Madeleine Albright

Ronald D. Asmus, Official Who Favored Expanded NATO, Dies at 53

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 04 May 2011 06:49:18 -0500

From Binyamin Applebaum, the New York Times: Ronald D. Asmus, an early proponent of expanding the Atlantic alliance to include Eastern European nations and a key figure in the Clinton administration’s realization of that vision, died Saturday in Belgium. He was 53. . . .

Mr. Asmus made his name in a 1993 article published by Foreign Affairs that was among the first public calls for an expansion of NATO in the wake of the cold war. He and the article’s two other authors, all employees of the RAND Corporation, argued that the United States should embrace the inclusion in the alliance of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary — and potentially other countries — as the best way to make Europe “whole, free and at peace. . . .”

In 1997 Mr. Asmus joined the State Department as a deputy assistant secretary in the European bureau, where he played a leading role in making that expansion a reality. . . .

Mr. Asmus traveled with Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to Independence, Mo., in 1999 for the ceremonies marking the official entry of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO. Ms. Albright greeted him with a hug, he later recalled, telling him: “Ron, it’s doesn’t get any better than this. We are making history. . . .”

In recent years, Mr. Asmus kept working to strengthen ties between America and Central Europe as head of the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund, a Washington-based think tank endowed by the German government in 1972 to foster trans-Atlantic cooperation.

He is survived by his wife, Barbara Wilkinson; his son, Erik Asmus; his mother; and two brothers. (photo: German Marshall Fund)

The Future of NATO: Fewer dragons, more snakes

Jorge Benitez — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:09:30 -0600

From the Economist: Next week’s NATO summit in Lisbon is likely to be one of the most crucial in the 61-year history of the military alliance. Officially, the 28 members are meeting mostly to approve a new “strategic concept” that frames the threats NATO faces and the ways in which it should defend against them over the next decade. ...

The new strategic concept itself should be easy to agree to. It is a sensible document, the result of a report drafted by a “group of experts” led by a former American secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. Last month NATO officials were claiming that it was “98% there”, and although members continue to differ on some issues, such as the alliance’s future nuclear posture (of which more later), those will be papered over in Lisbon. ...

NATO is still in Afghanistan after nine long years, many of them characterised by America’s neglect of the campaign while it was bogged down in Iraq. Even today, nearly a third of the forces in Afghanistan are non-American, most of them from Europe. Mr Rasmussen has also been more successful than expected in persuading members to meet Mr Obama’s request last year for 10,000 additional troops. At every bilateral meeting he has banged the drum for more.

It remains an open question whether NATO can or should mount another such mission out of area. It is still a regional, not a global, organisation, but threats to its members can come from anywhere in the world. That said, it is hard to imagine NATO wanting to tackle anything as tough or as complex as Afghanistan again.

NATO’s record there provides ammunition for both sides of the debate about its future. Many (possibly including Robert Gates, America’s defence secretary) agreed with an article by Fred Kaplan, a commentator, in Slate, an online magazine, last February suggesting that, although America had gained from having fighting allies in Afghanistan, it had been wrong to let NATO lead the mission. Dragging in member countries that would rather not be there, he wrote, served nobody’s interests.

Eric Edelman, an undersecretary of defence for policy in the Bush administration, says that Afghanistan has shown the limits of what NATO can do. In “Understanding America’s Contested Primacy”, a pamphlet for the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based think-tank, he argues that although NATO still has value as a regional alliance, for demographic, economic and cultural reasons it will be increasingly hard pressed “to generate substantial useful military capability”. He recommends developing partnerships with countries such as India, Brazil and Australia, which may be willing and able to do more than America’s traditional allies, and which are in parts of the world that reflect today’s security preoccupations.

Others see it differently. America’s ambassador to the alliance, Ivo Daalder, believes that there is little support within the organisation for NATO “narrowing its ambition”. He also says that there is no “either or” between America’s commitment to NATO and its search for other partners round the world. Mr Daalder adds: “This administration believes in strengthening alliances and partnerships—including NATO. You don’t tackle things like Iran, climate change, proliferation, BMD or cyber-threats on your own.”

