Saudi Gazette This is the second and final part of our series on NATO The 11 September attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time ever. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered an attack on all. Training mission in Iraq In August 2004, during the Iraq War, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the US led MNF-I. The NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) was established at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government under the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. The aim of NTM-I is to assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the nation. NTM-I is not a combat mission; its operational emphasis is on training and mentoring. Operation Ocean Shield Beginning 17 Aug. 2009, NATO deployed warships in an operation to protect maritime traffic in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean from Somali pirates. Operations in Libya During the 2011 Libyan uprising, violence between protesters and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17 March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 calling for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. A coalition, which included several NATO members, began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed to enforce arms embargo against Libya. NATO began officially enforcing the UN resolution on 27 March 2011 with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Future enlargement The United States is now attempting to nudge its reluctant allies toward an “expanded role”; an increased Alliance' focus on the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and North Africa. The Prague summit made a number of key commitments to “transform” NATO to meet new security threats following the September 11 terrorist attacks. These commitments included: the establishment of a NATO Response Force designed to be a flexible, quickly deployable force encompassing land, sea and air elements; a streamlined military command; a commitment to improve military capabilities including strategic air- and sealift and air-to-ground surveillance; and a military concept for defense against terrorism, which was accompanied by a range of initiatives on weapons of mass destruction. The US objectives for the future of NATO have been outlined in a series of speeches by senior administration officials with responsibility for NATO and European relations. Reflecting decreasing US interest in European security, American officials emphasize a role for NATO in the “greater Middle East”. In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, America's Ambassador to NATO, R. Nicholas Burns, argued: “NATO needs to pivot from its inward focus on Europe – which was necessary and appropriate during the Cold War – to an outward focus on the arc of countries where most of the threats are today - in Central and South Asia, and in the Middle East.” Assistant Secretary of State William J. Burns told a conference on the role of the Transatlantic Community that the “great majority of threats” to NATO members will in future come from “Central and South Asia, in the Middle East itself, and North Africa”. He specified four policy challenges that the US and Europe must tackle in the greater Middle East: building a “unified, stable and prosperous” Iraq; making progress in the Israel-Palestine peace process; terrorism, state-sponsorship of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and economic and political reform of countries in the region. Highlighting a growing divergence between many Europeans and US policy on Israel, he said: “Recent polls showing a majority of Europeans believing that Israel now poses the greatest threat to world peace are as troubling as they are ill-founded... Gaps between Europeans and Americans in viewing many Middle East issues are widening, not narrowing – even as our stake in addressing these issues is growing.” In a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, then Vice President Dick Cheney, outlined a three-pronged approach: “First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source, by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together. Third, when diplomacy fails, we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary… Direct threats require decisive action.” Cheney praised movements toward “reform” in Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, saying that these “historic steps” demonstrated that “true reform and democracy must come from brave and forward-looking people in each country.” Expanding Mediterranean Dialogue The US is looking to “expand cooperation” with Mediterranean partners at Istanbul. According to Assistant Secretary of State William J. Burns, the US and Europe, “should think ambitiously about how to engage more seriously with these countries. The US is interested in the Mediterranean area for a number of reasons including the presence of oil, hard-line Islamic groups and terrorists, and weapons of mass destruction in the region. Since 1994 NATO has operated a “Mediterranean Dialogue” program, which currently involves non-NATO members in the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. The US now hopes to “expand” that dialogue in a number “to have a greater concentration to seek political dialogue with the Arab countries, and with Israel,” and “to make more of the military content, in terms of training and exercises, with those countries.” On the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the Bush administration has not made any specific proposals for NATO involvement in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the emphasis is on the Alliance's future role in the Middle East implies a possible NATO interest at some point in the future. As Assistant Secretary of State William J. Burns states, “nothing is more important to long-term transatlantic interests in the Greater Middle East than the realization of the President's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, security, and dignity.” And finally, The issue of NATO involvement was, however, raised by Senator Chuck Hagel, then, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He called for NATO to begin “more focused military-to-military contacts with Israel and the Arab countries of the Mediterranean” and by considering “formal military training relationships with other countries throughout the Middle East.” Experts agree gone are the days of an attack on North America or Europe by regular army(s) of an outside state...a matter highly unlikely today. Instead, NATO must confront an array of challenges, ranging from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to piracy, cyber attacks, and the disruption of energy supplies. Thus to remain relevant, NATO must expand its traditional understanding of collective defense to confront the twenty-first-century threats. The US, by necessity, has turned its attention away from Europe in order to counter these threats, which largely emanate from parts of Africa, the larger Middle East, and Asia. In order to address these threats, NATO must redefine its relationship with the EU, Russia, China and Japan, major non-European democracies, such as Australia and Japan. Traditional Middle Eastern allies/ friends have huge potential roles to play as much as gains to reap, as NATO retools itself to combat threats from outside as well as from within the region. In this regard, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which says that an attack against one is an attack against all, remains the bedrock of the alliance. In order to have Article 5 operate effectively, in the world that we live in today, NATO needs the deployability of forces; it needs to continue to rely on a deterrence based on a mix of conventional and nuclear forces. Missile defense has to defend against a new kind of armed attack which could arrive via ballistic missiles from outside the European boundaries, including Russia. These weapons could come from maverick states such as Iran or North Korea and toward North America, Europe and / or their allies in the Middle East. In both scenarios, they fall squarely within Article 5. Finally, something stressed again by Secretary Clinton and brought clearly by Secretary Gates is the issue of…” how in a time of limited resources, we need to make sure that the institutions we have are effective and efficient. The reform of NATO, which remains an institution, a headquarter, and a command structure that is still stuck very much in the Cold War, is now a high priority for everyone. We need to have an agile and flexible decision-making structure in order to deal with the new challenges of the new world.” (Concluded) __
