NATO's Anti-Piracy Mission Extended Through 2012

From NATO: The North Atlantic Council has decided to extend NATO's anti-piracy mission through 2012. This is based on the assessment that this mission is making a demonstrable contribution to increase safety for shipping and reduces success rates for pirates. While the number of attacks in 2009 was up over the number of attacks in 2008, the success rate of those attacks was down by 40 percent. And in general the shipping lane... it's called the Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor... a very... just rolls off your tongue, in which international shipping goes and to which NATO and other bodies and other contributors provide ships, is making a clear difference for shipping companies. They are also taking onboard now the recommendations that they should take for improving the security of their ships.

So all this to say, North Atlantic Council has received its assessment. It agrees that this is making a demonstrable contribution to the anti-piracy fight in the Gulf of Aden and therefore has extended the mission until 2012. The Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 will be relieved by Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 on Friday, day after tomorrow. There'll be five ships, one U.K., one U.S., one Italian, one Turkish and one Greek. (photo: NATO)

NATO Renewal Requires European Courage on Afghanistan

From the Christian Science Monitor: NATO reform can’t come fast enough. European leaders must step up and persuade the public of the importance of the Afghan mission and the threat of Al Qaeda...

European leaders are not given the tools to lead public opinion.

This is because the entire counter-terrorism mission is treated almost exclusively as a law enforcement issue in Europe, falling under the purview of national justice and interior ministries which are only loosely coordinated by the European Union and completely disconnected form NATO. This inefficient separation means that the leaders of Europe are prevented from comprehending the connection between operations in Afghanistan and the security of European cities.

This is why most Europeans have no understanding of the greater strategic threat and why they are unaware of the direct danger that al Qaeda poses to Europe and its interests.

NATO has not done an overall threat assessment of the destabilizing effect extremists are having on Pakistan, India, and Central Asia, and how that instability threatens European security and European interests. This is despite the fact that Al Qaeda and likeminded extremist organizations have used their extensive networks to strike at the heart of major European cities. (photo: AFP/Getty)

Russia will not Accept U.S. Threat to its Nuclear Deterrent - Lavrov

From RIA Novosti: Russia can not allow U.S. plans to deploy elements of its missile shield in Europe to threaten the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.

U.S. officials admit that the missile defense system in Europe might be able to hit Russian inter-continental ballistic missiles by 2020.

"The U.S. administration says its global missile shield program is not directed against Russia. However, our conclusions on the true potential of the future missile defense system should be based on specific military and technical factors, not on words," Lavrov said.

"We will not accept a state of affairs when a missile defense system poses a threat to Russia's nuclear deterrence potential," he went on. (photo: Ilya Pitalev/RIA Novosti)

Deal Saves Europe's Transport Aircraft

From the International Institute For Strategic Studies: Following months of negotiations, seven European governments have reached a deal with EADS, the parent company of aircraft manufacturer Airbus, which should rescue the troubled A400M transport-aircraft project from failure. At a time when persistent gaps in European military capabilities are defying solutions, and with defence-budget cuts expected, many governments have begun to look more closely at multinational cooperation to generate improved capabilities at better value for the taxpayer. However, the A400M saga provides a sobering background to the debate.

On 5 March, the seven customer nations – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom – agreed to increase the purchase price by €2 billion to €22bn and to provide €1.5bn in export finance in exchange for a share of sales revenues. The governments also waived their right to possible damages arising from delays to the project so far, and agreed to accelerate payments to Airbus ahead of deliveries. The project is four years late and substantially over budget. Although the deal will help EADS to reduce its losses on the A400M project, on 9 March it announced a charge of €1.8bn against profits to add to the €2.4bn loss provision it had already taken...

However, the project is likely to harden the perception among industry executives that multinational collaboration often carries a time and cost premium. Airbus chief executive Tom Enders said in February 2010 that the proposed deal provided ‘the bare minimum of what we need to continue the programme’. The A400M would be a burden on the company’s finances and resources for years to come, he said...

In spite of these problems, however, collaboration is likely to remain the only credible way of attaining large-scale capability development in Europe. National needs for improved capabilities for modern operations will persist, yet there is likely to be less money for defence. Governments will find it harder to justify the cost of purely national programmes, but will be reluctant to buy too many strategic assets ‘off the shelf’ from outside Europe. They want to preserve industrial jobs and technology, and also wish to limit their dependency for key military assets on outside suppliers. The travails of Europe’s transport-aircraft project underline the need for better risk management in future collaborative projects. (photo: BBC)

EU Considering Independent Military Operations Center

From the European Voice: The European Union must forge a “stronger, more assertive” and “ambitious” foreign policy agenda to match the rising power of China and India, Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, said today in a speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Ashton, in her first address to the Parliament, set out her vision for what the EU's diplomatic priorities should be in the years ahead...

Ashton said she was considering whether the EU needed to have its own permanent military operations centre as part of deepening defence policy coordination.

“The question is whether the current system, relying on SHAPE [NATO's military command headquarters] or national HQs, is the most efficient way or whether we need something else,” Ashton said.

She said EU member states had to agree to closer defence co-ordination “to be able to react quickly when there is a need”. Ashton added that she was open to holding more permanent meetings of the EU's defence ministers to take more security related decisions for the EU and as a way to cooperate more closely with the NATO alliance. (photo: Thierry Charlier/AP)

Russian Communists Against Mistral Deal with France

From Interfax: Communist MPs in the lower chamber of the Russian parliament have called on the country's authorities not to purchase the Mistral helicopter carrier from France.

A few days ago, Russia 'almost signed an agreement with France to purchase the Mistral,' former Soviet cosmonaut and Communist Party deputy Svetlana Savitskaya said in the State Duma on Wednesday...

"A slow process of purchases of military hardware abroad has started," which will negatively impact Russia's defense potential, the former cosmonaut said.

"Have we forgotten how to make military hardware? And if we do not know certain secrets that other countries know, what is our military-technological intelligence service for? Cabinet Ministers! Give it this task!" she said. (photo: ITAR-TASS)

Medvedev, Putin, and the Mistral

From the Weekly Standard: So, according to this new Russian military doctrine, France – as a NATO state – is now officially an enemy of Moscow. "With ‘enemies’ like France selling super-modern assault ships," opined one Moscow military analyst, "Russian doesn’t need ‘friends’ like Venezuela, Iran or Cuba."

The Mistral sale has been discussed between the DCNS and the Russian Navy for some time now. Depending on its configuration, the Mistral carries a price tag of some €300-500 million (or $404 to $670 million), which would be the largest sale ever of military hardware to Russia by a NATO member state. Georgian sources told me that the French manufacturer, DCNS, will attempt to make the deal appear innocuous by proposing to sell Russia an "empty" vessel that is not equipped with the same advanced electronics as those in service already with the Marine Nationale. In reality, they will install these same systems as an after-sale retrofit once the ship has already been delivered to the Russian Navy. (photo: haberrus.com)

NATO General Criticises German Afghan Engagement

From AFP: A senior German general criticised in remarks published Saturday Germany's failure to engage more deeply in Afghanistan, warning it could cost Berlin the command of the country's north.

Germany has around 4,500 troops in Afghanistan, based mainly in the north where international soldiers in several provinces are under German command in a larger NATO-led force.

The troops focus largely on development and training Afghan security forces, while soldiers in the more violent south and east are engaged in heavy combat against Taliban and other insurgents.

'The Germans operate in Afghanistan under the motto: wash my fur but do not wet me,' General Egon Ramms said in the Der Spiegel weekly, using a German expression of reluctance to become too involved in an activity.

