Anders Fogh Rasmussen

Yanukovych to meet with NATO Secretary General at Chicago summit in May

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:20:22 -0600

From Interfax-Ukraine: Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is to meet with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at NATO's Chicago summit in May 2012, reads the Ukrainian president's letter of congratulations to Rasmussen on his birthday, which has been published by the president's press service.

"I strongly believe that the constructive partnership between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will develop in future based on trust and mutual understanding. I hope that I will have the opportunity to meet with you in May this year during NATO's summit in Chicago to discuss important cooperation issues," reads the letter. . . .

As reported, earlier the head of the presidential administration, Serhiy Liovochkin, reported that Yanukovych had been invited to attend NATO's summit in Chicago in May 2012. (photo: Getty)

NATO Secretary General welcomes agreement on Baltic Air Policing

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:34:03 -0600

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO: I warmly welcome today’s decision by the North Atlantic Council to further authorize NATO Air Policing in the Baltic States with a continuous presence of fighters.

This mission continues to demonstrate the Alliance’s commitment to collective defence and solidarity for all its members.

Collaboration in air policing also exemplifies the kind of cooperation among Allies that will become increasingly important in the future, as we reconcile our security requirements with budgetary realities. This is the spirit of Smart Defence, which I expect to become a guiding principle for NATO at our Chicago Summit in May. (photo: NATO)

NATO clears funding hurdle to buy five Global Hawks

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:46:29 -0600

From Stephen Trimble, Flight Global: NATO officials have cleared a key hurdle in a long-delayed process to buy five Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 40 unmanned air systems.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen provided no details of the arrangements in a 3 February press conference, but confirmed members "have found the way ahead on a practical funding solution" for the alliance ground surveillance (AGS) programme.

Funding and operational details have delayed a contract signing since October 2010, even as three of the original 15 AGS programme members - Canada, Denmark and Poland - have withdrawn from the programme.

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO: the good news is that today we also found the way ahead on a practical funding solution for NATO’s Alliance Ground Surveillance system. This means that a group of Allies will acquire 5 reconnaissance drones. NATO will then maintain and operate them on behalf of all 28 Allies. This will give our commanders the ability to see what is happening on the ground at long range and over periods of time – around the clock, and in any weather.

At our Lisbon Summit in 2010, we agreed that this is a priority. And our recent operation to protect civilians in Libya showed how important such a capability is. Today we are delivering on our commitments. We are demonstrating that our priorities are the right ones and that we are determined to learn the lessons from our operations.

Excerpt from press conference by Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen following the meeting of NATO Defense Ministers. (photo: Northrop Grumman)

What Is NATO Good For?

Jorge Benitez — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:35:18 -0600

From Robert Haddick, Foreign Policy: In a briefing delivered at NATO headquarters on Jan. 30, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared that "NATO is the most successful alliance in history." Rasmussen and his colleagues are hoping that success lies not only in the past but in the future, too. While 2011 was NATO's busiest year ever for military operations -- with ongoing stabilization missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo and a surprise seven-month air campaign over Libya -- the alliance still struggles to define a convincing organizing principle that will be relevant in the future, a problem it has struggled with since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ironically, NATO's leaders may now find the compelling rationale for alliance's future, and the strongest motivation for long-needed institutional reform, on the far side of the world. The emerging security rivalry between the United States and China, and the U.S. government's "pivot" away from Europe to address this challenge, may now focus the minds of European statesmen on their own security shortcomings like nothing else has since the end of the Cold War. . . .

So what should NATO plan for? Primarily, it should consider how Europe will defend itself against likely future threats after the United States is no longer able to support the alliance to the extent European policymakers have become accustomed to over the past six decades.

The sharp decline in U.S. military support for European security began long before the Obama administration's pivot. Over the past decade, the U.S. Navy has permanently transferred more and more of its ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a trend that will continue as the Chinese fleet continues to expand. The United States still has a two-ocean navy, but those two oceans are now the Pacific and Indian. Last week, Panetta announced that two of the four remaining U.S. Army brigade combat teams in Europe will be removed. More U.S. bases in Europe will be closed, military staffs reduced, and headquarters downgraded. With China's cost advantages in shipbuilding and manufacturing, the United States will find itself hard-pressed to keep up should Beijing elect to ramp up production of warships and combat aircraft. The result will be even fewer U.S. military capabilities available to NATO.

