now. Nuclear sharing has long been controversial in nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the handing over of nuclear weapons to nominally non-nuclear states is illegal under that Treaty. the legality of the sharing programmes rests on the legal notion that if 'general war' comes then the NPT has failed and is consequently no longer in force. At that point, the US can arm whomsoever it likes with nuclear weapons.
(For a detailed treatment of this issue you can read Questions of Command and Control: NATO nuclear sharing and the NPT by the author of this blog and other colleagues)
However, in 2010 at the NPT Review Conference NATO nations all agreed in the Final Document that:
This followed similar agreement in the 1985 Final Document. With this formulation NATO States have removed the legal basis for their sharing agreements, which was in any case only paper thin, and thus done away with any justification for the continuation of sharing programmes. the ELN should have reflected this reality in their text.
The declaration also calls for an appropriate role for, and development of, ballistic missile defences for NATO. it does suggest that this is done in conjunction with Russia, but while the authors acknowledge that this issue is blocking progress in further transparency, confidence and security building or disarmament measures with Russia, this is not enough to prevent the recommendation that NATO go ahead. This seems a little perverse, given the stated goal of furthering nuclear disarmament in cooperation with Russia.
The declaration does call for arms control to become a serious and permanent part of NATO's infrastructure, but only in the field of weapons of mass destruction. Russia links progress in the nuclear field not only to BMD, but also to the currently more or less defunct Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. It is vital for future arms control that some form of conventional arms control is included, not least as NATO has overwhelmingly conventional superiority against Russia - even European nations outspend Russia 5-1 on defence. A NATO arms control policy which ignored this would be meaningless.
All in all the declaration reflects the NATO mainstream quite well. Unfortunately, France and some of its Baltic and eastern European friends have stymied action in this field and President Putin is staying away from Chicago, knowing that nothing will be achieved there in this field. The mainstream European view will not, therefore be reflected in the results of the Summit.
It would have been nice to see a grouping like this, with the goals it espouses, push the policy envelope a little to advance the debate rather than simply reflecting what the majority of NATO governments want to do anyway. As welcome as it is, and as much as it is helpful in setting the status quo in a better place than France would wish, this declaration doesn't do enough to encourage those currently in government to go a little further or fight a little harder against the opposition of the hawks. Perhaps next time.
The tone of the declaration is forward leaning. It warns NATO that:
To be of any value, it must reflect on and respond to these developments – and provide a strategy that will both reduce nuclear risks in Europe and strengthen NATO’s overall defence capabilities against 21st Century threats. If it does not do so, it will be an ineffectual Summit of little historic consequence.The ELN's headline is that NATO must aim for:
.. the goal of creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons – including through further reductions – and use the summit to play a constructive role in advancing this agendaTo achieve this they urge an immediate 50% cut in US nuclear weapons held in Europe. This is absolutely sensible, and unfortunately something that, as the ELN acknowledges, NATO is unlikely to do. France is playing the role of the intransigent Monsieur Non on disarmament and has refused to countenance reductions by other NATO states whose weapons are allocated to the Alliance for fear that their own arsenal might come under scrutiny. So, the declaration from an eminent group of former leaders is very welcome.
However, digging into the detail it is possible to discern some troubling elements in the suggestions the ELN makes for progress. They equate Russian elimination of warheads with the consolidation of US warheads to fewer sites in Europe, and eventually to the US - something they must know Russia would not agree to.
They also call for an adaptation of NATO's nuclear sharing programme. Under that programme, the US helps equip and train the air forces of The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy to use nuclear weapons. The US deploys nuclear weapons to those countries to be handed over to them at time of 'general war' - an old Cold War concept that has little or no meaning now. Nuclear sharing has long been controversial in nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the handing over of nuclear weapons to nominally non-nuclear states is illegal under that Treaty. the legality of the sharing programmes rests on the legal notion that if 'general war' comes then the NPT has failed and is consequently no longer in force. At that point, the US can arm whomsoever it likes with nuclear weapons.
(For a detailed treatment of this issue you can read Questions of Command and Control: NATO nuclear sharing and the NPT by the author of this blog and other colleagues)
However, in 2010 at the NPT Review Conference NATO nations all agreed in the Final Document that:
The Conference reaffirms that the strict observance of all the provisions of the Treaty remains central to achieving the shared objectives of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, preventing, under any circumstances, the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and preserving the Treaty’s vital contribution to peace and security.
