Major civil emergencies can and do pose a threat to security and stability, particularly in fragile and failing states. NATO's 1999 Strategic Concept acknowledges this reality, which the recent flooding in Pakistan illustrates. In such emergencies, civil and military authorities must work closely together to achieve their objectives. The new Strategic Concept of NATO, due to be announced in November 2010 in Lisbon, is expected to further emphasize the Comprehensive Approach, combining military and civilian action to respond effectively to the needs in crisis management.
The tragic situation in Pakistan is a call for joint leadership from the countries we define as the "Strategic Triangle" in NATO: the United States, France, and Turkey. These countries constitute the "Strategic Triangle" as they each play a key role in the future of the Alliance and Euro-Atlantic security infrastructures. The US seeks to maintain its leadership role in NATO commensurate with its influence as the country with the biggest military in the Euro-Atlantic region. President Sarkozy's decision to re-integrate national forces into NATO's military command structure gives France a specific voice to promote a vision of continental leadership in the Alliance with the potential to transform intra-Alliance dynamics and EU-NATO relations. Turkey is a long-time member of NATO with the second-largest military in the Alliance. The objection of Turkey to the imposition of a new round of UNSC sanctions against Iran led many to question Turkey's solidarity with the Alliance.
The "Strategic Triangle" countries must work together more closely in order to maintain the highest levels of resources committed to the Alliance given their respective combinations of financial and military assets. This is particularly true as the geographical focus of transatlantic security, defined in terms of managing ethnic conflict, confronting terrorist networks, and securing energy access, shifts to West, South, and Central Asia. The timing is critical for NATO given its need to reassert transatlantic solidarity and to move ahead with improved EU-NATO security relations, as articulated in "NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement," the report prepared by the Group of Experts to assist the NATO Secretary General in drafting the new Strategic Concept. This is also critical for Pakistan given the scope of destruction wrought by the flooding, which occurs less than five years after the devastating earthquake, to which NATO generously responded by airlifting supplies and deploying medical units and engineers.
The transatlantic alliance must address the fragility of Pakistan, a country whose nuclear weapons, increasing prospects as a haven for terrorist networks, and geo-strategic location, make it likely to be the future source of regional or international instability. NATO, not just the US military, can and should do more, working closely with the EU and the UN. It is up to the “Strategic Triangle” countries to take the lead in proposing ways to maximize the Euro-Atlantic influence in emergency planning. One dramatic idea has already been introduced by journalist Barbara Slavin in her "Save Pakistan to Save Afghanistan" article, which advocates the suspension of combat operations in southern Afghanistan for a month and the shifting of those resources to save the lives of Pakistanis.
Given what is at stake, the countries within NATO's "Strategic Triangle" have a responsibility to reassert a pragmatic Euro-Atlantic course of action for Pakistan. The United States donated some $76 million in emergency aid and sent 19 helicopters to help transport relief supplies. NATO has already decided to provide airlift and sealift facilities to Pakistan for delivery of relief material donated by nations and humanitarian relief organizations. The Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO Headquarters in Brussels must intensify its role as a clearing house for material offered by allies and partner nations.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for the EU to establish a rapid reaction force for natural disasters to respond to the flooding in Pakistan. France’s assistance of 1 million Euro is in addition to its commitment of air transport for 60 tons of humanitarian aid to Pakistan. President Sarkozy has also indicated his willingness to use French NATO military forces to help with transport.
Turkey too has demonstrated its willingness to respond to the humanitarian crisis by donating $10 million. Mercy, a Turkish humanitarian aid train, recently delivered 500 tons of food and medical supplies to Pakistan. Additionally, the Turkish Red Crescent relief organization sent about 250 tons of aid supplies by plane.
As Turkey tries to maximize its influence in the ever-changing Euro-Atlantic security frameworks, the Pakistan crisis is an opportunity for Turkey to play a key role in a NATO that is redefining its transatlantic solidarity. Turkey’s involvement in the relief efforts has reminded the transatlantic partners that its relevant experience and capabilities to contribute to the security, stability, and intercultural communication with the Muslim world are indispensable. For a strong Alliance, as well as an effective EU Common Security and Defence Policy, Turkish involvement in the missions conducted by the EU and NATO is necessary. Due to its alienation with the EU, Turkey prefers a strong role for NATO in European as well as in global security affairs. This Atlanticism may offer a foundation for new thinking in EU-NATO initiatives and lead to improved action in civil emergency planning for Pakistan, whose stability is in the interest of all NATO members.
Dr. Colette Mazzucelli, WFI Fellow at Citizens for Global Solutions, is Adjunct Associate Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University and in the Department of Political Science at Hofstra University.
Dr. Oya Dursun-Özkanca, a native of Turkey, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College.
Related Materials:
- Editorial Team: Join the AC Policy Team for NATO's New Strategic Concept
- Jasur Mezahir Sumerinli: The Potential of the South Caucasus
- Felix F. Seidler: Global Partnership Council for a Global Vision
- Daniel Nikolits: Russia is the Lynchpin of NATO 2020
- Klaus Spiessberger: Three Goals for a Modernized Alliance
- Jorge Benitez: NATO's Center of Gravity: Political Will
- Olaf Theiler: NATO Tensions No Cause for Alarm
- 4
September 2, 2010
Olaf Theiler, Political Scientist, German Armed Forces, Platinum Contributor (173)
The US represents the NATO maximalist in a variety of issues: Washington favors NATO to become a global sword in order to remain useful for US security interests, which are global interests, now basically located in the Asian-Pacific region instead of the European focus of the past. The US government argues to establish also civilian capabilities in NATO in order to be able to tackle the full range of crisis management tasks including all aspects of nation building without being dependent on other actors like the unpredictable EU or the UN, where they have to make compromises with rivals like China and Russia. Our Transatlantic partner tries also to push for a NATO wide missile defense structure that will cost the European nations millions of Euros, a scarce resource in times deep cuts in most national defense budgets. The main US counter argument is that its European Partners could safe lots of money if they would be willing to enhance NATO-EU cooperation and finally to agree to more intra-European role specialization and pooling for their continuously underfinanced and under equipped forces.
Turkey instead is the main obstacle in any kind of NATO-EU cooperation (although to be fair it has to be acknowledged that their complaints about the lack of EU openness toward Turkey in the EDA or ESDP have a point and that Greece and Cyprus are at least as persistent in blocking progress on the EU side) that would help to reduce the pressure. They have just recently openly opposed the US policy on Iran, are constantly worried about the US backing for a semi-autonomous Kurdish entity inside of Iraq, and are putting much more emphasis on criticizing Israel than it seems to be in the French interest.
France, the most outspoken NATO minimalist for centuries now, on the other hand is adamently gainst all kinds of additional tasks for NATO that could go beyond collective defense. They argue against all kinds of civilian capabilities in NATO, push against a NATO role in Africa despite all needs for crisis management and assistance to the African Union, and are very much critical of a potential global role for NATO.
This does not sound like a real strategic triangle to me. And there is another important point: What about the Eastern European Nations? How would they fitt into this geometriec approach to NATO?