Expansion of NATO in the terrorist era
Historic mistake or sustainability?
THE North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) missions have expanded dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and most of the United States' closest allies are members of the alliance. NATO has added new members six times since first forming in 1949 and now NATO comprises twenty-six members. The United States is taking another step today toward getting Albania and Croatia folded into the NATO alliance. Both countries had been isolated behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. NATO leaders agreed at a summit earlier this year in Romania to invite Albania and Croatia into the alliance. However, the alliance rebuffed US attempts to begin the process of inviting Ukraine and Georgia. Germany, France and some other alliance members opposed that move, fearing it would provoke Russia, which is unhappy with possible NATO enlargement on its doorstep. Nevertheless, NATO plays, at best, a supportive role in US efforts to combat terrorism. The alliance contributes to preventive and defensive missions to address the threat of terrorism, and its consequence management plans aim to respond to terrorist attacks and to mitigate their effects. NATO after the September 11 attacks
The expansion of the activities and geographical reach of NATO grew even further as an outcome of the September 11 attacks. These caused as a response the provisional invocation (on September 12) of the collective security of NATO's charter - Article 5, which states that any attack on a member state will be considered an attack against the entire group of members. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included the first two examples of military action taken in response to an invocation of Article 5: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Initiatives to defend terrorism
At the Summits of Allied leaders held in Prague from November 21-22, 2002 and Istanbul from June 28-29, 2004 NATO launched new initiatives to enhance national capabilities in defense against terrorism, increase interoperability, and develop rapid deployment and sustainability of combat forces. The NATO Response Force (NRF), launched in Prague, laid the ground for the expeditionary capabilities for the Alliance. These capabilities are increasingly necessary to handle the full range of missions, from traditional full-scale warfare for Article 5 collective defense to humanitarian support operations in remote areas. NATO also launched a Declaration (#20) on terrorism in Riga Summit, November 28 - November 29, 2006. Military involvement in Afghanistan
NATO's role is a key part of the Afghanistan Compact, a five-year plan between the government of Afghanistan and the international community, which sets goals relating to the security, governance and economic development of the country. Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest level since US-led forces toppled hard-line Taliban Islamist rulers after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States for harbouring al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden. The United States has about 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. Approximately 13,000 of them are in the NATO-led force of more than 50,000 troops. Kurt Volker, the US NATO ambassador, told reporters he believed other members of the Western security alliance would contribute more to the NATO effort if reassured on the US strategy and commitment. On the issue of Afghanistan on the other hand, the alliance showed greater unity: On 16 April 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously. The handover of control to NATO took place on 11 August, and marked the first time in NATO's history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date. In January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet Çetin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan. Minister Cetin is primarily responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan. Defense Against Terrorism (DAT) programme, launched in 2004, has already borne fruit. Recently, its initial eight initiatives were expanded to ten. Each addresses an important area of the Alliance's fight against terrorism, brought forward by a member nation in the lead, and supported by others. This approach leverages the capabilities of national governments, industry, science and research for an accelerated countermeasure development. We have achieved considerable success in the development of prototypes, systems evaluation, force training and doctrine, as well as in tactics, techniques and procedures. For instance, great strides are being made in the development of advanced technologies to counter improvised explosive devices, as well as precision airdrop technology for special operations forces. These are two capabilities our troops are in dire need of in Afghanistan today. Yet a dedicated commitment and adequate resourcing are necessary to move forward with the programme at high speed. On 31 July 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Canada, Great Britain, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a US-led anti-terrorism coalition. NATO is contributing to the fight against terrorism through military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Mediterranean and by taking steps to protect its populations and territory against terrorist attacks. The Alliance is also engaged in a far-reaching transformation of its forces and capabilities to better deter and defend against terrorism, and is working closely with partner countries and organizations to ensure broad cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Controversy regarding Cooperation
The fight against terrorism has become a key focus of NATO's cooperation with Partners in the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council as well as the NATO-Russia Council. But the controversy regarding cooperation is, on 9 October 2008 Moscow accused NATO and the United Nations of secretly forging an agreement that tightens their cooperation without informing Russia, a UN Security Council member whose relations with NATO are badly strained. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia was aware an agreement was in the works and assumed it would be shown to member states for review. "This did not happen, and the agreement between the secretariats was signed in a secretive way," Lavrov said. Concerned about US power, Russia often stresses the UN's role as the linchpin of international relations. Its leaders cast NATO as an aggressive and outdated alliance, and are calling for a new security system spanning Europe and other areas. Russia became increasingly assertive on the world stage during Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's eight years as president, demanding a voice in discussions of global security. Tensions between Russia and NATO have increased in recent years over the alliance's eastward expansion and were further strained by Russia's war against Georgia. NATO has suspended operations of its chief vehicle for cooperation with Russia in response to the war. NATO and its future regarding terrorism
The future of NATO has become inextricably linked to the future of Afghanistan. NATO is actively engaged in assisting Afghanistan's young democratic government against the resurgent Taliban. This is not only NATO's first mission outside of Europe, but also its largest operational deployment. Afghanistan has now become a test of NATO's ability to transform itself and adapt to the post-9/11 threat environment. (NATO in Afghanistan: A Test Case for Future Missions, Helle C. Dale, December 6, 2006) The problem is many of the essential activities of the fight against terrorism occur outside NATO, through bilateral cooperation or loose coalitions of the willing. Three factors help to explain NATO's minor role in combating terrorism: Shifts in alignments and threat perceptions caused by systemic changes, The alliance's limited military capabilities, and The nature of the fight against terror itself. Over time the consequences of NATO's limited role could be severe. If NATO's strongest members do not seek to address their core security threats within the alliance, NATO may have difficulty sustaining its military value. Moreover, the further expansion of NATO will create more tension between Russia and the alliance. What can be done?NATO must develop its capacity to deal with terrorism despite resistance from European allies who worry about giving the alliance too great a "global" or "political" role. The part NATO can and should play in this area is strictly limited - issues of law enforcement, immigration, financial control, and domestic intelligence are all well beyond NATO's areas of competence and should be handled between the United States and the European Union. Still, NATO allies can and should share information about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missile programmmes; develop civil defense and consequence-management planning; develop theater missile defenses; and better coordinate various member-state Special Forces, whose role in the antiterrorism campaign will be critical. The alliance should even consider a new Force Projection Command that would be responsible for planning out-of-area operations. (NATO and the War on Terrorism: A Changing Alliance, by Philip H. Gordon, Summer 2002 Vol.20 No.3, pp. 36-38). During the Cold War, few could have imagined the need for American and European Special Forces to travel halfway around the world and execute coordinated attacks, but today that need is very real. Although NATO was not used for the military response to the September attack on the United States, it is not hard to imagine a cataclysmic terrorist attack on a European city for which a NATO response would be appropriate.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments