Posted by Editors in
US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, May 27. 2009
"U.N. sees progress for Afghanistan in 2009" is UPI's headline for an article by its correspondent Daniel Graeber.
It turns out, however, that a qualifier is missing in that headline. After all the article is based on a big "If" in a quote by Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan:
If we can manage to strengthen the positive work now under way, and implement what we have agreed on, if additional troops can bring the insurgency on the defensive and if we can hold elections that have the credibility required to be accepted by the population at large, then 2009 could well be a turning point,
That's a huge "if," isn't it? Have you seen bigger "ifs" recently? Are you optimistic of pessimistic regarding Afghanistan's future?
Posted by Editors in
Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, May 7. 2009
Wesley Clark, NATO's former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, told Newsweek:
NATO is an organization in which nations pledge themselves together with the strongest pledge one nation can make to another, which is that an attack on one represents an attack on all. That's still the most powerful relationship between states. Among all other international organizations, there are none stronger than the relationships of NATO.
His comment on US-Russian relations is interesting as well:
I heard from Condi Rice in 2000 that the Clinton administration had somehow destroyed relations with Russia and that the new team would make things better. Now we're [talking about "resetting"] relations again.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Friday, April 10. 2009
 "NATO offers the United States the useful stamp of multilateral legitimacy without really imposing too many limits on America's foreign policy," says Dutch political scientist Peter van Ham. In consequence, recent NATO missions have been "devoid of the unity and coherence that the old NATO had" and US, German and Dutch units pursue different strategies in Afghanistan, adds Paul Hockenos, who quotes van Ham in A new Transatlantic Partnership: Rethinking US-Europe Relations.
Hockenos is a US analyst and editor of the German Council on Foreign Relations' journal Internationale Politik Global Edition. He concludes on NATO:
It is questionable whether this new NATO is still a transatlantic institution worthy of the label. Despite its multilateral structure, NATO has become a clearing house for US-led "coalitions of the willing," which alliance members-and non-members-can join on a case-by-case basis. For all intents and purposes, it is a group of like-minded democracies that Washington can call upon á la carte. The Europeans bear none of the roles and responsibilities of even junior partners as they did in the past, but rather serve as occasional helpers, as was the case in the invasion and pacification of Afghanistan. The more nations there are in the alliance, the larger the possible constellation for these pick-up coalitions. This is one reason the Americans above all push for NATO's expansion.
Well, the United States has global interests and ambitions and would like NATO to pursue those interests. The Europeans have much more limited interests and ambitions and are therefore unwilling to give the necessary resources to NATO. The situation that Hockenos and van Ham describe is the result from this mismatch of interests and ambitions. It is not due to some sinister US plan. And Hockenos "partnership of equals" is not the solution, since it won't materialize due to the different capabilities, interests and ambitions.
Since the United States does not get much military support from most European countries, the "useful stamp of multilateral legitimacy" is the biggest benefit for Washington. Although this "stamp" does not have the kind of legal legitimacy that only UN Security Council resolution can provide, it is big enough for each and every US administration to continue to invest plenty of resources into NATO. Never mind how many conservative US bloggers and pundits complain about NATO. These criticism are as old as NATO is.
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, April 5. 2009
Harmony isn't a very interesting reporting item, and so from the NATO summit in Strasbourg-Kehl, we mainly get to see video images of burning hotels, and reports exaggerating the scope of disagreements. The New York Times report by Steven Erlanger and Helene Cooper provides a quite clear example. They write: For Mr. Obama, in many ways, the two months since he took office have been a reality check on the difference between Europe’s vocal support and action. But was there loud vocal support in Europe for a surge in Afghanistan in the first place? I haven't heard it. In any case, the Obama administration has long been playing down expectations of additional troops from Europe. In public it moved to asking European countries for more aid instead. In that sense, the 5,000 added troops European countries have now (temporarily) committed are a decent result for Obama to take home.
The size of the added money for the Afghan National Army and civilian aid, at 100 million and a pledged 500 million for aid, on the other hand, are not very impressive, although Obama says that it is 'signficant'. Perhaps he expects that he will get more in the future?
The NYT report also plays up the tension with Turkey over the nomination of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO Secretary General. It seems that the negotiations took a long time, but at the end of the day, there was agreement. Turkey got a few concessions, and Rasmussen got the post.
The difference with the report in the French paper Le Monde is striking. Le Monde writes that this summit has managed to achieve consensus, and focuses on the agreement existing on Afghanistan, the new Secretary General, the reinitiated dialogue with Russia and the return of France to the military command.
Perhaps that is a bit too rosy, but consensus seems to dominate at the end of this conference. Whether the consensus is right and whether everything that has been promised will also be delivered are other questions.
