DOCSLIB.ORG

The North Atlantic Alliance and Collective Defense at 70: Confession and Response Revisited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The North Atlantic Alliance and Collective Defense at 70: Confession and Response Revisited Emory International Law Review Volume 34 Issue 0 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Seventieth Anniversary 2019 The North Atlantic Alliance and Collective Defense at 70: Confession and Response Revisited Michael N. Schmitt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr Recommended Citation Michael N. Schmitt, The North Atlantic Alliance and Collective Defense at 70: Confession and Response Revisited, 34 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 85 (2019). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol34/iss0/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory International Law Review by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCHMITTPROOFS2_10.24.19 10/28/2019 2:20 PM THE NORTH ATLANTIC ALLIANCE AND COLLECTIVE DEFENSE AT 70: CONFESSION AND RESPONSE REVISITED Michael N. Schmitt* On the birth of the North Atlantic Alliance seven decades ago,1 Georg Schwarzenberger, the great British legal scholar, observed: The North Atlantic Pact is a confession and a response. It is a confession of the constitutional inability of the United Nations to achieve its avowed main purpose of maintaining world order. It is a response to the insidious attempts of the Soviet Union to gain the fruits of another major war by all measures short of open war with the Western powers.2 Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty—also known as the Washington Treaty,3 which provides for the collective defense of the Alliance, was the practical response to that confession. Yet by the turn of the 21st century, the need for confession and response seemed to be fading away. The Soviet Union had collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was gone, democracy was on the rise throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet space, and the global security environment had become unipolar, with the United States exercising apparently benign * Professor of International Law, University of Exeter; Howard S. Levie Professor, U.S. Naval War College; Francis Lieber Distinguished Scholar, US Military Academy at West Point. The author is appreciative of the invaluable assistance of the Allied Command Transformation legal team, especially Mr. Lewis Bumgardner, and of the NATO Legal Adviser, Mr. Steven Hill. Views expressed are solely those of the author in his personal capacity. 1 See North Atlantic Treaty, Apr. 4, 1949, 63 Stat. 224, 34 U.N.T.S. 243. The North Atlantic Treaty established a grouping of States known as the North Atlantic Alliance (or North Atlantic Pact). The title “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” was coined in the North Atlantic Council Final Communiqué of September 17, 1949. Final Communiqué, Sept. 17, 1949. NATO was established two years later with adoption of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, and then the Paris Protocol and the Ottawa Agreement. See Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, June 19, 1951, 4 U.S.T. 1792, 199 U.N.T.S. 67; Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, Aug. 28, 1952, 5 U.S.T. 870, 200 U.N.T.S. 340; Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, National Representatives and International Staff, Sept. 20, 1951, 5 U.S. T. 1087, 200 U.N.T.S 3. 2 Georg Schwarzenberger, The North Atlantic Pact, 2 WESTERN POLITICAL QUARTERLY 309, 309 (1949). On announcing the text of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty in March 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson noted with reference to the United Nations, “The system is not working as effectively as we hoped because one of its members has attempted to prevent it from working. By obstructive tactics and the misuse of the veto, the Soviet Union has seriously interfered with the work of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security.” Dean Acheson, Broadcast on Atlantic Accord, Radio Address to the Nation (March 18, 1949), in N.Y. TIMES, March 19, 1949, http://movies2.nytimes.com/library/world/global/ 031949nato-acheson-text.html [hereinafter Acheson Address]. 3 North Atlantic Treaty, supra note 1, art. 5. SCHMITTPROOFS2_10.24.19 10/28/2019 2:20 PM 86 EMORY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 34 supremacy.4 In light of these tectonic shifts, it appeared that the United Nations was on the verge of finally having assumed its intended collective security—as distinct from collective defense—role, as it had been in the process of doing for a number of years, most notably in the Balkans.5 In the eyes of many, there was no longer an existential threat against which the West was forced to organize in preparation for aggression. Although the Alliance continued to espouse its core mission of collective defense, the organization realized it had to transform.6 Some questioned the need for NATO at all.7 Predictions of an “end of history” and expectations of an impending “peace dividend” proved premature.8 New threats emerged on the security horizon, especially transnational terrorism. Indeed, the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5 collective defense provision would for the first time in its history be invoked not in response to an attack by Warsaw Pact forces, but rather one mounted by a transnational terrorist group operating from within Alliance territory and employing rudimentary weapons, such as box cutters.9 In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, NATO would play a central role in the 4 See generally, A Short History of NATO, NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORG., https://www.nato.int/cps/ en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm?selectedLocale=en. 5 “Collective defense” refers to the right of one or more States to come to the assistance of a State (or States) that is the object of an armed attack pursuant to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and customary international law. See U.N. Charter art. 51. “Collective security,” in contrast, refers to a mechanism by which security in general is maintained. In the U.N. Charter context, the collective security arrangement is set forth in Chapter VII, which allows the Security Council to authorize or mandate action pursuant to Article 42, including the use of force, once the Security Council has identified a situation as a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” in accordance with Article 39. Id. at ch. VII, art. 39, 42 An armed attack would qualify as such, but Article 39 is not limited to its occurrence. Rather, the Security Council action may either be designed to “restore international peace and security” in the event of a breach of the peace or of aggression or maintain it in the face of a threat to the peace. Id. at arts. 39–42, 51. An organization may have both purposes, as is the case with the Organization of American States. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), art. 5, Sept. 2, 1947, T.I.A.S. No. 1838, 21 U.N.T.S. 77 [hereinafter Rio Treaty]; Charter of the Organization of American States, arts. 28–29, Apr. 30, 1948, 2 U.S.T. 2394, 119 U.N.T.S. 3. 6 London Declaration on a Transformed North Atlantic Alliance, NATO: ON-LINE LIBRARY (Oct. 27, 2000), https://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c900706a.htm. 7 See, e.g., John Mearsheimer, Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, 15(1) INT’L SECURITY 5, 52 (1990); Statement of Kenneth N. Waltz, Conditions for Security in a Multipolar World in RELATIONS IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD: HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 101ST CONG., 2ND SESS. (1991). 8 FRANCIS FUKIYAMA, THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN (1992); Ann Masrkusen, How We Lost the Peace Dividend, 33 AM. PROSPECT 86 (1997). 9 See A SHORT HISTORY OF NATO supra note 4. SCHMITTPROOFS2_10.24.19 10/28/2019 2:20 PM 2019] NORTH ATLANTIC ALLIANCE AT 70 87 effort to secure peace and maintain international security, even beyond the organization’s borders.10 Today, NATO is at another inflection point in its history. Still the preeminent military alliance in the world, it faces unprecedented external and internal threats. Externally, a revanchist Russia is in belligerent occupation of territory on NATO’s border in Ukraine, a country that has had a special relationship with the Alliance since 1991, when Ukraine joined the Atlantic Cooperation Council.11 In light of the ongoing international armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Baltic nations that border Russia rightly worry that, given their size and significant ethnic Russian populations, they could be next.12 In light of the Russian veto on the Security Council, this menace cannot be left to the United Nations to handle. The threats to the Alliance’s members (“Allies”) today are not limited to classic attack by the armed forces of another State—or States. As noted by the NATO Heads of State and Government in their 2018 Brussels Summit Declaration, stability and security is also endangered by hostile cyber operations; “crises across the Middle East and Africa [that] are fueling terrorism” and “contribute to irregular migration and human trafficking;” the crisis in Syria which “has a direct effect on the stability of the region and the security of the Alliance as a whole;” “hybrid challenges, including disinformation campaigns and malicious cyber activities;” and “proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and advanced missile technology.”13 In 2016, at the Warsaw Summit, NATO leaders had also noted that the “trafficking of arms, drugs, and human being across the Sahel-Sahara region continue to threaten regional and our own security” and highlighted the continuing threat posed by piracy.14 Nevertheless, collective defense pursuant to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty remains the foundational and motivational purpose of the Alliance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Formation of Nato and Turkish Bids for Membership
