THE RHINE ENCOUNTER

NATO has marked its 60th anniversary. Two cities - Stras-bourg in France and Kehl in Germany - are situated on the Rhine at a distance of five kilometres from each other. They became a venue for the meeting of the leaders of the 28 member countries of the North Atlantic alliance. Having crossed the bridge that connects France and Germany, the leaders of Western states and governments paid tribute to the organization that has been safeguarding peace in Europe since World War II. Though the NATO anniversary summit was accompanied by anti-globalist protests which accused NATO of unleashing wars of the modern period, the alliance confirmed its leading role in the system of Euro-Atlantic security, which was reflected in the intensification of discussions on the bloc's strategy for the next few decades.

Plans until 2020

The Rhine summit of the organization, which US President Barack Obama termed "the most effective alliance in history", announced three new decisions directly concerning the internal life of NATO itself. First, Croatia and Albania officially joined the alliance. Second, France, which quit the NATO military planning committee and nuclear planning group in 1966, confirmed its return to the structures of the alliance. In any case, though this fact proves the long-known aspiration of President Nicolas Sarkozy to strengthen interaction with the USA in the military-political sphere, it is first of all aimed at boosting the role of Paris itself in trans-Atlantic relations and does not mean that the French are ready to give up their independent policy. Finally, third, the name of the new NATO secretary-general was announced, and he will officially take up his duties from 1 August this year.

The successor of Holland's Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark. His election was opposed by Turkey which did not forgive Rasmussen for supporting, under the guise of protecting freedom of speech, the newspaper that had published cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. Ankara thinks that this candidate has a bad reputation in the Muslim world. However, at the very last moment, the Turkish leaders were persuaded not to prevent Rasmussen's election, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was especially successful in that. So, now it is Rasmussen who will lead the alliance and develop the bloc's new strategic concept by its next summit which will take place in Portugal in 2010.

For the time being, the main outlines of the concept, discussions on which took centre stage on the agenda of the summit, were revealed by the incumbent secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. During the Rhine summit, he took part in an open forum with young people from almost 60 countries of the world on the subject "NATO in 2020: What Lies Ahead?" Scheffer outlined the three main features of the organization: 1) it has to be involved more effectively in the joint activities of international institutions; 2) by 2020, NATO should transform its military forces and means; 3) the alliance will include new members, which means that the area of its direct responsibility will expand.

The discussion of these points is of fundamental importance to NATO. A number of influential powers, first of all, Germany and France, are in favour of strengthening NATO's coordination with other international organizations, first of all, the UN and the EU, and insist that the powers to use military force should remain in the hands of the United Nations. Berlin and Paris suggest paying special attention to "preventive peacekeeping measures so that brewing conflicts do not force NATO to use military forces". The two great European powers do not want the bloc to turn into a global organization, which is why they have a careful attitude to the further expansion of the alliance. For this reason, unlike the USA, they do not think it expedient to invite Ukraine and Georgia to NATO in the near future (though they agree not to close NATO's door to them forever). It was exactly under pressure from France and Germany that the NATO leadership said in the run-up to the summit that Kiev and Tbilisi are not ready to join the alliance at the moment.

The Russia-NATO Council

The issue of individual post-Soviet states joining NATO is directly linked to the prospect of the alliance's further cooperation with Russia - a subject which also took centre stage at the summit. As a result of last year's Russian-Georgian war, relations between Brussels and Moscow were frozen, and though NATO continues to criticize Russia's actions (for its invasion of Georgia, its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and its decision to set up military bases on the territories of these rebellious regions), it still thinks it necessary to normalize relations with Russia. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says that Russia is "the main partner of NATO without whom it is impossible to talk about security in Europe". At the same time, he noted "a whole number of spheres of security cooperation" where the interests of Moscow and the alliance coincide. Specifically, the question is about cooperation on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the joint fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and piracy.

As the only problem in relations between the Russian Federation and NATO, the final declaration of the summit noted the same actions of the Kremlin with regard to Georgia which "cause condemnation and concern". It also expressed concern about the presence of regional conflicts in the South Caucasus and Moldova: "It is necessary for all sides in these regions to be involved constructively in the peaceful settlement of conflicts. We urge them to avoid steps that may undermine regional stability and security." NATO again supported the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Moldova and South Caucasus countries, which proves the need to solve territorial conflicts by observing this basic principle of international law.

