NATOSource has moved

NATOSource has joined in a partnership with the Atlantic Council and will now be part of their digital media family. The Atlantic Council is a natural partner for NATOSource because it is a premier research and policy organization with a historic focus on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). From now on, NATOSource will be at: www.acus.org/natosource.

Only the location of NATOSource has changed, not its content. NATOSource will continue to be the one click each day that provides you with the key news about the most powerful alliance in the world.

I wish to thank the readers of NATOSource for making the past year so successful. Your support from all around the globe has made this website the internet’s leading source for daily news about NATO. Please join NATOSource at our new location and also visit our partner website, the New Atlanticist. The New Atlanticist is the gold standard for providing in-depth analysis by key policy-makers and experts on the most pressing issues facing the transatlantic community. You can subscribe to NATOSource, the New Atlanticist, and other Council products at http:/www.acus.org/atlantic-council-feeds.

I also wish to thank Senator Chuck Hagel (Chairman), Fred Kempe (President and CEO) and Damon Wilson (Vice President and Director of ISP) for making NATOSource part of the Atlantic Council network. In addition, a special appreciation to James Joyner, the Managing Editor of the Atlantic Council, for his vision and support for NATOSource. Their efforts are reenergizing the trans-Atlantic relationship and building a unique online hub for the foreign policy community.

NATOSource will continue to be an autonomous website and will not reflect the views or positions of the Atlantic Council, the government of the United States, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Thank you for your interest in the Atlantic Alliance,

Jorge Benitez,
Director of NATOSource

SACEUR: What’s Working In Afghanistan

From Adm. James Stavridis, U.S. European Command: Just back from two days in Kabul, and when I think back on the situation a year ago, the progress is very encouraging. ...

Lt. Gen. Bill Caldwell, in his position of Commander of the NATO Training Mission, is in charge of training Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) throughout the country. He currently has over 30,000 Afghans in training as he builds their Army and Police to over 250,000 by this fall. Bill is full of energy, and brings a great deal of deep experience in training to the job. He has a multinational staff, with senior officers from most of the 46 nations that make up ISAF. Ensuring that he receives the right number and quality of trainers is my top priority as SACEUR. ...

I’m encouraged and cautiously optimistic about Afghanistan. In addition to the good work by the security forces, there are increasingly good indicators about the economy and society (GDP up 20% last year; potentially huge mining deposits of iron, copper, lithium, and other minerals and metals; 12 million cell phones; 6 million children in schools, doubled over five years, over 40 % of them girls; number of teachers nationwide has doubled). Afghans seem to recognize this progress, and many national polls show strong confidence in the future of the country (70%+) and approval for the government (60%+), very favorable compared to many western countries.

Of concern, violence is up markedly over last year, largely the result of the efforts of both the ANSF and ISAF to take on the Taliban in their “home waters” down south. It will take perseverance and grit to get through what will be a dangerous and tough summer. The insurgency is stubborn and resilient, although largely ineffective in their attempts to attack our forces beyond the toll of IEDs. Overall, there are many challenges ahead; yet I would argue the prognosis for Afghanistan looks brighter today than a year ago, and I believe it will continue to improve.  (photo: U.S. European Command)

The Specter of Finlandization

From Ronald Asmus, the German Marshall Fund:  A specter is starting to haunt wider Europe — those countries located between the EU and NATO on one hand and Russia on the other. That specter is “Finlandization.” The return of this Cold War phrase reveals much about the changing spirit of the times and geopolitics of European security today. “Finlandization” refers to the policy imposed on Finland after World War II to pursue a foreign policy of neutrality that took the strategic interests and demands of the Soviet Union into account while preserving a democratic political system and avoiding the adoption of a communist system or becoming a satellite state, as was the case in Central and Eastern Europe. ...

