The Future of NATO to be decided over a Week-end

As NATO meets this week-end in Lisbon, three crucial issues will be on the table.


The first is Afghanistan. The timetable for withdrawal of NATO forces will focus on pace, not if. The rising crescendo of certain politicos in the US that there should be no withdrawal apparently forget that this is a NATO mission, not a US mission regardless of the fact that the majority of troops are American. Decisions in NATO are taken by unanimous consent. A decision not to withdraw is not an option. However, that does not mean that the mission – a decade old, by the way – should not be molded to fit the reality on the ground.

First, as often pointed out by me and others, Afghanistan has not been and will not be a country. It is a largely feudal system of differing tribes, some of whom have more power than others. The mission of NATO and the US in particular, was established as a response to the 9/11 terror attack by Al Qaeda which launched its training and planning from Afghanistan and who were guests of the Taliban. I’m sure there are elements of the Taliban today who wish they had not indulged their cultural traditions quite as much and thrown Al Qaeda out. Nevertheless, NATO has achieved its goal of destroying Al Qaeda Central and the mission needs to consider how to assure that Afghanistan does not become a base for international terrorism again. To do this, it will need to involve Pakistan, Russia, India and (yes) Iran.

NATO, and the US, did not plunge into the Afghan civil war raging at the time in the north between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban for the purpose of nation building. Good governance and civil society building were not part of the writ then and are a long vanished opportunity now. It was a wasted opportunity and short-sighted policy, but the reality is that the Taliban are deeply embedded in society, NATO is going away, and other tribes, particularly in the north, will not be inclined to cooperate with the Taliban alliance. These are the ingredients to a return to an Afghanistan with which all the local participants are very familiar. After NATO vanishes, expect a return to localized tribal war.

That is why NATO needs to discuss the structure of future involvement in Afghanistan, not only among its member states, but also with the surrounding players. It will need to formulate a strategy to deal with potential threats. The Taliban pose zero threat to NATO or any member country. They posed no threat in 2001 and less now. We may decry the return to what most in the West consider barbaric practices; but, aside from complaints, no one in the West was in favor of a massive use of force against the Taliban for their cultural proclivities and abuse of women. Otherwise, NATO might as well invade Saudi Arabia – an unlikely proposition.

NATO, as a body, appears particularly useless at this point in time and its principal mission, defending Europe from the Soviet Union, is not relevant. It must redefine its role and Afghanistan is a good place to start.

The second issue on the table is its relationship with a resurgent Russia. This is complicated by factors that Russia considers important to its foreign policy and its relationship with Europe – such as missile shield deployment and securing its field of influence. NATO has frequently stated that Russia is a partner, not an opponent. Many in the US do not see it that way and may well sink the START Treaty which is supported by the US military and important (thinking) Republicans. If START goes down and they are not included in the decision to deploy a missile shield, expect trouble.

For a start, Moscow may stop cooperating with the United States on Iran and, bearing in mind that Afghanistan will not be over for at least another few years, it may not be so generous with the transit of non –lethal material over its territory to supply NATO troops. It may renew pressure on its “near abroad” through energy supplies and less than subtle political pressure to make sure that NATO – and particularly the US – do not renew the Bush era political invasion of their turf. Finally, if START is not ratified and the Republican leadership succeeds in bringing a return to the confrontational policies of the previous administration with Russia, then Moscow hawks may win the day. So much for the reset button.

Third, and connected to the above is this issue of the missile shield. NATO, through the US, changed its focus from an overtly challenging system aimed at Russia that Bush and his neo-con allies sought to install, to one which is aimed at defending Europe and others from Iranian missiles. NATO will try and force the issue with Turkey for example. It has already asked that Turkey allow anti-missile shields to be placed on its territory. If Turkey says ‘no’, that will lose the second most powerful military to NATO, not to mention an important Muslim ally. If NATO pushes and Turkey says ‘yes’, then its standing in the Middle East will plummet- leaving Iran as the great protector. Ultimately, it is hoped that no specific countries are cited, giving Turkey the cover to place the shield on its soil. Of course, this is not to say that Turkey is not making some serious blunders along the way. The recent demand by Turkey that it be given operational control of the system based on its territory is absurd – but indicates the levels to which Turkey will go to gain respect and leverage in its back-yard. Time for NATO to be clever and devise a satisfactory solution because it would be sad to begin the ritual “who lost Turkey” refrain. Turkey needs to climb down from some of its positions as well.

