NATO summits aren’t known for their ability to galvanise member states into decisions of importance. These big set piece occasions, like the dual summit held in Strasbourg and Kehl last weekend, more often than not become known as ‘postponement summits.’ But at least this latest gathering had symbolic resonance with the organisation celebrating its 60th birthday – an amazing achievement for an organisation that saw its raison d’etre seemingly disappear with the fall of the Berlin wall.
There were no unexpected decisions at the 60th anniversary summit. France rejoined the military structure of NATO and the EU nations in general agreed to up their involvement in Afghanistan, mostly through a ‘civilian surge’ rather than military. For their part the Americans promised a further increase of combat troops. On the institutional side, Albania and Croatia joined NATO as expected but Macedonian accession remains unresolved. And with that the summit came to a close. The organisation is intact and seemingly moving forward but NATO needs to go through some serious introspection if it is to stay fighting fit for another 60 years.
Firstly, NATO needs to remember what it is and what it is not. Involvement in Afghanistan and the Balkans has made the organisation more politically orientated. The need to find consensus on peace missions in the Balkans and now Afghanistan has taken it into difficult political terrain when in reality NATO’s focus should be on the military side of the coin. It should be concentrating on defence transformation to be able to meet contemporary military challenges, not doing diplomatic work.
It must be also modest. NATO should be careful not to overstretch while member states continue to lower defence budgets and are unenthusiastic about contributing to operations. An overambitious agenda would be counterproductive and could intrude onto the territory of other institutions such as the EU, OSCE and OECD. A clear example of this is energy security. NATO has been debating for years what its role should be on this issue. Some have argued that a role in energy security would further aggravate relations with Russia; others have proposed an ‘energy NATO’. A new Strategic Concept would help to define a realistic contribution here, with NATO’s role limited to guarding vulnerable energy-related infrastructure and crucial transport routes. This also applies to a variety of other topics such as environmental security or further ‘out of area’ missions. NATO should not exclude involvement, but it should not commit to simply doing more and more if it wants to stay effective.
With this in mind the Alliance would do well to work closer with partner organisations. Most essential is the relationship with the EU, an organisation that has developed its own defence capabilities and now runs missions through the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Over the last few years only little progress was made in further dividing roles and pooling resources in order to meet current security challenges. To date the two organisations are seen as two elephants that run through the same city without meeting – that has to change.
Something which certainly does bind NATO and the EU together is the earlier success and current internal angst over the issue of enlargement. During last year’s Bucharest Summit the Alliance made clear that both Georgia and Ukraine will join but was not willing to move from partnership to membership talks just yet. Some members believe NATO would only aggravate Russia by proceeding while others prefer to ignore Moscow and benefit from the strategic importance that both countries offer. Some countries argue that quick membership would lead to increased stability and effective democratisation. Others argue for the traditional way of insisting on deeper reforms prior to enlargement. The longstanding ‘open door’ policy seems to be the pragmatic and effective approach for NATO to take.
It may look like a fine balancing act but if NATO succeeds in combining moderation with exploiting experience it will stay healthy. The international security scene is an unhealthy working environment with substantial risks on the job. There is certainly no need for retirement, in part because there is no younger post-Cold war generation of institutions that can take over. But too much more work would risk stress and exhaustion. NATO is reasonably healthy but needs to carefully plan its future.