But the phrase is slipping back into modern usage–as a potential future option for those countries in wider Europe. It is a shorthand way to describe a Russian policy that seeks to limit the foreign policy choices and sovereignty of countries on its borders and preclude their joining NATO or seeking a westward course in what Moscow sees as its sphere of privileged interest. Moscow has been engaged in a political offensive on this front since the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. It has recently been focusing on using soft power to tie a country like Ukraine more closely to it and to deny Kiev a Western option.

Moscow is not only seeking assurances from these countries that they will not seek to join the West. It is also seeking assurances from Western nations that they recognize this alleged sphere of special interest — and potentially give their tacit agreement to such new notions of limited sovereignty. That is one of the main issues embedded in a series of Russian policy pronouncements and the European security proposal of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. While no Western leader has yet endorsed this idea as official policy, one doesn’t have to travel very far in the diplomatic corridors before running across diplomats who are asking out loud whether some new and modern version of “Finlandization” might become an acceptable policy for countries whose prospects for Western integration seem to be sinking.  (graphic: Economist)

Ukraine Will Not Join CSTO

From Interfax: Ukraine does not plan to become a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Hryshchenko told the 2000 newspaper.

Ukraine has not and cannot be invited to join the CSTO because it 'has made it absolutely clear that it is opposed to membership in any blocs,' Hryshchenko said.

"Furthermore, the CSTO is too far away from us. The center of this organization is located somewhere in the south, in Central Asia," the minister said.

"The declaration of our opposition to membership in any blocs, as well as our decision to abandon plans to join NATO open up new opportunities to promote partnership and good neighborhood relations with Russia," he said.  (photo: RIA Novosti)

Those Damned Sceptical Germans

From Charlemagne, the Economist: Once again, Europe has a German problem. In its handling of the euro crisis, Germany’s government stands accused of weakness, indecision and populism. Pro-European Germans say that Chancellor Angela Merkel believes that theirs has become just another normal European country. They add ominously that this risks flirting with Euroscepticism, even nationalism. ...

By happy accident, the German government recently played host to a gaggle of Brussels-based reporters. To judge from their comments, the charge that German leaders have turned nationalist seems overblown. Nor have Germany’s rulers become Eurosceptic, exactly. But they are clearly fed up. And a fed-up Germany is not a minor political development in Europe.

The other message they wanted to broadcast is that rash steps—such as explicitly turning monetary union into a transfer union in which the thrifty pay for the profligate—could easily make German voters worryingly Eurosceptic. Senior figures point to weak support for the European project in lots of countries and No votes in various referendums. They note strong support for extreme nationalists in France, the Netherlands and Austria. Imagine if such parties emerged in Germany, they murmur.

Even if they are not nationalists in the flag-waving sense, German politicians now seem comfortable asserting Germany’s national interests as the largest EU member and biggest net contributor to its budget. Until reunification, Germany was economically strong but politically weak, says Thomas de Maizière, the interior minister and a close ally of Mrs Merkel’s. This was “convenient” for other European countries, who grew used to Germany writing cheques. Today’s Germany is ready to represent its interests with “new vigour”, just as France and Britain have for many years. Those interests include strict adherence to German law, the constitution and the EU treaties. If this slows decision-making, so be it. Germany resents being told to hurry up because the law does not matter or is trumped by politics.  (graphic: Economist)

Turkey’s Standoff Role Irks Allies

From the AP: Turkey's attempts to mediate Iran's nuclear standoff with the West have evolved into an aggressive effort to forestall new UN sanctions.

The assertive campaign is placing Turkey in opposition to longtime allies Israel and the United States.

It also raises the question of whether NATO's only Muslim member is becoming less of a bridge between East and West than a powerful international advocate for its neighbors in the Middle East. ...

“Turkey wants to prevent the escalation of tensions with Iran to avoid suffering from it economically,” said Nihat Ali Ozcan of the Economic Policy Research Institute in Ankara. “It is also seeking to raise its profile in the Muslim world but its loyalty is at risk in the eyes of the West.”  (photo: AP)

EU Bail-Out Scheme Alters Bloc Treaties, says France

From the Financial Times: The eurozone's €440bn debt guarantee scheme is tantamount to the adoption of a Nato-style mutual defence clause and marks an 'unprecedented' change to the bloc's treaties, according to France's Europe minister.