In the 20 years since the end of the cold war NATO’s obituary has been written many times, so far always prematurely. In a world of fewer dragons but a great many more snakes, it can look clumsy. Yet it carries on, attempting, as next week, to reinvent itself a little every decade or so. NATO has more members than ever and other countries wish to join it. Even the most critical Americans admit they would miss it if it was not there. And whatever its failings, most of NATO’s members still see it as the cornerstone of their security and the irreplaceable bond that joins America to Europe. After 61 years, the alliance shows signs of wear and tear, but it endures. (photo: Reuters)

Should NATO's New Strategic Concept discuss the role of women?

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:40:54 -0500

From Katrin Bennhold, the New York Times: When NATO unveils its new doctrine later this month, it will include a revamped nuclear policy, a section on cyberwar and fresh thinking on how to engage Russia.

But will it follow a little-noticed recommendation (from an expert group led by Madeleine Albright, a former U.S. secretary of state) to give women greater say in matters of war and peace? ...

[Excerpt from the NATO Experts Report: NATO should work with the UN to respond positively to Security Council Resolution 1325, concerning the role of women in security and peace.]

“Because women are often a principal victim of conflict, the women’s perspective can be vital in seeking to prevent or to mitigate the damage caused by conflict. That assertion should not be controversial; it is simply common sense,” Ms. Albright said in an e-mail. ...

Ten years after the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1325, formally calling on governments to get more women involved in waging war and peace, there has been some progress. Female “blue helmettes” patrol in Liberia. Female marines, trained in Pashto language and customs, are trying to engage Afghan women. NATO “gender advisers” accompany allied troops in Afghanistan. The European Union foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, has floated plans for female quotas in the bloc’s nascent diplomatic service. ...

“I firmly believe that women can play a very important role in the prevention of conflicts and in peace building,” the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said last week in an interview with The New York Times, insisting that the alliance was implementing Resolution 1325.

However, on Mr. Rasmussen’s watch, the share of women on NATO’s civilian staff has stalled at 29 percent. Only 3 of the 19 most senior posts are held by women, and only one of them holds the title of (acting) assistant secretary general — Stefanie Babst, who in Berlin lamented the alliance’s male “monoculture. ...”

Enough of a strategic priority for NATO to include in its new doctrine?

Last week, Mr. Rasmussen declined to answer. (photo: Getty)

US call for Nato cyber-strike capacity causes division

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:04:35 -0500

From Valentina Pop, the EUobserver: Developing a Nato cyber-war capability and French opposition to joint nuclear planning are emerging as the main bones of contention in the debate on a new Nato "Strategic Concept," to be adopted next month. ...

The Pentagon's push for a Nato "active cyberdefence" is the most divisive issue so far, EUobserver has learned.

"Active cyberdefence is a very sensitive topic. Many experts have brought it up, that in order to have defence, you need some offence as well. I would be very surprised if Nato at 28 will find consensus to include it," a diplomat from one of the Baltic states said. ...

Following attacks in 2008 on its "classified military network" the Pentagon established a new cyber-command, making "active cyberdefence" one of its policy pillars, US deputy secretary of defence William J. Lynn said on 15 September in Brussels at an event hosted by the Security and Defence Agenda think-tank. ...

Mr Lynn in September called for "collective defence" - the core principle of the alliance - to be applied to computer networks. "The Cold War concepts of shared warning apply in the 21st century to cyber security. Just as our air defences, our missile defences have been linked so too do our cyber defences need to be linked as well," he said.

European allies are keen to protect themselves against Estonia-type cyber strikes (which saw bank and government websites paralysed in 2007). But they are showing little appetite for US-model "pre-emptive cyber-strikes" on hostile countries or organisations.