This followed similar agreement in the 1985 Final Document. With this formulation NATO States have removed the legal basis for their sharing agreements, which was in any case only paper thin, and thus done away with any justification for the continuation of sharing programmes. the ELN should have reflected this reality in their text.
The declaration also calls for an appropriate role for, and development of, ballistic missile defences for NATO. it does suggest that this is done in conjunction with Russia, but while the authors acknowledge that this issue is blocking progress in further transparency, confidence and security building or disarmament measures with Russia, this is not enough to prevent the recommendation that NATO go ahead. This seems a little perverse, given the stated goal of furthering nuclear disarmament in cooperation with Russia.
The declaration does call for arms control to become a serious and permanent part of NATO's infrastructure, but only in the field of weapons of mass destruction. Russia links progress in the nuclear field not only to BMD, but also to the currently more or less defunct Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. It is vital for future arms control that some form of conventional arms control is included, not least as NATO has overwhelmingly conventional superiority against Russia - even European nations outspend Russia 5-1 on defence. A NATO arms control policy which ignored this would be meaningless.
All in all the declaration reflects the NATO mainstream quite well. Unfortunately, France and some of its Baltic and eastern European friends have stymied action in this field and President Putin is staying away from Chicago, knowing that nothing will be achieved there in this field. The mainstream European view will not, therefore be reflected in the results of the Summit.
It would have been nice to see a grouping like this, with the goals it espouses, push the policy envelope a little to advance the debate rather than simply reflecting what the majority of NATO governments want to do anyway. As welcome as it is, and as much as it is helpful in setting the status quo in a better place than France would wish, this declaration doesn't do enough to encourage those currently in government to go a little further or fight a little harder against the opposition of the hawks. Perhaps next time.
DDPR1: NATO's Defence and Deterrence Posture Review
(The first in a series of posts about issues around the NATO defence and and deterrence posture review)
Paul Ingram of BASIC and Oliver Meier of the Arms Control Association have published an assessment of the NATO defence and deterrence posture review, with a look at what is likely to be announced in Chicago. It's a worthwhile read and fits very much with NATO Monitor's impression of what has gone on behind the scenes.
As they conclude, and as has been obvious for well over a decade, NATO is deeply divided on nuclear policy issues. It has been unable to even to set a declaratory nuclear use policy because of that division.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative has published an analysis of the DDPR with very similar conclusions. Their paper also adds a look at Russian attitudes to the nuclear issues in the DDPR.
While the paper's analysis is useful, their conclusions about what NATO should do are deeply problematic. they recommend consolidation of US nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, which would do nothing to reduce Russian opposition to their presence in Europe but would be seen as threatening by some countries to the south and east, hardly a desirable end.
However, NTIs most damaging conclusion is one which, on the face of it, would directly breach the NPT in a visible way. They say that:
This appears to be a call to revive a form of the Multilateral Nuclear Force (MNF) idea that was proposed for NATO during the 1960s, and which NATO terminated on recognition that it would be banned under the NPT when that came into force. At best, it would be to enhance and give visibility to the current nuclear sharing arrangements, which are themselves of at best dubious legality under the NPT and really only survive because no country mounts a sustained objection to them.
Their final option, of consolidation of the US arsenal on the soil of the United States, would be much more sensible. it would not, in the short term, alter NATO policy or doctrine at all, but might (as NTI says) give an impetus to the next round of nuclear talks with Russia. Its security impact would be zero, since the nukes in Europe are not ready to use in any case, and very few people can envisage any circumstances in which a European country would give approval for a nuclear strike mission to be carried out from their soil. Some eastern European states may complain, but what option do they have? Would they leave NATO? of course not. they would go along.
One thing has puzzled the Monitor since President Obama took office, and that is something which links the analysis in both these papers. Traditionally, the US has led on NATO nuclear policy and doctrine. What was US practise has swiftly become Alliance practise too. The US has always given Allies a clear steer on what they expect in this area. Following the 2009 Prague speech on the need for a nuclear weapon free world, and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review which reduced the role of nuclear forces in US defence doctrine, it was to be expected that President Obama would instruct his NATO Ambassador to take a similar lead.
