Defense and Security

Security Alliances

  • Turkey
    Turkey Being Turkey
    I am back from Turkey. Great trip except for the exceedingly large man sitting next to me on the flight from Istanbul to London. That was uncomfortable. Last June, I wrote about the divergence of American and Turkish foreign policies. This trip (my first since May) only re-affirmed my conclusions from the now (in)famous “Frenemy” piece. Washington and Ankara are moving away from a strategic partnership to a transactional relationship. Nowhere is this more clear than when it comes to Iran. The Turks have a vastly different perception of the Iranian threat from the United States (and Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and most of the Gulf states); and while Ankara is clear that it does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, Turkish engagement with Iran continues apace. Last week the Treasury’s point man on Iran sanctions, Stuart Levey, did not get very far convincing the Turks to go further than the largely symbolic UN sanctions, which Ankara voted against. The next big issue on the U.S.-Turkey agenda is a proposed NATO missile defense system, that if it is developed, will have a radar component based on Turkish soil. The Turks are deeply uneasy about these plans, which will likely make for some turbulence in the run up to the NATO meeting in Lisbon on November 19-20. At the moment, the Turks have two demands. They do not want any country (i.e. Iran) to be identified as the “target” of the system and they do not want any non-NATO countries to have access to the intelligence used for the missile defense system. (Can you spell I-S-R-A-E-L?) Some Turks argue, unconvingcingly, that in the event of an Israeli or American strike on Iran’s nuclear program, Turkey, by dint of hosting the radar site, would be a target of retaliation. More persuasively, they fear that a military attack on Iran will destabilize the region. They saw this happen in Iraq, and they would like to avoid it in Iran. Ankara is also worried that sanctions and/or a military strike will disrupt Turkey’s plans to upgrade its trade relations with Iran, which the Justice and Development Party hopes will reach $30 billion in the next 5 years. I have heard a lot of this before, but what seems different this time is the sense that Turkey is calculating the costs of its alliance with the West. It used to be issues like missile defense were hard, but because aligning with NATO was an identity issue, the Turks would ultimately sign up. Ankara is not walking away from NATO, and there will be a compromise—the Turks are not asking for anything unreasonable—but it seems clear that cost-benefit analysis is now the order of the day in Ankara. Before anyone gets mad at me (you know who you are), I am not making an argument that Turkey is drifting East and becoming an Islamic state. Rather, what we are seeing is a natural evolution of Turkish foreign policy in which Ankara’s interests and goals differ from Washington. This is a function of geography, democracy, economics, and the profound changes in international politics 17 years after the end of the Cold War. Turkey is just being Turkey. That’s should be OK in some areas and more problematic in others, but there is precious little Washington or anyone else can do about it.
  • Security Alliances
    Can NATO Nudge Russia Westward?
    The French-Russian-German summit in Deauville this week sought to bring Russia closer to the West. Russia accepted an invitation to next month’s NATO summit, but CFR’s Charles Kupchan says Moscow questions the sincerity of Euro-Atlantic overtures.
  • Afghanistan
    Afghanistan’s National Security Forces
    The growth and strengthening of Afghanistan’s domestic security forces is seen as key to an eventual U.S. exit, but some analysts caution that progress will remain slow.
  • NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
    The Future of NATO
    Overview When NATO's founding members signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, they declared themselves "resolved to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security." The greatest threat to these objectives was a military attack by a hostile power—a prospect that led to the treaty's most famous provision, Article V, which states, "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." Today, more than sixty years later, the threats facing the alliance's members have changed considerably. An attack in North America or Europe by the regular army of an outside state is highly unlikely. Instead, the alliance must confront an array of more diffuse challenges, ranging from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to piracy, cyberattacks, and the disruption of energy supplies. In this Council Special Report, James M. Goldgeier takes on the question of how NATO, having successfully kept the peace in Europe in the twentieth century, can adapt to the challenges of the twenty-first. Goldgeier contends that NATO retains value for the United States and Europe. He writes, though, that it must expand its vision of collective defense in order to remain relevant and effective. This means recognizing the full range of threats that confront NATO members today and affirming that the alliance will respond collectively to an act (whether by an outside state or a nonstate entity) that imperils the political or economic security or territorial integrity of a member state. A central part of this debate concerns NATO's involvement in conflicts outside of Europe, including today in Afghanistan. Analyzing the questions surrounding this involvement, Goldgeier rejects any distinction between traditional Article V threats and those to be found outside the North Atlantic treaty area. Instead, he argues, these threats can be one and the same. If NATO is unable to recognize this reality and confront dangers wherever they arise, Goldgeier contends, American interest in the alliance will wane. Examining a range of other issues, the report argues that NATO should expand its cooperation with non-European democracies, such as Australia and Japan; outlines steps to improve NATO's relations with Russia; and urges greater cooperation between NATO and the European Union. Finally, on the issue of enlargement, the report supports the current policy of keeping the door open to Georgia and Ukraine while recognizing that they will not join the alliance anytime soon. NATO has been a cornerstone of security in Europe—and of U.S. foreign policy—for six decades. But its ability to continue playing such a central role is unclear. The Future of NATO takes a sober look at what the alliance and its members must do to maintain NATO's relevance in the face of today's strategic environment. The result is an important work that combines useful analysis and practical recommendations for policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. Educators: Access the Teaching Module for The Future of NATO.
  • Security Alliances
    The U.S.-Europe Partnership
    Play
    The fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago marked a new era in U.S.-European cooperation on global issues. Please join Philip H. Gordon to discuss the status and future of the relationship under a new president’s leadership, as well as the role of the transatlantic partnership in addressing international security challenges.
  • Security Alliances
    The U.S.-Europe Partnership
    Play
    Watch Philip H. Gordon, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, shed light on the status and future of the U.S.-European relationship under a new president's leadership, as well as the role of the transatlantic partnership in addressing international security challenges.
  • Diplomacy and International Institutions
    U.S.-NATO: Looking for Common Ground in Afghanistan
    NATO’s European members are more worried about a reassertive Russia than the threat posed by Afghanistan, says expert Robert E. Hunter. This has become the basis for an "unspoken bargain" on supporting the Afghan war effort, he says.
  • Security Alliances
    Foreign Affairs LIVE featuring Zbigniew Brzezinski
    Play
    Please join Zbigniew Brzezinski for the first Washington installment of the Foreign Affairs LIVE series. The series brings together authors, Council members, and friends of the magazine, for timely, in-depth discussions on significant global issues. At this meeting, Dr. Brzezinski will offer insight into his recent Foreign Affairs article “An Agenda for NATO,” which examines NATO’s history and next course of action, as well as his thoughts on the broader challenges confronting U.S. foreign policy. To view “An Agenda for NATO,” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, please click on the following link: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65240/zbigniew-brzezinski/an-agenda-for-nato
  • Security Alliances
    Foreign Affairs LIVE Featuring Zbigniew Brzezinski
    Play
    Watch Zbigniew Brzezinski offer insight into his recent Foreign Affairs article "An Agenda for NATO," which examines NATO's history and next course of action, as well as his thoughts on the broader challenges confronting U.S. foreign policy.
  • Europe and Eurasia
    ’A Very Good Week’ in Europe for President Obama
    Europe expert Charles A. Kupchan says that President Barack Obama’s trip to Europe "went as well as could be expected" in light of some of the policy differences that became clear ahead of his departure.
  • Afghanistan
    Transatlantic Allies Need to Overcome Grumbling
    President Obama’s first major overseas summits are shadowed by disputes with European allies over stimulus plans and commitment to the Afghan war. He should seize the opportunity to appeal for a strong Europe and a strong NATO.