    AKADEMİK YAKLAŞIMLAR DERGİSİ JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC APPROACHES KIŞ 2010 CİLT:1 SAYI:1 WINTER 2010 VOLUME:1 ISSUE:1 FROM NEUTRALITY TO ALIGNMENT: THE FORMATION OF NATO AND TURKISH BIDS FOR MEMBERSHIP Abdulkadir BAHARÇİÇEK* Abstract The formation of NATO was a responce by the United States to the security questions of the Western Europe and North Atlantic region. Turkey also faced with a serious threat from the Soviet Union. Turkey‟s attempts of entering NATO shaped Turkish security polices as well as her relations with the rest of the world. Turkish membership to NATO can be regarded a solution to her security problems, but it may well be argued that the main cause behind that policy was the continuation of the polices of westernization and modernization. The obvious short term factor behind Turkish desire was the Soviet threat. But at the same time the ideolojical aspirations in becoming an integral part- at least in term of military alliance- of Western world without any doubt played a decisive role in Turkey‟s decision. Özet İkinci Dünya Savaşı‟ndan sonra Avrupa‟da ortaya çıkan yeni güvenlik sorunları ve özellikle Batı Avrupa‟ya da yönelen Sovyet tehdidine karşı ABD‟nin öncülüğünde NATO ittifakı kuruldu. Aynı dönemde Türkiye‟de kendisini Sovyet tehdidi altında görüyordu. Türkiye‟nin NATO‟ya girme çabaları Türkiye‟nin güvenlik politikalarını ve Batı ile olan ilişkilerini de şekillendirdi. NATO üyeliği, Türkiye açısından, güvenlik sorunlarına bir çözüm olarak görülebilir, fakat bu üye olma arzusunun arkasında modernleşme ve batılılaşma ideolojisinin bulunduğunu söylemek de yanlış olmayacaktır. Kısa dönemde Sovyet tehdidine karşı koymanın hesapları yapılırken, uzun vadede Batı sisteminin ayrılmaz bir parçası olma arzusunun Türk karar alıcılarının temel düşüncesi olduğu söylenebilir.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Transformation?
    NATO UNCLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED What is Transfor?mation NATO UNCLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Intentionally Blank NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED What is Transformation? An Introduction to Allied Command Transformation (January 2015) NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED WHAT IS TRANSFORMATION? – AN INTRODUCTION TO ALLIED COMMAND TRANSFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword....................................................................................................................... i Preface......................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1: Transformation – Definition, Strategic Environment and Role of ACT........ 1 Chapter 2: Transformation – Key Enablers & Tools..................................................... 5 Chapter 3: Transformation – Cooperation, Interaction & Engagement...................... 15 Chapter 4: Transformation – The Transatlantic Bond................................................ 25 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 26 Annex A: The ACT Command Structure Annex B: Glossary of Abbreviations NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Foreword (by Lieutenant General Phil Jones, Chief of Staff, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation) When Allied Command Transformation (ACT)
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks at the Opening of the North Atlantic Council Meeting on Kosovo April 23, 1999
    Administration of William J. Clinton, 1999 / Apr. 23 that is doing so much to reduce crime on our By taking actions to prevent future acts of streets to our schools. Today I’m pleased to violence in our schools, we can best honor the announce the first of the grants funding these memories of those who lost their lives. community police will be awarded to 336 Thank you very much. schools and communities to help hire more than 600 police officers. Like their counterparts on Legislative Initiatives/Kosovo the streets, these school officers will work close- Q. Mr. President, you didn’t mention gun ly with the citizens they serve, with students, control. Are you going to do more on gun con- teachers, and parents, to improve campus secu- trol? rity, to counsel troubled youth, to mediate con- Q. To be clear, sir, do all hostilities in Kosovo flicts before they escalate into violence. have to end before there can be consideration I want to thank Senator Chuck Robb for his of ground troops, sir? strong leadership on this issue. By the end of The President. First of all, I know you under- the year we hope to have 2,000 new officers stand I’ve got to run over there and meet all in our schools, and I encourage all communities the people who are coming. We will have more to apply for these grants. legislative initiatives to announce in the days I also want to take this opportunity to remind ahead. As I said a couple of days ago, we will communities that they have until June 1st to have some legislative responses and efforts we apply for the Federal Safe Schools-Healthy Stu- have been working on for some time, actually.
    [Show full text]
  • JAPCC Annual Report 2019
    2019 annual REPORT Joint Air Power Competence Centre Joint Air Power www.japcc.org Competence Centre Cover picture: Satellite: © ESA /AOES Medialab; Earth: © 2012 EUMETSAT; Background: © StarLine /shutterstock © This work is copyrighted. All Inquiries should be made to: The Editor, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), [email protected] Disclaimer This publication is a product of the JAPCC. It does not represent the opinions or policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is designed to provide an independent overview, analysis, food for thought and recommendations regarding a possible way ahead on the subject. Release This document is releasable to the Public. Portions of the document may be quoted without permission, provided a standard source credit is included. Published and distributed by The Joint Air Power Competence Centre von­Seydlitz­Kaserne Römerstraße 140 47546 Kalkar Germany Telephone: +49 (0) 2824 90 2201 Facsimile: +49 (0) 2824 90 2208 E­Mail: [email protected] Website: www.japcc.org Denotes images digitally manipulated Follow us on Social Media JAPCC | annual REPORT 2019 1 foreword Today, NATO Air Forces stand on the verge of the at the peer­to­peer level. We must use the lessons most meaningful transformation of technology and learned from this and other exercises to evolve our capability in our history, a transformation which con­ Alliance into a connected, Joint All Domain fighting tinues to be enabled in part by the independent force that is agile and capable of acting at speed that thought and analysis from the recognized air and future conflicts will require. I have great confidence space power experts in the Joint Air Power Compe­ that our Nations and our people will work closely with tence Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit-Urgent Priorities
    NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED ING TH LOW E 20 OL 16 F W R A E R W S O A W P R I S U A M T M N I I T O J URGENT PRIORITIES PRIORITIES URGENT UR ES GENT PRIORITI JOINT AIR POWER FOLLOWING THE 2016 WARSAW SUMMIT URGENT PRIORITIES Joint Air Power Competence Centre JOINT AIR POWER NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit – Urgent Priorities An Allied Command Transformation Headquarters Study Conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit Urgent Priorities An Allied Command Transformation Headquarters Study Conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED © This work is copyrighted. No part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission. Inquiries should be made to: The Editor, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), [email protected] Disclaimer This publication is a Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) HQ commis- sioned study conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC). All copyright and intellectual property rights reside with HQ ACT, unless otherwise licensed. The views expressed in this work do not necessarily represent the position of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but are offered to foster dialogue and discussion re- garding urgent priorities in the field of air power capabilities and competencies. Though NATO classified documents may have informed the work of the authors, no clas- sified information has been directly quoted in this study, nor were any parts of classified information re-used in any form without prior sanitization.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Meddling in Elections and Referenda in the Alliance
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE (STC) RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA IN THE ALLIANCE General Report by Susan DAVIS (United States) General Rapporteur 181 STC 18 E fin | Original: English | 18 November 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 II. RUSSIA’S MOTIVATIONS BEHIND MEDDLING IN ELECTIONS AND REFERENDA .......... 1 III. WHAT WE KNOW: RECENT RUSSIAN MEDDLING IN ALLIED COUNTRIES ..................... 4 A. THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................................. 4 B. THE UNITED KINGDOM .............................................................................................. 