Instead, it has become clear over the past two years that the US has abdicated its traditional leadership role and simply said to Europe - tell us what you want! So the deep divisions within NATO Europe have been unbridgeable because there was no leadership to make the bridging possible. If President Obama wants NATO to contribute to the goal he set in Prague, he needs to do something about it.
Paul Ingram of BASIC and Oliver Meier of the Arms Control Association have published an assessment of the NATO defence and deterrence posture review, with a look at what is likely to be announced in Chicago. It's a worthwhile read and fits very much with NATO Monitor's impression of what has gone on behind the scenes.
As they conclude, and as has been obvious for well over a decade, NATO is deeply divided on nuclear policy issues. It has been unable to even to set a declaratory nuclear use policy because of that division.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative has published an analysis of the DDPR with very similar conclusions. Their paper also adds a look at Russian attitudes to the nuclear issues in the DDPR.
While the paper's analysis is useful, their conclusions about what NATO should do are deeply problematic. they recommend consolidation of US nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, which would do nothing to reduce Russian opposition to their presence in Europe but would be seen as threatening by some countries to the south and east, hardly a desirable end.
However, NTIs most damaging conclusion is one which, on the face of it, would directly breach the NPT in a visible way. They say that:
- NATO Control.
NATO could choose to establish an independent, jointly operated unit of DCA tasked with delivering non-strategic nuclear weapons in addition to any U.S. DCA in Europe. All member states would contribute financially in addition to providing personnel. However, this posture will still require the alliance to answer difficult questions about where these capabilities will be based, with Italy again one possibility.
This appears to be a call to revive a form of the Multilateral Nuclear Force (MNF) idea that was proposed for NATO during the 1960s, and which NATO terminated on recognition that it would be banned under the NPT when that came into force. At best, it would be to enhance and give visibility to the current nuclear sharing arrangements, which are themselves of at best dubious legality under the NPT and really only survive because no country mounts a sustained objection to them.
Their final option, of consolidation of the US arsenal on the soil of the United States, would be much more sensible. it would not, in the short term, alter NATO policy or doctrine at all, but might (as NTI says) give an impetus to the next round of nuclear talks with Russia. Its security impact would be zero, since the nukes in Europe are not ready to use in any case, and very few people can envisage any circumstances in which a European country would give approval for a nuclear strike mission to be carried out from their soil. Some eastern European states may complain, but what option do they have? Would they leave NATO? of course not. they would go along.
One thing has puzzled the Monitor since President Obama took office, and that is something which links the analysis in both these papers. Traditionally, the US has led on NATO nuclear policy and doctrine. What was US practise has swiftly become Alliance practise too. The US has always given Allies a clear steer on what they expect in this area. Following the 2009 Prague speech on the need for a nuclear weapon free world, and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review which reduced the role of nuclear forces in US defence doctrine, it was to be expected that President Obama would instruct his NATO Ambassador to take a similar lead.
Instead, it has become clear over the past two years that the US has abdicated its traditional leadership role and simply said to Europe - tell us what you want! So the deep divisions within NATO Europe have been unbridgeable because there was no leadership to make the bridging possible. If President Obama wants NATO to contribute to the goal he set in Prague, he needs to do something about it.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
NATO Monitor Features on US National Public Radio
US National Public Radio is running previews of the NATO Summit coming up in Chicago. NATO Monitor's Martin Butcher taped an interview with them last week on NATO's operation in Libya and its implications for the future of the Alliance. They used some of that interview on today's Morning Edition. You can hear the piece at the NPR site, and read the story here.
As the Chicago Summit approaches, Der Spiegel has run an interesting piece on the low opinion of Germany in NATO. the basic contention of the article is that:
Now, if an Alliance is going to work, all its members have to pull together to back agreed missions. This must certainly apply to Afghanistan, into which all NATO members entered without reservation (however unwisely).
But Libya is different, and here it seems that the criticism of the German government's refusal to play a role is wrong. France and Britain pushed an unwilling Alliance into the intervention with precious little real support. And the unfortunate ongoing unintended consequences of the toppling of Gaddhafi show that the caution was entirely justified. And, if Germany has only a small ability to project forces overseas, this is a democratic choice that it has a right to make. Many countries and many analysts have deep reservations about the idea that the US now sees NATO as an adjunct to its own global aspirations for the use of military force as part of foreign policy. Clear Der Spiegel would like to see German troops deployed across the world and is thus ready to slam the current government. Many, including NATO Monitor, see that vision as very questionable.
