European politics
Charlemagne's notebook
NATO and the EU
A rowless summit
Nov 20th 2010, 22:15 by The Economist | Lisbon
IN BUCHAREST in 2008 they fell out over whether to allow Ukraine and Georgia to begin the formal membership process to join NATO. In Strasbourg-Kehl in 2009, they barely patched up the row over the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the alliance’s secretary-general, in the face of objections of Turkey. This year Lisbon, the NATO allies seemed to agree on everything. Bad for journalists, but perhaps better for transatlantic relations.
First off, NATO agreed its new “strategic concept” on November 19th. This is intended to be the underlying philosophy of the alliance for the coming years. In the prolonged dispute over whether to concentrate on territorial defence of NATO countries, or on expeditionary missions in Afghanistan, NATO said the allies had to be able to fight both kinds of campaigns and more, not least cyberwarfare. The simmering row over Germany’s call to remove nuclear weapons from European soil was overcome with a compromise that NATO would strive for a world free of nuclear weapons, but until then it had to remain a nuclear-armed alliance.
Then came the debate over Afghanistan but this was, similarly, largely consensual. The “transition” from NATO forces to Afghan security control will pick up pace from next year, district by district, province by province. There is little real novelty here. Transition has been much talked about for a year or more, and the Afghan capital, Kabul, is already under nominal security control of the Afghan government.
The aim of completing the transition by 2014 is distant. To the Americans, this is an objective to be aspired to, and will depend on conditions on the ground. Regardless of conditions, though, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, restated his view that British combat operations would be over by 2015 at the latest. “I think the British public deserve a deadline,” he declared.
In a sense, Mr Cameron has copied Canada, which announced some years ago that its combat troops would be out by next year. Yet Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, has now made a commitment to provide 950 soldiers to train Afghan forces “behind the wire” in their barracks. Other countries have also stepped up their training contribution.
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who had complained in a newspaper interview about night-raids by special forces, saying they were aggravating the insurgency, declined the opportunity to make a fuss about the issue in public. “You are pulling my legs,” he told one journalist who asked him about his criticism of NATO tactics. Mr Obama acknowledged that Mr Karzai had been right to express concern about civilian casualties, but accepted that there would be disagreements in future.
In private, though, the dialogue was sterner. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were among those who told the Afghan leader that he needed a more “coherent” message; he should not sound as if he disapproved of the presence of foreign forces. Western leaders also had domestic opinion to worry about, they told him.
Would Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev, absent last year because of the row over the Georgia war, provide some fireworks for the weary hacks? No such luck. The Russian and western leaders alike spoke of turning a new page in relations. Mr Medvedev thought the occasion “historic”, though quite why was unclear.
He agreed to keep talking to NATO about the missile defence it agreed to create by linking up American ship-based systems with some shorter-range European air-defence rockets under development. But talking was not agreeing, he made clear. If Russia did not feel it was being treated as an equal, he warned, he would not co-operate and the two sides risked returning to an arms race.
It was the question of nuclear weapons, more specifically the new arms-reduction treaty between America and Russia, that provided a bit of passion. Mr Obama urged Republican leaders in the Senate to ratify the treaty, or risk the reversal of the “reset” policy that had eased tensions and convinced Russia to support fresh sanctions against Iran. Several eastern European leaders dutifully emerged to say they supported ratification of the treaty. Mr Medvedev said failure to ratify would make things "very unpleasant". Mr Obama even quoted Ronald Reagan and his dictum of “trust but verify”. Without the treaty, said Mr Obama, America would have no means of verifying Russian nukes.
As the convention centre was packed up, Mr Obama had one final summit: with the two “presidents” of the European Union, Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the EU’s civil service, and Herman Van Rompuy, who represents EU leaders. Mr Obama had declined the offer to hold the summit earlier this year in Spain; now he agreed to a meeting tacked on at the end of the main event.