7 C. FRANCE ....................................................................................................................... 8 D. GERMANY ................................................................................................................... 8 E. SPAIN ........................................................................................................................... 9 F. THE NETHERLANDS ................................................................................................... 9 IV. POLICY RESPONSES AND THE WAY FORWARD ............................................................ 10 A. ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................ 10 B. INFORMATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nato's Future: a Tale of Three Summits1 Hans Binnendijk, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins University Sais November 2016 Summary
    NATO'S FUTURE: A TALE OF THREE SUMMITS1 HANS BINNENDIJK, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SAIS NOVEMBER 2016 SUMMARY NATO tends to make progress on key policy issues and capability from summit to summit. Major shifts in the orientation of the Alliance can be traced to significant summits like London (1990), Washington (1999), Prague (2002), and Lisbon (2010). During the past two years, NATO has held a summit in Wales (4-5 September 2014) and one in Warsaw (8-9 July 2016). A third mini- summit is planned for Brussels in 2017. These first two summits taken together again significantly shifted the focus of the Alliance in the face of a series of new and dangerous challenges in the East and South. They shifted NATO’s posture in the East from benign neglect to allied reassurance to some degree of deterrence. The proposed force posture is inadequate to defeat a determined Russian short warning attack. Considerable increases in forward deployed forces (perhaps seven brigades) plus strengthened reinforcements would be necessary for NATO to hold its ground. But the Warsaw formula does provide what might be called “deterrence by assured response.” In the South, Allies recognized the complexity of the threats to Europe and sought to define NATO’s role in dealing with them. The third summit next year in Brussels could set the stage for further progress on both fronts. Much more still needs to be done. But with these fairly dramatic changes, NATO is in the process of once again restructuring itself so that it will not be “obsolete” in the effort to provide security for the transatlantic allies.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO's 60Th Anniversary Summit
    NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit Paul Belkin, Coordinator Analyst in European Affairs Carl Ek Specialist in International Relations Lisa Mages Information Research Specialist Derek E. Mix Analyst in European Affairs April 14, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40454 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit Summary On April 3 and 4, 2009, the heads of state and government of the 26 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met in Strasbourg, France, and Kehl, Germany for a summit marking the 60th anniversary of the alliance. The summit was one of three stops on President Obama’s first official visit to Europe as President. Alliance leaders used the anniversary summit to pay tribute to NATO’s past achievements and to reaffirm their commitment to the alliance as the preeminent transatlantic security framework. They also completed a new round of NATO enlargement, sought common positions on the range of challenges currently facing the alliance, and began to set the parameters for NATO’s future direction. The key issue facing the alliance is the ongoing mission in Afghanistan, where allied governments are struggling to reach a strategic consensus on how to stabilize the country. The deteriorating security situation in the country has caused many to question the ability of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to achieve its objectives and has exposed rifts within the alliance as to ISAF’s mission and the appropriate means to accomplish it. NATO’s strained relations with Russia are a second key issue.