In a Financial Times interview, Pierre Lellouche laid bare the French government's conviction that the emergency stabilisation scheme agreed this month amounted to a fundamental revision of the European Union's rules and a leap towards an economic government for the bloc.

"It is an enormous change," Mr Lellouche said. "It explains some of the reticence. It is expressly forbidden in the treaties by the famous no bail-out clause. De facto, we have changed the treaty," he added.

Mr Lellouche's comments are likely to go down badly in Germany, where the government has insisted the debt guarantee scheme to help beleaguered eurozone members is a temporary mechanism, set up between governments with Berlin retaining a veto, and does not imply a breach of the EU's treaties. ...

[H]e said the scheme institutionalised solidarity between states. "The €440bn mechanism is nothing less than the importation of Nato's Article 5 mutual defence clause applied to the eurozone. When one member is under attack the others are obliged to come to its defence."  (photo: AP)

Clinton: "We Do Have to Expect More From NATO"

From Secretary Hillary Clinton, the State Department:  We have to do a better job of reforming NATO institutions and requiring them to be more cost-conscious and effective in order to maximize the impact of every dollar that every taxpayer of any NATO country – led by, of course, the United States – has in terms of a return on investment for their investment in NATO. NATO has gotten sprawling, hundreds and hundreds of committees, too many staff. There’s just a lot that can be done to literally save money and focus the mission of NATO. At the same time, countries have to recognize that as we try to streamline the operations of NATO, their contributions to their collective defense have to be more than they are today.

NATO has given a big umbrella to European countries to permit them to grow and develop, and it was an important mission for the United States to do that, and it created an era in Europe that is unprecedented in history in terms of the unity and the common purpose that both the EU and NATO represent. But we do have to expect more from NATO, and we have to expect more from the member nations.

But I don’t want to go just hat in hand and say you’ve got to do more country X or country Y for the collective defense without also moving very robustly on the reform agenda, because you cannot keep feeding the existing institution and expect to get a different result in terms of cost-effectiveness. 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Remarks On the Obama Administration's National Security Strategy.  (photo: Getty)

Outgoing EU Military Chief Dismisses Drive for Single HQ

From Expatica France: The outgoing British head of the European Union's military staff on Thursday said a French-led drive for a single EU military command centre was unworkable.

"There is not a one-sized feasible solution, neither from the point of view of politics nor from the pratical, military one," Lieutenant-General David Leakey told reporters as he handed over the post to Dutchman Ton van Osch.

Leakey's set-up plans but does not command EU military missions, which are run by individual countries, and while financial pressures on European governments have led analysts to speculate that the day is drawing closer, Leakey was adamant that a permanent EU military HQ would struggle to command authority.
Sticking with the structure of a lead nation hosting the HQ, as in Britain with the bloc's anti-piracy naval mission EU-Navfor, "means the operation is guaranteed to be a success," said Leakey, drawing on a near 40-year career. ...

"If you have a permanent HQ mandated on a multinational basis, then you would lose an ownership of those operations."  (photo: Getty)

Ukraine Drops NATO Membership Aim

From Reuters: Ukraine Thursday formally buried pursuit of NATO membership as an aim, its foreign minister declaring the issue had been taken off the policy agenda.

It was the most clear-cut statement by the new leadership of President Viktor Yanukovich that the issue was a dead letter in Ukraine for the conceivable future.

"Ukraine will continue developing its relations with the alliance, but the question of membership is now being removed from the agenda," the foreign minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. ...

Yanukovich, who came to power in February and has tilted the ex-Soviet republic back toward Moscow in several areas of policy, has made clear NATO membership was being pushed on to the back burner as an objective.