In a bolder move the report [from a group of experts led by Madeline Albright] suggested giving Mr Rasmussen or Nato generals "pre-delegated authority" to respond in emergencies "such as a missile or cyber attack." But the idea is unlikely to fly, diplomatic sources said. (photo: NATO) (via Passport)

Portuguese DefMin says new Strategic Concept neglecting South Atlantic

Jorge Benitez — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:40:04 -0500

From the Portugal News: Draft recommendations for a new strategic concept for NATO do not pay sufficient attention to the South Atlantic, says Portugal’s defence minister, promising to raise the issue with alliance leaders.

The report, drawn up by a group of specialists headed by ex-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, is “elaborated well”, but “does not pay as much attention to the South Atlantic as NATO should”, Augusto Santos Silva told Lusa News Agency.

The South Atlantic is “strategic” and should be included in “the lines of fundamental action” for NATO during the coming decade, Santos Silva said.

He said allies such as Portugal, with its traditional ties to Brazil and African nations, brought to NATO’s discussions “the potential for knowing how to dialogue with the South and to look southwards”. (photo: NATO)

He said he would call the issue to the attention of alliance Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen when he formally presents his report.

Rasmussen is expected to present recommendations for a new strategic concept to the allies in late September. ...

Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Time to Reaffirm NATO Solidarity

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:43:21 -0500

From Kori Schake, Center for European Policy Analysis: Of the NATO allies, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Poland and Sweden advocate alliance nuclear reductions. Some even support unilateral NATO elimination of its nuclear arsenal, a reckless position given that Russia has not cut its arsenal since the end of the Cold War, while NATO has reduced its forces by 85 percent. The NATO Group of Experts Report on the Alliance Strategic Concept is definitive in its rejection of unilateral denuclearization, saying, “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO should continue to maintain secure and reliable nuclear forces, with widely shared responsibility for deployment and operational support, at the minimum level required by the prevailing security environment.”

Negotiations to reduce – but not eliminate – tactical nuclear weapons could be beneficial. An approach that reaffirms NATO solidarity, reinforces the value of nuclear deterrence in preventing aggression and proposes asymmetric but multilateral reductions to Russian and Allied tactical nuclear arsenals would advance our security. ...

One possible venue for holding the Tactical Nuclear Forces (TNF) negotiations would be the NATO-Russia Council, but the Russians are unenthusiastic, as are Central Europeans. The Russians object because they want bilateral U.S.-Russian agreements to emphasize their status as a great power and cast European allies as marginal to U.S. considerations. Central and Eastern Europeans resist, preferring fora in which there is a NATO agreement in advance of deliberations with the Russians. But Albright’s Group of Experts Report on the Alliance Strategic Concept advocates the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) in the field of arms control. A more robust role for Central and Eastern European allies could turn this into an advantage by establishing protocols for the negotiations that shift the format of the NATO-Russia Council.

It would be short-sighted to let Russia define the terms of the debate on strategic nuclear weapons and missile defense. Meanwhile, tactical nuclear weapons remain a larger concern for the NATO allies. Central and Eastern European allies ought to vigorously pursue negotiated reductions of tactical nuclear weapons in order to reinforce solidarity within the Alliance. It is in the interest of the United States and our most reliable allies to do so.

Kori Schake is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and an Associate Professor International Security Studies at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. (photo: National Museum of the United States Air Force)

NATO's Cyber Threat

Jorge Benitez — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:33:34 -0500

From James Joyner, the National Interest: As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization completes its new Strategic Concept, it should be resist expanding its guarantee of automatic response to include cyber and other unconventional attacks. Otherwise, it may fracture the alliance while, perversely, decreasing security against said actions.

In a February speech to the Atlantic Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly suggested that attacks on allied cyber and energy infrastructures should be reconsidered attacks under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, declaring that “in the 21st century, the spirit of collective defense must also include non-traditional threats.” Under questioning, she added, “we have to be willing to get behind the new challenges that are posed to member states and be ready and willing and able to create not just a new strategic concept but the operational abilities to provide that collective defense.”

