The 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago: NATO in Need of American Leadership Luke Coffey

BACKGROUNDER No. 2690 | May 16, 2012

Abstract he North Atlantic Treaty The 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago TOrganization (NATO) will meet Talking Points is an opportunity for the U.S. to in Chicago on May 20–21, 2012. provide much-needed leadership for This will be NATO’s first summit ■■ The Chicago Summit will be NATO. The United States should push in the U.S. in more than 13 years NATO’s opportunity to finalize NATO members to keep their current and the first in the U.S. held out- the Afghan Transition Strategy commitments to Afghanistan and side Washington, DC.1 The theme and confirm NATO’S long-term enduring partnership with commit to supporting Afghanistan running through the conference is Afghanistan. after NATO forces withdraw. At expected to be renewing the trans- ■■ the Chicago Summit, the Obama atlantic relationship between North Any withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan must be based Administration also needs to make America and Europe. on improved security conditions the cases for transition, enlargement, The agenda will likely contain on the ground. When these con- and more defense investment and, three major items: ditions are met, the withdrawal ultimately, the case for NATO’s role should be a phaseout, and not a in the 21st century. Without American ■■ Afghanistan. The summit will walkout. leadership, NATO will continue to finalize the plan to transfer ■■ Without any new investment face an uncertain future. all security responsibilities to by America’s European Allies Afghan forces by the end of 2014. NATO’s Smart Defense initia- The summit will also establish tive will not amount to anything enduring political and financial more than a list of unfunded commitment to Afghanistan. aspirations. ■■ President Barack Obama should ■■ Smart Defense. NATO use American leadership to Secretary General Anders Fogh ensure that there is a meeting between NATO and the four Rasmussen’s proposal to better NATO aspirant countries of This paper, in its entirety, can be found at coordinate investment in defense Macedonia, Georgia, Bosnia and http://report.heritage.org/bg2690 capability in an era of reduced Herzegovina, and Montenegro at Produced by the Margaret Thatcher defense spending. the heads-of-government level. Center for Freedom ■■ NATO needs to review the way The Heritage Foundation ■■ NATO’s partnerships. In light 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE it works with its global partners, Washington, DC 20002 of the interdependent and glo- especially regional partners in the (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org balized nature of the world, the Middle East and North Africa. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily summit will examine how NATO reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill can better work with non-NATO before Congress. partners. BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

The summit will also address the membership of its Istanbul ISAF-led combat operations in other issues, such as solidifying Cooperation Initiative and invite Afghanistan would cease by the agreements made at the Lisbon Libya to become a member of the end of 2014 with full transfer of Summit on NATO transformation, Mediterranean Dialogue. Finally, security responsibilities to the the future of NATO ballistic missile although the summit will regret- Afghan National Security Forces defense (BMD), NATO’s open door to tably not consider enlargement, (ANSF). enlargement, and the future of U.S. NATO leaders need to include clear tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. language in the summit’s declara- ■■ The publication of the Equally significant, the agenda tion reaffirming the eventual NATO Strategic Concept. NATO pub- does not include enlargement, even membership of the four aspirant lished its third strategic concept though Macedonia is more than countries: Georgia, Macedonia, since the end of the Cold War. The ready to formally join the alliance; Montenegro, and Bosnia and document charts a path for NATO Russia, which has chosen not to Herzegovina. over the next decade by exam- attend; or any meaningful discussion ining the capabilities that the of Syria. The Road from Lisbon alliance will need to prepare for This summit will pose unique In November 2010, NATO lead- future threats. challenges for some NATO leaders met in Lisbon, Portugal, for ers. With the U.S. presidential NATO’s 24th summit. The summit ■■ NATO transformation. election later this year, the Obama focused on publishing NATO’s new Transformation, probably the Administration will want a care- Strategic Concept, which defined the summit’s biggest accomplish- fully choreographed and “good news” alliance’s strategic priorities for the ment, went largely unnoticed. summit. The British Prime Minister, next decade. However, the summit After decades of bloated and David Cameron, will attend the sum- is most remembered for the formal costly NATO command struc- mit at a time when his poll numbers beginning of the Afghan transition tures, NATO agreed to a new are the lowest since the election in strategy and NATO’s agreement to command structure that sig- May 2010. Finally, newly elected conclude combat operations by the nificantly reduced the number French President François Hollande, end of 2014. of headquarters and manpow- who has promised to bring home all The Lisbon Summit produced sev- er, producing a savings of 35 3,300 French troops in Afghanistan eral notable outcomes: percent. NATO members also by the end of the year, will attend the agreed to reform and consoli- NATO summit only a fortnight after ■■ The transition plan for date NATO’s 14 agencies down his election. Afghanistan. In addition to to three: Communications and NATO leaders need to use the the usual summit declara- Information Agency, Support summit to put the alliance on a path tion, the summit agreed to two Agency, and Procurement toward true reform. NATO needs Afghanistan-related declarations: Agency.2 to finalize the transition plan for the Declaration by NATO and the Afghanistan and ensure that it is Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ■■ NATO–Russia relations. The based on conditions on the ground. on an Enduring Partnership NATO–Russia Council meet- The Obama Administration needs and the Declaration by the ing at Lisbon focused on mutual to state clearly that the low levels Heads of State and Government security concerns including of defense spending in Europe are of the Nations contributing Afghanistan, regional terrorism, unacceptable. To learn the lessons to the International Security and counternarcotics. Although from the recent Libya operation, Assistance Force (ISAF). The vague, language in the summit the alliance should also broaden summit formally agreed that declaration invited Russia to

1. News release, “We Know Chicagoans Will Warmly Welcome Our NATO Allies,” Office of Senator Mark Kirk (R–IL), March 30, 2012, http://www.kirk.senate. gov/?p=press_release&id=467 (accessed April 19, 2012). 2. News release, “NATO Achieves Important Milestone in Reform of Its Agencies,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, January 23, 2012, http://www.nato.int/ cps/en/natolive/news_83637.htm (accessed April 18, 2012).