    [Show full text]
  • AWACS 25 Jaar EN.Indd
    Volume 23, No. 9 NATONATO Air Air Base Base Geilenkirchen Geilenkirchen 16/174 MayJune 2007 2007 NAEW & C Force The Spirit of Alliance Cooperation The acquisition of the E-3A AWACS air surveillance and fighter control aircraft, and the modification of throughout Europe. It now covers associated airfields and ground complex missions for the full system, still represent the largest spectrum of Air Battle Management, endeavors in the history of including air-to-air and air-to-ground NATO multi-nationally funded control, air surveillance and airspace programs. The E-3A Component in management, air policing, combat Geilenkirchen/Germany, being one search and rescue, force marshalling of two Components of the NAEW&C and threat broadcast. Force, is still the Alliance’s only fully integrated multinational flying unit. The E-3A Component in Geilenkirchen, is continuously Today´s evolving security posturing itself, through additional environment is complex and roles and missions, doctrine, training global, and the multidimensional and key equipment, to adapt to concept of security includes roles NATO´s transformation. Its more I congratulate all members of the Since its foundation in 1980, the such as conflict prevention, crisis than 3100 dedicated and skilled E-3A Component, past and present, NATO Airborne Early Warning and and consequence management, military and civilian personnel on their great achievements and Control (NAEW&C) Force has served peacekeeping, support of represent some of the finest people wish you continuing success for the as an outstanding example of the peacemaking, disaster response drawn from the participating nations. future! spirit of Alliance Cooperation. It and humanitarian assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying a Framework to Assess Deterrence of Gray Zone Aggression for More Information on This Publication, Visit
    C O R P O R A T I O N MICHAEL J. MAZARR, JOE CHERAVITCH, JEFFREY W. HORNUNG, STEPHANIE PEZARD What Deters and Why Applying a Framework to Assess Deterrence of Gray Zone Aggression For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR3142 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0397-1 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: REUTERS/Kyodo Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled What Deters and Why: North Korea and Russia, sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO 20/2020: Twenty Bold Ideas to Reimagine the Alliance After The
    NATO 2O / 2O2O TWENTY BOLD IDEAS TO REIMAGINE THE ALLIANCE AFTER THE 2020 US ELECTION NATO 2O/2O2O The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders. The Scowcroft Center’s Transatlantic Security Initiative brings together top policymakers, government and military officials, business leaders, and experts from Europe and North America to share insights, strengthen cooperation, and develop innovative approaches to the key challenges facing NATO and the transatlantic community. This publication was produced in partnership with NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division under the auspices of a project focused on revitalizing public support for the Alliance. NATO 2O / 2O2O TWENTY BOLD IDEAS TO REIMAGINE THE ALLIANCE AFTER THE 2020 US ELECTION Editor-in-Chief Christopher Skaluba Project and Editorial Director Conor Rodihan Research and Editorial Support Gabriela R. A. Doyle NATO 2O/2O2O Table of Contents 02 Foreword 56 Design a Digital Marshall Plan by Christopher Skaluba by The Hon. Ruben Gallego and The Hon. Vicky Hartzler 03 Modernize the Kit and the Message by H.E. Dame Karen Pierce DCMG 60 Build Resilience for an Era of Shocks 08 Build an Atlantic Pacific by Jim Townsend and Anca Agachi Partnership by James Hildebrand, Harry W.S. Lee, 66 Ramp Up on Russia Fumika Mizuno, Miyeon Oh, and by Amb.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Vershbow
    EXCLUSIVE THE THREE SWORDS INTERVIEW "Everything we are doing has a 360-degree scope. We do not have the luxury of choosing between different challenges." ALEXANDER VERSHBOW Interview by Inci Kucukaksoy, JWC PAO and Peter Hutson, JWC CCI&E Branch AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER VERSHBOW served in U.S. Government and NATO appointments for almost four decades. In 2012, he became the first American to hold the position of NATO Deputy Secretary General — the Alliance's second most senior international civil servant — a post from which he retired on 17 October 2016, handing over to Ms Rose Gottemoeller of the United States. A long-time student of Russian Affairs and international relations, Ambassador Vershbow received a B.A. in Russian and East European Studies from Yale University and a Master's Degree in International Relations and Certificate of the Russian Institute from Columbia University. During his career, he has held a series of key assignments, including that of U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 1998 to 2001; "one of the most difficult periods on the international arena since the Cold War," Polish President Andrzej Duda said as he honoured Ambassador Vershbow with Poland's highest distinction of its kind, the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, at Warsaw's Belweder Palace, on the eve of the Warsaw Summit. The Three Swords magazine has quoted Ambassador Vershbow consistently in every issue since 2012 via NATO's online "Newsroom", where one can check out the full rundown of everything about our Alliance. In our fast-changing world it is important to document NATO's unique story; and, unbeknownst to Ambas- sador Vershbow, he has always inspired us in producing this magazine and charting a course; his opinion pieces rank among our most influential ones.
    [Show full text]