Three Outcomes from Lisbon
We finished the Lisbon summit last week – really a high point thus far in the nearly 18 months I’ve been the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). While not without some challenges, overall the summit must be judged a real success.
Most importantly, we were able to deliver the three key initiatives we have been seeking for several years:
• NATO-Russia in a “true strategic partnership.” This means working with the Russians in a wide variety of venues. I’d put Afghanistan, missile defense, counter-narcotics, counter-piracy, and counter-terrorism at the top of the list. In particular, we have worked out a good set of concrete proposals for Afghanistan: logistics help to our coalition, sales of the very capable MI-17 helicopter, and possibly training of Afghan security forces in Russia. This is real progress. We’ll be working hard over the next few months to turn these potential areas of cooperation into real work together.
• Afghanistan transition plan. After briefings by both General Dave Petraeus and me, the 48 nations of the ISAF coalition agreed to a transition plan that will begin in 2011 and conclude with Afghan leadership by 2014. Coupled with the counter-insurgency strategy we have been pursuing, this sets out a very reasonable timeline for success. While the challenges remain daunting in Afghanistan, I remain cautiously optimistic that we will succeed. The key will be training the Afghan security forces to a level that permits them to take on these key responsibilities, and our NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan is doing exactly that.
• The new Strategic Concept for NATO. With the adoption of the first new Strategic Concept since 1999, the Alliance has a well defined path forward into this turbulent 21st century. The key elements of the new Strategic Concept, agreed to by all 28 NATO nations, include: Crisis Management; the Comprehensive Approach; Missile Defense; partnerships, especially with Russia; NATO Reform and Efficiencies; and cyber defense. The concept also emphasizes the traditional role of NATO as an Article V defensive Alliance, e.g. “an attack on one nation shall be viewed as an attack on all.”
Secretary General Rasmussen was superb in guiding the Alliance and the ISAF coalition members through the complex two days of dialogue and, ultimately, agreement on these three key elements.
Leaders from the Lisbon Summit
This week, the hard work begins at my headquarters in Mons, as we get to work on how to “operationalize” all of these good ideas. We have working groups tackling each of these key action items, and will be presenting our thoughts for political guidance and ultimately for implementation over the next six months.
The Summit was a good example of NATO moving out and responding to a changing world. We have lots of work ahead, but I came away with a real sense of confidence in the direction we are sailing.
Adm. James Stavridis
Commander, U.S. European Command and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Find more blog posts tagged with:
- International Security Assistance Force
- strategy
- partnership
- counterterrorism
- summit
- counterpiracy
- Afghanistan
- ballistic missile defense
- Russia
- strategic concept
- ISAF
- NATO
- counternarcotics
- Lisbon
Comments: 3
president medvedev's recent approval of the return of church properties to the orthodox church, as well as ROSKOSMOS's participation with the orthodox church is a good starting point for the START treaty support system implementation...
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. The order of my comments was not intended to minimize the importance of the new Strategic Concept, but to highlight two very unique and important elements. I understand your approach and I will keep it in mind. Rest assured, we will work hard to turn NATO's relationship with Russia into consistent and cooperative action. I hope you'll agree that Russia's opening northern logistic lines into Afghanistan is a great start.
Interesting . . . I would have placed the Strategic Concept first and foremost as all other NATO developments should be based on that framework. This is the first Strategic Concept since the major expansion in NATO membership. It appears you gloss over the significance and, therefore, missed an opportunity to share your insights on the significance of the new Strategic Concept. I would appreciate your understanding of the key elements you mention in passing that you particularly appreciate given your position. I am surprised you listed the Strategic Concept third amongst the other alternatives. Despite your best effort to put a positive spin on the "true strategic partnership”, sadly Russia is a fickle and feeble partner at best and given the internal makeup of that country I cannot see how that nation could be relied on for much else other than to not obstruct NATO's interests, which in and of itself has a value all of its own. Suggesting Russia is a "true strategic" partner is a tough sell even for those who grant such a strategic partnership would offer many advantages. Although NATO's foundation was a response to the Soviet Union, NATO's new Strategic Concept is supposed to move NATO past that focus given its international role and responsibilities. Is the order of your list not indicative of NATO's continued preoccupation with Russia to the detriment of other opportunities for the organization? Best wishes turning Russian promises into consistent and cooperative action.