He has equally told Moscow that Ukraine will stick by its policy of staying out of military blocs. He has not responded to an invitation by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to join the Russia-led CSTO security grouping.  (photo: Reuters)

NATO Chief Warns Britain: Don’t Cut Your Defence Budget Too Deeply

From the Times (London): Nato’s Secretary-General warned Britain yesterday not to cut defence spending too deeply as it grapples with its budget deficit.

In an interview with The Times, Anders Fogh Rasmussen advised all cash-strapped Nato members to use the tough economic climate as an opportunity to make their armed forces more efficient to tackle the unpredictable nature of modern warfare. “All governments are faced with budgetary constraints,” Mr Rasmussen, the former Danish Prime Minister, said. ...

Mr Rasmussen, speaking at Nato’s headquarters in Brussels, said it was important to implement constructive reforms. “If cuts are made primarily within the more stationary parts of our military and if new investments are directed towards more flexible and more mobile and more modern armed forces, then budgetary constraints could be turned into something positive,” he said.

He declined to specify what areas should be axed but suggested that Nato members share equipment. Asked what Britain’s particular strength was within the alliance, Mr Rasmussen said: “Britain, alongside the US, has a capacity to deploy troops out of area and other allies could get inspiration from that.” It was important for the British military to retain that skill, he added. As for whether a slimmer budget would diminish Britain’s Nato role, Mr Rasmussen said: “Britain will remain one of the very important allies.”  (photo: AP)

Is Obama's Foreign Policy "Enemy-Centric?"

From Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post:  Is the Obama administration’s foreign policy "enemy-centric?"

That was the contention put forth this morning by a European who has been one of the most stalwart friends of the United States -- and of democracy -- since his days as a courageous dissident in what used to be Communist Czechoslovakia. Alexandr Vondra -- who after the fall of communism became the Czech Republic’s ambassador to Washington and then its foreign minister and deputy prime minister -- told an audience at the Atlantic Council here in Washington that President Obama’s “cool realism” is putting long-standing ties at risk. ...

Vondra said that the Obama administration rewards rivals -- notably Russia and China -- with “carrots” while handing out only “tasks” to its allies. He said the U.S. agenda with its allies seems to be driven by U.S. domestic needs and U.S. priorities, especially nuclear disarmament, Iran and Afghanistan, while neglecting the priorities of its allies.

Vondra said that the United States is actively approaching Russia with its offer to “reset” relations. Meanwhile Russia is assertively approaching the Czech Republic and other nations, driven by its enmity to NATO and its belief that it is entitled to hold sway in its own sphere of influence. But the third side of that triangle -- between the United States and allies -- is inactive, Vondra said, creating a danger that nations and policies less amenable to U.S. values will fill the vacuum. Russia’s governance and economic model are not sustainable in the long run, he said, “but in the short run, it is Russia that sets an agenda now.”  (photo: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty)

Empty Patriot Launchers in Poland: "A Gun But No Ammunition"

From the AP: For now, the U.S. has brought six mobile launchers for medium- to high-range Patriot missiles to Poland, but not the missiles themselves — similar to having a gun but no ammunition.

The U.S. ambassador to Poland, Lee Feinstein, said missiles might arrive later. He, too, stressed that the equipment is only meant for training the Polish military and that Russia is not threatened.

"This is an entirely defensive weapons system and they pose no threat to any country," Feinstein said.

[Polish Defense Minister Bogdan] Klich said the Patriot battery has political and symbolic importance for Poland — "political because it's tied to Poland's security. Symbolic because American soldiers for the first time will be stationed on Polish soil for a longer period of time."  (photo: Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Britain's Nuclear Arsenal is 225 Warheads, Reveals William Hague

From Richard Norton-Taylor, the Guardian:  William Hague, the foreign secretary, today announced a review into the circumstances when the government might use nuclear weapons as he disclosed the maximum number of warheads in Britain's arsenal.

Describing what he called a "more open" policy, Hague said Britain's total number of nuclear warheads would not exceed 225, including the maximum 160 already declared as "operationally available."

