RSS

The global situation now is much different than it was ten years ago when NATO entered Afghanistan. NATO, in its new Strategic Concept (NSC) adopted in Lisbon summit in November 2010, presented a vision of the Allies for the next decade, not only the reflection of the whole spectrum of threats (traditional and new) but also to provide guidelines on how to tackle them. In the year since, NATO has been involved in another major operation in Libya and launched an initiative, Smart Defense, designed to deal with the defense implications of its members’ financial problems.

However, the ISAF mission in Afghanistan launched ten years ago remains the biggest challenge the Alliance has faced, and it has lessons for a majority of the Alliance’s major issues. With this in mind, NATO’s main focus should be on the following goals:

1. NATO must develop more rapidly deployable troops
   
   Territorial defense remains the fundamental role of NATO but the majority of current security threats originate far away from members’ borders. The armed forces of NATO member states must also reflect the character of current threats. With a major conventional attack on NATO is currently very unlikely, members must continue to develop quickly deployable armed forces which will be ready to respond to new threats and intervene in distant regions in a short timeframe.
   
   
2. NATO must be able to access local resources in a variety of regions
   
   NATO must be not only able to deploy its troops wherever required but must also have suitable support capabilities which reflect the character of particular geographical regions and the substance of the threats. The operation in Afghanistan demonstrates the necessity of having the military approach supported by civilian and, importantly, local assets.
   
   
3. NATO must continue reaching out to international organizations
   
   Broader and deeper cooperation with relevant international organizations is inevitable. The NSC pays a big attention to importance of partnerships and cooperation with other international organizations especially EU, UN and OSCE, and NATO should do the same. Most importantly, NATO and the EU should emphasize the necessity of constructive mutual cooperation with the aim to minimize unwanted duplication.
   
   
4. NATO must focus more on enhancing cooperation with Russia
   
   At the Lisbon summit the both sides seemed to have patched up some of the disputes from the age of the Cold War and focused on constructive cooperation in the field of missile defense. But one year after the summit the good will has broken down and it is more than clear that there are still serious differences on this and other issues. Despite this, NATO cannot afford to worsen relations with Russia because Russia still remains a strategic partner for NATO, and it must keep engaging Russia because Moscow will not be the one that takes the lead. There are still many areas, like a stable Afghanistan, where the interests of NATO and Russia converge and in which cooperation would be mutually beneficial. NATO must downplay the missile defense problems and focus on them.
   
   
5. NATO must ensure the Afghanistan transition is a success
   
   At the Lisbon summit the Allies agreed that the process of transition in Afghanistan would be completed in 2014. However this doesn't mean that all coalition troops will leave the country then; NATO will continue to train Afghan army and police after the end of the transitional process and Afghanistan after 2014 will undoubtedly also need the financial help of NATO countries to meet its present challenges.
   
   Stability in Afghanistan cannot happen without Pakistan. Perhaps NATO’s biggest challenge is to settle disputes with Pakistan and find an effective way of cooperation especially today when the US-Pakistani relations have been getting worse because of US unilateral actions in Pakistan.

Tomas Teleky is a member of the Slovak Atlantic Commission (SAC) and MA student at the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Relations, University of Matej Bel in Banska Bystrica, Slovakia.

January 18, 2012

Lars-Erik Lundin

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for the emphasis on cooperation with other international organizations. I am currently studying this from the OSCE perspective on behalf of the OSCE Chair Ireland, see www.lelundin.se for more information. Expect a discussion among participating States in Vienna after April. The NATO SG was in Vienna some time back but the issue is still alive, not least in the context of the security community debate now underway at the initiative of the German, French, Polish and Russian foreign ministers.

Tags: | NATO,OSCE |

January 19, 2012

Tomas Teleky, Slovak Atlantic Commission, Bronze Contributor (20)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for you comment! Yes, the mutual collaboration of the international organizations in the field of defence and security is very essential. The role of the OSCE is very often bellitled but it still remains a unique platform which can bring together 56 states from different regions. Decision making process within OSCE is very difficult but there is lots of space how to enhance its work. The NATO-OSCE cooperation shoul be more complementary. For instance, OSCE has more experiences in "soft security", especially in the building of democratic institutions and NATO should use its toolbox for expert advice in this field. OSCE can also help to bring potential candidate countries closer to NATO through encoraging political stability and good governance

Tags: | NATO |

January 22, 2012

Robert

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Tomas,

Your points are following:
NATO must develop more rapidly deployable troops
NATO must be able to access local resources in a variety of regions
NATO must continue reaching out to international organizations
NATO must focus more on enhancing cooperation with Russia
NATO must ensure the Afghanistan transition is a success

When you say "NATO must develop more rapidly deployable troops", which next conflict are you talking about? In your opinion, do you belive that NATO has the right to attack any country without UN approval?