The shift in U.S. priorities could provide NATO, especially its European members, with the organizing principle it has been looking for since 1991. First, with the U.S. pull-back from the continent accelerating, Europe's defense ministries should cooperate to defend their sea, air, space, and cyberspace "commons." U.S. attention on the Pacific and Middle East should provide a powerful incentive to Europe to use smart defense coordination to acquire the high-end naval, air, space, and cyber capabilities needed to defend their interests in the commons over the continent and in the Mediterranean, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic.

Without a conventional ground threat to the continent, Europe should reduce and fully professionalize its ground forces. In addition to a mobile crisis response force, Europe should develop a broad special operations adviser capability. These advisors would engage in security force assistance and foreign internal defense missions with partner military and police forces in Africa and central Asia, and thus help extend Europe's security perimeter far beyond the continent's borders.

The result of these moves should be an alliance less dominated by the U.S. and instead led by a Europe motivated to become more self-reliant. That need for self-reliance should energize the defense restructuring and reform Europe has long needed. Changes on the far side of the world will make NATO more important a decade from now than it is to today. But NATO will have to endure some wrenching change if it is to stay relevant. (photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AFP/Getty)

Cost drives NATO bid for smaller Afghan army

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:59:47 -0600

From David Brunnstrom and Justyna Pawlak, Reuters: Afghanistan could end up fighting Taliban insurgents with a national army and police force two-thirds the size envisaged, if plans discussed on Friday by NATO defense ministers, trying to balance security needs with budget cuts, gain traction.

The Afghan security force is due to grow to a peak of 352,000 by October, part of a hugely expensive drive to beef up their strength to deal with Taliban insurgents and allow the bulk of Western combat forces to withdraw by the end of 2014.

The effort is largely funded by the United States, at a cost of $11.6 billion for this year alone, at a time when the U.S. Department of Defense is suffering huge cuts to its budget.

While recognizing it will be many years before Afghanistan is able to pay for its own security, NATO states are keen to avoid recurring costs of such magnitude after 2014, so have been considering options for a much smaller future force, with the aim of reaching agreement at a summit in Chicago in May.

NATO diplomats said U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had suggested a long-term target size for the police and army of 227,000, while French Defense Minister Gerald Longuet told reporters France would be happy with a figure around 230,000.

A senior U.S. defense official said the plan remained to build the force up to about 350,000, the size seen as necessary to give the Afghan military the internal support capabilities it will need to carry out operations on its own. . . .

He said experts from the International Security Assistance Force would travel to NATO soon to brief the allies on the size and cost options of different force levels.

The official said the final numbers would be based on "both efficiency - you can't go too low before you begin to take too high a risk - and the sustainability, the price tag of different options. . . ."

NATO said it was still some way from a decision.

"We discussed what could be a long-term sustainable size, but no decision has been made," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news briefing. "We agreed we will engage in a consultation process leading up the summit in Chicago. . . ."

Officials say even the smaller Afghan security force could cost $4-5 billion a year to maintain, including about $1.1 billion from non-U.S. contributors.

The United States alone, which provides the bulk of the 130,000 international troops in Afghanistan, currently spends $130 billion in Afghanistan annually. (photo: Getty)

NATO allies complain they were blindsided by Panetta's remarks on Afghanistan

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:54:10 -0600

From David S. Cloud, the Los Angeles Times: A U.S. proposal to step back from leading combat operations in Afghanistan by the middle of 2013 divided NATO on Thursday as some allies objected to being caught by surprise{13282995674300}, and France suggested that the alliance completely end its involvement in fighting over the next two years.

Germany, Britain and other NATO members complained in closed talks at alliance headquarters here that they had been blindsided by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, who described the U.S. plan to reporters on his way to Brussels on Wednesday, according to a senior NATO diplomat.

European governments, after backing the unpopular Afghan war for years despite little public support, said the U.S. plan was being viewed in news reports as an indication that Washington was eager to leave Afghanistan, which would make it harder for them politically to keep their own troops there, the official said.

Reflecting those concerns, French officials confirmed that Paris intended to pull its 2,500 remaining combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2013, and they suggested that the rest of the alliance examine whether it should follow the same timetable, according to a senior French diplomat. . . .