He also signalled that the coalition government is likely to downgrade the importance of nuclear weapons in military strategy reflecting decisions announced last month by the US.

The British review is expected to conclude that the UK would rule out using nuclear weapons in retaliation against attacks involving biological or chemical, or conventional non-nuclear weapons.

However, it is expected to make an exception, as the Obama administration did, for Iran arguing that Tehran is covertly developing nuclear weapons.  (photo: AP)

A Hollow "Reset" with Russia

From Robert Kagan, the Washington Post:  [F]ew accomplishments have been more oversold than the Obama administration's 'success' in getting Russia to agree, for the fourth time in five years, to another vacuous U.N. Security Council resolution. It is being trumpeted as a triumph of the administration's 'reset' of the U.S.-Russian relationship, the main point of which was to get the Russians on board regarding Iran. ...

The fact is, the Russians have not said or done anything in the past few months that they didn't do or say during the Bush years. In fact, they sometimes used to say and do more. Here's Vladimir Putin in April 2005: "We categorically oppose any attempts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Our Iranian partners must renounce setting up the technology for the entire nuclear fuel cycle and should not obstruct placing their nuclear programs under complete international supervision. ..."

In exchange for Russian cooperation, President Obama has killed the Bush administration's planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama has officially declared that Russia's continued illegal military occupation of Georgia is no "obstacle" to U.S.-Russian civilian nuclear cooperation. The recent deal between Russia and Ukraine granting Russia control of a Crimean naval base through 2042 was shrugged off by Obama officials, as have been Putin's suggestions for merging Russian and Ukrainian industries in a blatant bid to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty.

So at least one effect of the administration's "reset" has been to produce a wave of insecurity throughout Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltics, where people are starting to fear they can no longer count on the United States to protect them from an expansive Russia. And for this the administration has gotten what? Yet another hollow U.N. Security Council resolution. Some observers suggest that Iran's leaders are quaking in their boots, confronted by this great unity of the international "community." More likely, they are laughing up their sleeves -- along with the men in Moscow.

Robert Kagan is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  (photo: Reuters)

Ukraine to Build Up Cooperation with NATO to Reform Armed Forces

From RIA Novosti: Ukraine will build up cooperation with NATO to reform its Armed Forces, First Deputy Defense Minister Hryhoriy Pedchenko said on Wednesday.

"The Ukrainian Defense Ministry positively views all the achievements of cooperation with NATO and will take efforts for its further build-up to achieve real practical results," Pedchenko said at a roundtable discussion held by the Ukraine-NATO partnership network for civil society in Kiev.

Pedchenko said a delegation of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry would attend a session of the Ukraine-NATO commission at the level of defense ministers to be held in early June in Brussels to discuss the prospects of future cooperation.

"We are continuing to work on creating a highly professional and mobile army capable of timely and adequately responding to any national security threats and reliably defending state sovereignty and territorial integrity. This work is being conducted transparently and openly," Pedchenko said.  (photo: Reuters)

More Than 2,000 Belarusian Soldiers to Participate in CSTO's Rapid Reaction Force

From RIA Novosti: Belarus will contribute more than 2,000 troops to the post-Soviet security group's rapid reaction force, the country's defense minister, Yury Zhadobin, said on Wednesday.

The Belarusian parliament finally ratified earlier on Wednesday an agreement on the creation of the rapid reaction force as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The CSTO is seen as Moscow's bid to counterbalance NATO.

"About 2,000 people will be allocated from [Belarus's] armed forces, about 80 from the Interior Ministry, some 30 from the Emergencies Ministry, and about 30 from the KGB," Zhadobin said, adding that officers from KGB's special anti-terrorism units will be involved in the CSTO's military force.

The decision on the participation of Belarusian troops in CSTO operations is to be made by the Belarusian president in each specific case, the defense minister said.  (photo: Reuters)

Central Asia Dispute Disrupts NATO Afghan Supplies

From Reuters:  A dispute between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan has left hundreds of railway carriages with supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan stranded in Central Asia, a Tajik railway official told Reuters. ...

