From Robert D. Kaplan, STRATFOR:  [T]he very weakening of the European Union because of its debt woes makes NATO more crucial than at any time since the Berlin Wall fell — crucial as a political stabilizing agent within Europe itself. Especially for Eastern Europe, NATO serves as a seal of approval for these former communist states struggling to obtain foreign investment and thus prevents Russia from undermining them. Geography still rules. Russia, because of its own history of invasion from Europe, still requires a row of friendly buffer states in Eastern Europe. Therefore, Russia will do everything it can to undermine states from Poland southward to Bulgaria. NATO is a political, diplomatic and military mechanism directed against that Russian design. Moreover, the more that Europe reels from its debt crisis, the greater the possibility of geopolitical inroads made by Russia, and thus the more relevant NATO becomes.

NATO is also relevant concerning the future geopolitical direction of Germany. As long as NATO exists and Germany is a member, playing a substantial political if not military role, then the chances of Germany pivoting toward an alliance with Russia in future years is lessened.

Analytically, it is a mistake to assume that just because a political-military organization is less useful now than it was a quarter-century ago it is useless altogether. NATO has a bureaucracy, protocols, interoperability between member militaries and all manner of standard operating procedures honed over decades that would simply be irresponsible to get rid of. NATO can act fluently in humanitarian emergencies with which European publics are comfortable and thus somewhat reduce the burden on the United States. NATO, like the United Nations on occasion, still provides diplomatic cover of varying degrees for American actions. NATO is American hegemony on the cheap. Imagine how much less of a fiasco the Iraq War would have been were it a full-fledged NATO operation, rather than a largely unilateral one. Without organizations like NATO and the United Nations, American power is more lonely in an anarchic world.

Aside from the mundane security details provided by some NATO countries in Afghanistan, NATO is not going to get much better at fighting hot wars because Western European publics are not willing to pay the budgetary price that hot wars entail. In any case, land engagements are especially problematic for militaries in pacifist-trending societies. NATO might be ideally suited for air and naval rescue missions in Africa and points beyond. But NATO will be kept alive so that it can continue to serve as a vehicle for European political coherence. The “smart defense” initiative is a case in point, whereby individual countries will increasingly coordinate their weapons acquisition policies. For example, the Dutch are disbanding their tank battalions and putting trust in German units and others to defend Dutch territory. With the savings, the Dutch are investing in ballistic missile defense radars for their frigates, a capability that will benefit all alliance members.

Those who casually belittle NATO assume that Europe will face no geopolitical nightmares in its future. But that assumption might be wrong. Just look at these revitalized military configurations: a Nordic Battlegroup to include the Baltic and Scandinavian states as well as Ireland; and the Visegrad Group to include Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These might on some future morrow partially replace NATO; but they might continue to fall under the NATO umbrella. And they are all responses to a militarily powerful Russia lying to the east.

A more dynamic Russia, a more chaotic North Africa and continued unrest and underdevelopment in the Balkans might all pose challenges to Europe. If they do, NATO will provide a handy confidence-building mechanism. The United States needs NATO to help organize European defense, precisely so that Washington can focus on the Middle East and Asia. NATO is not great, but for the time being it is good enough.  (photo: Julia Shea)

From Sally Painter, the HIll:  The North Atlantic Treaty provides that any European state that qualifies for membership and that can contribute to the alliance’s security is eligible for membership. Macedonia is highly qualified on both of these fronts. It has long contributed to NATO’s joint security, participating in the regional peace missions in 1999 as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It completed its Membership Action Plan in 2008 – normally the final step before admission – before it was blocked by a Greek veto.

Only three months ago, however, the International Court of Justice, by an overwhelming margin of 15-1, declared that veto illegal under the terms of a 1995 bilateral UN agreement between the two countries. The Court flatly stated that the naming issue cannot be used as a pretext to deny Macedonia membership – and yet Secretary General Rasmussen has maintained that the decision changes nothing, and that Macedonia’s accession can come only after the resolution of that dispute. Which, practically speaking, puts the accession process on hold for the foreseeable future.

So why the foot dragging? Delay in enlargement could have negative impact on regional stability and raise troubling questions about the institutional health of the alliance. Denying Macedonia sets a dangerous precedent for other regional rivalries that one country can indefinitely filibuster the entrance of another. This could prove to be an incentive for holding the NATO accession process hostage to bilateral grievances. NATO should be a force for binding European nations ever closer together through mutual sacrifice and mutual interests, this position has the opposite effect… .

This must change. NATO has an opportunity at the Chicago Summit to place enlargement back on the agenda and reinvigorate the alliance. Senator Dick Lugar recently introduced the NATO Enhancement Act to encourage further enlargement of NATO and deepen US strategic partnership with NATO allies, specifically pointing out Central and Eastern European aspiring countries. “NATO enlargement has been a key element to enhancing stability and political reform among the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.” Lugar said. “The prospect of membership in NATO has not only improved regional security, it is helping to transform nations into close economic and national security partners of the United States.”

With the ICJ ruling, the legal and political path is clear to complete Macedonia’s accession, and that would in itself place pressure on Greece to accept a compromise solution and put to rest a poisonous ethnic dispute. Such a step would reaffirm NATO’s commitment to strengthening the alliance – which, as the secretary general himself writes, must be “an alliance that is constantly changing to meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow.” The Summit in Chicago is the time and place for the NATO allies to show leadership and readiness for enlargement and an “open door” policy for all qualifying members.  

