REGIONAL BLOC WITH GLOBAL CLOUT

When the term "Cold War" became history after the fall of the Berlin Wall and dissolution of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, many experts said that there was no longer any need for NATO.

In a sense, the alliance was brought back to life by developments in the Balkans.  Then history was changed forever by the terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 and the war against terrorism started in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Quite logically, the confrontation with present-day Russia was renewed, when the latter decided to "get up from its knees" at all costs.  The interests of Moscow and NATO clashed as soon as a number of former Soviet republics, now independent states, decided that they wanted to join NATO.

Then the Iranian nuclear programme crisis began, and again a debate with Russia followed, over the US missile defence system in Europe.  Threats from global climate change, nuclear terrorism, cyber crime and others became increasingly real.  And the real pirates of the 21st century appeared in the Bay of Aden.

And this list of reasons for changing the old strategic blueprint of NATO, dated 1999, is far from exhaustive.  The North Atlantic alliance, which has enlarged significantly in recent years, needs to reorganize and ready itself to face all the challenges of the times, from tomorrow if necessary.  US Vice President Joe Biden and other US and European politicians have more than once discussed the importance of reforming NATO.

The alliance's new strategy exists for now in the form of a 55-page document developed by a so-called "group of wise men" (NATO special committee) which includes experts from all the leading international think tanks.  The blueprint was presented in Brussels by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen.  The draft will form the core of the main document which must be adopted in the autumn, on 18 November, at the Lisbon summit.

Albright underscored that in the 21st century, the alliance must be mobile and flexible in the presence of an abundance of unforeseen factors.

First and foremost, the alliance needs to win in Afghanistan.  This is beyond any doubt, and the future of NATO depends on it.  However, the war in that Central Asian country is no mean task.  Even for NATO.  After all, peacekeeping operations are one thing; real combat operations which continually claim soldiers' lives are quite different.  AFP keeps a count of losses in Afghanistan and reports that the number of military deaths this year has already reached 215.  And there seems to be no end to this war.

Taliban leaders recently urged all the mujahedin to step up their fight.  And, literally a few days after the discussion of the new strategy, terrorists launched a missile and mortar attack against the NATO base in Kandahar.  On the same day, two military personnel from the coalition forces - from France and the Netherlands - were killed in Uruzgan province in the south of Afghanistan by a remote-controlled mine.  In addition, four more Dutch soldiers were wounded, two of them seriously.

The media recalled right away that a debate on extending the Dutch contingent's stay in Afghanistan resulted, in February 2010, in the resignation of the Netherlands Government.  It has already been decided that Dutch troops will be withdrawn once their current deployment in Afghanistan ends in August.  The Dutch decided that losing 24 military personnel from their country since 2001 was enough.

All this is yet more proof that the war with terrorism in Afghanistan, despite its obviously noble and unquestionable objectives, is not particularly popular among the peoples of alliance member countries, especially in Europe.  Besides the Netherlands, other countries, too, say that they will withdraw their troops from Afghanistan soon and say that they do not want to increase defence spending.

However, US President Barack Obama said that the fight against terrorism is just as pressing an issue today as it was immediately after 9/11.  After a speech at the West Point graduation ceremony on 22 May, Obama made it clear that success in the war in Afghanistan was possible only with the support of all NATO allies.  In this way, the US president not only presented the fundamentals of the new US security strategy, but also made clear what he expected from the alliance.  The Washington Post wrote that the USA had suddenly realized that fighting on its own, in isolation from the international community, is too expensive, and thus it would make sense to foster a multilateral strategy to address international problems, including by a strengthening of existing alliances and searching for new partners.  Obama even gave a good example:  US successes were most evident when the country was part of an alliance, as was the case during World War II and the Cold War.

And this too reveals the main conflict within NATO between the USA and Europe.  The National Review writes that European countries believe in the concept of a "goodwill union," in other words, they graciously agree to accept US guarantees but, whenever a crisis develops, they decide every time whether or not to help the USA.

It would be appropriate to cite the words of Economic Strategy Institute President Clyde Prestowitz, who once said that NATO is a US chair at the European table.  This is why the US strives to enlist more active support from Europe for the alliance and its initiatives, but is not interested in letting Europe become a real player.  The USA uses NATO as a trump card against the EU, said the experienced US analyst.

And indeed, it must not be forgotten that while, for the rest of the world, the USA and the EU are allies, to themselves they are rather more rivals.  And the more the Europeans, who after World War II entrusted their security to Washington, want independence, the less they are prone to support the views and actions of the USA; the greater is the White House's displeasure and the more noticeable the discord in the alliance.  And in the case of Afghanistan, small member states of NATO are forced to operate between two lines of fire - public opinion and big-time politics.  However, at present they are limited in their ability to confront US plans by their financial difficulties.

In the mean time, the new draft NATO strategy document discusses the need to prepare for different missions on territory which is not part of NATO's zone of responsibility.  It discusses non-traditional security threats.  It proves decisively the effectiveness of the principle of nuclear deterrence.  The document also includes a section on the need to guarantee energy security.