2 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

cooperate with NATO on mis- tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, largely improved in southwestern sile defense. The declaration also and Syria. Afghanistan,5 the main effort will included strong language calling Afghanistan. The current situ- shift to eastern Afghanistan, pri- on Russia “to reverse its recog- ation in Afghanistan remains stable marily Paktika, Paktiya, and Khost nition of the South Ossetia and but fragile. The surge of U.S. and provinces (the P2K region). This Abkhazia regions of Georgia as coalition troops and the robust area borders Pakistan’s Federally independent states.”3 population-centric counterinsur- Administered Tribal Areas, contains gency strategy in 2010 have achieved many of the traditional avenues of In addition, NATO agreed at the notable security gains on the ground. approach from the Pakistani bor- Lisbon Summit to: Levels of violence are also lower der regions to Kabul, and is the across the country, and the recent home base of the Haqqani Network. ■■ Develop a missile defense attacks in Kabul should not be Securing Highway One between capability to protect all NATO viewed in isolation. Although Kabul Kabul and Kandahar will also be an European populations, terri- accounts for almost 15 percent of ISAF priority. tory, and forces. Afghanistan’s population, the city At the 2010 Lisbon Summit, accounts for less than 1 percent of the NATO agreed on a plan to trans- ■■ Continue to review NATO’s country’s violence. Nationally, the fer security responsibility to overall defense and deterrence level of enemy-initiated attacks dur- the Afghans. The first tranche of posture. This further delayed ing the past three months is 21 per- provinces, districts, and munici- the decision on U.S. tactical cent lower than the same period in palities, which has 25 percent of nuclear weapons in Europe. 2011. Each month since May 2011 had Afghanistan’s population, was hand- fewer enemy-initiated attacks than ed over to the Afghans in July 2011. ■■ Maintain its open door policy the corresponding month one year The second tranche was announced for democratic European earlier. This is the longest sustained in November 2011. Currently, the countries wishing to join downward trend in enemy-initiated Afghans take the lead on security for NATO. Although NATO did not attacks recorded by ISAF.4 more than 50 percent of the coun- grant Georgia a Membership try’s population.6 The next round Action Plan (MAP), the alliance EACH MONTH SINCE MAY 2011 HAD will take place before this summer, reaffirmed its commitment to FEWER ENEMY-INITIATED ATTACKS and the Chicago Summit is expected eventual Georgian member- to decide the final stages. The goal ship as agreed at the 2008 NATO THAN THE CORRESPONDING MONTH is to transfer responsibility for all Summit in Bucharest. ONE YEAR EARLIER. of Afghanistan to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. What to Expect from Since late 2009, the military For the Chicago Summit to be the Chicago Summit campaign has focused its main considered a success, NATO must At the summit, NATO will address effort on southern and southwest- realize two outcomes regarding several issues, including Afghanistan, ern Afghanistan, mainly Zabul, Afghanistan. Smart Defense, and NATO part- Kandahar, and Helmand provinc- First, countries should not use the nerships. The conference may also es, which are considered to be the transfer from ISAF to Afghan securi- discuss missile defense, enlarge- center of the Taliban-based insur- ty as an excuse to leave Afghanistan ment, NATO–Russian relations, U.S. gency. With the security situation prematurely. Any withdrawal of

3. News release, “Lisbon Summit Declaration,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 20, 2010, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_ texts_68828.htm (accessed April 21, 2012), and news release, “Media Availability with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,” U.S. Department of Defense, February 1, 2012, http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4967 (accessed April 23, 2012). 4. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, International Security and Assistance Force, “ISAF Monthly Data: Trends Through March 2012, April 22, 2012,” April 22, 2012, http://www.isaf.nato.int/images/20120422_niu_data_release_final.pdf (accessed April 24, 2012). 5. In Regional Command Southwest, enemy-initiated attacks in the past 12 months are 35 percent lower than during the previous 12 months. 6. News release, “Statement by NATO Secretary General on Afghan Transition Announcement,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 27, 2011, http:// www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-656CC458-77FAA000/natolive/news_81068.htm (accessed April 20, 2012).

3 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

ISAF forces from Afghanistan should Security Council meets later this troops home before the next general be based on improved conditions on year. In fact, it would come as no election.11 the ground and on military advice. surprise if Prime Minister Cameron Georgia is the only country com- When these security conditions are announced further troop reductions mitting more troops to Afghanistan met, NATO’s withdrawal should be a at Chicago. Such an announcement in 2012. It will double its contri- phaseout, not a walkout. would be popular back in the U.K. bution later this year in Helmand The Lisbon Declaration stated at a time when the government is province, making it the largest con- that the “transition will be condi- polling low. It is well known across tributor per capita in the ISAF—an tions-based, not calendar-driven, Whitehall that some cabinet mem- example for all of NATO. and will not equate to withdrawal of bers would leave Afghanistan tomor- 7 ISAF-troops.” Since then, the use row if given the opportunity. GEORGIA IS THE ONLY COUNTRY of “conditions-based” language has Some European partners have COMMITTING MORE TROOPS TO all but disappeared. NATO lead- announced troop reductions for 2012. ers need to ensure that the Chicago The issue of Afghanistan featured AFGHANISTAN IN 2012. Declaration uses similar language. prominently in the recent French However, words are not enough. presidential campaign. Former Second, NATO needs to make a NATO actually needs to implement a President Nicolas Sarkozy promised clear commitment to the NATO– conditions-based strategy. to speed up France’s withdrawal Afghan relationship past 2015. Many European NATO allies are timetable, pulling out 1,000 troops Afghanistan will need financial sup- under considerable public and politi- instead of the originally planned 600 port from the international commu- cal pressure to leave Afghanistan. by the end of 2012 with the rest of nity for the foreseeable future. U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon French troops leaving the country by A major part of the post-2015 Panetta exacerbated the situation the end of 2013.10 His socialist presi- commitment to Afghanistan will be earlier this year by stating that the dential contender and ultimate victor, mentoring, training, and funding the transition process could be complet- François Hollande, campaigned on ANSF. The Afghan National Army ed by 20138—one year earlier than bringing all French troops home in has 194,466 troops, and the Afghan the end of 2014 deadline set at the 2012. National Police more than 149,642 Lisbon Summit.9 Comments suggest- Most recently, Australia has policemen.12 Afghanistan will also ing that the U.S. might end combat announced that all of its troops will be integrating the members of the operations earlier than agreed at the be leaving Afghanistan by the end Afghan Local Police,13 which current- Lisbon Summit could potentially of 2013, instead of the end of 2014 ly number around 12,000 personnel persuade many European allies to as previously planned. There are with a goal reaching 30,000.14 leave Afghanistan sooner than origi- concerns in Australia that politics Under current plans ANSF num- nally planned. motivated Prime Minister Julia bers are expected to fall to 240,000 The U.K. will soon decide its rate Gillard’s announcement because the sometime after 2014. Maintaining of withdrawal when its National new time line would bring Australian this reduced ANSF will still cost the