Ahead of the NATO summit in Chicago, Germany's standing in the alliance has reached a low point. The country's abstention in the UN vote on military action in Libya has done lasting damage to its reputation. The Germans are now seen as unreliable partners who don't know what they want.This criticism comes on the heel of long-standing dissatisfaction within the Alliance at the restricted role that Germany has chosen to follow in Afghanistan. NATO Monitor has been writing since the time of its founding about German caveats on the use of forces in Afghanistan, and the resentment that has caused amongst some NATO members.
Now, if an Alliance is going to work, all its members have to pull together to back agreed missions. This must certainly apply to Afghanistan, into which all NATO members entered without reservation (however unwisely).
But Libya is different, and here it seems that the criticism of the German government's refusal to play a role is wrong. France and Britain pushed an unwilling Alliance into the intervention with precious little real support. And the unfortunate ongoing unintended consequences of the toppling of Gaddhafi show that the caution was entirely justified. And, if Germany has only a small ability to project forces overseas, this is a democratic choice that it has a right to make. Many countries and many analysts have deep reservations about the idea that the US now sees NATO as an adjunct to its own global aspirations for the use of military force as part of foreign policy. Clear Der Spiegel would like to see German troops deployed across the world and is thus ready to slam the current government. Many, including NATO Monitor, see that vision as very questionable.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
Will Turkey Invoke Article V over Syria?
The ongoing crisis in Syria, seemingly coming ever closer to all-out civil war, will be one of the most significant issues forming the background to the NATO Summit in Chicago. There have been numerous calls for NATO to intervene in the crisis, but so far these have been resisted. One problem is that it would not be possible to get a UN Security Council mandate for action, since Russia and China are absolutely opposed to letting NATO act against President Assad. For Russia this is a matter of protecting an ally, but for both Russia and China it is also a reaction to NATO's over-reach in Libya, where the Atlantic Alliance took a mandate to protect civilians against violence and used it justify the overthrow of Colonel Gaddhafi.
However, it might also be open to NATO to intervene using the Atlantic Treaty's Article V on common defence. Turkey has a long border with Syria, and thousands of refugees have already fled to safety in Turkey. There have been several incidents of cross border fire, with Syria attacking refugees inside Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, amongst others, have raised the possibility of asking NATO to intervene since early April. This was criticised, naturally, by Syrian spokesmen. Some observers were surprised that Turkey did not raise the issue of an Article V intervention in Syria during the recent Ministerial meeting in Brussels which prepared the Chicago Summit. Turkish sources had been saying before the meeting that they would do so, but afterwards NATO officials said the matter never came up.
However, Turkish media have reported that on May 10, Turkish government spokesmen again raised the idea that Turkey could ask for Article V solidarity from NATO following yet another attack by Syrian forces on Syrians in Turkey. Today's Zaman reported that:
There is even a provision for this in the 1998 Adana Accord under which Syria ".. will not permit any activity that emanates from its territory aimed at jeopardizing the security and stability of Turkey." This was aimed at cooperative security measures against the PKK, and at preventing the PKK from operating inside Syria against Turkey. However, it might be open to turkey to recognise the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria and to then fight alongside the Free Syrian Army against President Assad.
In an unstable region this would be truly dangerous territory. And there are other concerns too.
Unless Russia were absolutely convinced this was a very limited operation to protect Turkey it could have terrible consequences for NATO Russia relations. Russia would see this as a NATO aggression, and the effects on US-Russia arms control talks, BMD cooperation talks, as well as other aspects of relations with Russia would probably suffer in the short to medium term.
Since Turkish relations with Israel are also bad, and Syria sits between Israel and Iran, having NATO intervene there would have unforeseen consequences on NATO-Israel relations. it may put NATO right in the firing line of an Israeli attack on Iran, in the event that that were to happen.
It seems unlikely that NATO will intervene, if only to prevent a messy regional war and worsened relations with Russia, but as Joshua Foust has highlighted there are internal NATO reasons to stay out too:
President Obama isn't going to want another war on his hands in an election year, and in the end, that is going to count for more than Turkey's concerns about instability on its borders.
