U.S., Europe, Russia: Trial of Strength in Lisbon
On Nov. 20, NATO and Russia held the NATO-Russia Council Summit meeting in Portugal’s capital city, Lisbon. The leaders of each NATO member country, including American President Obama, were in attendance, as well as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. That day, at the NATO-Russia Council Summit meeting, NATO and Russian representatives deliberated on Afghanistan, the European missile defense system and other such issues.
The NATO Summit and the NATO-Russia Council Summit were held from Nov. 19 through 20 in Lisbon. Meanwhile, three separate summit meetings were held between the U.S. and Europe, the U.S. and Russia, and Europe and Russia. The simultaneous convention of such intensive summit meetings is a rare sight in the history of European relations, both accentuating and reflecting the tangled and complicated relationship between the U.S., Europe and Russia and the intense game revolving around the important issue of Europe’s security.
NATO’s eastward expansion and its guided missile defense are two big, controversial issues in European security that the U.S., Europe and Russia are all involved in. The U.S. has used NATO’s expansion east to nibble away at the scope of Russia’s power, and the missile defense system has exerted unceasing pressure on Russia; this caused tension in U.S.-European relations lasting up until the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia. This state of affairs has triggered dissatisfaction with the U.S. among Germany, France and other main powers of the European Union. After taking office, President Obama, from the standpoint of America’s global strategic considerations, set out to “restart” U.S.-Russian relations, postponing NATO’s process of expanding eastward and changing how the issue of the guided missile defense system was handled. The guided missile defense system covering all of Europe, which NATO has acted to create, includes Russia, so as to eliminate the country’s misgivings. According to reports, establishing the system will take over 10 years, called by Western media “the phased adaptive approach,” beginning first with the deployment of sea-based “shield” guided missiles, followed a few years later by the transition to land-based SM-3 guided missiles.
The only real result of this intensive NATO summit was the passage of NATO’s New Strategic Concept. This document basically adopts and absorbs a report drafted by a group of experts headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright. At its core, it reaffirms Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which explains clearly the undertaking of “collective security” concerning member countries, while at the same time admitting that a military attack on NATO’s boundaries, in the traditional sense, is unlikely to happen. The security threats that NATO member countries now face are of a nontraditional sort: terrorism, countries with weapons of mass destruction, the breakdown of the global supply chain, cyber attacks and so on. To sum up, the new strategic concept declares that the role NATO faces has already changed, yet it avoids any clear-cut explanation of NATO’s characteristics going forward, because on this issue, fundamental differences of opinion between the U.S. and its allies, such as Germany, remain.
NATO was originally established on the premise that the U.S. would provide nuclear protection to other member nations. After President Obama introduced the “nuclear-free world” slogan last year, some countries, led by Germany, demanded that the U.S. withdraw some 200 tactical nuclear weapons from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey — a demand which, if realized, would effectively spell the end of NATO’s role as a nuclear military alliance. Ultimately, both sides agreed upon the following: that the U.S. must promise to reduce the number of nuclear weapons within NATO’s borders, that the function of nuclear weapons in NATO must be decreased, and that NATO must commence arms control negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, NATO would remain nuclearized within the New Strategic Concept.
On the question of NATO’s expansion eastward, the U.S. and other allies aver, on the one hand, that NATO should continue to maintain an “open policy” on admitting new member nations. But on the other hand, they explain to Russia that it will still be a long time before Georgia can meet the requirements to join NATO, and that it is also uncertain whether the Ukraine is to join, thereby attempting to pacify Russia's indignation.
On the issue of the missile defense system, in reality, the Obama administration has merely dished up the same old position in a new form. Using America’s established missile defense system as its core, it reintegrates NATO’s present guided missile system, allowing NATO to take the lead in establishing the so-called “European Missile Defense System,” which will cover all of Europe. The Obama administration has invited Russia to participate in an attempt to guard against a Russian backlash.
Nevertheless, in regard to the U.S. government’s new approach to the questions of NATO’s eastward expansion and its establishment of the missile defense system, Russia is clearly on its guard. While expressing both “welcome” and “interest,” Russia is not in a hurry to make any promises, but is instead in the midst of haggling, cautiously weighing the pros and cons, while it continues to deal with the U.S. Thus, on the question of bilateral cooperation, this meeting was highly unlikely to achieve a breakthrough.
According to NATO, the most pressing issue is the discouraging situation in Afghanistan. This year there have been over 600 casualties among allied forces — the most deaths per year since 2001, when U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, European allies are hindered by the domestic pressure of constant disagreement over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. The difference of opinion and disagreement between the U.S. and NATO on the Afghanistan issue is the biggest bilateral dispute in the area of security. If NATO’s allied troops end up failing in Afghanistan, it would be fatal not only to President Obama’s political future, but also to the fate of NATO. The Afghanistan issue occupied a prominent position in both the NATO summit and U.S.-Europe summit, but no headway was made.
The issue of European security concerns the safety of the U.S., Europe and Russia. It also speaks to Europe's leadership role in political affairs. No one is willing to yield easily. Since the strategic objectives of each of the three are at odds, reaching a compromise on the major question concerning the safety of each is not an easy thing to do. The wrestling match among the three over European security will undoubtedly persist.
