RSS

In the summer of 2008, the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen followed up an invitation from his fellow country-man, Tour de France winner Bjarne Riis, to cycle the steepest rise of the central stage of the Tour. Twelve months later, career wise, Rasmussen ascended even higher: He succeeded Dutchman Jaap de Hoop Scheffer as Secretary General of NATO. The civilian top job in Brussels is the highest international office ever occupied by a Dane. Similar to cycling, Rasmussen is expected to show stamina, endurance and leadership qualities in the light of the current challenges faced by the alliance.

NATO, now in its seventh decade of existence, is confronted by enormous tasks of varied nature. The most pressing issue is - and will remain to be - Afghanistan. Consequently, that was the first country Rasmussen visited once he took office. There, he announced an open-ended mission and underlined the determination to remain active in Afghanistan until the job is done. Beside the fierce war effort in Afghanistan, NATO is substantially involved in the Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa, where it has established maritime security with some tangible success. In both regions, diverse threats including piracy, human trafficking, proliferation of small arms and WMD, and failing and failed littoral states threaten the maritime security.

However, these activities can hardly conceal the huge number of unsolved question NATO faces. On the one hand, there are internal issues such as the inter-member relationships, the integration of new member states, and the strategic and operational adjustment to new threats. On the other hand, there are issues concerning NATO's "foreign policy": the relationship with Russia, the question of membership candidates like Georgia and Ukraine and its working relations with other alliances. Against this backdrop, the development of a new strategic concept for NATO by a working group led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a major step in the right direction. The alliance has to reinvent itself - once more.

But center-right politician Rasmussen is up for the job, and brings his much needed political socialisation skills to frantic Brussels. For the small kingdom and founding member of NATO, the alliance has always been more than just an end in itself; it was regarded as a unique military and geopolitical life-insurance during the Cold War. When the deepening integration of the European Union resulted in an additional security and foreign policy dimension in Europe, this was met with fierce opposition in Denmark, with the Danish parliament even threatening to reject these treaties. That shows that an Atlantic approach to security continues to dominate Danish foreign policy and is preferred to the EU foreign and security policy. The reasons for that are good and peaceful experiences with NATO on the one hand and the strategically significant rights over Greenland on the other hand. The latter is a prominent example of Atlantic power and dominance. It is safe to say that Rasmussen shares this view as well. 

Another key challenge facing Rasmussen is France's return to NATO. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has repeatedly stressed that the return of his country into the command structures of NATO aims to strengthen the European pillar of the alliance and, whilst doing so, massively revives France's influence. Rasmussen will have to act as a broker between Sarkozy and the administration of Barack Obama, who has openly moved away from the critical position to the Alliance of his predecessor George W. Bush. It is Rasmussen's task to loose the image of "Bush's poodle" quickly, without instantly turning into either Obama's or Sarkozy's puppy. With September 11, 2001 and the events following it, we have witnessed the decline of the Eurocentric alliance. This is Rasmussen's window of opportunity: The future of NATO will be decided in Washington rather than in Brussels.

The first Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, is often quoted for pointedly summing up NATO's initial mission in Europe: "To keep the American in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down." More than half a century later, Rasmussen's Herculean task is "to keep the Americans in, the French satisfied, and the rest of the allies united." This is a challenge far too great for a single person: Like in professional cycling, alliance politics needs team spirit of those involved. In the light of the challenging ramps ahead, this will prove to be indispensable.

Sebastian Bruns is project leader at Haus Rissen Hamburg, where he is in charge of the maritime security, Model United Nations and consultancy on local politics programs.

Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Nato: Road to Stability
• Ian Davis: Strengthening the Non-Agression Norm Within Nato
• Christopher Lee Davis: Five Steps for Success in Afghanistan
  

October 23, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Even if Mr.Rasmussen is well-suited to do the job described above, the way he has begun this task is less than impressing. All he has done was repeating the slogans about Afghanistan being crucial for NATO and the calls for more troops, reflecting Washington's current POV. By doing that, Mr.Rasmussen is not gaining himself a lot of credibility among those ISAF contributors who - supported by military analysis - demand redefinig the strategy and discussing the goals of the mission. Where will that lead NATO? Probably into losing relevance furthermore as the defence and security pillar of the EU finally gets more importance with the Lisbon Treaty coming to force soon.

Tags: | EU | NATO | Rasmussen |

October 25, 2009

Adam K. Svensson, Lund University, Bronze Contributor (22)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Becoming the new head of a major organization like NATO is surely never an easy job, and it seems Anders Fogh Rasmussen more or less inevitably faces a dilemma. Either he can repeat the established ideas of the past (or 'slogans', as Mr. Swierczynski calls them) and continue along the same track as before, risking to be perceived as a puppet in the hands of those with real power of initiative. Or he can 'rock the boat' and try to carry out changes in order to send signals to the effect that he is in fact no puppet, in which case he instead runs the risk of emerging as someone just trying to change something that does not need to be changed.

What Mr. Rasmussen needs to do, in order to gain the respect that he so much needs, is to carefully consider what the purpose of the organization really is, now that the Cold War is over and the EU is becoming more and more important, and what the agenda for the future should be. And it needs to be something that at least seems to be ideas that haven't been established yet, and they need to be well-founded. If he failes with that endevour, he will have a very tough time as Secretary General.