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, April 3. 2009
That's what Daniel Korski notes in his latest ECFR policy brief. Factually, a lot of European countries have already sent more troops in Afghanistan, and still more are on the way there. Between November 2006 and March 2009, European troop levels increased by nearly 9,000, and European troops now make up nearly half of the ISAF mission. This has been the result of a set of (mostly) quiet revolutions in national policies on Afghanistan. At the same time, Europe still has not delivered a clear common strategy on Afghanistan, which is lamentable.
Korski makes some considered recommendations for an EU policy, which is very welcome, considering the lack of consideration on the official levels. At the same time, his ideas call for a critical review. Korski offers a list of seven policy recommendations, which are:
- A twin process of reconciliation with the Taliban and constitutional reform to be launched
- EU to field a large election observer mission and NATO to deploy the NATO Response Force for an election-focused boost to ISAF
- NATO allies to improve training of the Afghan army by setting up a Military Advisory Force, a Military Advisory Centre and launching a NATO training mission for non-basic army training
- EU to grow its police mission by hiring 500 officers on the open market, including from third states, like Ukraine, Moldova, Morocco, Serbia and Turkey, while reconciling the roles of the US CSTC-A and EUPOL
- EU states to support the establishment of a special UN-backed serious crimes tribunal, located in Kabul or elsewhere in the region, to take on drug kingpins
- US and EU to call for a new UN “assistance envoy” for Pakistan and to organise a donors’ conference
- EU to launch a “capital reconstruction team” for Kabul to guarantee a concerted focus on security and reconstruction
The notion of starting a tribunal for drug traffickers as a form of nation building is an innovative idea, and a temporary boost in troop numbers in the weeks leading up to the elections also sounds like a good plan that could bring real results as well as goodwill for an effort that is managable for Europe's militaries and can be sold to the domestic electorate.
Continue reading "Europe Surging in Afghanistan?"
Posted by Editors in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Thursday, March 19. 2009
If Afghanistan resembles a Vietnam-like quagmire, then more policy makers and analysts will seek an exit. This raises fears in Pakistan.
Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke has to provide "geopolitical therapy for Pakistani generals who hedge their bets with the Taliban out of fear the Vietnam syndrome may return and collapse the U.S. commitment."
This is the main policy recommendation from Marin Strmecki of the Smith Richardson Foundation, writes Arnaud de Borchgrave in an excellent article for UPI. He also stresses that "geopolitical psychiatry is not America's diplomatic strong suit." Could Europe provide therapy?
Posted by Editors in
Transatlantic Relations, US Foreign Policy on Wednesday, March 4. 2009
This is a guest blog post by Donald Stadler, an American living and working in London:
Matthew Bogdanos, the assistant district attorney for New York City and a colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserves, argues in the Washington Post that the United States needs more 'citizen-soldiers', pointing out that:
In the 1970s, 74 percent of Congress had prior military service. Today: 23 percent. Barack Obama, though clearly respectful of the military, has never served in the military and has only two veterans in his Cabinet -- the fewest since Herbert Hoover. By contrast, John Kennedy, decorated for heroism in World War II, had only two Cabinet members who were not veterans. (...)
Continue reading "Defense Policy-Making Suffers from a Lack of Citizen-Soldiers"
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, February 22. 2009
Dr. Stefanie Babst, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Strategy, argues that public diplomacy needs to respond to the challenges of the Web 2.0 world:
NATO should be more courageous in using digital tools to directly interact with the public. Why not host a permanent blog on the NATO website? Why not widen the debate about NATO's new Strategic Concept beyond the 'usual suspects' and try to obtain new thinking through, for instance, online discussions with citizens on specific aspects of NATO's future role? Let us hope that when Allies discuss NATO's future strategic course at the forthcoming Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, they will also take a moment to sign up to a 21st century public diplomacy approach.
Dear readers,
Do you think NATO would benefit from engaging the blogosphere? Do you think bloggers have constructive advice for NATO's specific challenges?
Do you think NATO would manage to identify and then listen to the smart bloggers and their readers and implement the best suggestions? Here I mean citizen bloggers, not the wonks who blog.
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Friday, February 20. 2009
Italy holds the G8 presidency this year and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi puts her charms on. Prior to a departure of a Congressional delegation to Italy she kissed ass praised in a press release: "The United States has no greater ally in NATO than Italy"
Is she aware that Britain and Canada are part of NATO as well?
Italy has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, and pledged to increase the number to up to 2,800 towards the end of April, reports AFP, and adds that Foreign Minister Frattini wants "to consider how to involve Iran, not whether to involve Iran."