However, it might also be open to NATO to intervene using the Atlantic Treaty's Article V on common defence. Turkey has a long border with Syria, and thousands of refugees have already fled to safety in Turkey. There have been several incidents of cross border fire, with Syria attacking refugees inside Turkey. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, amongst others, have raised the possibility of asking NATO to intervene since early April. This was criticised, naturally, by Syrian spokesmen. Some observers were surprised that Turkey did not raise the issue of an Article V intervention in Syria during the recent Ministerial meeting in Brussels which prepared the Chicago Summit. Turkish sources had been saying before the meeting that they would do so, but afterwards NATO officials said the matter never came up.
However, Turkish media have reported that on May 10, Turkish government spokesmen again raised the idea that Turkey could ask for Article V solidarity from NATO following yet another attack by Syrian forces on Syrians in Turkey. Today's Zaman reported that:
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Selcuk Unal said during a press briefing on Thursday that Turkey's expectation from Syria is that it halts the violence as soon as possible to prevent further instability. Unal said: "However, we have many options on the table if this instability deepens. We have to determine these options in accordance with the developments we face. As you know, Article 5 of NATO is related to self-defense. So, this issue was mentioned in the past due to some incidents that occurred [along the Turkish border]. This is, of course, a matter which will remain on the agenda and it will still be assessed."A NATO intervention on this basis could not be an all out campaign to overthrow President Assad, nor even a series of attacks to prevent Syrian forces attacking their own civilians across the country. It would most likely be confined to security a 'safe zone' along the border to prevent Syria attacking refugees, or indeed making any other kind of attack, across the border with Turkey.
There is even a provision for this in the 1998 Adana Accord under which Syria ".. will not permit any activity that emanates from its territory aimed at jeopardizing the security and stability of Turkey." This was aimed at cooperative security measures against the PKK, and at preventing the PKK from operating inside Syria against Turkey. However, it might be open to turkey to recognise the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria and to then fight alongside the Free Syrian Army against President Assad.
In an unstable region this would be truly dangerous territory. And there are other concerns too.
Unless Russia were absolutely convinced this was a very limited operation to protect Turkey it could have terrible consequences for NATO Russia relations. Russia would see this as a NATO aggression, and the effects on US-Russia arms control talks, BMD cooperation talks, as well as other aspects of relations with Russia would probably suffer in the short to medium term.
Since Turkish relations with Israel are also bad, and Syria sits between Israel and Iran, having NATO intervene there would have unforeseen consequences on NATO-Israel relations. it may put NATO right in the firing line of an Israeli attack on Iran, in the event that that were to happen.
It seems unlikely that NATO will intervene, if only to prevent a messy regional war and worsened relations with Russia, but as Joshua Foust has highlighted there are internal NATO reasons to stay out too:
Prime Minister Erdogan may very well gain support from some European states to increase security assets along the Turkish-Syrian border. But no matter the threat of spillover from Syria into Turkey, NATO’s ability to meaningfully affect the situation is, at best, very limited. And the bigger currents within European defense circles – contracting, scaling back, and reducing forces and so on – mean that even if NATO wanted to do something, in all likelihood it couldn’t.
This has profound implications for Europe and the Middle East. NATO has been a bulwark of stability since its founding in 1949; after the Cold War, it transitioned from opposing the Soviet Union to assisting the political transition of the former Warsaw Pact countries (many of whom have since become NATO members). Now, however, NATO is drifting between the lofty ambitions of the new strategic concept announced in the 2010 Lisbon Treaty and the messy reality of drastically curtailed defense budgets and a limited appetite for adventurism.
The end result is that when a member state, like Turkey, is facing a serious threat along its border, NATO will have a very limited capacity to actually assist in rallying to its defense. This doesn’t mean the alliance is done with, but it does mean that NATO requires some serious thinking and strategic planning to match its ambitions with its capabilities.
President Obama isn't going to want another war on his hands in an election year, and in the end, that is going to count for more than Turkey's concerns about instability on its borders.
NATOWatch Summit Briefs Are an Interesting Read
Kudos to Ian Davis of NATOWatch, who has produced a series of readable and useful issue briefs covering the main items of business for the Chicago Summit. There's one on NATO-Russia relations, one on missile defence, one on Afghanistan, and another on NATO and the Arab Spring.