This was an even more dull affair than the NATO gathering. The leaders promised to work harder to promote jobs and growth. They agreed, among other things, to work to remove non-tariff barriers to transatlantic trade, to draw up common standards for future electric vehicles and to set up a working group on cyber-security.
Was it a waste of time? Mr Obama put it thus: “This summit was not as exciting as other summits because we basically agreed on everything.” What about the trade row between Boeing and Airbus? Or the dispute between Europe and America over currencies? Such was the violent agreement that the leaders refused to take questions.
About Charlemagne's notebook
In this blog, our Charlemagne columnist considers the ideas and events that shape Europe, while dealing with the quirks of life in the Euro-bubble. Follow Charlemagne on Twitter at @EconCharlemagne
Advertisement
Economist blogs
- Americas view
- Asia view
- Babbage
- Bagehot's notebook
- Banyan
- Baobab
- Blighty
- Buttonwood's notebook
- Charlemagne's notebook
- Clausewitz
- Daily chart
- Democracy in America
- Eastern approaches
- Free exchange
- Global Leadership
- Gulliver
- Johnson
- Leviathan
- Lexington's notebook
- Multimedia
- Newsbook
- Prospero
- Schumpeter's notebook
- The World in 2011: Cassandra
Most commented
- Charlemagne: No time for doubters
- This week's caption competition: Caption competition 7
- America’s security commitment to Taiwan: From keystone to millstone?
- Turkey and Europe: Mr Erdoğan goes to Germany
- America's budget: The elephant in the room
- Mormons in politics: When the saints come marching in
- A special report on property: Building excitement
- Defence budgets: Military ranking
- Trains vs. planes: Trains and partisanship
- China's foreign policy: Setting sail for Libya
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Oil and the economy: The 2011 oil shock
- Mormons in politics: When the saints come marching in
- Psychiatry: Therapist-free therapy
- The Tata group: Out of India
- KAL's cartoon
- Turkey and Europe: Mr Erdoğan goes to Germany
- A special report on property: Building excitement
- Oil markets and Arab unrest: The price of fear
- The Republicans: Who dares take him on?
- Libya's no-fly zone: The military balance
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
What about Macedonia ? Left in the mud ?
Consistent with his attitude,the ECONIOMIST is keeping from naming Italy,and mentioning a couple of Countries(FRANCE,GERMANY)that are turning more a burden that a solution in Afghanistan.I dare to remind to the Readers that
1)Obama affirmed yesterday that ITALY AND CANADA ARE MAKING THE DIFFERENCE with their committment in Afghanistan
2)That Italy has the third biggest force in Afghanistan(4213 men and women)
3)In a recent interview to FIGARO,gen PETREUS affirmed that one of the reasons why we can be optimistic about Afghanistan is the success in democratizing the 100 kmlong km Baghdis valley,performed by our troops after a long stretch of hard battles.
Why does this article come off as bored or almost disappointed in the consensus in policy within NATO? It is groundbreaking that all of these countries are able to unite and work together efficiently. The only really concern is whether it will last into next year. It seems like this peace is hanging on by a thread; it depends on whether all of these countries decide to keep cooperating or if certain treaties are passed. A more certain way to keep the peace is if NATO follows Germany's advice and disarm completely. Telling other countries to be nuke-free while holding onto their own contradicts the progressive policies NATO is trying to implement.
Putting sanctions on another country, let alone trying to install a missile specifically aimed at that country is an act of war.
You should already realize by now that the only staunch supporters of a war by the United States and NATO against Iran are Israel, the Israel lobby in the U.S., and the “Neoconservatives,” 90 percent of whom are American Jews loyal to Israel before America. It's Israel which is spreading propaganda against Iran through deliberate mistranslations of the Iranian President’s words (“wipe Israel off the map” in fact was completely out of context, and referred to a quote by Khomeini regarding eventual regime change by the Israelis, which he also said about Germany, Russia, Iraq, and Iran), which are meaningless anyway as the President doesn’t carry much power in Iran.