U.S. officials insisted that the transfer of duties to the Afghans did not mean the U.S. would cease combat operations entirely, but several U.S. and NATO officials initially had trouble explaining what the change would mean in practice. The announcement also seemed to spook both Afghan officials and U.S. military commanders, who worried that it meant U.S. troops would be pulled out more quickly than expected, an impression that, despite multiple efforts, U.S. officials did not entirely dispel. . . .

The U.S. plan also seemed to rattle NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He told reporters Thursday morning that Afghan army and police personnel would be in the lead "by mid-2013," as Panetta had said, but at an evening news conference he announced that he needed to "clarify a few issues." (photo: Julien Warnand/EPA)

A Leaner NATO Needs a Tighter Focus

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:08:38 -0600

From Hans Binnendijk, the International Herald Tribune: European nations have slashed their defense budgets to record low levels without much regard for NATO’s overall defense requirements. And last week the United States announced that it would remove two of its four Brigade Combat Teams from Europe.

Those European reductions are beginning to weaken NATO’s core military capabilities. Most European defense cuts have been across the board, creating the potential for hollow forces with low readiness and low sustainability levels. More recently key allies like the British and Dutch have eliminated entire military categories such as carrier aviation and armor.

The alliance is certainly not doomed. In 2011, Europe still had two million personnel under arms and spent about €215 billion on defense; those numbers are declining. NATO emerged victorious in Libya without losing a man; and maritime operations are having a positive impact against pirates and terrorists. The Afghanistan coalition was shaken recently with France’s decision to withdraw early, but NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has since said that the United States and its allies would step back from a combat role in Afghanistan in mid-2013.

The real long-term risk to NATO is that gaps will appear in the European force structure that the United States won’t be able to fill, and that the alliance will be unable to act in a future crisis. That risk needs to be faced squarely at the NATO summit in Chicago in May.

Panetta and Clinton might consider a five-part plan to deal with this looming problem. First, NATO needs to define more precisely what military capabilities are needed to meet its three agreed tasks: collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO’s Allied Command Transformation has been unable to design such a “must have” priority list.

The U.S. National Defense University has just completed a major study on this which might serve as a starting point for prioritization. Skilled military personnel, technology and deployable capability are more important than massed armies and large installations. . . .

NATO must keep up its guard even in times of austerity. It may also need to lower its level of ambition and focus on priority missions. These five measures can maximize military efficiencies and maintain basic confidence that the Alliance will be able to deal with the uncertain challenges that lie ahead. . . .

Hans Binnendijk is vice president for Research and Applied Learning at the National Defense University and a member of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Advisors Group. These views are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. government. (photo: Getty)

2013 ambiguity turns meeting of NATO defense ministers into 'day of confusion'

Jorge Benitez — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:37:51 -0600

From Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times: The top NATO official said Thursday that NATO forces in Afghanistan would move gradually from a combat to support role by 2014, but that combat would continue during that period and that NATO remained committed to the principle of “in together, out together.”

The statement by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, capped a day of confusion at the headquarters here of the military alliance. The disarray began after the American defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, surprised at least some NATO officials when he said Wednesday that the United States wanted to step back from a combat role in Afghanistan by as early as mid-2013, more than a year before most American and NATO forces are set to go home.

Defense officials said Thursday that Mr. Panetta was speaking of stepping back from a “lead” combat role, although they did not define that.

Mr. Panetta’s comments appeared to reflect the White House’s desire to extract itself as quickly as possible from an unpopular war, but on Thursday Mr. Panetta’s advisers and some NATO officials appeared concerned that other countries might hasten their exit from Afghanistan. Defense officials said throughout the day that the United States would continue in combat operations as needed through 2014 and that a residual international force would remain in 2015. . . .

[Panetta] and his team also played down last week’s announcement by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France that his country would break with its NATO allies and accelerate the withdrawal of its forces in Afghanistan by pulling back its troops a year early, by the end of 2013. Pentagon officials said Mr. Sarkozy and the United States might be more in tune than it appeared, although they acknowledged confusion about the French president’s statement and said their goal was to sort it out at the NATO meeting.

“A lot of policy officials in Paris were scrambling” after Mr. Sarkozy’s announcement, a senior American defense official said. “So getting exactly to what the French bottom line is hasn’t been easy for them, much less for us.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing the internal deliberations of another country. (photo: Getty)