New Atlantic Order

NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. Strasbourg and Kehl,the twin towns of Germany and France and which the two countries once warred over...

NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. Strasbourg and Kehl,the twin towns of Germany and France and which the two countries once warred over will host 5000 members of the diplomatic community from today. The summit should see the charter undergo structural changes,redefining its core; the coalition of the willing doesnt see itself in a position for celebration,but for serious debate. The primary question: what,precisely,is NATOs role in the 21st century?

NATOs modus operandi is contained in its strategic concept,up for review this year. 1991 and 1999 saw changes within the concept. These were the obvious: the conventional Russian threat was gone; the alliance defined itself not through new challenges and threats but rather through the absence of former challenges and threats. This upcoming review should leave no space for speculation,taking into account the changing geo-political order in its reinvention. And not through the single prism of the Afghan War,but through other strategic developments.

Foremost amongst them is the need to recognise the usefulness of a future Russian ally. Not that Russia is in any way ready to enter the alliance: far from it. However,recent Russian overtures indicate a mild rapprochement. Consider the recent American expulsion from the base in Kyrgyzstan base used for the Afghan war effort. That decision wasnt the local Bakiyev leaderships alone; experts agree that the power influencing the decision was the Kremlin. But then Russia offered NATO a transit route through its own territory. This unprecedented gesture has enormous implications: a cooperative Russia could alter NATOs make-up tremendously. Further,it displays a more assertive Medvedev,and a departure from Putins policies.

However,for NATO to best use this possibility,it needs to in the short run abandon its expansionary stance. It is no longer a simple transatlantic alliance it includes the former Soviet satellites,which naturally threatens Russia. Therefore,the Membership Action Plans,through which NATO adds members,should be temporarily frozen. As experts at the Council on Foreign Relations point out,letting the issue of Georgian and Ukrainian membership dominate the conference wouldnt help. Currently the alliance is at 26 members; new members need a defined role.

Changes are also taking place between the two major components of NATO,the US and the EU. Following the demise of the Russian threat,NATO suffered from a serious identity crisis,and talk of an EU military alliance was heard: this no longer is the case. With the arrival of the Obama administration,Europe looks to the US for new global leadership and a departure from Bushs policies.

A more cooperative Europe can be seen through the French entry into NATO after a 43-year hiatus. De Gaulle pulled France out of the alliance in 1966 citing a loss of sovereignty; Sarkozys France no longer views NATO as an American tool. The discourse following the decision centred on cross-Atlantic cooperation,with equal responsibility to each member. Further,France is one of the major troop-contributing countries in the Afghan War. NATO now needs allies with an expeditionary tradition: ones which will go and fight alongside American soldiers. Obama needs to assure such allies that his administration is not vying for control and power at the top.

For the hot topic at NATO will be Afghanistan. The Afghan war has the capacity to unite NATO; its success is viewed as crucial to the alliances new role. The counter-insurgency proposed by the US administration is as yet the only concrete plan of action. The NATO force ISAF has become somewhat of a farce for those on the ground in Afghanistan; rather than being the International Security Assistance Force,it now is the I Saw Americans Fight force. This approach needs to change.

Story continues below this ad

ISAF needs to reinvent itself at the conference. Troop increases are mere speculation,but existing troops need new direction. Non-combat troops numbering in the thousands need a defined mandate,which they currently lack. State-building is vital for Obamas Af-Pak policy to work; contributing member countries will have to recognise and aid this process. Many countries have non-combat rules,this should not weaken the alliance; it needs to use the resources it has towards productive means.

NATOs 50th anniversary was overshadowed by the war in Kosovo; this year it is Afghanistan. NATO in its heyday was successful at preventing conflict in the bipolar world thereby achieving its aim. The threats it faces now are unconventional,and as with all durables,it will need an ability to evolve if it is to succeed in overcoming the challenges ahead.

alia.allanaexpressindia.com