Intervening in other countries’ affairs do not help the U.S., “policing the world” leaves the country appearing hypocritical for all its inconsistencies at the job. It’s hurting the American economy and is making the world hate us. Sanctions were clearly not effective during the 1990s against Iraq when sanctions starved 500,000 Iraqi children to death (one of the chief pretexts for the 9/11 attacks), destroying that country’s advancements, and leaving the people in ruins. Now following the 2003 Iraq War, secular dictator Saddam Hussein (installed by the U.S.) was replaced by a radical Shiite “democracy” which brings newfound power to Iran. Ask any Iraqi woman if this transition made her life easier in any way.
Interventionist foreign policies are even leading to the vilification of traditional U.S. allies, like Turkey, whose soldiers fought with Americans in North Korea. Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran have long been fierce rivals, even enemies in the region, and now they’re cooperating more and making trade, thus easing tensions between one another. Turkey still repeatedly made clear, “we do not want to see a nuclear armed Iran,” but there’s also not a shred of evidence that Iran is after nuclear weapons, even after multiple, thourough inspections.
Denmark is the leading western nation with regards to percentage of GDP given to foreign aid. I’m personally against the U.S. giving any foreign aid to other countries, let alone ones involved in major conflicts and carrying poor human rights records. During the Soviet-Aghanistan war, we gave at least $6 billion to Islamic mujahideen factions (some estimates say $20 billion), including Osama bin Laden, whose ideologies and power reverse any progress made in Muslim countries.
The leading recipient of our hard-earned dollars in recent American history has been to Israel, a country with an income per capita higher than Portugal’s, a military force which makes it a superpower in the Middle East, major conflicts with people in all nearby countries, and a very poor human rights record. Leading weapons sales by the U.S. include Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, none of which are truly democratic or reflect respect toward the basic human rights of others.
Is it any surprise that picking a fight with Iran, a country which hasn’t started a war in hundreds of years, and trying to install weapons of mass destruction aimed at their cities is going to leave NATO appearing like a tool of American imperialism?
Need Another Theatre Operation -> NATO?
Now Russia has joined the fray with the original idea "if you can't beat 'em...
NATO should do a graceful handover to ISAF &/or EU Defense Force and call it a day.
Too many NATO people are looking to retire anytime soon to let this happen, anytime soon.
I'm proud to live in an EU country that does not support NATO!
Nil results of an empty meeting focused on void issues.
Present NATO members agree on virtually nothing, from Turkish-Greek conflict on Cyprus to the sales of a French top-technology Mistral-class carriers to Russia. In the latter case, there's even a virtual agreement on sales, but - to my surprise - no contingency measures in case Russia decides to attack again in the Black Sea or in the Baltics. Fiddlesticks? That was seen many times before, and I am weary to refresh your failing memories. Let's summarize, theorically, the contingency measures was the main reason why NATO had a role to play in Europe at all, and now this reason is void.
The US under Obama is obsessed with Iranian question which is a non-issue to them. Iran is not a global threat to the US. Let Iran develop the nuclear strike capacity, and the interested parties will be, "in the pecking order": Israel, Saudi Arabia, EU and Russia.
US with their Aegis system can do on their own. EU without, alternatively, US or Russian support, cannot. Russian support is not of a technological, but rather of a political nature, which means their option is cheap in comparison to the shield which requires know-how and money. Russia asks for its exclusive sphere of influence and it is close to achieve this goal. Russia has its privileged links in Iran and -surprisingly - Afghanistan. Russia cannot act positively on these issues, it can only act destructively. And it does. Nobody will oppose. The area between Germany and Russia is too difficult to control by the outside forces. Moreover, it has been drowned purposedly since last 20 years by local secret services linked to KGB (now FSB of Mr. Putin).
