Written by Gabriela Ionita
The annual meeting of NATO members is scheduled to take place on 20-21st May 2012 in Chicago, USA. An anniversary meeting, we could say, as this year's NATO Summit edition will be reaching number 25 (only the traditional meetings are officially counted, but not the exceptional ones). According to the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, this year's meeting is probably the biggest in NATO's history, as the Summit will be attended by state and government leaders from the 28 member states, but also other senior representatives from over 30 other countries worldwide. The only notable absence in this context seems to be the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.
This year's edition is of extreme importance also because it is the first time when it takes place outside the U.S. capital, moving to the hometown of President Obama - Chicago. Scheduled right after the G8 Summit at Camp David, the NATO Summit comes with a rather complicated agenda, especially due to economic instability in Europe and the many political changes in the last six months (most recent that of the presidential elections in France).
This year's edition is of extreme importance also because it is the first time when it takes place outside the U.S. capital, moving to the hometown of President Obama - Chicago. Scheduled right after the G8 Summit at Camp David, the NATO Summit comes with a rather complicated agenda, especially due to economic instability in Europe and the many political changes in the last six months (most recent that of the presidential elections in France).
At the NATO Summit, there will be reports on the steps taken to underpin the decisions from the Lisbon Summit in November 2010 (where, as we remember, the key reform policies and the reaffirming of the Alliance transatlantic cooperation were outlined).
This year, the NATO Summit will focus on three main themes:
Regarding Ukraine's participation in the Summit in Chicago, even when EU leaders canceled their participation at the Yalta Summit, U.S. Ambassador in NATO, Ivo Daadler, said at a press conference that: "Ukraine is a valued member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. And all members who contribute with troops, and therefore are members of the ISAF operation, are invited to Chicago. Therefore, Mr. Yanukovich could be present at Chicago. It is not our job to rule on the current political issues that are ongoing in Ukraine ".
Moreover, Israel's lack of the guests at the summit was also justified on this basis - Israel did not participate in the ISAF troops - and not because it has been pressured by Turkey in this respect. Of course, the discussion will revolve over topics like the economic crisis and its impact on defense budgets, the missile shield in Europe, the essence of the Arab Spring, the civil war situation in Libya and Syria, but also the plan to reduce tensions and maintain security of key areas such as the Strait of Hormuz.
This year, the NATO Summit will focus on three main themes:
- The Afghanistan file and the clear commitment of NATO to assist the Afghan authorities for transitional period until 2014 and post-transition (after 2014).
- Implementing the Smart Defense concept in an attempt to demonstrate that NATO is able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. "Another objective of the Summit in Chicago is to show 'how to cope with today's economic challenges so that we are prepared for future security challenges" said Rasmussen. After more than six decades of existence, NATO can look back with pride, but to justify its existence it must clearly see future challenges, how it can anticipate and manage them with precision and speed.
- The third objective of the meeting will be strengthening its network of strategic worldwide partnerships. Surely there is will be a public recognition of the efforts made by Macedonia in the mission in Afghanistan, even if the entry into NATO is still delayed, since the requirements agreed at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008 are not yet met.
Regarding Ukraine's participation in the Summit in Chicago, even when EU leaders canceled their participation at the Yalta Summit, U.S. Ambassador in NATO, Ivo Daadler, said at a press conference that: "Ukraine is a valued member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. And all members who contribute with troops, and therefore are members of the ISAF operation, are invited to Chicago. Therefore, Mr. Yanukovich could be present at Chicago. It is not our job to rule on the current political issues that are ongoing in Ukraine ".
Moreover, Israel's lack of the guests at the summit was also justified on this basis - Israel did not participate in the ISAF troops - and not because it has been pressured by Turkey in this respect. Of course, the discussion will revolve over topics like the economic crisis and its impact on defense budgets, the missile shield in Europe, the essence of the Arab Spring, the civil war situation in Libya and Syria, but also the plan to reduce tensions and maintain security of key areas such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Regarding the operations in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Ivo Daadler, through the bilateral agreement signed between U.S. and Afghanistan *, America agrees to give post-transition support even after 2014 and hopes to succeed in convincing the other 28 members of the Alliance to join in this common effort.
In the same registry we note the declaration of the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who, at the end of a meeting on Afghanistan with Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, concluded: "First, we agreed on the next phase of transition and on the fulfillment of the undertaken objectives by 2014. Second, we are ready to define how we see the relationship between NATO and Afghanistan after 2014. And thirdly, we are prepared to work together with the Afghan people to ensure that the Afghan security strategy will take force and will be fully implemented. NATO is an alliance united behind all these objectives, so we expect a very productive summit in Chicago. "
However, more then few voices (even among NATO members) consider the conflict management in Afghanistan is raising a big question mark over NATO's ability (and hence its leader - U.S.) to harness the resources of its members in a common purpose. In turn, American observers often criticize the European NATO allies for not respecting their commitments in Afghanistan, although many of these commitments have been made in such a way that they themselves constraint involvement of the agreed arrangements.
In the same registry we note the declaration of the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who, at the end of a meeting on Afghanistan with Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, concluded: "First, we agreed on the next phase of transition and on the fulfillment of the undertaken objectives by 2014. Second, we are ready to define how we see the relationship between NATO and Afghanistan after 2014. And thirdly, we are prepared to work together with the Afghan people to ensure that the Afghan security strategy will take force and will be fully implemented. NATO is an alliance united behind all these objectives, so we expect a very productive summit in Chicago. "
However, more then few voices (even among NATO members) consider the conflict management in Afghanistan is raising a big question mark over NATO's ability (and hence its leader - U.S.) to harness the resources of its members in a common purpose. In turn, American observers often criticize the European NATO allies for not respecting their commitments in Afghanistan, although many of these commitments have been made in such a way that they themselves constraint involvement of the agreed arrangements.
