|
NATO and Nuclear WeaponsNATO Prepares for the Bucharest Summit, 2 April 2008Martin Butcher
Introduction NATO heads of State and Government will meet in Bucharest April 2 to April 4, 2008. NATO ministers have been preparing a substantial Summit agenda for some months (see previous Acronym reports on recent foreign and defence ministers meetings). Ongoing NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo will be addressed, with Afghanistan the principal focus. The Alliance has worked with several international organisations and the Afghan government to prepare a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Taliban militarily and politically. Enlargement of the Alliance into the Balkans has been prepared for agreement, with potential future enlargement to the Ukraine and Georgia also on the agenda. European aspects of US strategic missile defences will forma key part of the agenda, both between allies and in the NATO-Russia Council when NATO leaders will meet with President Putin for the last time before he leaves office. NATO's defence transformation, energy security and cyber-security will also be addressed. (NATO has released a statement on its website about the Summit agenda http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/04-april/e0402b.html) Norway and Germany have pressed for a review of NATO arms control and disarmament policy, and a review document may emerge from this Summit. Finally, some NATO countries have called for NATO to revise its guiding policy document, the Strategic Concept, last changed in 1999. Such a process could be launched in Bucharest. The Summit will open with a working dinner on the evening of April 2. The North Atlantic Council will meet on Thursday 3 April, in a meeting which will last all day. This will include meetings dedicated to the situation in Afghanistan with the Afghan government, the World Bank and other stakeholders present. On Friday 4 April NATO leaders will meet with President Putin in the NATO-Russia Council, and also with Ukrainian leaders in the NATO-Ukraine Commission. Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels last month appear to have agreed most of the details for a new Afghanistan strategy, so while this will be a major section of the Heads of State agenda, there is little controversial detail to be decided. In contrast, the ongoing dispute between Greece and the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on the name of the republic shows little sign of resolution. Relations with Russia over NATO expansion and missile defences are also set to cause the Alliance some problems. AfghanistanMeeting in early March, NATO foreign ministers approved a framework for a NATO strategy in Afghanistan. The Summit, and the strategy that emerges from it, will be an "illustration of top-level international commitment" to Afghanistan. NATO spokesman James Appathurai briefed reporters on March 27 that "The meeting in and of itself is a demonstration of what we call the comprehensive approach to Afghanistan. That this is not simply a military issue -- it is very much a comprehensive issue relating to the full spectrum of areas in which there needs to be international support for Afghan efforts, and that includes governance, it includes reconstruction and development, and, of course, the military aspects as well." Appathurai offered some detail of the documents that NATO leaders will approve during a meeting that will include representatives from the UN, the EU, the World Bank and President Karzai of Afghanistan. He said that the public document will "a public vision statement which should set out for the public A, a confirmation of our commitment, B, a reconfirmation of why Heads of State and Government believe that what we are doing as an international community in Afghanistan is important, lay out a vision for the future of that international commitment.". The second document will be a "political military plan which will be a confidential document which is being developed also right now, which will set out in very specific terms where Allies and Partners believe that-- how we are doing in all the areas where NATO plays a lead or supporting role and where we think over the coming years, where Allies think over the coming years, we should focus our effort to build on the progress and the changes that have taken place over the past years."