There are three more to come, keep an eye out for them.
There are three more to come, keep an eye out for them.
Smart Defence - the latest iteration of an old NATO debate!
One of the main topics at the Chicago Summit will be Smart Defence. NATO defines this as:
NATO says that results of the Summit will include:
So far, so sensible. This is in the long tradition of attempts to get NATO to function better, and in particular to get European NATO nations to provide more assets to the Alliance. During the Cold War there was a constant call for more burdensharing, which generally meant Europe spending more on its defence. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the Alliance set a target for 3% increases in defence expenditure each year - and they were never met.
As major defence programmes become ever more expensive, it is only natural that countries should seek to cooperate more. Few countries can afford to maintain a large forces on their own anymore. The problem is for NATO that European nations are tremendously wasteful in the way they spend money, but changing that gets to the heart of national sovereignty and the fact that few if any European nations are willing to go far down the route of merging defence capabilities, at least if that means giving up national freedom of action.
According to NATO's own figures, NATO Europe spent over $282 billion on defence in 2011. By any measure that is a very significant sum of money, far more than either Russia or China spend on defence. however, the reality recognised in the Smart Defence idea is that this money is mostly wasted. Expensive national programmes to produce 24 parallel military structures, none of which are able to project much power or sustain operations for very long.
If European NATO members were to merge forces and capabilities, they could significantly cut what they spend on defence and still have more material and soldiers available when they were needed. NATO has a multinational command structure which could run the whole shebang effectively. Alternatively this could all be done through the Common Defence and and Security Policy of the European Union. But it just isn't going to happen. Countries are going to continue to make national decisions about the structure of national defences and defence forces.
Until that changes, NATO's Smart Defence may have successes at the margins, but won't do much to affect the situation where most European nations get very little for their defence budgets.
a new way of thinking about generating the modern defence capabilities the Alliance needs for the coming decade and beyond. It is a renewed culture of cooperation that encourages Allies to cooperate in developing, acquiring and maintaining military capabilities to undertake the Alliance’s essential core tasks agreed in the new NATO strategic concept. That means pooling and sharing capabilities, setting priorities and coordinating efforts better.
NATO says that results of the Summit will include:
Projects in the spirit of Smart Defence will comprise a package of multinational projects to address critical capability shortfalls. They will include programmes such as as missile defence, Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) and Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance as well as projects covering areas such as pooling maritime patrol aircraft and remote-controlled robots for clearing roadside bombs.
As major defence programmes become ever more expensive, it is only natural that countries should seek to cooperate more. Few countries can afford to maintain a large forces on their own anymore. The problem is for NATO that European nations are tremendously wasteful in the way they spend money, but changing that gets to the heart of national sovereignty and the fact that few if any European nations are willing to go far down the route of merging defence capabilities, at least if that means giving up national freedom of action.
According to NATO's own figures, NATO Europe spent over $282 billion on defence in 2011. By any measure that is a very significant sum of money, far more than either Russia or China spend on defence. however, the reality recognised in the Smart Defence idea is that this money is mostly wasted. Expensive national programmes to produce 24 parallel military structures, none of which are able to project much power or sustain operations for very long.
If European NATO members were to merge forces and capabilities, they could significantly cut what they spend on defence and still have more material and soldiers available when they were needed. NATO has a multinational command structure which could run the whole shebang effectively. Alternatively this could all be done through the Common Defence and and Security Policy of the European Union. But it just isn't going to happen. Countries are going to continue to make national decisions about the structure of national defences and defence forces.
Until that changes, NATO's Smart Defence may have successes at the margins, but won't do much to affect the situation where most European nations get very little for their defence budgets.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
NATO Monitor features on Public Radio International
NATO Monitor author Martin Butcher was interviewed for a piece on NATO and Libya for the Americans Abroad series of Public Radio International. While narrower in focus, the piece draws heavily on NATO Monitor's critique of Ambassador Ivo Daalder's assessment of NATO's achievement in Libya.
You can listen to the piece following the link below - it runs for ten minutes which is long for a radio piece, and is one of a very interesting series in the run-up to Chicago.
You can listen to the piece following the link below - it runs for ten minutes which is long for a radio piece, and is one of a very interesting series in the run-up to Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)