While US President Barack Obama announced that would send an additional 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total American contingent in the country to 55,000 soldiers, NATO Allies are not sending that many additional troops to the Hindu Kush, reports DW World:
Germany, the third-largest contributor to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan with 3,500 troops, this week said it would temporarily send an additional 600 soldiers to help provide security during the upcoming election.
Endnote: Are at least the French now happy as integrated NATO warriors? Ségolène Royal criticizes Sarkozy’s decision to rejoin NATO’s military command is the wrong response to the new era Obama has ushered in. See Atlantic-community.org's English mini summary of Royal's French op-ed. Sarkozy ruled out sending any additional troops, according to the above mentioned DW World article. Is the Obama-Europe honeymoon already over before it starts?
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, February 15. 2009
Germany's former Chancellor Schroeder does not express many new ideas in his Spiegel essay (in English), but I found these two statements in the second part fairly interesting:
We need a blunt analysis within the NATO alliance on why efforts to pacify southern Afghanistan have failed. I am convinced that the Bundeswehr's concept, which tends to be militarily conservative and is considerate of the population and civilian facilities, will be more successful in the long run. The disparity between these different strategies in the north and south is a problem, and it also represents a failure on the part of the NATO secretary general.
Gerhard Schroeder is also very critical of President Karzai and wants to motivate the Afghan leadership (whoever that is) by setting a timeframe for troop withdrawals. He mentions that the "Petersberg process," started in November 2001 under the guidance of then Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, led to an Afghanistan agreement in 2006, which I did not know about and therefore want to share it: "On the basis of this agreement, the Afghans gave themselves until 2013 to independently guarantee security, good governance, the rule of law and economic and social development. This temporal horizon is certainly very optimistic."
Posted by Nanne Zwagerman in
US Foreign Policy on Sunday, February 8. 2009
In a long piece for the NYT, Dexter Filkins writes that the US is done propping up the mayor of Kabul:
The world has changed for Mr. Karzai, and for Afghanistan, too. A White House favorite — a celebrity in flowing cape and dark gray fez — in each of the seven years that he has led this country since the fall of the Taliban, Mr. Karzai now finds himself not so favored at all. Not by Washington, and not by his own.
In the White House, President Obama said he regarded Mr. Karzai as unreliable and ineffective. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said he presided over a “narco-state.” The Americans making Afghan policy, worried that the war is being lost, are vowing to bypass Mr. Karzai and deal directly with the governors in the countryside.
At the same time as Karzai finds himself out of favour, NATO is facing a difficult situation over its high commander, General Bantz John Craddock. The German weekly SPIEGEL has reported on an order of his to kill drug traffickers, which was refused by German general Egon Ramms, head of the Afghanistan command centre, and the American Afghanistan command general David McKiernan.
Continue reading "The Emerging Afghanistan Strategy"
Posted by Kyle Atwell in
Transatlantic Relations on Tuesday, January 13. 2009
It is time for Obama to bring his change campaign to NATO, writes James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation in Washington Times. Carafano argues Obama should use NATO's 60th anniversary to launch a new vision for the military alliance, which he refers to as NATO 2.0. Specifically NATO needs to take action on five major issues:
1. Identify common threats;
2. Reaffirm NATO's commitment to an open-door policy that does not give Russia veto-power;
3. Establish a more flexible decision-making process;
4. Clearly identify roles between EU and NATO, with NATO doing military and EU doing more of the constabulary non-military “soft power” missions that it excels at;
5. Develop new burden-sharing rules.
All of these are important issues that should be considered; in fact, most are already being debated within the Alliance. However, each of them will also face an uphill battle in the reform process.
Consider proposition five, developing new burden-sharing rules. Carafano argues that a country should lose voting powers if it fails to match the two-percent defense spending requirement set by NATO. At this time, only five European countries meet this requirement, three of those with declining defense budgets, according to 2007 numbers released by NATO (pdf).
Continue reading "NATO 2.0: Five ways Obama should bring "change" to Alliance"
|
or 
:
Latest Comments
the idea of a transatlantic alliance isn't new, it already was Roosvelt and churchill [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
I'm not at all afraid of a true free trade area with Europe, the Reagan/Thatcher [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
Tis true, Pat. Actually the baning of US produce from the EU isn't the fault of the [...]Comments ()
Pat Patterson about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
In re; Roland Emmerich has been making films about the either a radically altered [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"And three years later it is likely to get even worse, because "there is a movement [...]Comments ()
Don S about Atlantica: A Threat to American Freedom
"cause the Earth to topple from its axis" Global Warming? Well, that certainly [...]Comments ()