"As of May 24, 2,500 carriages bound for Tajikistan are being held on the territory of the Uzbek railways," Usmon Kalandarov, deputy head of Tajikistan's state railway company, told Reuters late on Tuesday.
"Out of those carriages, more than 300 are NATO cargo for Afghanistan."

The supply route through Central Asia has become important in past years as traditional NATO supply lines through Pakistan came under increasingly fierce attack from Taliban insurgents.  (photo: Yuri Kozyrev/AP)

Russian Paratroopers to Undergo Training in NATO Countries

From Interfax: Russian paratroopers are preparing to travel to the United States, Germany and other countries to undergo advanced training, Airborne Troops Commander Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said.

"The General Staff has ordered training to be organized for our servicemen with foreign armed forces and within the framework of the Russia-NATO format," Shamanov told the press in Moscow on Wednesday.

Some of our servicemen are preparing to travel to the United States and Germany, he said.  (photo: Getty)

Barack Obama Overruled "No-Spying" Pact with France

From the Telegraph:  [former U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis] Blair proposed an unprecedented written pledge even more binding than the post-war "gentlemen's agreement" between the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as trusted partners who do not spy on each other. The deal would also have given France access to a highly secure intelligence retrieval and exchange system.

But the proposed pact was ruled out by Mr Obama as too risky. ...

Mr Sarkozy's chief Elysée adviser confirmed that the deal had been in the offing.

Claude Guéant said: "It was a new and interesting prospect, a sort of conclusive new step in relations."

The deal was discussed between Mr Blair and Bernard Bajolet, France's new intelligence chief, but then dropped, he said. But Mr Guéant played down Mr Sarkozy's reaction.

"I don't think [the president] took it with a sense of disillusion," said a diplomatic source. "We've lived without it for decades. We were not the askers. It changes nothing in our relationship," he said.

French officials put the aborted pact down to internal turf wars within the US intelligence community.  (photo: Getty)

NATO-EU Cooperation Talks Show Little Sign of Progress

From Europolitics: The dispute between Turkey and Cyprus has hamstrung relations between the two organisations since Cyprus joined the EU in 2004. Ankara restricts cooperation at a number of levels, claiming that it wants to prevent sensitive military operations being passed on to the Greek Cypriot authorities. Cyprus has responded by blocking Turkish participation in a number of EU defence activities.

Rasmussen acknowledged that NATO had to accept Cyprus as a "country that deserves a seat at the table." In return, he said, the EU should open up its security operations to Turkish participation and allow non-EU contributors to participate in the decision making processes of those operations in the same way as NATO does with non-NATO nations, which take part in its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

"The EU must act to accommodate some concerns raised by NATO members that are not at the same time members of the European Union," Rasmussen told reporters. He underlined that cooperation was even more important since the EU was taking on a "more robust" foreign policy role under the Lisbon Treaty. He added that the EU should conclude a security agreement with Turkey and an arrangement that would allow Turkish participation in the European Defence Agency. However, he admitted that the political complications cannot be resolved "overnight."  (photo: NATO)

Assessing "NATO 2020"

From Emiliano Alessandri, Brookings Institution: The report is comprehensive and detailed. Its recommendations, however, do not always match the measure of vision and boldness that many think is needed to invigorate NATO and renew its sense of purpose. Visionary or provocative proposals floated in recent months in expert and political circles, such as opening NATO’s door to Russia or revising NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy, are not discussed. As a consensus document drafted by twelve distinguished personalities with long-standing ties to the Alliance, “NATO 2020” is balanced and moderate in its language and recommendations. It is understandably wary of plans for transformation that are too radical or “outside the box,” especially if they imply a reduction of NATO’s role or a reconsideration of its mission as traditionally understood. ...

Even the more limited proposal to actively involve Russia in the new plans for missile defense, strongly put forward by Secretary General Rasmussen himself at the Brussels Forum in March under the slogan of “one security roof,” does not seem to have been seriously picked up by the Group of Experts. The report limits itself to endorse Obama’s new phased, adaptive approach to ballistic missile defense as allowing for ‘concrete security cooperation’ with Russia.