October 26, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Just a thought about "slogans" or "established ideas". For twenty years now we keep on saying that "the cold war is over now". It surely is over, but since then many new wars, cold wars and boiling conflicts in NATO's security realm have broken up, ended or developed in many forms. Perhaps a better description of the current time is "now, in time of war on terror" or - in respect to NATO specifically - "now that the Alliance is for the first time engaged in a war". On the other hand, we live in times when "the EU is becoming more and more important" in the local (Western) perspective, but arguably the whole West, including the US and the EU, is becoming less and less important in a global perspective. The leaders of the global security stakeholders - and we should only hope that NATO retains that status in forseeable future - are there to embrace these patterns and offer solutions which best serve the security interests of their member-states, even if they contradict or deny well established ideas. To me, one of these established ideas that need to be changed is NATO's engagement in Afghanistan in its current form.

October 27, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@Marek Swierczynski:

Good points, especially your second comment. With the Cold War ended, we thankfully need no longer prepare for a massive, conventional war in Europe; yet paradoxically, the end of the Cold War has proven to be destabilizing rather than stabilizing for Europe's near abroad.

And then there's Afghanistan. I am delighted to hear talk of a renewed NATO commitment to Afghanistan. Normally, commentators like me complain that it is "just talk" but in this case the talk seems to have made a real difference, it is making it harder for the Obama administration to walk away from Afghanistan.

"To me, one of these established ideas that need to be changed is NATO's engagement in Afghanistan in its current form."

Do you consider the Iraq-inspired, counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy that Obama announced in March for Afghanistan to be the type of change you are talking about, or are you suggesting that the COIN strategy itself needs to be revisited?

My opinion is, the COIN strategy hasn't really been tried yet, it was formally announced in March and it takes 6-12 months to being to show results (or not). We should give it a chance to work, and give the generals whatever they need.

October 27, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@John
You seem to suggest that there is a clear vision on the US side of what their COIN strategy and doctrine should be. But you know better than me that there's a huge debate in the US and other ISAF-participating countries about what is COIN and whether at all it is a militarily-applicable task. Events on the ground (like drone-bombings or the air strike in Kunduz) hint that commanders do not follow Obama's guidelines, perhaps because they're in a war there. Questions emerge about what exactly do we face in Afghanistan: is this a war, a counter-insurgency operation, an anti-terrorist operation or all of these and more combined. ISAF stands for international stabilization and assistance force. Let me ask: stabilization of what and assistance to whom (bearing in mind that the incumbent president is probably not quite a legitimate ruler of the country)? In ISAF NATO has been tasked beyond its capacity as it is not a development and aid agency or a police force. It should focus on anti-terrorist operations, which serve the security interests of the member-states. Providing internal security in Afghanistan is not a task for NATO forces. "Winning the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people may be a beautiful idea but is it really what the military alliance of the West should be doing?
A short but interesting read on that:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB846.pdf

Tags: | COIN | Afghanistan | US |

October 27, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Clearly the future of NATO is very much open-ended. While NATO served a much needed purpose during the Cold War, its raison d' etre has clearly changed and it has yet, despite numerous efforts, to find a new one that can act as the glue to bind all of its participants together.

The fact that Afghanistan has turned into such an apparent stumbling block with respect to testing the meaningful (as opposed to rhetorical) cohesiveness of the alliance is not a positive development. While it is accuracte that a serious debate over Afghanistan is taking place even within the U.S., it cannot be considered positive that there has yet to be any serious committment to additional forces by fellow members.

However, it is not likely to be in Afghanistan that NATO's future will be decided. It will be in Central and Eastern Europe. A revanchist Russia flexing its energy muscles continues to raise questions about the security within former Soviet occupied as well as influenced territory. The likely sea change to come in Ukraine after the next election will probably highlight this in an unambiguous way.

It is here that words and deeds must work in tandem to be worthwhile. However, it is not clear that NATO can match words and deeds (nor is it necessarily in the interest of individual members to see this happen).

I suspect NATO will become much more heavily influenced by France now that France has rejoined its command structure and become more sensitive to its direct needs than those to the east.

If NATO's mission is now to "keep the Americans in, the French satisfied, and the rest of the allies united", it will likely prove impossible over the longterm. While it won't be disbanded formally, NATO will become a bit of a glorified debating institution where ideas are discussed and occassionally some minimal action taken. Overall, however, it will never regain its centrality to trans-Atlantic or even inter-European policymaking. It will have to be accepted by all parties what its limitations are and further expectations tempered.

Tags: | NATO |

October 30, 2009

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"The future of NATO will be decided in Washington rather than in Brussels."

it already is, though EU will have to handle conflicts on its sphere of influence, eg. Balkans, Caucase... may-be Afghanistan soon !

"I suspect NATO will become much more heavily influenced by France now that France has rejoined its command structure and become more sensitive to its direct needs than those to the east"

is there a bitterness appreciation here ? LMAO

France has been active in all the conflicts that NATO covered, even more, in Lebanon and Africa,... that allows her a greater experience than any small NATO members, besides Commandments on the ground were given to French general, in the Balkans, Afghanistan... and a french general was lately chosen by his american peers for joining the head quaters of NATO in the US, so it seems that the wish that France should have more responsabilities in NATO processes rather came from our American friends

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