7. News release, “Lisbon Summit Declaration.” 8. News release, “Media Availability with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.” 9. News release, “Lisbon Summit Declaration.” 10. Associated Press, “France to Leave Afghanistan in 2013, Sarkozy Says,” France 24, January 28, 2012, http://www.france24.com/en/20120127-karzai-sarkozy- visit-paris-military-withdrawal-afghanistan-nato (accessed April 22, 2012). 11. BBC News, “Australian PM Sets Out Afghan Exit Plan,” April 17, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17737592 (accessed April 22, 2012). 12. U.S. Department of Defense, Report on Progress Towards Security and Stability in Afghanistan: United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces, April 2012, p. 4, http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Report_Final_SecDef_04_27_12.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012). 13. Established in July 2010, the Afghan Local Police allows local Afghan villages to have a stake in their own security where there is limited or no formal ANSF presence. The ALP is closely monitored and falls under the responsibility of the Afghan Ministry of Interior. 14. C. J. Radin, “Afghan Local Counterinsurgency Programs Prove Successful,” The Long War Journal, April 4, 2012, http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/ archives/2012/04/report_local_counterinsurgency.php (accessed April 22, 2012).

4 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

international community approxi- Smart Defense. After capabilities.17 While NATO has mately $4 billion per year—what the Afghanistan, the Smart Defense ini- been good at identifying the trend U.S. currently spends every 12 days tiative will feature prominently on of future threats, its members have in Afghanistan.15 While NATO may the summit’s agenda. According to been less reliable in funding the not finalize an agreement in Chicago, NATO’s website, Smart Defense aims needed capabilities. it needs to lay the groundwork for to encourage allies to cooperate in As Libya and other NATO cam- the next international summit on developing, acquiring, and maintain- paigns have demonstrated time Afghanistan in Tokyo this summer. ing military capabilities in a more and again, Europe relies too much However, NATO is debating inter- economically efficient manner in the on the U.S. to pick up the slack in nally how big the ANSF should be. new age of economic austerity and key enablers required for alliance Of course, this will affect its future defense cuts. In sum, the goal is to operations, such as air-to-air refuel- funding requirements. NATO lead- do more with less by changing NATO ing, intelligence, surveillance, target ers should resist the temptation to members’ mindset on how to do acquisition, and reconnaissance. reduce the ANSF’s size and capa- business and being “smarter” when This is mainly the result of reduced bility for simply financial reasons investing in defense capabilities. defense investments by NATO mem- because it would reduce the secu- Smart Defense is the brainchild of bers since the end of the Cold War rity of the Afghans. Afghan Defense the current NATO Secretary General, and the lack of political will to use Minister General Abdul Rahim and he has invested a lot of person- military capability when and where Wardak recently pointed out: nel and political capital in developing it is needed. it. While the aims of Smart Defense Nobody at this moment, based are noble and ambitious, it will likely EUROPE RELIES TOO MUCH ON on any type of analysis, can amount to very little in terms of sub- THE U.S. TO PICK UP THE SLACK predict what will be the secu- stance and real capability. For this IN KEY ENABLERS REQUIRED rity situation in 2014. That’s reason NATO leaders should avoid unpredictable. Going lower [in placing all of their hopes on Smart FOR ALLIANCE OPERATIONS, Afghan troop numbers] has to be Defense as the panacea for NATO’s SUCH AS AIR-TO-AIR REFUELING, based on realities on the ground. capability shortfalls. INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, Otherwise it will be a disaster, Although Smart Defense was not TARGET ACQUISITION, AND it will be a catastrophe, putting a Lisbon Summit issue, the leaders of at risk all that we have accom- NATO endorsed the Lisbon package RECONNAISSANCE. plished together with so much of reforms, which planted the seed of sacrifice in blood and treasure.16 Smart Defense. Many leaders in Europe say that The goal of the Lisbon pack- the first duty of government is the The ANSF are just developing the age was to provide a renewed focus defense of the realm, but few lead- capability to carry out autonomous inside the alliance to ensure that ers actually implement this view in operations. The ANSF are far from critical capabilities required by practice. Spending is about setting being perfect, but that was never the members were available on time national priorities, and Europeans goal. The goal is to raise the forces and on budget. In turn, this would have become complacent about their to a level where they can handle the allow NATO to meet the demands own defense and overly dependent on insurgency themselves, without tens of its ongoing operations, prepare the U.S. security umbrella. of thousands of Western troops on for evolving and emerging security Since 2008, the 16 European the ground. challenges, and acquire key enabling members of NATO have reduced

15. This figure is based on an American monthly expenditure of $10 billion. 16. Yaroslav Trofimov, “Afghan General Sounds Alarm,”The Wall Street Journal, February 18, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702040598045 77229081438477796.html (accessed April 20, 2012). 17. News release, “Lisbon Summit Declaration.”