By the end of the week-end, NATO will need to formulate an approach to the entire Middle East. It should have the wit to see how key Turkey is to the alliance and the West and not permit Israel to dictate policy. Fortunately, there is only one member of the alliance that allows its foreign policy to be directed by Israel. The others are not so inclined.

Finally, aside from specific areas of concern that must be addressed, NATO must redefine itself. It is already largely irrelevant but is unable to dissolve itself. None of its members, even France and Germany and certainly not Poland and the Baltics, want that to happen. Sweden and Finland will likely increase their participation in NATO short of becoming members. So, what is NATO to become? Because, the Cold War is over and political relationships are getting back to normal.

Another Win for Yanukovych and Russia - Europe is Next

Image via Wikipedia

The government of Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko was dismissed today after a no-confidence vote passed with 243 of the 450-member parliament. The work now begins for Victor to form a new majority coalition. It needs to be remembered that individuals don't count in coalitions - only the parties as a group.

Party of Regions is the largest party in the parliament with 172 seats. To form a majority, PoR needs another 55 seats and Yanukovych has 30 days to do it. If he can -and that will not be easy - he will have another 60 days to create a new government for approval by the parliament. Yanukovych’s 172 seats, in addition to the Communist Party (27 seats) and Lytvyn (20 seats) are not enough to provide the required 226 seat majority - only 219. Close but no cigar. A minority is not permittd to nominate a PM.

The other blocs are the former Prime Minister's BYuT and the former President's Our Ukraine. It is very unlikely that these blocs will enter any coalition with Yanukovych, although not impossible.

If Yanukovych can't pull of a new majority, he will have to call a snap election. A new election is probably not what the MPs want because it is likely that Lytvn's bloc and Our Ukraine will be wiped out. What to do? What to do?

At this point, however, this is yet another win for Russia, and the changes have begun. Today as well, the head of the energy firm Naftogaz, Oleh Dubyna, was dismissed. Dubyna was a close ally of Yulia Timoshenko and of Viktor Yushchenko. Naftogaz management has been a target for Russia. This is the beginning of a purge to oust key people of whom the Kremlin doesn't approve or are connected to either Tymoshenko or Yushchenko. The metals industry will be on that list.

Aside from consolidating its gains in the Caucuses, Central Asia and Ukraine, Russia is now turning its attention to the dismantling of NATO, beginning with France and Germany.

Germany is already in thrall to Russia, both economically and to leverage its power within the EU. Almost completely dependent on the Kremlin for energy, the German government will show no willingness to challenge Russian actions in the Caucuses, including the overthrow of the Georgian government, or in Eastern Europe.

France, apparantly, is eager to sell modern, non-defensive weapons systems, like the Mistral, to Russia and threw a party for Medvedev in Paris this week. Surely noted in Tbilisi, Warsaw and the Baltic States was Medvedev's and Sarkozy's comments as reported here.

Russia and France took their courtship to a new level in Paris on Monday, entering talks about the sale of four French warships to Moscow, standing together against nuclear-minded Iran and urging a new global financial order.

A key business deal signed during Medvedev's pomp-filled visit Monday - giving France's GDF Suez a 9-percent stake in the Nord Stream gas pipeline project run by Russia's Gazprom - runs counter to efforts by U.S. and other European countries to lessen Europe's dependence on Russian pipelines and gas.

Medvedev, noting that French investment in Russia last year surpassed that of the U.S. for the first time, said, "That means we are on the right track." He urged French investors to help modernize the Russian economy Tuesday as the two countries' build major new energy, transport and even military partnerships. Addressing an audience of powerful business leaders from Russia and France on the second day of a visit to Paris, the Kremlin chief hailed what he said was an "unprecedented" economic partnership. "It is impossible to imagine relations between Russia and France without economic ties," he said at the French employers' association MEDEF, calling for Russian and French firms to buy stakes in one another.