'If the Germans persist with this position, they are soon going to loose the command of operations in the north,' warned Ramms, commander of NATO's Joint Forces Command based in Brunssum in The Netherlands. (photo: NATO)

Transatlantic Relations in Obama's "Post-Western World"

From the New York Times: The Obama presidency has been a shock to Europe. At heart, Obama is not a Westerner, not an Atlanticist. He grew up partly in Indonesia and partly in Hawaii, which is about as far from the East Coast as you can get in the United States. “He’s very much a member of the post-Western world,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund...

One by one European leaders have been disappointed by the president’s cool remoteness. A jilted feeling has spread.

In fact, Obama is a pure pragmatist. He wants Europe’s help, particularly in Afghanistan, but he has no misty-eyed vision of Atlanticism and sees more pressing strategic priorities in China, India, the Middle East and Russia. He is transitioning the United States to the post-Western world, which is another way of saying he is adapting America to a world in which its relative power is eroding...

The situation was well summarized by Jeremy Shapiro and Nick Witney in a report for the European Council on Foreign Relations that described the European attitude to the United States as “basically infantile and fetishistic.” By this, they meant the way European states exist in a form of obsessive dependency on the United States (even as they criticize it) that prevents them from forming strong E.U. positions.

“America wants to be Europe’s partner, not its patron; but it cannot be responsible from without for weaning Europe off its client status,” they wrote, adding that, “An incoherent and ineffective assemblage of European states will be increasingly marginalized.” (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty)

.It's Time to Invite Russia to Join NATO

From Spiegel: NATO, in its current form, is not up to these tasks. In the future, the alliance should see itself as a strategic framework for the three centers of power: North America, Europe and Russia. This trio has common interests that are threatened by the same challenges, and which require the same responses. If the alliance intends to be the primary forum for addressing all crises -- because it is the only forum where North America, Europe and Russia sit at the same table -- then it must now establish the requisite institutional framework for that to happen. The door to NATO membership should be opened for Russia. Russia, in turn, must be prepared to accept the rights and obligations of a NATO member, of an equal among equals...

The trio comprising North America, Europe and Russia has an objective interest in surviving the consequences of the global economic crisis, thwarting the development of new power centers at the expense of old structures, facing challenges in the southern crisis region and cooperating in the Arctic. Nevertheless, there will be resistance to Russian NATO membership.

For this reason, in its internal debate with Eastern European skeptics, NATO must make it clear what the alliance stands to gain if Russia is gradually brought on board as a full member. It will be in the interest of both sides to define concrete interim steps. This could include the NATO countries and Russia issuing a joint declaration, at the beginning of the accession process, to use none of their weapons against each other, and that their nuclear weapons serve only one purpose: to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. On this basis, all Russian tactical nuclear weapons could be withdrawn to central storage facilities, where they would be subject to international monitoring at all times, in return for the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe. And a joint missile defense system could be installed to protect the territory of NATO countries and Russia.

Excerpts from letter by former German officials Volker Rühe, Klaus Naumann, Frank Elbe and Ulrich Weisser. (photo: Reuters)

NATO Warns of Surge in Cyber Attacks from China

From the Times (London): Urgent warnings have been circulated throughout Nato and the European Union for secret intelligence material to be protected from a recent surge in cyberwar attacks originating in China...

Nato diplomatic sources told The Times: “Everyone has been made aware that the Chinese have become very active with cyber-attacks and we’re now getting regular warnings from the office for internal security.” The sources said that the number of attacks had increased significantly over the past 12 months, with China among the most active players.

In the US, an official report released on Friday said the number of attacks on Congress and other government agencies had risen exponentially in the past year to an estimated 1.6 billion every month.

The Chinese cyber-penetration of key offices in both Nato and the EU has led to restrictions in the normal flow of intelligence because there are concerns that secret intelligence reports might be vulnerable. (photo: Times)

NATO Suspends Training of Kosovo Security Force

From the AP: NATO is suspending the training of Kosovo's security troops after a military-style parade that broke the force's agreement to focus only on civil emergencies, it said Sunday.