Last month, the Group of Experts, led by Clinton’s predecessor, Madeleine Albright, issued report concluding that “cyber assaults of varying degrees of severity” are among the three “most probable threats to Allies in the coming decade,” while the threat of conventional military attack was “slight.” Therefore, they concluded, NATO must rethink “its conception of what constitutes an Article 5 attack.”

The Group was cautious:

The next significant attack on the Alliance may well come down a fibre optic cable. Already, cyber attacks against NATO systems occur frequently, but most often below the threshold of political concern. However, the risk of a large-scale attack on NATO’s command and control systems or energy grids could readily warrant consultations under Article 4 and could possibly lead to collective defence measures under Article 5.

This, and other qualifiers in the report, indicate that the group isn’t suggesting that any cyber attack would be grounds for collective retaliatory action, merely that it’s conceivable a particular attack might.

That seems reasonable enough and is certainly a matter that deserves discussion within NATO. Indeed, I have it on good authority, it’s in fact being discussed frequently. But, while it makes sense for the allies to draw up contingency plans and reinforce their cooperation and capabilities in this burgeoning arena, we should stop short of formally declaring what precise set of circumstances would allow Article 5 to be invoked. (graphic: Economist)

Young Diplomats for Democracy Symposium

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:02:55 -0500

On July 2-4, at the High-Level Democracy Meeting (HLDM) celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Community of Democracies (CoD) in Krakow, the Atlantic Council brought together 80 emerging young diplomats and activists from around the world for the Young Diplomats for Democracy (YDD) symposium. The success of the Krakow Symposium led to a follow-up event in Washington, DC in September, which featured speeches by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senator John McCain, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek, Representative Howard L. Berman, Speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament Irena Degutiene, Speaker of the Georgian Parliament David Bakradze, and other high-level parliamentarians and diplomats.

At the gathering, YDD delegates urged the CoD and its member states to engage youth in their efforts to support democracy around the world. Specifically, the Young Diplomats for Democracy called for the establishment of a youth pillar within the CoD, and for greater consultation with youth in all CoD initiatives.

YDD delegates, representing over 40 countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, presented the following recommendations to the Community of Democracies:

To establish a youth pillar within the CoD and ensure youth representation at every level, including ministerial and working group meetings of the CoD;
To ensure that CoD initiatives are implemented in partnership with youth NGOs and diplomats from the YDD network in targeted countries;
To promote transparency, information exchange, and awareness of all CoD governmental and parliamentary initiatives among youth representatives of the CoD through web networking and communications.

The recommendations, also presented at the Democracy Days meeting in Vilnius hosted by the Lithuanian presidency of the CoD, were endorsed by YDD diplomats and activists in Krakow.

Organized by the Atlantic Council of the United States (ACUS), in partnership with the CoD Permanent Secretariat and the European Institute for Democracy (EID), YDD brought together delegates for discussions on democracy tactics used by new generation activists, including the role of new media and new tactics to promote human rights, transparency, and free and fair elections. In addition to special panel discussions, delegates attended the high-level sessions of the anniversary gathering and networked with senior government and NGO representatives gathered in Krakow. They also heard from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and founder of the Community of Democracies Madeleine Albright, and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.

After Krakow, YDD delegates will use social networking tools, including a YDD Facebook page, to share tools and best practices and establish a global network of young democratic leaders in partnership with the Community of Democracies. The Krakow event is also featured on the Young Atlanticist website.

Event Agenda

Speaker Bios

2010 Democracy Video Challenge:

2010 Democracy Video Challenge Award Presentation - State Department
2010 Winners Page

Related Press Coverage:

Democracy in Trouble - Washington Post
Is the "D" Word Back in Style? - Brookings

This event was generously supported by:

Robert Abernathy

Henry Catto and the Catto Charitable Foundation

The National Endowment for Democracy

Permanent Secretariat of the Community of Democracies