"This truly strengthens relations," he said, inviting French investors to a economic forum in St Petersburg in June, where he hopes their expertise will "give the Russian economy an opportunity to adapt to modern life."

Medvedev hailed Sarkozy's "courage and will" when he sought to negotiate an end to Russia's war with neighboring Georgia in 2008. He said NATO - an alliance that Russia views as a U.S.-driven vestige of the Cold War - was no help in ending that war, but that European partners were. "What does this show? This shows that we ourselves should solve European issues," Medvedev said. Sarkozy said, "France defended the interests of Europe. ... We did it without using our army, we did it without threats."

Sarkozy seems to think that he defended European interests in mediating the war between Russia and Georgia. He defended France's interests, not Europe's. And, he has conveniently forgotten that Russia has not complied with key requirments that it agreed to in the settlement document, such as removal of forces. It is, in fact, building new bases.

Again, the free hand being delivered to Moscow is a direct result of the Iraq adventure, the continuing Afghan war, the economic recession in the US and its obsession with Iran. Regarding the latter, it is time to start assessing the options.

Attacking Iran is, to be blunt, stupid. There are simply too many variables and the inevitable instability in Iraq, disruption of oil from the Gulf and asymetrical attacks from Iran's allies in the Middle East, make that decision - however much the worst.Israeli.government.in.history wants it - impossible. The other option is accepting a nuclear Iran. The third option is something else. It involves looking at overlapping and more important interests.

Nixon to China.

Bombing Iran

Why does anyone listen to the foreign policy ramblings of John Bolton? This is a guy who, prior to becoming the mouthpiece for the neocon underground and the worst US ambassador to the UN ever was once seen running around the halls Ukraine Hotel in Moscow shouting at his assistant about some missing papers - allegedly in his briefs. His continuing desire to bomb Iran - and the media's fascination with the former half-term governor of Alaska who incorrectly (as usual) attributes his statements to poor old Pat Buchanan - is counterproductive and tiresome.

Let's reiterate a couple of not so unimportant points. The enrichment of uranium to a percentage that can be used for reactor and medical purposes is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Period. Iran has not been as open to inspectors as the International Atomic Energy Agency would like, but there still remains no credible evidence that Iran is anywhere near creating weapon's grade nuclear material.

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad's order last week that created such hand wringing in the West directing the engineers at Natanz to begin attempting to enrich uranium to 19.75% for fuel at its only reactor which also produces medical isotopes that are fully consumed is not a directive to create atomic weapons. And - by the way - the government also provided notice to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Incidentally, why is the US so terrified of a country whose economy is in shambles and has a military budget smaller than Finland's? The US faced down the Soviet Union - but neocons and their ilk behave like craven cowards when faced with fourth rate military powers which can be obliterated in a nano-second or incompetent terrorists.

Sanctions of one sort of another will follow merely because everyone has lost trust in the Iranian regime. Fair enough. But let's stop listening to the pronouncements of advocates of failed military policies and especially giving any attention to the remarks of Sarah Palin who might be the least intelligent former government official on the planet and who is considered - aside from that Very Important Pundit David Broder in the Washington Post - by the vast majority of Americans unqualified to be POTUS.

Afghanistan I

Image via Wikipedia

US involvement in Afghanistan recently passed its eighth anniversary. As President Obama has said, this was not a war of choice for the US. The question is, what has it become and where is the US going.

Briefly, in 2001 when the US invasion began, the goal was to destroy safe havens for terrorists which were under the protection of the ruling Taliban. The Taliban were targeted too since their rule had facilitated al Qaida training camps and they refused to turn over Osama bin Laden claiming he was a guest. The Bush administration publicly made the mission one of destroying the Taliban and capturing or killing bin Laden. Neither goal, obviously was met while the mission drifted until the Bush administration clearly abandoned the search for the man behind the death of 3,000 American, British, Iranian, French and other nationalities at the World Trade Center.