I am not the only one obsessed by the threat which is posed by Russia which reminds me more and more the state of mind in the Weimar German Republic before 1933. These appetites have costed too many lives to repeat the same errors in foreign policy. Friedman's Strafor blog may be a useful reminder.
All the best to people of a good will.
Rasheda_B wrote: Nov 21st 2010 6:10 GMT "...A more certain way to keep the peace is if NATO follows Germany's advice and disarm completely. Telling other countries to be nuke-free while holding onto their own contradicts the progressive policies NATO is trying to implement."
I suggest that Rasheda read a history book. One reason for World War II, was that the western nations were unprepared for war while Germany rearmed. Instead of following "Germany's advice" we should learn from Germany's 1930's practice.
Peace is a great goal to strive for, but unless nations are prepared to defend themselves, they will get not peace but occupation.
We would accept a feasable nuclear disarmament treaty with the Russians if Europe's security is not threaten. Recent relationship between Western Europe and Russia do warrtent some sort of a cooperation between the US and Russia and therefore ratify this START treaty in the United States Senate. Aboveall, if Western Europe can live up to the setting of this nuclear posture than it is worhwhile to ratify this treaty. Also, it must be emphasized that Europe knows better if it is in their own security interestand thereby US should help them in that realm. I also think that a new security doctrine may be achieved by realigning Russia with us to counter major nuclear threat coming from Iran and other rogue nations. I believe the US should ratify this treaty without hesitation.
Nato, like the UN is becoming a old administrative and paralysed organisation. Alliances are effective on certain objectives, like the last UK + France agreement on nuclear mutual support and researches
The BBC has some useful reporting on this issue from Edgar Buckley: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11812560
"The simmering row over Germany’s call to remove nuclear weapons from European soil was overcome with a compromise that NATO would strive for a world free of nuclear weapons, but until then it had to remain a nuclear-armed alliance."
ROFL, did NATO really think seriously that somebody would believe that it strives for a world free of nuclear weapons?? This sentence should be understood like: "Germany, you have no army and are occupied by us, USA, so shut up." (note: complete nuclear disarment is of course idiotic and would lead to a huge amount of regional wars and potentially to a World War, with China actively participating).
@ Amicus_Plato
I would be rather surprised if Russia would buy foreign-made weaponry, can you support your claims?
What I agree with you is that Russia is similar to Germany in the 20s - and that is why it should be accepted in NATO (after some years of warming up of course).
I don't really think Russia has got good relationship with Iran - Iran is an islamic country (i.e. inherent supporter of Islam in the Caucasus and for sure not the most favourite nation for the quite racist Russians) and an old enemy of Russia (remember the Great Game, most the Russian-controlled Central Asian territory was taken from Persia, i.e. Iran). Russia just plays the game in order to gain Western support on some other issues.
Oh, so sorry it was so dull. Mabye next time the USA should threaten to invade France. That should spice it up a bit.
Hi,
A rowless summit, The future of NATO.
As the military situation in Europe settles down NATO must find
new duties to keep and oil its works. A civil defence force
would make sense. The standard of civil defence in most countries
is a "Dad Army". In Switzerland Where its taken very serious it
remains a jock, this from personal experience. A revised civil
defence with no tangent to Fire, police, ambulance infrastructure.
Such should be more serious. My experience of the fire contingent
forgetting the hose pipes, the pioneers forgetting the maps and tools,
the catering core forgetting the beer, and so on. Duties such as
Chemical / Radiological protection and expertise, first aid should be
made professional end efficient. This entails a de militriation.
Regards Dr. Terence Hale
WE believe that the Afgan situation can only be rectified if NATO realizes that any confrontational body/force has to be fed food and information to be tamed. This body has to be content/happy with its future in any future policy decisions. So quit fighting, feed and pay the local citizens a fair compensation for their services. If the needs of the citizens are met, progress will follow, in a more expedient, efficient and long-lasting way. Note the citizens that shall be targeted are those that will resist present policy change. e.g. monies for the drug/arms trade.
heated
So it's official now:
Charlemagne likes political rows as they are good for journalists.