The alliance called off its support for the 2,500-strong Kosovo Security Force following the appearance of an armed honor guard at a parade on Friday marking the 12th anniversary of the killing of the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the ethnic Albanian rebel force that fought Serbia in 1998-99.

The parade appearance was 'inconsistent with (its) non-military status,' NATO said in a statement. Kosovo's force was set up last year with a role limited to civil emergencies as part of a plan that allowed Kosovo to secede from Serbia. It replaced a similar force made up mostly of former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

The alliance, which has pledged to provide training and supply weapons for the force, said the suspension would continue until it received an explanation of the incident, remedial action and guarantees that such incidents would be avoided in the future. (photo: RTK)

Alliance Asymmetries

From atlantic-community.org: The secretary's critique of Europe was aimed at what he sees as a potential hollowing out of the alliance if it does not have the capabilities and the structures to carry out missions such as the one in Afghanistan. And if one assumes that the future threats to NATO members are not going to be found so much in Europe but in other areas of the world such as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, then the mission of the alliance needs to be correspondingly clarified.

Yet even if that is accomplished, there will still be questions about an issue which has been part of NATO since its inception: the asymmetry of burden sharing within the alliance...

If NATO's future relevance is being measured by the success or failure of its engagement in Afghanistan, then it should also be measured by how the member nations view it as relevant to their own security. When it was founded, NATO was based on a commitment to collective defense. Today, the questions are: defense against what threats and with which tools? Once these tough issues are solved, we then need to decide how to share and sustain the burdens. That is not a new challenge, but it is getting more and more difficult to meet. (photo: NATO)"

Energy Security in Europe: Central Questions

From the Economist: At a summit in Budapest on February 24th Visegrad showed signs of renewed life. The big shift is in Poland, where go-it-alone policies have given way to enthusiasm for working with the neighbours. Under the voting rules of the Nice treaty, in force until 2014, Visegrad countries have as many votes in the EU as France and Germany combined.

Next year Hungary and Poland will each have six months in the EU’s rotating presidency. Eurocrats in Brussels like to portray the rotating presidency as largely redundant now there is a permanent European Council president. The Poles and Hungarians are working closely together to disprove this. Hungary wants a “Danube strategy” to divert EU money and attention to the river basin. Poland supports this, in return for Hungarian backing for more EU aid to countries such as Georgia, Moldova and Belarus...

Visegrad is also pushing for EU rules on mutual help in energy crises. These could offer the region greater security. But big obstacles remain. One is Russia, which is intensifying its co-operation with friendly energy companies in France, Germany and Italy. On a trip to France, Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, started formal talks on the sale of up to four Mistral-class warships, while France’s GDF Suez gained a 9% stake in the Nord Stream pipeline. (graphic: Economist)

Time to Get Real on NATO

From Foreign Policy: This NATO review process is failing to account for three fundamental contradictions.

First, NATO Secretary General Rassmussen stated that: 'We must face new challenges. Terrorism, proliferation, cyber security or even climate change will oblige us to seek new ways of operating. And in a time of financial and budget constraints, we need to maximize our efficiency within limited resources.' However, all of these issues are challenges far better suited for the European Union (EU) and a special US-EU relationship to manage rather than NATO.

Second, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that: 'This Alliance has endured because of the skill of our diplomats, the strength of our soldiers, and - most importantly - the power of its founding principles.' Yet, one of NATO's core founding principles was to create a circumstance in which Europe could stand on its own two feet. This is, effectively, NATO's last unfulfilled mission after the Cold War and it is now hindered by an institutional framework allowing Europeans to free-ride on American security provision.

Third, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated: 'The demilitarization of Europe - where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it - has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st.' The demilitarization of Europe, however, means that NATO has succeeded in its fundamental mission - that Europe no longer fights wars is a good thing. Moreover, Europe has no incentive to contribute to global security missions so long as America takes the lead. Europe has every incentive to free-ride on American power and NATO perpetuates that. (photo: euaustralia.com)