5 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

their military spending. Reductions create a permanent EU headquarters blocks NATO–EU cooperation for in many NATO countries have would have cost hundreds of mil- self-serving reasons. Therefore, EU exceeded 10 percent.18 In 2011, just lions of euros at a time when NATO is defense initiatives are not only a three of the 28 NATO members—the streamlining and reducing the num- waste of resources, but also politi- United States, Britain, and Greece— ber of its headquarters. Thankfully, cally pointless. spent the required 2 percent of gross the British vetoed this proposal. At the Chicago Summit, NATO domestic product (GDP) on defense. Every euro or pound spent on EU will likely agree on a number of As expected, France fell below the defense is one not invested in NATO Smart Defense measures dealing 2 percent mark in 2011.19 However, capabilities. For this reason the U.S. with force protection, communica- Estonia claims it might reach the 2 should clearly and unequivocally tions, surveillance and intelligence percent requirement this year.20 To signal that it opposes EU defense gathering, and missile defense. put this into perspective, New York investment and integration. However, some of NATO’s Smart City spends more on policing ($4.46 Defense measures have proven to be 21 billion in fiscal year 2011) than 13 EVERY EURO OR POUND SPENT ON neither new nor smart, such as Allied NATO members spend on defense. EU DEFENSE IS ONE NOT INVESTED Ground Surveillance (AGS) and The U.K. is currently meeting Baltic Air Policing. AGS is a NATO the 2 percent benchmark because of IN NATO CAPABILITIES. initiative designed to increase the expenditures on combat operations alliance’s intelligence gathering and in Afghanistan. However, the current Proponents of EU defense integra- surveillance capabilities. However, government has committed to the tion argue that EU capabilities can NATO took 20 years to develop 2 percent benchmark only through be made available to NATO. However, and agree on AGS—hardly a model the end of the current Parliament capabilities developed through the for Smart Defense. The addition of in 2015.22 It is difficult to tell if EU are not guaranteed to be readily Baltic Air Policing in 2004 was the America’s number one ally will even available to NATO. Six veto-wielding natural extension of the comprehen- meet the NATO threshold by 2015. EU members are not members of sive system of air surveillance that Furthermore, NATO uses a very NATO. Some, such as Cyprus, are has been in place since the 1970s— generous definition to calculate the politically hostile toward NATO. not a particularly new way of doing 2 percent benchmark. It includes the The European Union can never business. core defense budget, extra expendi- be a serious defense actor because The Chicago Summit is expected tures on operations, and expendi- it has six neutral member states: to formally approve the Secretary tures on military pensions. Even so, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Cyprus, General’s Connected Forces only a handful meet this benchmark Malta, and Austria. The EU also Initiative as a key part of Smart of 2 percent. excludes Norway and Turkey, two Defense. According to the Secretary Spending on European Union important NATO defense partners, General, the Connected Forces (EU) defense initiatives also exacer- from its defense and security deci- Initiative will complement Smart bates the dire financial situation by sion-making process. Furthermore, Defense by “mobilizing all of NATO’s diverting scarce resources away from NATO and the EU cannot formally resources so we strengthen our NATO. For example, the proposal to cooperate because Cyprus regularly ability to work together in a truly

18. News release, “Military Balance 2012,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, March 7, 2012, http://www.iiss.org/publications/military-balance/the- military-balance-2012/press-statement/ (accessed April 22, 2012). 19. News release, “Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 13, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/ natolive/news_85966.htm (accessed April 22, 2012). 20. Claudio Bisogniero, “Speech on NATO’s Smart Defence Initiative,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, December 15, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID- 59141228-30D24899/natolive/opinions_83096.htm (accessed April 22, 2012). 21. City of New York, New York City Council, “Hearing on the Mayor’s Fiscal Year 2012 Preliminary Budget & the Fiscal Year 2011 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report,” p. 2, http://council.nyc.gov/html/budget/PDFs/2012/nypd_056.pdf (accessed May 14, 2012). 22. U.K. Ministry of Defense, “Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review,” October 2010, p. 3, http://www.direct.gov. uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf (accessed April 17, 2012).

6 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

connected way.”23 The Connected defend its airspace against possible Defense may read well in a summit Forces Initiative has three parts: Iraqi intrusion. Initially, Germany, declaration, but until real money is Belgium, and France vetoed this invested and delivers real capabili- 1. Training and education. This request on the grounds that any ties to the modern-day battlefield, it part focuses on getting more move by NATO to protect Turkey’s will be meaningless to the men and value for the alliance from nation- airspace would implicitly support women on the front lines. To work, al education facilities. the pending U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Smart Defense requires real mili- Eventually, they reached an agree- tary capability and real money. No 2. Increased exercises. NATO ment to deploy NATO assets, but clever nomenclature can evade this training has been reduced over only after using a parliamentary problem. the years due to the high opera- procedure that allowed NATO to tional tempo of NATO forces, authorize the deployment through THE SMART DEFENSE INITIATIVE which have been deployed in its Defense Planning Committee, RISKS ALLOWING EUROPEAN Afghanistan and other locations. which did not include France at the As these operational commit- time. With French opposition side- COUNTRIES TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ments decrease, the number of lined, Germany and Belgium eventu- CAN DO MORE WITH LESS, WHEN training events should increase. ally supported the move. If not for IN ACTUALITY THEY WILL BE DOING this maneuver, Turkey would have LESS WITH LESS. 3. Better use of technology. The been denied the use of a capability initiative will use technology to in which it had invested and thought improve interoperability among necessary for its national security. NATO Partnerships. The 2010 NATO partners.24 A similar situation involving Strategic Concept states that coop- AWACs occurred during the recent erative security is one of NATO’s For Smart Defense to work, NATO Libya operation. Germany would not three essential core tasks.25 As NATO members must be willing to give allow its crews to operate the NATO becomes a security actor in more up certain capabilities so that the AWACs over Libya, so German crews places around the world, the alliance alliance can collectively fund and backfilled other NATO crews serv- will need to continuously adjust how maintain them. However, this cre- ing in Afghanistan so they could be it manages its external relationships. ates the risk that a shared capability diverted to NATO operations over Every current NATO-led mis- will not be available or authorized Libya. sion includes non-NATO partners. for use when another member state The Smart Defense initiative The Afghanistan mission includes needs it. For example, the alliance risks allowing European countries 22 non-NATO partners.26 NATO’s has shared Airborne Warning and to believe that they can do more Kosovo Force (KFOR) has seven non- Control System (AWAC) planes with less, when in actuality they will NATO partners, including more than since 1982. This has allowed mem- be doing less with less. Countless 100 Moroccans.27 Operation Ocean ber states to pool a niche capabil- conferences, meetings, and semi- Shield, NATO’s counterpiracy mis- ity, allowing them to invest more in nars have discussed Europe Smart sion, regularly cooperates with non- other capabilities. However, during Defense, but have produced very NATO countries, including Russia the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, little beyond a list of aspirations. and India. Most recently, the NATO- Turkey requested NATO AWACs to The language describing Smart led operation in Libya included four

23. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Remarks,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, February 4, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-AD1FADE5-491706F7/natolive/ opinions_84197.htm (accessed April 19, 2012). 24. Ibid. 25. Collective Defense and Crisis Management are the other two. 26. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Troop Numbers and Contributions,” April 2012, http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers-and-contributions/index.php (accessed April 23, 2012). 27. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Kosovo Force (KFOR): Key Facts and Figures,” March 30, 2012, http://www.nato.int/kfor/structur/nations/placemap/ kfor_placemat.pdf (accessed April 22, 2012).

7 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

non-NATO partners. Therefore, it is Euro-Atlantic area, such as Dialogue—an idea that the U.S. important that NATO is able to plan, Australia, Japan, and South Ambassador to NATO floated in coordinate, and fight alongside non- Korea. November 2011.28 This would illus- NATO partners. trate NATO’s commitment to the NATO manages its relationships Any nation participating in any new Libyan government by formaliz- with regional and global partners of these groupings can also agree ing an already existing relationship. through a myriad of networks with to establish an Individual and Building on lessons learned from non-NATO countries. These include: Partnership Cooperation Program Libya, the summit could produce (IPCP, formerly the Individual more concrete proposals to enhance ■■ The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Cooperation Program). The IPCP the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Council and the Partnership allows increased political and secu- The Libyan operation was the first for Peace form the basis of rity cooperation on a bilateral basis time that the air forces of the UAE NATO relations with Euro- to meet the specific needs of the par- and Qatar were fully integrated into Atlantic partners that are not ticipating country. a NATO command. NATO could use formally part of the alliance. The Lisbon Summit Declaration this experience to increase coop- agreed to further develop political eration and to reach out to other ■■ The Mediterranean Dialogue, dialogue and practical cooperation countries in the Middle East that launched in 1994, forms the with NATO partner nations. The are not participating in the Istanbul basis of NATO relations with declaration strongly reiterated the Cooperation Initiative. With its its Mediterranean partners. importance of these relationships, focus on the Gulf, the Istanbul Participants include Algeria, but beyond the usual flowery lan- Cooperation Initiative could become Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, guage it offered few concrete propos- increasingly important as Iran con- Morocco, and Tunisia. Although als to develop these relationships. tinues to develop its nuclear weapons these relations are normally done Although NATO partnerships program. on a bilateral basis (NATO+1), have been touted as one of the big In the Mediterranean Dialogue, on occasion this forum meets three agenda items, it is unclear only Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, as NATO+7, placing Israel at the how NATO leaders plan to enhance Mauritania, and Tunisia have IPCPs same table as some of its regional them at Chicago. However, in light of with NATO. None of the partici- neighbors, where it otherwise the popular uprisings across North pants in the Istanbul Cooperation would not be. Africa and the Middle East in 2011, Initiative have an IPCP with NATO. the nuclear threat from Iran, and At the Chicago Summit, NATO could ■■ Istanbul Cooperation the recent operation in Libya, many offer to invite credible partners in Initiative, launched in 2004, in NATO have rightly decided to the Gulf, such as Qatar and the UAE, forms the basis of NATO relations place a renewed focus on how NATO an opportunity to agree to IPCPs with the Gulf States. Although works with regional partners on its with NATO. all six countries of the Gulf periphery. NATO Enlargement. Missing Cooperation Council were invited To date, both the Mediterranean from the summit’s agenda is NATO to join, only Bahrain, Kuwait, Dialogue and the Istanbul enlargement. Since taking office, Qatar, and the United Arab Cooperation Initiative have received President Barack Obama has done Emirates (UAE) have become mere lip service. Beyond the occa- little to support the membership of participants so far. sional meeting or limited joint qualified candidates. training exercises, little has been NATO’s “open door policy” is ■■ Contact countries or global done between NATO and these critical to mobilizing Europe and its partners concept allows NATO organizations. The Chicago Summit allies around a collective transatlan- to cooperate with countries could produce a formal invitation tic defense. Under Article 10 of the well outside the traditional for Libya to join the Mediterranean North Atlantic Treaty, any European

28. Ivo Daalder, “The Success of NATO Operations in Libya and the Vital Contributions of Partners Outside of NATO,” speech at Washington Foreign Press Center, Washington, DC, November 7, 2011, http://nato.usmission.gov/fpcroundtable2011.html (accessed April 23, 2012).