The Taliban collapsed outwardly rather quickly, being unable to challenge US and US supported troops in the field. Having utter control in the air, the US and its Afghan allies rapidly rolled up territory and simply drove into Kabul. What happened next was a series of misplaced priorities and actions.

First, US strategy relied on high altitude bombing which resulted in high civilian casualty counts. Not the way to win over the population to the cause. Small scale anti-terrorist operations may have been more effective and resulted in fewer civilian deaths while offering a better chance of capturing or killing the most wanted criminal - up to that point - for the US. The Bush administration then handed over power to the military warlords and Islamisists who had support the US campaign.

Even when Karzai came to power and tried to curb the power of the warlords, the US continued its support because of the perceived necessity of using them to root out al Qaida and Taliban elements. Unfortunately as well, the US did not seek to internationalize the effort by asking for European - and especially troops from Muslim countries - to join as part of a coalition at that time.

Without an effort to build security beyond Kabul, the stage was set for a Taliban resurgence - which began three years ago as the effects of the war of choice in Iraq sucked down US troops, attention and treasury. By 2005 the US poured in half a trillion dollars into Iraq and during the previous two years slashed reconstruction aid to the Karzai government by 30%. By 2005, even the aid provided was not going to the Afghan people (and those of us in the development business know exactly how US foreign aid operates). Action Aid estimated at the time that only 14% of all aid goes to real development project. I know some of the people who were in Afghanistan - the 50% of development aid funding that went to these dubiously qualified consultants to be spent on questionable US products was a joke. At that time Karzai was justified in his harsh criticism of all foreign aid - and especially that from the US. Karzai was fiercely critical of the Bush policies even in 2005. Indeed, the US spent more on bombing Afghanistan than rebuilding it.

The failures that were self-evident in 2005 and widely discussed, except as is ever the case to ardent supporters of Bush and Cheney and the neo-con leadership, were largely the result of the diversion of resources to Iraq. An Afghanistan policy review took place in 2005 and progress there was widely praised by the Bush administration. Yet, the Afghanistan operation remained an unfinished effort, faded from the ever vigilant US media. The focus in Afghanistan was completely lost after the Tora Bora operation that failed to capture or kill the primary target of the US, Osama bin Laden. Then, specialized elements of the US Army assigned to track him down were withdrawn in 2002 for the preparations against Iraq.

The Obama administration has said that it has completed its deliberations on a policy direction for the US in Afghanistan which will also determine the number of "surge" troops demanded by General McChrystal. Where and how the US directs its efforts at this point is critical. This administration needs to get it right and not follow the knee jerk crazies in the Republican Limbaugh Party - who, by the way, don't serve in any capacity in Afghanistan but who are very willing and eager to watch other peoples' children die.

The next post will discuss some myths that prevail about Afghanistan and posit a way forward - if the administration does not make the post moot. I will also review the larger picture of the changed foreign policy strategy of the Obama administration and the effect on Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iran.

Iran Election

Although I have a number of Iranian friends from my time in Central Asia and Ukraine, they are mostly "liberal" in the sense that they are opposed to the clerical rule in Iran. Indeed, they call themselves Persian. So, I have no great knowledge of the socio-political structure of the country as a whole. However, reading the reports on the election and the aftermath, particularly the arrest of over 100 opposition leaders yesterday, one can't help but conclude that the margin of victory was fraudulent, if not the election itself.

One point that appears to repeat itself is that the rural vote put Ahmadinejad over the top. The huge margin seems to make this improbable as it would require a major shift in the urban vote as well.

Juan Cole has the best analysis at this time about the election results. As the weeks pass more information will appear. In the meantime, it seems that Israel will likely take this as an opportunity to push its aggressive stance against Iran - although attacking Iran is off the table as it would require US consent. I suspect as well that US policy will remain unchanged since Ahmadinejad has been president for the past four years and will be there for the next four. That's the fact on the ground that is not going to change, so US and EU policy should remain in place.

Whether the damaged credibility of the Iranian government if the belief that the election was stolen weakens its ability to deal with the outside world, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the EU and the US, will be interesting to watch. President Ahmadinejad may need to dial down his rhetoric - which would be welcome in and of itself.