If NATO wants to survive as alliance, the efforts of its members must reflect the political and strategic consensus. The U.S., as de facto leader of the Alliance, should encourage rather than hinder this process. Lack of political will, lack of participation in allied operations justified by the lack of defense budgets - deserves criticism from American partner - yet they reflect a basic lack of common purpose and lack of unified objectives. American efforts to influence NATO's decision-making process has helped create the impression that the U.S. "take the decision, act and impose their own interests", and in making decisions the opinions of other members are purely advisory, which prompted questions related to the Alliance's purpose.
Andrew Dorman (Chatman House) rightly noted that in the meeting in Chicago "the 28 NATO members have many issues on which to come to an agreement on. First, NATO's involvement in wars, from Libya to Afghanistan or vice versa and in the potential war in Syria and Iran, led to different degrees of commitment from its members and differences of views on NATO's geopolitical strategies. Or formulating the question frankly: is this an alliance that focuses only on the European continent or one that focuses on broader security issues of its members and on potential global threats? How to define these threats? " Secondly, he said that "it remains in question how the NATO relationship with Russia will evolve in the context of the tensions caused by the location of the missile shield and the thorny issue associated with the expansion of NATO to include several former Soviet states ( Georgia, Ukraine) ".
The fervent critics of the atlantist trend deemed that the summit is going to the pillars of strength of the organization, after a visible failure in Iraq and Libya, an increasingly unstable situation of the disastrous failure of Syria, the inability of the international community to find a compromise solution for Iran's nuclear file, the general financial crisis, the U.S. election year (the fierce Republicans - Democrats dispute on foreign policy issues) and the military and economic strategy 'reorientation' of America from Europe to Asia-Pacific. Of course, we are already used to this, as in the last twenty years, at the threshold of any NATO Summit, a number of experts, journalists, opinion leaders not only discuss certain issues, but also predict NATO's funeral. Common also are the press briefings of the NATO officials in the summit and after, arguing that despite all adversities, the Alliance continues to survive (even if its promised reinvention is rather theoretical). The question is: how long?
Andrew Dorman (Chatman House) rightly noted that in the meeting in Chicago "the 28 NATO members have many issues on which to come to an agreement on. First, NATO's involvement in wars, from Libya to Afghanistan or vice versa and in the potential war in Syria and Iran, led to different degrees of commitment from its members and differences of views on NATO's geopolitical strategies. Or formulating the question frankly: is this an alliance that focuses only on the European continent or one that focuses on broader security issues of its members and on potential global threats? How to define these threats? " Secondly, he said that "it remains in question how the NATO relationship with Russia will evolve in the context of the tensions caused by the location of the missile shield and the thorny issue associated with the expansion of NATO to include several former Soviet states ( Georgia, Ukraine) ".
The fervent critics of the atlantist trend deemed that the summit is going to the pillars of strength of the organization, after a visible failure in Iraq and Libya, an increasingly unstable situation of the disastrous failure of Syria, the inability of the international community to find a compromise solution for Iran's nuclear file, the general financial crisis, the U.S. election year (the fierce Republicans - Democrats dispute on foreign policy issues) and the military and economic strategy 'reorientation' of America from Europe to Asia-Pacific. Of course, we are already used to this, as in the last twenty years, at the threshold of any NATO Summit, a number of experts, journalists, opinion leaders not only discuss certain issues, but also predict NATO's funeral. Common also are the press briefings of the NATO officials in the summit and after, arguing that despite all adversities, the Alliance continues to survive (even if its promised reinvention is rather theoretical). The question is: how long?
This mosaic could not miss the usual protests, already announced by the initiators of the movement 'Ocuppy Wall Street' and numerous other anti-globalization and human rights organizations. So the organizers decided a plan of exceptional security measures, from which Chicago will become a city besieged by their own police forces rather than the protesters. There was even a discussion over the establishment of a restricted flights area over the city during the event (rated by the Department of Homeland Security / DHS as one that requires exceptional security measures).
Moreover, in the fever of preparations, the Mayor of Chicago, former presidential adviser, Rahm Emanuel, has proposed and adopted several measures to avoid possible protests, measures that will be taken by the authorities even after the summit. I will only mention here the installation of surveillance cameras in many places of the city, restricting certain public activities, registration of any sign or banner that is designed to be worn by more than one person, restricting parades and public marches, the right to coordinate intervention forces (other than those belonging to the Chicago Police Department). These ordinances have already attracted a number of protests by Amnesty International and Ocuppy Chicago, whose representatives consider that the event is used to abusively reduce human rights and freedoms.
Moreover, in the fever of preparations, the Mayor of Chicago, former presidential adviser, Rahm Emanuel, has proposed and adopted several measures to avoid possible protests, measures that will be taken by the authorities even after the summit. I will only mention here the installation of surveillance cameras in many places of the city, restricting certain public activities, registration of any sign or banner that is designed to be worn by more than one person, restricting parades and public marches, the right to coordinate intervention forces (other than those belonging to the Chicago Police Department). These ordinances have already attracted a number of protests by Amnesty International and Ocuppy Chicago, whose representatives consider that the event is used to abusively reduce human rights and freedoms.
* On May 1, 2012, President Barack Obama and President Karzai signed the Strategic Sustainable Partnership between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.
Posts