I always thought that was Charlemagne's position but now we know it for sure.
We shall take it consideration next time Charlemagne overplays differences or exaggerates difficulties in Europe.
@ mlmartin:
I am happy to be at your service by providing you with some evidence.
1st Mistral landing/ helicopter carrier which is the most recent France's advanced weaponry sales deal with Russia. The key on the Russian side is the magic word "technology transfer".
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav012110.shtml
I remind you that one of main motives of Russian top army brass to push this deal ahead was their experience of the invasion of Georgia in 2008. The Russian Army chief of staff commented even that "Had we two or three of these ships in August 2008, we would have finished off with Georgia in 24 hours, not a week". This is a chilling reminder for the Baltic countries, but also for Romania, and finally - why not - Poland, all belonging to this not so enviable category of second-tier NATO members. Not surprising, after all, that there are no contingency plans with regard to the Baltics.
2nd: Do not underestimate Russian influence in Iran which cannot be limited simply to the relations with the ruling class and the clans within. True, the Iranians traditionally beware of Russia. However, there are at least 10-15 million of Turkish-speaking Azeri living in Tabriz province, NW Iran. This is probably one of the biggest minorities in Iran and with strong cultural, parental and economic links to the present-day Azerbaijan. The Azeris in the Soviet era were overrepresented in the KGB due to the utmost strategic importance of the southern flank of Soviet Empire - access to warm seas remains one of traditional focuses of Russian international policy.
Moreover, do not underestimate importance of well-established links between Russia and communist movements in Iran. The Iranian diaspora in present-day Russia is an interesting tool of influence on the Iranian political elite, which b.t.w. is much more pragmatic than the common belief admits. Former supporters of the Iranian commu nist party Tudeh have not evaporated and they are receptive to what comes from Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_parties_in_Iran
I believe also that, at least tactically, Russia and Iran have strong common interests on the regional level and in this uncanny partnership Russia has always an upper hand. The most important is that both two do everything to block any attempt of Europe to diversify gas supplies from Russia by replacing them by Caspian - Central Asian gas. The Iranians of course would love to sell their (and Turkmen) gas to Europe, but now there's US embargo impeding any project which involves Iranian gas or transit through Iran. Second is that both Iran and Russia want the US entangled as much as possible in Afghanistan and they secretly co-operate on it.
Well, have a look at Friedman's "Stratfor" site and you'll be convinced that my analysis is not as unfounded as that.
Best regards
I liked very much this piece of humor from A.F.Rasmussen's spokesman and I'd like to share it with you:
QUOTE
According to AFP, the spokesman for NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen confirmed on Wednesday that he does not object to France’s decision to sell ships to Russia. "The secretary general does not consider Russia a threat and he hopes that Russia does not consider NATO a threat," said spokesman James Appathurai.
UNQUOTE
So, the Balts should base their security on the thin line of hope. After all, we expect they'll be reasonable in case "this" happens once again.
I am happy to live far from Tallin.
Andover Chick
"Mabye next time the USA should threaten to invade France. That should spice it up a bit."
that must be one of you're belgium daddy's joke !
Come to think of it & based on current & corroborated historical facts, "NATO" really stands for "North American Terrorist Organisation", more than any other esoteric title.
Hmmm...
Amicus_Plato
hmmm, wonder you're worried of France selling Mistrals to Russia, since Robert Gates and the US officials didn't see any major problem that the trade would be concluded
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4490124
Besides Russia had planned to renew almost of her Military and Navy fleet and material that are obsolete and or worn out. If France doesn't make the business, then Neederland, Spain or south Korea will.
Again, since the "reset button" the official western position is to not isolate Russia, thus to force her to adopt coercitive actions vs her former soviet proxy neighbours, that were longing for a Nato membership