Trying to unfreeze relations with Moscow, the summit decided to restore the Russia-NATO Council. The opinion of France, Germany, Italy and other major states played a great role in this. They think it necessary to engage the mechanism of strategic interaction with Russia again. Defending their position, the "old Europeans" had to dissuade some countries of "young Europe", first of all, Poland and Baltic states which pose as supporters of preventing Russia's "imperial" ambitions. Barack Obama's position played a decisive role. At the G20 summit in London before the Rhine meeting, he let it be known during the talks with his Russian counterpart Dmitriy Medvedev that he was not inclined to confrontation with Moscow. There are enough reasons for that - first and foremost, this is the expediency of American-Russian cooperation on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation, the settlement of crisis situations in various regions, including in the Middle East, and the fight against international terrorism, including the military operation in Afghanistan.

The last point is extremely important to NATO, which ended up on the verge of failure in its war against the Taleban movement. In these conditions, Moscow's importance increases considerably. The alliance has an agreement on the railway transit of non-military cargo for the NATO forces in Afghanistan through Russian territory.

The Afghan intrigue

The second day of the summit was almost totally dedicated to the problem of Afghanistan. Barack Obama displayed his resolve to ensure that European allies make a greater contribution to the fight against the Taleban. Several days before the Rhine meeting, he issued a statement about the Afghan strategy, promising to defeat the Al-Qaeda and Taleban organizations which "threaten the USA". On this basis, the US president said that an additional reinforcement would be sent to Afghanistan soon.

As is known, there are more than 70,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Most of them are under the command of NATO, but the USA also has its own military contingent in the country. The exacerbation of the situation caused by the stiff resistance and military successes of the Taleban forced Washington to announce at the end of the last year its decision to increase its contingent by 30,000 troops by the summer of 2009.

At the same time, the Americans hoped that European countries would agree to send another 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, which US military experts think will help the success of the Afghan campaign. For their part, the European members of NATO have always realized the importance of the stabilization of the situation in Afghanistan to the strategic goals of the West. However, their readiness to meet Washington's request is questionable.

In the end, NATO decided to send another 5,000 military personnel and instructors to Afghanistan. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said whilst commenting on the results of the summit that the question is about military consultants and instructors who will train the Afghan army and police, not regular army units.

Besides that, Britain will send another 900 people to Afghanistan and Germany and Italy - 600 each. Italy and France have yet to make up their mind about the number of troops to be sent to Afghanistan, but they made it clear that they will definitely participate in the implementation of the alliance's decision. The Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Poland, Turkey and Croatia will also give extra support to the operation. The declaration of the summit directly says that a 3,000-strong NATO military continent will be sent to Afghanistan in the near future in order to ensure security in connection with the presidential elections scheduled for August.

The summit also said that the NATO countries will allocate 100 million dollars for additional funding for the Afghan army.

Commenting on the decision to reinforce the military contingent in Afghanistan, US President Barack Obama said that the allies "unanimously and energetically" supported his initiative. Nevertheless, it is clear that European countries still do not want to increase their presence in Afghanistan, and the Americans are forced to go to great lengths and make strenuous diplomatic efforts to persuade their allies of the opposite. In this case, it worked, as the Europeans were united with the USA for considerations of Euro-Atlantic security as a whole. However, Europe confirmed its desire not to put the lives of its soldiers at risk, disappointing Washington, which hoped that the alliance would send military units for long-term service in Afghanistan.

As for Obama, who has already proved a supporter of different peace initiatives (for example, on problems of nuclear disarmament, Iran, Iraq and the Middle East), he would not have been himself if he had restricted himself only to activities to boost the military component of the Afghan settlement. The new American president confirmed his proposal to set up a new international contact group to settle the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he thinks should include NATO states, countries of Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, Iran, Russia, India and China. Regarding the decision to step up the peace process in and around Afghanistan, Obama's views coincide with the position of European leaders who also suppose that a military campaign alone cannot solve the situation in the most unstable Asian country on which the interests of Eurasian and global security are focused.