When you say "NATO must continue reaching out to international organizations" could you please cite NATO missions approved or mandated by the United Nations?

When you say "NATO must focus more on enhancing cooperation with Russia" , could you please indicate NATO's actions to date that have benefitted Russia?

When you say "NATO must ensure the Afghanistan transition is a success", why are you implying that NATO has a mission in Afghanistan? In your opinion, is the mission in Afghanistant mission of the willing, mission of the United Nations or mission of NATO?

What do you believe NATO's rule on the world should be in the next 20 years?

Tags: | NATO | world |

January 23, 2012

Jason Naselli, University of Essex, Platinum Contributor (208)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Robert,

Not all of your points are relevant to Tomas's article, but regardless, in turn:

1. Tomas clearly says such deployable troops must be ready to respond to "new threats." This is advocating preparedness, not looking toward any next conflict. And there is zero in there that indicates this has anything to do with taking unilateral or unapproved action.

2. The most recent NATO mission in Libya was called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolu...), to just name one easily remembered recent example of the UN approving NATO missions. There are of course arguments to be made about whether NATO overstepped its mandate, but it's not nonexistent. And again, Tomas really did not raise this point.

3. NATO and Russia have major differences on missile defense, they have actually worked quite closely in recent years on counter-terror programs and tactics. We even recently featured a NATO video on Atlantic Community featuring some new security technology being tested in the St. Petersburg metro system: http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/NAT...

4. The military operations in Afghanistan are operated by the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force, and have been since 20 December, 2001. This was also authorized by a UN Resolution. Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolu...

Finally, while it is interesting to think about NATO in 20 years as an intellectual exercise, it really has nothing to do with the points raised by Tomas's article.

January 30, 2012

Johannes Steger, Università di Bologna, Bronze Contributor (18)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The points evidenced by Tomas Teleky are quite in line with the NSC and the annual general report by SG Rasmussen. However, I was somehow puzzled by his account of the Afghanistan issue. He argues that US-unilateralism caused troubled relations with Pakistan, worsening their (negative) interference into Afghan affairs. NATO should find the way out of this stalemate.
Now, as stated in the annual general report, the USA accounts today for 77% of NATO total defence expenditure – just to give one measure about the weight of US-decisions inside the Alliance. Given US-predominance, how could one expect NATO to change US-Pakistan relations?
The Europeans would like to have a major say on US foreign policy, and the NATO framework is certainly the maximum of multilateralism they ever achieved. Interestingly, the USA did not appreciate very much the NATO offer to intervene after the attacks of 9/11, but preferred to assemble a coalition of the willing. Evidently, intervening with NATO gives a voice to US-allies, which is not always welcome – at least not on every subject.
This may explain the slight polemic tone by Robert: NATO, indeed, as Jason pointed out, usually intervenes in some framework approved by the UN, the coalitions of the willing, however, usually anticipate or go beyond UN-Resolutions and do the rest.

February 3, 2012

Javeed Ahwar, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, (4)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Check this link for your further information on the West's efforts in Afghanistan http://www.fes-afghanistan.org/media/pdf/pdf-120202-bonn2001-bonn20...

February 7, 2012

Lawrence Efana

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

A good write-up Tomas Teleky! Indeed making sure that Afghanistan's experiences and lessons are allowed to cross-fertilize next steps of policy-plans for NATO has to be a must! Collective sacrifices of ISAF, NATO and the other ORGANS there suggest "common" versus "differentiated" values operative modalities and principles: an interplay of a complex nature: relatively pluralistic but with one purpose: "peace"! Threads of experiences and lessons pass through each of these as hooks. Ears must be more widely open and listening well done in interest of what best to jointly work on to reach consensus in response to aggregate values sifted from the lessons.

All of the five points are enough central. That is, they are good and well-though-out. This seems like Part 1 of this problem area. I see forward to the 2nd Part.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org