Perhaps even weaker is the part of the document focusing on the European Union. “NATO 2020” indeed underlines that the European Union is a ‘unique’ and ‘essential’ partner of the Alliance. This observation, however, is not supported by particularly innovative proposals on how to make NATO-EU cooperation more effective. The report recognizes that the post-Lisbon European Union has the instruments and authority, at least on paper, to become a security provider as opposed to security consumer in Europe. The framework in which the discussion is developed, however, still seems to be the traditional one, according to which the EU does the civilian side while NATO and the United States deal with military matters. ...

“NATO 2020” does a good job of bridging some of the differences that emerged in many critical debates about the future of the Alliance in recent years. It remains an open question whether this effort, followed by NATO Secretary General’s own work later this year, will be enough to generate the political will that NATO governments will need to revitalize the Alliance. (photo: Getty)

Rasmussen and Ashton Discuss Bosnia and EU-NATO Cooperation

From NATO: On 25 May, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, met with Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. They met both bilaterally and at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the EU Political and Security Committee.

The main topic of discussion was Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the EU leads Operation Althea supported by NATO assets and capabilities. “All the countries around the table today shared the view that BiH’s future lies in Euro-Atlantic structures,” said the Secretary General in speaking to the press after their meetings. “But I must also say that there was real concern today about the level of ethnic tension and rhetoric in BiH.”

He expressed his hope that BiH would soon transfer defence property from the Entity level to the national government, a condition for the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to come into force. NATO extended the MAP to BiH at its Foreign Ministers meeting in Tallinn in April.

On EU-NATO cooperation, the Secretary General said High Representative Ashton and he share the view that the two organizations “need to talk more together, and do more together, from planning to procurement to operations.” Cooperation such as in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in BiH and off the coast of Somalia “needs to be stepped up,” he said, “and we are working on how best to do that.”  (photo: NATO)

Russia, NATO Defense Ministers Unlikely to Meet in June

From RIA Novosti: A Russia-NATO Council meeting at the level of defense ministers will most likely not happen in June as hoped, a source in the Russian mission at the NATO said on Tuesday.

The first meeting between Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and his NATO counterparts since the brief Russia-Georgia war in 2008 was tentatively scheduled for June 11-12 in Brussels.

"The meeting is unlikely to take place due to conflicting schedules of the Russian minister and NATO," the source said. ...

NATO foreign ministers decided at a meeting in Brussels in March 2009 to restore full-scale cooperation between the alliance and Russia.

A meeting between Russian and NATO defense ministers would be another step in normalizing ties.  (photo: AP)

The Taliban Is Hitting, but Not Winning

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, New York Times: The point is that in 2010, preventing each and every attack is not the point. Yes, there is an Afghan and NATO offensive in 2010 — but ours is a political offensive, and it is aimed right at the heart of the Taliban.

The aim of this political offensive is, in essence, to change the political conditions in the key strategic areas of Afghanistan, so that the most extreme elements of the insurgency — those that will not under any circumstances give up terrorism and intimidation — are marginalized. Our aim is to ensure that they will not have the political support that they would need to pose a strategic challenge to the Afghan government — after which they will wither on the vine. ...

There will be no D-Day in Kandahar. Our effort there is a combined Afghan and international civil-military campaign to change the political situation, to gradually enhance security, to strengthen governance and to expand the government’s authority in key areas of insurgent influence.

It is slower than a military assault. It is not visible in the same way as an attack on an air base or a suicide attack in downtown Kabul. And it will take time. ...

But slowly and surely, the Afghan government will continue to get stronger and more legitimate in the eyes of its people. More and more Afghans will turn away from the Taliban. And Afghanistan will become a place where terrorism can find no home, no safe haven, no launching pad and no inspiration.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is secretary general of NATO.  (photo: Reuters)