8 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

state that fulfills the requirements NATO membership. Having received contributor to Iraq after the United of the treaty and demonstrates the a MAP in 2009, Montenegro is in its States. competency to contribute to the alli- second Annual National Program For some European countries the ance’s security is eligible for mem- (ANP) cycle. Despite its progress, biggest hurdle for Georgian membership. The U.S. should work to Montenegro will not be ready to join bership is the continued Russian continue the open door policy. the alliance by the summit. occupation of South Ossetia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia Bosnia and Herzegovina. Offered Abkhazia, which comprise 20 per- Macedonia, and Montenegro its MAP in 2010, Bosnia and cent of Georgia’s internationally rec- are NATO aspirant countries. Herzegovina must make substan- ognized territory. Georgian officials Regrettably, the NATO+4 meeting at tial improvements politically and say that they are happy to accept a the summit will be held at the foreign militarily to become a serious NATO NATO membership arrangement or minister level. In order to achieve the aspirant. Bosnia and Herzegovina compromise that excludes the two desired political effect, and send the has made some progress and even occupied territories from NATO’s right messages, this meeting should deployed troops to Afghanistan. Article 5 security guarantee until the be held at the heads-of-government However, before beginning work on matter is resolved peacefully with level. the MAP, the government must reg- the Russians. NATO should continue ister all immovable defense proper- to support and assist with Georgia’s BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, ties as state property for use by the reform process and offer a MAP. GEORGIA, MACEDONIA, AND country’s defense ministry, and it However, the U.S. should also point has made little progress on this. out that MAP is not the only pathway MONTENEGRO ARE NATO ASPIRANT Georgia. At the Bucharest Summit to NATO membership. COUNTRIES. in 2008, Georgia was promised Missile Defense. According NATO membership. However, owing to NATO’s strategic concept, “The Macedonia. Upon completing its to opposition from France and greatest responsibility of the Membership Action Plan (MAP) Germany, the alliance substituted Alliance is to protect and defend in 2008, Macedonia anticipated MAP for the the NATO–Georgia our territory and our populations an invitation to join the alliance Commission. Regrettably, the NATO– against attack, as set out in Article 5 at the NATO summit in Bucharest. Georgia Commission is not expected of the Washington Treaty.”29 While Yet despite fulfilling all neces- to meet during the Chicago Summit. NATO continues to improve its sary requirements for membership, Georgia has made significant ballistic missile defense capability Macedonia’s accession was vetoed by strides toward defense reform and has achieved some significant Greece, which has a long-standing and spends approximately 4 per- milestones, the United States and dispute with Macedonia over its cent of GDP on defense, when the its allies need to ensure that their constitutional name. In December NATO average is less than half of missile defense programs keep pace 2011, the International Court of that. While many NATO members with the threat. NATO has expanded Justice found that Greece’s veto have announced troop reductions its Active Layered Theater Ballistic was a blatant violation of the 1995 in Afghanistan for 2012, Georgia is Missile Defense (ALTBMD) program, U.N.-brokered Interim Accord, in the only country committing more a command and control backbone of which Athens agreed not to impair troops to the mission this year. the alliance’s theatre missile defense Macedonia’s integration into Europe. Georgia has become a serious secu- system and future layered missile Greece has jeopardized NATO’s open rity actor in recent years. In addition defense system. door policy, and NATO members to Afghanistan, Georgia has con- At the Chicago Summit, the should pressure Greece to work with tributed to peacekeeping missions United States and its allies plan to Macedonia on reconciliation. in the Balkans and, at the time of declare that NATO has achieved Montenegro. Montenegro is the Russian invasion of Georgia in an interim capability in ballistic steadily progressing along its path to 2008, was the second-largest troop missile defense. The first steps in

29. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Active Engagement, Modern Defence: Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,” November 19, 2010, http://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf (accessed April 30, 2012).

9 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

implementing the Phased Adaptive busy domestic political calendar piracy, preventing the prolifera- Approach, President Obama’s missile in Russia, just a few weeks after tion of weapons of mass destruction, defense plan for Europe, will be part his inauguration as a new presi- combating Islamic extremism, and of this capability. In the past year, dent of Russia, it’s not possible cooperation in the Arctic. However, Turkey agreed to host the X-band and not practical also to have a NATO should not ignore other areas, radar on its territory, and the radar NATO-Russia Summit meeting such as missile defense and Russian is already operational. Romania and in Chicago.30 actions in its periphery, especially Poland agreed to host land-based Russia’s occupation of South Ossetia interceptor sites in the future, and More likely, Putin knew he could and Abkhazia. In October 2011, Spain will host U.S. BMD-capable not secure the deal on NATO mis- Putin proclaimed the creation of ships. France, Germany, Greece, sile defense that he wanted, so he the Eurasian Union as a long-term Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain decided to save face by not attend- geopolitical goal, viewing the former have their own short-range missile ing. Regardless of who made the final Soviet space as the “zone of privi- defense systems. The Netherlands, decision, Russia’s absence demon- leged interests,” another term for the Germany, and France are also strates the chasm between Moscow quasi-imperial sphere of influence. exploring options to contribute sen- and the alliance, despite cooperation Nothing indicates that Russia is sor capabilities and early warning. on Afghanistan. on a path toward reform. Despite The NATO–Russia Council met at economic growth based on exports of AT THE CHICAGO SUMMIT, THE the foreign minister level at the April hydrocarbons and other raw mate- UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES 2012 NATO Ministerial in Brussels. rials, its demographic decline and During this meeting, the council aging population are putting pres- PLAN TO DECLARE THAT NATO HAS discussed Afghanistan, specifically sures on the state, which has become ACHIEVED AN INTERIM CAPABILITY Russian training of Afghan counter- what some describe as a “thugocracy” IN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE. narcotics personnel and Afghan heli- or “plutocracy.” The country is also copter technicians.31 At the Brussels run by a symbiosis of secret services NATO–Russia Relations. This meeting, the Secretary General and organized crime. Democratic year marks the 15th anniversary invited Russia to send a representa- freedoms are threatened, corrup- of the NATO–Russia Founding Act tive to the Afghanistan meeting at tion is endemic and rampant, and the and the 10th anniversary of the the Chicago Summit. future is bleak. NATO–Russia Council. Even so, When dealing with interna- Even with Russia’s internal dif- NATO–Russian relations remain tional actors, Russia follows its own ficulties, Vladimir Putin clearly frosty because the current Russian geopolitical calculus and seeks to indicated during his presidential leadership and its military doctrine defend its national priorities, which campaign that he will invest heavily view NATO enlargement as a threat are largely defined in 19th-century in Russia’s military. In an article in to Russian security. terms, such as spheres of influence, Rossiiskaya Gazeta, Putin stated: Russian President Vladimir Putin economic interests, and hard secu- will not be attending the summit, rity. Russia respects two attributes: Under these circumstances, and Secretary General Rasmussen’s strength and consistency. NATO Russia cannot rely on diplomatic explanation for his absence at the needs to demonstrate both. NATO’s and economic methods alone summit bears little relation to relationship with Russia should to resolve conflicts. Our coun- reality: be built on a foundation of shared try faces the task of sufficiently and common interests, but based developing its military potential What I told you is that I have on realism and pragmatism. Russia as part of a deterrence strategy. talked with President-elect Putin, and NATO have plenty of scope for This is an indispensable condi- and we agreed that due to a very cooperation, including countering tion for Russia to feel secure and

30. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Statement,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 19, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_86234.htm (accessed April 23, 2012). 31. News release, “NATO–Russia Ministers Discuss Closer Cooperation,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 19, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID- A18CBF07-E04EEDDD/natolive/news_86221.htm (accessed April 23, 2012).

10 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

for our partners to listen to our realizes that the East, not the West, overall defense and deterrence pos- country’s arguments. poses the greatest threat to Russian ture” and decided to further delay a national security, NATO–Russian final decision regarding the future We have adopted and are imple- relations will improve. of these weapons. The Chicago menting unprecedented pro- U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons Declaration will likely use similar grams to develop our armed in Europe. The threats associated language because there is far too forces and modernize Russia’s with nuclear proliferation make the much disagreement inside the alli- defense industry. We will allo- world more dangerous today than ance to settle the issue at the summit. cate around 23 trillion rubles it was during the Cold War, making [$775 billion] for these purposes it important that NATO maintains AS SOON AS RUSSIA REALIZES THAT 32 over the next decade. its “nuclear culture.” In addition to THE EAST, NOT THE WEST, POSES the nuclear capabilities of France Putin has linked the strengthen- and the United Kingdom, the U.S. THE GREATEST THREAT TO RUSSIAN ing of the Russian economy with maintains tactical nuclear weapons NATIONAL SECURITY, NATO–RUSSIAN modernization of its armed forces in Europe. The U.S. is believed to RELATIONS WILL IMPROVE. as many czars and Soviet General have maintained around 2,500 such Secretaries did before him. Putin weapons in Europe through the end The U.S. should ensure that tacti- suggested that financial investment of the Cold War. Unofficial estimates cal nuclear weapons remain part of in modernizing the Russian Armed put the current figure between 150 the alliance’s nuclear strategy. This Forces must “serve as fuel to feed and 200, which are based in Italy, is an important and often over- the engines of modernization in our Turkey, Germany, Belgium, and the looked part of alliance burden shar- economy, creating real growth and a Netherlands.34 All of these are free- ing. NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept situation where government expen- fall gravity bombs designed for use stated that the strategic nuclear diture funds new jobs, supports mar- with U.S. and allied dual-capable forces of the alliance provide the ket demand, and facilitates scientific aircraft. supreme guarantee of the security of research.”33 Encouraged by the Obama the Allies. As long as the West could Although Russia should not be a Administration’s policy of unilateral face a nuclear threat from any part of driving force for NATO, the second- nuclear disarmament, some in NATO the world, NATO needs to remain a order effects of Russian-induced have suggested that American tacti- nuclear alliance. instability in Eastern Europe should cal nuclear weapons in Europe are a Syria. Rightfully, NATO as an be of concern. The fall of the Berlin Cold War anachronism and should alliance has clearly stated that it Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, be removed from the continent. The neither supports military inter- and the recent Russian occupation of ongoing debate inside the alliance vention in Syria, nor is planning to Georgian territory caught many by on the future of nuclear weapons intervene.35 As Heritage Foundation surprise. Western leaders should not has been carried out under the aus- analysis has pointed out, an outside allow a resurgent Russia to surprise pices of the Deterrence and Defense “peacekeeping” force would only them again. From the Arctic Sea to Posture Review. become embroiled in the conflict as a the Caspian Sea, 21st-century Russia The 2010 Lisbon Summit combatant. That might increase the has exhibited 19th-century mindset Declaration stated that the alliance suffering of the Syrian people, which and ambitions. As soon as Russia “agreed to continue to review NATO’s is sure to continue as long as Assad

32. Vladimir Putin, “Being Strong: Why Russia Needs to Rebuild Its Military,” Foreign Policy, February 21, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/21/ being_strong (accessed April 11, 2012). 33. Ibid. 34. Malcolm Chalmers and Simon Lunn, “NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma,” Royal United Services Institute Occasional Paper, March 2012, p. 1, http://www.rusi. org/downloads/assets/NATOs_Nuclear_Dilemma.pdf (March 23, 2012). 35. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, “Monthly Press Briefing,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 2, 2012, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_85692. htm (accessed April 22, 2012).