[1] NATO officials privately say that the remaining controversy centres around the length of NATO's commitment in Afghanistan. They say that some nations, led by the United States with UK support, would like the commitment to underwrite Afghan security to last at least 20 years, most allies are very reluctant to offer any guarantee beyond the next five years. In general opinion is that the Alliance cannot pull out of Afghanistan until the Afghan army and police are capable of taking over. However, according to one source opinions of when that will be differ sharply. It is likely that NATO diplomats will be able to find a formula of words that will conceal differences and for all sides to say that their opinion has prevailed. This will, obviously, push the substance of the argument to a future meeting and - in at least one NATO source's opinion - make it more difficult to maintain the NATO military mission in the long run. Another hurdle for the Summit to overcome is increased troop numbers. NATO failed to add the 3,000 troops requested for the ISAF last year, leading to the US sending an additional 3,200 Marines to southern Afghanistan, where fighting against the Taliban has been fiercest. Now, according to some reports, ISAF has requested between 5,000 and 10,000 more troops. Canada, with 1,500 troops in southern Afghanistan, has said it will withdraw unless an additional 1,000 troops are sent to join them. France has said it will likely agree to send 1,000 extra troops on condition that a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan is agreed at this Summit. The UK will commit 800 new troops. Other countries including Denmark and Poland will also add troops to their contingents. Georgia has announced it will send 500 troops, in a move likely related to its NATO membership hopes. However, there is frustration that Germany will not send additional forces, nor allow those present in Afghanistan to join combat forces in Helmand province and elsewhere. The reinforcements options will be dealt with at dinner on April 2, with the meeting on April 3 addressing the more complex questions of political-military strategy, since those involve the other institutions invited to meet with the North Atlantic Council that day. Afghanistan continues to be a make or break issue for NATO. It is the issue where those who want the Alliance to be a global security provider and those who want NATO to continue to concentrate on territorial defence in Europe see their differences brought into sharp relief. EnlargementAs reported from the March 6 foreign ministers meeting, the substantive issues regarding expansion of the Alliance in the Balkans have been settled. All the Allies believe that Croatia, Albania and Macedonia have met the criteria for Alliance membership and will be able, within limits, to contribute militarily to NATO. Macedonia The vexed dispute between Greece and Macedonia about the Macedonian republic's name is still unresolved. Greece continues to insist that if Macedonia does not change its name, which is the same as the Greek province of Macedonia, then they will veto Macedonian entry to NATO. Greece claims that Macedonia's name represents a threat to Greece's territorial integrity, despite the fact that Macedonia has publicly renounced any claim to the Greek province. The Macedonian parliament had intended to debate a change to Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), which had been suggested by UN mediators who have been working to solve this conflict. However, Greece rejected this formulation, and according to most commentators and Greek sources there is now no possibility that this dispute can be solved before the Bucharest Summit begins. All insist that the Greek parliament simply will not ratify a NATO enlargement package which includes their neighbour using any formulation for a name that includes Macedonia. NATO sources say that a fudged solution may be to invite Macedonia to accede to NATO on June 30, 2009 with the other two candidates with the proviso that the dispute with Greece must have been resolved first. Georgia and the Ukraine Much more controversial across the Alliance is the US proposal to give Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Georgia and the Ukraine. A MAP is the last stage before full NATO membership, and the offer of a MAP to these two nations is fraught with difficulty. Georgia has ongoing territorial disputes with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, region that broke away from Georgia as it split from the Soviet Union. Russia also opposes expansion of the Alliance to Georgia as a threat to its own security. The US has supported Georgian membership in NATO as part of its broad strategy in the 'war on terror', since Georgia has been helpful in countering Islamic radicals in the Caucasus. Some NATO members have expressed concern about the democratic credentials of the Georgian government, since President Saakashvili cracked down hard on opposition demonstrations in late 2007. Many NATO members oppose a MAP for Georgia, with Germany being especially vocal. Chancellor Merkel told German military commanders in early March that countries which are "entangled in regional and internal conflicts" cannot join NATO.[2] She has stuck to this position despite heavy pressure from Eastern European NATO members and personal entreaties by President Bush. Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and France have also publicly opposed a Georgian MAP offer. The recent Georgian offer to send 500 troops to Afghanistan, and a belated peace initiative to the two breakaway regions are unlikely to swing the issue in Georgia's favour. For the Ukraine, the problem is somewhat difference. The political elite is divided on NATO membership, and opinion in the country is also deeply split. There is a clear call from President Yuschenko, a leader of the Orange Revolution, for NATO membership. There is equally clear opposition from former Prime Minister Yanukovych, who represents the pro-Russian strand of Ukrainian opinion. Since Russia strenuously opposes NATO membership for the Ukraine, there are few upsides, and many downsides, to inviting such a badly divided nation to join the Alliance or even offering them a MAP to future membership. While continuing to insist that the possibility of membership remains open for the Ukraine, President Bush has clearly decided that relations with President Putin take priority in current circumstances. The Summit communiqué will likely offer the standard formula that the door remains open for future members, and that no nation outside the Alliance has a veto on membership for new nations. This will be seen as cold comfort in Tbilisi and Kyiv. NATO transformationAlliance leaders will spend some time on NATO transformation question son the morning of April 3. James Appathurai told journalists that "On the NATO Response Force, there will be interventions on defence transformation. I know at least one Head of State and Government intends fully to raise this … There will be, I think, a general discussion on NATO transformation with regards to, for example, making sure there's necessary investment in defence, on cyber defence, I think very much on missile defence that it will certainly be raised at a certain stage.." This is the part of the Summit where NATO's role in ensuring energy security will also be raised. Missile Defence is a tricky question for the Alliance, at least where it concerns the US proposal to base strategic defence elements in Europe. While the Czechs and the US are close to agreement on the basing of a radar at Brdy, the Poles and the US are still very far from agreement. Countries including Norway and Slovakia have opposed these deployments, while others including the UK promote them enthusiastically. The Norwegian government told its parliament in mid-March that they could not support the missile defence deployments. Many governments continue to hope that this issue will simply go away, especially since it involves difficult issues in relations with Russia. Many EU members are angry that EU relations with Russia have been soured by unilateral US action, into which NATO has been unwillingly dragged. The Summit communiqué will likely make a vague statement about missile defence, while kicking final endorsement of a system to the future. This has been made more likely by the refusal of the US Congress to fund the Bush administration's missile defence deployments in the current fiscal year. With a US election looming, there is doubt that President Bush's successor will be so eager to move ahead. NATO-Russia RelationsFriday 4 April will see the meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, with President Putin present. On 6 April, Presidents Bush and Putin will then meet in Sochi on the Black Sea. These two meetings can be seen as two parts of a whole. The possible sting has been taken out of the meeting with NATO as a whole by the two presidents agreeing to meet separately later to thrash out problems between them. This makes sense, as most of the problems are in reality US-Russian bilateral issues which have soured relations with Russia for the whole Alliance. The Bush administration has seemingly decided, somewhat belatedly, to try negotiating with Russia as it prepares to leave office. Initiatives in early march led to the presentation to President Putin of draft 'strategic framework' by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. It is this that has formed the basis for the Sochi meeting. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley briefed the US press last week that elements of the plan include:
It is also thought that there is an understanding that no NATO Membership Action Plan will be offered to Georgia and the Ukraine. NATO ministers will not want to do anything to upset the possible negotiation of this package. Russia now has every incentive to avoid rocking the boat in Bucharest. And if the two Presidents are able to deliver this deal at Sochi, then they will have a much greater legacy in terms of arms control and disarmament than most would expect. ConclusionWhile this Summit is not set for historic status, NATO members have certainly set a higher bar for success than at the vacuous summit in Riga in 2006. There will be another Summit in 2009, to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Atlantic Alliance. There may be a decision from this Summit to negotiate a new Strategic Concept before the one next year. However, countries including the UK oppose such a move because of the US elections, and the Strategic Concept talks may only begin in 2009. Acronym will issue regular updates as the Summit progresses.
Endnotes[1] NATO Spokesman James Appathurai, Media Briefing, 26 March 2008. [2] Deborah B. Wild, NATO Summit To Grapple With Afghanistan, Mull Membership For Georgia, Ukraine, Eurasia Insight, March 31, 2008. [3] Stephen Hadley, Media Briefing, 26 March 2008. © 2008 The Acronym Institute. |