NATO's new Strategic Concept must focus on the the Alliance's activities with partnership states and the development of meaningful relationships outside of full membership. In my opinion, NATO should prioritize nine key issues going forward:
- The management of the Alliance should be streamlined to increase efficiency. Central to this reform is a smaller, simplified bureaucratic infrastructure.
- A concrete strategy for the South Caucasus and Central Asia must be determined. NATO must clearly define the limits of its relations with states within these regions, as well as the role that these states play in the Alliance's Afghanistan mission.
- The thesis that potential NATO membership should be the primary goal that drives cooperation with the Alliance must be eliminated.
- Bilateral agreements should be signed between NATO and partner countries that cooperate actively with the Alliance. The responsibilities and commitments required of both partners, as well as a security guarantee, must be clearly stipulated in these agreements.
- A new structure must be established regarding partner countries. A "safety zone," similar to the European Union's "Neighborhood" policy, should be created to engage countries which do not have priority for membership but wish to have a security guarantee. The "safety zone" should target countries that have shown a willingness to work closely with the Alliance and should be structured around the aim of deepening this cooperation.
- NATO must be given the competency to act as a potential mediator in the settlement of frozen conflicts, including within the South Caucasus region. The Alliance should reaffirm its commitment to the principles of absolute territorial integrity and sovereignty and annul the restrictions that preclude a path to membership for states with existing conflicts.
- It is necessary to increase the participation of NATO in the security of energy projects within the South Caucasus region.
- The content of existing partnership agreements must be modified with the goal of achieving better implementation of plans in a more timely fashion. Agreements that should be reviewed include: Partnership for Peace (PfP), Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP), and Membership Action Plan (MAP).
- Azerbaijan should be given a special partnership status, as it can serve a strong role in mediating relations between NATO and Islamic countries.
NATO's new Strategic Concept cannot overlook the development of East-West relations, and the South Caucasus region holds tremendous potential in this respect. Azerbaijan is an energy-rich state with access to the sea and serves an important transit function in the Russian and Iranian neighborhoods. A fair settlement of the conflicts within this strategic region must be given a high place in NATO's list of priorities.
Jasur Sumerinli is the head of the Doktrina Center of Journalist Union on Military Research in Azerbaijan. He also serves as Editor-in Chief of Milaz Military News Agency and is a military analyist for Zerkalo (Mirror).
Related Materials:
- Editorial Team: Join the AC Policy Team for NATO's New Strategic Concept
- Felix F. Seidler: Global Partnership Council for a Global Vision
- Daniel Nikolits: Russia is the Lynchpin of NATO 2020
- Klaus Spiessberger: Three Goals for a Modernized Alliance
- Jorge Benitez: NATO's Center of Gravity: Political Will
- Olaf Theiler: NATO Tensions No Cause for Alarm
- 10
August 28, 2010
Hans Reuther-Fix
Over time, many historical markers are evidencing the cause of catastrophies, especially when combined with the quality and manipulation of human capital.
The Treaty of Versailles will serve as an example and there are many more.
When one listens to these power-points, such as " concrete strategies,--safety-zones,..,
multi- tiered NATO,.., new structure,..clearly defined relationships,..cooperative agreements with others ( Australia, South-Africa..), the phrase " SOF is believed to have a
future role within US-Central Command's area of responsibility", brings us back to reality.
We need to stop this smoke and mirror and look at assets and capital on NATO's balance sheet, because there is none.
There are several stakeholders, which make real assets available, but there is only one major shareholder, who is also responsible for the business-plan, that's the US.
It is felt that NATO, with all its ambitions, is still insisting on a path of
.. we are West, you are East
...we know better,
...we have religious priority, etc.
These are markers for a catastrophy to happen.
HRF
Editor's Note:
Dear HRF,
Please stay on topic and be less abstract with your points of contention. Also, you are a prolific contributor, but have as of yet opted not to sign up for an account. We would welcome you as a registered member of the Atlantic Community.