Ding Yuangong is China's former ambassador to the EU.
The NATO Summit and the NATO-Russia Council Summit were held from Nov. 19 through 20 in Lisbon. Meanwhile, three separate summit meetings were held between the U.S. and Europe, the U.S. and Russia, and Europe and Russia. The simultaneous convention of such intensive summit meetings is a rare sight in the history of European relations, both accentuating and reflecting the tangled and complicated relationship between the U.S., Europe and Russia and the intense game revolving around the important issue of Europe’s security.
NATO’s eastward expansion and its guided missile defense are two big, controversial issues in European security that the U.S., Europe and Russia are all involved in. The U.S. has used NATO’s expansion east to nibble away at the scope of Russia’s power, and the missile defense system has exerted unceasing pressure on Russia; this caused tension in U.S.-European relations lasting up until the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia. This state of affairs has triggered dissatisfaction with the U.S. among Germany, France and other main powers of the European Union. After taking office, President Obama, from the standpoint of America’s global strategic considerations, set out to “restart” U.S.-Russian relations, postponing NATO’s process of expanding eastward and changing how the issue of the guided missile defense system was handled. The guided missile defense system covering all of Europe, which NATO has acted to create, includes Russia, so as to eliminate the country’s misgivings. According to reports, establishing the system will take over 10 years, called by Western media “the phased adaptive approach,” beginning first with the deployment of sea-based “shield” guided missiles, followed a few years later by the transition to land-based SM-3 guided missiles.
The only real result of this intensive NATO summit was the passage of NATO’s New Strategic Concept. This document basically adopts and absorbs a report drafted by a group of experts headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright. At its core, it reaffirms Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which explains clearly the undertaking of “collective security” concerning member countries, while at the same time admitting that a military attack on NATO’s boundaries, in the traditional sense, is unlikely to happen. The security threats that NATO member countries now face are of a nontraditional sort: terrorism, countries with weapons of mass destruction, the breakdown of the global supply chain, cyber attacks and so on. To sum up, the new strategic concept declares that the role NATO faces has already changed, yet it avoids any clear-cut explanation of NATO’s characteristics going forward, because on this issue, fundamental differences of opinion between the U.S. and its allies, such as Germany, remain.
NATO was originally established on the premise that the U.S. would provide nuclear protection to other member nations. After President Obama introduced the “nuclear-free world” slogan last year, some countries, led by Germany, demanded that the U.S. withdraw some 200 tactical nuclear weapons from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey — a demand which, if realized, would effectively spell the end of NATO’s role as a nuclear military alliance. Ultimately, both sides agreed upon the following: that the U.S. must promise to reduce the number of nuclear weapons within NATO’s borders, that the function of nuclear weapons in NATO must be decreased, and that NATO must commence arms control negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, NATO would remain nuclearized within the New Strategic Concept.
On the question of NATO’s expansion eastward, the U.S. and other allies aver, on the one hand, that NATO should continue to maintain an “open policy” on admitting new member nations. But on the other hand, they explain to Russia that it will still be a long time before Georgia can meet the requirements to join NATO, and that it is also uncertain whether the Ukraine is to join, thereby attempting to pacify Russia's indignation.
On the issue of the missile defense system, in reality, the Obama administration has merely dished up the same old position in a new form. Using America’s established missile defense system as its core, it reintegrates NATO’s present guided missile system, allowing NATO to take the lead in establishing the so-called “European Missile Defense System,” which will cover all of Europe. The Obama administration has invited Russia to participate in an attempt to guard against a Russian backlash.
Nevertheless, in regard to the U.S. government’s new approach to the questions of NATO’s eastward expansion and its establishment of the missile defense system, Russia is clearly on its guard. While expressing both “welcome” and “interest,” Russia is not in a hurry to make any promises, but is instead in the midst of haggling, cautiously weighing the pros and cons, while it continues to deal with the U.S. Thus, on the question of bilateral cooperation, this meeting was highly unlikely to achieve a breakthrough.
According to NATO, the most pressing issue is the discouraging situation in Afghanistan. This year there have been over 600 casualties among allied forces — the most deaths per year since 2001, when U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, European allies are hindered by the domestic pressure of constant disagreement over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. The difference of opinion and disagreement between the U.S. and NATO on the Afghanistan issue is the biggest bilateral dispute in the area of security. If NATO’s allied troops end up failing in Afghanistan, it would be fatal not only to President Obama’s political future, but also to the fate of NATO. The Afghanistan issue occupied a prominent position in both the NATO summit and U.S.-Europe summit, but no headway was made.
The issue of European security concerns the safety of the U.S., Europe and Russia. It also speaks to Europe's leadership role in political affairs. No one is willing to yield easily. Since the strategic objectives of each of the three are at odds, reaching a compromise on the major question concerning the safety of each is not an easy thing to do. The wrestling match among the three over European security will undoubtedly persist.
Ding Yuangong is China's former ambassador to the EU.