11 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

remains in power.36 Syria will likely This would require all NATO mem- $4 billion. This is a fraction of be kept off the agenda unless Turkey bers to meet to address the security the total cost the international insists on addressing the issue. concerns of the alliance member community pays to keep inter- After the recent cross-border invoking the article. However, until national troops in Afghanistan. incident that wounded at least five there is an armed attack on Turkey’s To succeed, the transition strat- people, including two Turkish offi- territorial integrity, invoking Article egy needs a capable ANSF. The cials, Ankara has hinted that it may 5 would be difficult to justify. international community includ- seek NATO help with defending its ing NATO, China, India, and border. How the U.S. Can Lead Japan need to make firm financial Soon after the incident Turkey’s The potential for American lead- pledges to ensure the ANSF’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ership to exercise real influence on a viability in the coming years. Erdoğan said: head of state at a summit should not be understated. To make the summit ■■ Maintain pressure on We have many options. A country a success, the U.S. should: America’s European allies to has rights born out of interna- invest in defense and to meet tional law against border viola- ■■ Ensure that the transition the benchmark of spending 2 tions. … Also, NATO has respon- of Afghan security is based percent of GDP on defense. In sibilities with regards to Turkey’s on conditions on the ground, practice, America can do little borders, according to Article 5.37 not driven by the calendar. to force European countries to Specifically, the Chicago Summit spend more on defense. However, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Declaration should include this should not prevent the U.S. Davutoğlu added: security-based language, not from expressing displeasure at calendar-driven language, such the failure of many European Turkey’s border is also a NATO as was used in the Lisbon Summit allies to invest enough in defense. border. Therefore, with regards Declaration. Even as Afghan to NATO member countries’ security is taking the lead in more ■■ Help Macedonia obtain NATO mutual responsibilities, this of the country, NATO should not membership by pressuring would become an issue of inter- use this as an excuse for coun- Greece to resolve its name est to all these countries … in tries to leave Afghanistan prema- dispute with Macedonia. terms of protecting the borders. turely. Any withdrawal of ISAF Macedonia has been ready for forces from Afghanistan should full NATO membership since Article 5 of the 1949 North be based on improved conditions 2008, blocked only by Greece. It Atlantic Treaty guarantees the alli- on the ground and on military is absurd that the Greeks, who ance’s collective security and has advice. When these security con- heavily rely on the financial good- only been invoked once—after the ditions are met, NATO’s with- will of their European neighbors, terrorist attacks on 9/11. While this drawal should be a phaseout, not continue to veto Macedonia’s incident would not merit invoking a walkout. membership because of a name NATO’s Article 5, Turkey is using it dispute. The U.S. should pressure to prioritize Syria on the internation- ■■ Encourage NATO allies to the Greeks to agree to a compro- al stage, especially at the G8 meeting commit to financing the ANSF mise with Macedonia. in May and NATO’s Chicago Summit. well into the future and lay If the border clashes continue and the groundwork for the Tokyo ■■ Ensure that a NATO+4 meet- Turkey feels that its international Conference on Afghanistan ing at the heads-of-government borders are threatened, it could in July. Supporting the ANSF level takes place and that the invoke Article 4 like it did in 2003. after 2015 will cost an estimated Chicago Declaration explicitly

36. James Phillips, “Next Steps for U.S. in Syria Crisis,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3506, February 15, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/ reports/2012/02/next-steps-for-us-in-syria-crisis (accessed April 22, 2012). 37. Reuters, “Turkey Says NATO Is Option to Defend Syrian Border,” Yahoo News, April 12, 2012, http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-says-nato-option-defend-syrian- border-064107261.html (accessed May 1, 2012).

12 BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2690 May 16, 2012

reaffirms NATO’s open door and work with countries on its NATO’s future depends on suc- policy. With enlargement off the periphery. ceeding in its current operations, agenda, a NATO+4 meeting would whether the peacekeeping mission be a very important deliver- ■■ Publicly denounce the EU’s in Kosovo, combating piracy off able for the four NATO aspirant Common Security and Defense the Horn of Africa, or the NATO- countries. Policy and reaffirm the prima- led campaign in Afghanistan. If cy of NATO for all European NATO cannot meet the objectives ■■ Urge NATO members to pro- defense and security mat- of its current commitments, then vide Georgia with a MAP and ters. Spending on EU defense the alliance’s future is in doubt. reaffirm NATO’s commitment initiatives exacerbates the dire Furthermore, the U.S. needs to pres- to Georgia’s territorial integri- financial situation by divert- sure its European allies in public ty in the summit’s declaration. ing scarce resources away from and in private to invest in defense. Georgia spends approximately 4 NATO. Every euro or pound spent Regrettably, the recent U.S. defense percent of GDP on defense and on EU defense is one less invested cuts put the Obama Administration will soon be the largest per capita in NATO. For this reason the U.S. in a weak position to make this contributor of troops in ISAF. should send a clear message that argument. Georgia is an example to all of it does not support EU defense Flowery words in a summit dec- NATO. The summit declaration integration. laration are not enough. Meeting should include strong and clear the objectives of Smart Defense will language reaffirming NATO’s ■■ Continue to expand the coop- require real investment. Meeting commitment to Georgia’s even- eration on missile defense. NATO objectives in Afghanistan tual membership. This could include jointly devel- after 2015 will require real commit- oping missile defense systems, ment. Leadership and engagement ■■ Encourage NATO to strength- establishing command-and- are essential to forging the partner- en its relationship with control systems, and preparing ships that NATO needs to operate the Gulf States through operational plans. NATO will successfully in an interdependent the Istanbul Cooperation need to clearly define key mis- and globalized world. Initiative. NATO could build sile defense capabilities and the America’s European partners on lessons learned from work- assets required to achieve them. not only value, but also rely on ing with Gulf states during the In addition NATO will need to American leadership in times of Libya operation by expanding explore options to field a variety crisis and turmoil. At the Chicago membership of the Istanbul of land-based, air-based, sea- Summit, the Obama Administration Cooperation Initiative or agree- based, and space-based systems needs to make the cases for transi- ing to Individual Partnership and capable of intercepting ballistic tion, enlargement, and more defense Cooperation Programs with Gulf missiles in all three stages of investment and, ultimately, the case States. flight: the boost, midcourse, and for NATO’s role in the 21st century. the terminal phases. Without American leadership— ■■ Encourage NATO to for- which has been notably absent of mally invite Libya to join the Conclusion late—NATO will continue to face an Mediterranean Dialogue. An NATO has done more to promote uncertain future. invitation for Libya to join the democracy, peace, and security in —Luke Coffey is the Margaret Mediterranean Dialogue would Europe than any other multilat- Thatcher Fellow in the Margaret formalize NATO’s relationship eral organization, including the Thatcher Center for Freedom, a divi- with Libya and send the right European Union. Continued active sion of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom signals to others in the region U.S. participation is essential to the Davis Institute for International that NATO wants to cooperate alliance’s prosperity. Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.