In addition, the "wise men" argue, the alliance must take responsibility for the development of a new missile defence project.  In particular, Rasmussen is for the development of a missile defence system to protect all NATO member countries.  Albright is also convinced that a missile defence system is most effective when it is a joint venture.  "In our estimation, merging systems will cost the 28 member states less than 200 million euros over 10 years.  This is almost nothing," said the NATO general secretary.

However, the phrase "joint venture" also implies an attempt to join efforts with Russia.  Moscow reacted to this proposal in its own way:  Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia hopes to hear explanations about cooperation on missile defence from the NATO leadership, especially about the talks with Bulgaria.  However, it is highly likely that Moscow will be sidelined from the process of building a pan-European missile defence shield.

In general, the new draft NATO strategy deals quite extensively with Russia.  The document discusses at length the growing need to overcome the mutual distrust between NATO and Moscow.  The group of wise men insists that cooperation with Russia should be promoted, especially in areas of mutual interest.  What can we say?  There is still talk about Russia's possible accession to the alliance.

However, Russia is a difficult matter.  The Western media remind their audiences all the time that the Kremlin uses all kinds of tactics and takes advantage of every opportunity, up to and including the use of armed force, as in Georgia in 2008, to promote its interests.  Obviously, Moscow also resorts to so-called pressure in the energy sector.  This was particularly evident in Ukraine:  while the country was "orange," Russia never agreed a price for natural gas.  But as soon as Viktor Yanukovich, who is considered pro-Russian, became president and as soon as he signed an agreement to extend the stay of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, all natural-gas related differences between Kiev and Moscow, which used to cause hysteria in Brussels, were resolved in an instant.

It is notable that Western analysts themselves admit that Russia is yet another cause of discord in NATO.  For example, while the old members of the alliance, like the USA, Britain and France, do not mind strengthening ties with Moscow, the new members of the bloc - Poland, the Baltic States and others - are traditionally suspicious and demand that NATO guarantee their safety.  James Stavridis, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, also admitted that there was discord on this issue, adding that because some alliance member states continue to view Russia as a threat, they should be given extra security guarantees.

Practically simultaneously with the presentation of the new NATO strategy by Albright, The New York Times published an article citing a report by a group of experts which read that NATO ignores the security needs of its Central and Eastern European members to such an extent that some are seeking separate bilateral defence agreements with the USA.  The paper notes that a report by the European Reforms Centre - a London-based independent research institution - insists that if NATO continues to underestimate security problems in the region, some of these countries will be reluctant to take part in NATO missions outside Europe.

Hearings in the US Senate are of interest here.  At a meeting of the International Affairs Committee, Democratic Party Senator John Kerry said that NATO must protect Eastern European countries, although normalizing relations with Russia is also a priority.  And Republican Senator Richard Lugar believes that the meaning of Chapter 5 of the NATO Charter, which deals with collective defence, must be clearly defined.

At the same time, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrey Nesterenko said that Moscow was surprised by a provision in the alliance's new strategic blueprint which discusses the "anti-NATO nature" of a Russian draft treaty on European security.

Russia is also displeased with the way NATO addresses the problem of drug trafficking from Afghanistan.  The Christian Science Monitor reported that following a visit to Afghanistan, Viktor Ivanov, director of the Russian Federal Service for Control of the Trafficking of Narcotics, was critical of NATO, noting that in the last 3 years, the trafficking of narcotics from Afghanistan to Russia had increased by 16%. Russian analysts are certain, the periodical writes, that NATO turns a blind eye to opium poppy farming in Afghanistan in order to enlist the support of local field commanders and to avoid angering peasants.  Some Russian experts say that the Kremlin is deliberately blowing the drugs problem out of proportion to justify a more active policy in Central Asia.  So, there is a rivalry again.

But still, Western analysts find encouraging the fact that a joint fight against terrorism might pave the way for cooperation with Russia.  After all, Russia suffers from this problem much more than any European country, or even the USA.  The same is true about Iran.  Even though a normalization of relations between Tehran and Washington might not be in Russia's interests, an Iran with nuclear weapons on Russia's borders would be a much greater discomfort.

Overall, the new NATO blueprint is quite realistic:  in particular, the document notes that the alliance must not strive to seek missions which it cannot accomplish.  Of course, it must remain watchful and prepared.

Many experts are sure that NATO will reorganize, become more effective and, possibly, continue to expand and achieve its goals methodically.  The most important thing for the bloc now is to prove its own importance and necessity.  To do this, it will have to learn to be more flexible and to reconcile and combine the objectives and potential of its members, which at times are diametrically opposed.

For the next decade, NATO will remain a regional Euro-Atlantic bloc, albeit with global clout.  However, the global situation has been changing so quickly and so unpredictably of late that it is quite possible that a further revision of the strategic blueprint of the world's most influential military-political bloc will be needed soon.