Painter is Chief Operating Officer at Blue Star Strategies, LLC, a Washington DC-based firm that conducts global government relations strategies for corporations and governments.  (graphic:mk.blogspost.com)

From Aida Cerkez, the AP:  “Safe havens” for civilians in Syria? Think twice, Bosnians would warn.

With the U.N. unable to agree how to protect civilians against Bashar Assad’s forces, Western officials are discussing creation of safe corridors to deliver aid to Syrians trapped by the crackdown.

Similar measures failed badly during the war in Bosnia two decades ago that killed over 100,000 people and left millions homeless. The lesson of Bosnia is that without all sides honoring the agreement — and without a robust military response in case they don’t — such measures may have little effect and could actually prolong the misery.

In 1993, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that declared six cities in Bosnia as “safe havens” for civilians and deployed military observers to monitor the situation.

The U.N. protected zones in places like the capital of Sarajevo or the eastern enclave of Srebrenica in effect became prisons, subject to relentless shelling by Bosnian Serb forces that often denied they were responsible. The U.N. never managed to get enough aid through the corridors and smugglers made fortunes… .

Those safe havens actually lengthened the 1992-95 war.

Instead of stopping the bloodshed, they simply reduced it to a politically acceptable level. It enabled both the attackers and the resistance to continue fighting.

Without a quick political settlement, neither side could achieve victory and both staved off decisive defeat. It was not until Serb forces overran Srebrenica in July 1995 that the West could no longer sit and watch and deployed troops to stop the carnage.

The enclave fell after senior U.N. commanders rejected a request by a few hundred Dutch peacekeepers deployed in Srebrenica for air strikes and its Muslim Bosnian residents swarmed a U.N. military base, still believing the Dutch would protect them.

But outnumbered and outgunned, the U.N. peacekeepers allowed the Serbs to separate women and children from men and execute some 8,000 males in what later became known as the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.

Hans Blom, who oversaw a Dutch government-commisioned investigation into the Srebrenica massacre, said he is “very pessimistic” about what the international community can do in Syria. He voiced skepticism over the U.N.’s concept of “safe zones” or “safe areas,” calling it a very vague notion and difficult to enforce… .

Blom said that for now he doesn’t see a role for international peacekeepers in Syria because there is no peace to keep and any humanitarian workers who were to enter the country would face massive violence. Only a massive military intervention could stop the violence, he argued.

“Only if there is a very determined outside force willing to use military means, it’s maybe possible,” he said. “Interventions are a very complicated thing. And the terrible thing, of course, is that doing nothing is as bad.”

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO:  Our Chicago Summit will be an important event. Because NATO is busier than ever protecting our shared values and our shared security.Today, over 140,000 military personnel are engaged in NATO-led missions on three continents – from Kosovo to the coast of Somalia.

Afghanistan of course remains our main operation — and it may surprise you that almost 40,000 troops there are European. We continue to keep the peace in the Balkans. And last year, we successfully enforced a United Nations Security Council Resolution to protect the people of Libya.

Let me describe briefly how NATO works. In essence, it’s all about transatlantic teamwork.

First and foremost, NATO is a dynamic forum for consultation on our security. Your voice carries a lot of influence — because of the size and political and military power of the United States. But before a decision is made, all Allies must agree. Every NATO decision is taken by consensus – so it has the legitimacy of collective agreement among 28 sovereign, democratic nations.

Second, all NATO Allies are covered by Article 5 of our founding Washington treaty. Art 5 states that an armed attack against one or more Allies shall be considered as an attack against all – all for one, one for all. And the first time Article 5 was invoked was in the hours after the 9/11 attacks. Soon after, NATO aircraft deployed to help patrol and defend American airspace. That was visible proof of transatlantic solidarity in your skies.

And Allied support to the United States has not been limited to countering terrorism. Following Hurricane Katrina, in August 2005, NATO coordinated a major relief operation by European nations and delivered a huge quantity of food and emergency supplies.

Third, NATO backs words with concrete action. Collectively, our military forces are the best in the world. Their training and equipment are second to none. And they have a unique record of getting things done, even in the most difficult circumstances. NATO doesn’t just talk about security – NATO delivers security.

Finally, NATO works more and more with partner countries, as diverse as South Korea, Kazakhstan, Australia and Morocco. And they want to work with us. because they know NATO and they trust NATO. In Afghanistan, 50 nations are part of the ISAF mission – that’s one quarter of the countries of the world, and the biggest coalition in history. In Libya, our partners from the region gave us priceless political and operational support. And we are keen to engage our partners even more closely in sharing the security burden around the world… .

We face many new threats. Terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, the disruption to our energy supplies, and the world’s most dangerous people getting their hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons.

These global threats are too big and complex for any country to tackle on its own – even for your remarkable country. These challenges know no borders. They can only be addressed effectively together with friends, partners and Allies. And that is why today NATO is more important than ever.

Introductory remarks by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the National Defense University.   (photo: NATO)

From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:  Kosovo’s government has rejected a new agreement between NATO peacekeepers and minority Serbs over control of two disputed border crossings with Serbia in northern Kosovo.

In an August 3 statement, NATO said Serbs had agreed to remove roadblocks in the region.

It also said NATO soldiers will continue to control the two disputed border crossings with Serbia until at least mid-September.

Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian-led government, however, which seeks to control trade at the border, has rejected the agreement, calling it in a statement “unacceptable and unfeasible.”  (photo: AFP)