NATO has held countless summits since its inception in 1949, but none has generated as much excitement as the upcoming Lisbon summit on November 19-20. The last two summits were as somber as a funeral, given all the problems with Afghanistan, Iraq and the budget.
Lately, Western diplomats in NATO's Brussels headquarters seem to have had a surge in adrenalin, and in their frenzied state they have heralded the Lisbon summit "the most important summit of the decade," "the most significant summit since the end of the Cold War," a "historic meeting" and a "breakthrough." Will the adrenaline wear off in the homeland of port wine? Why do they expect so much from the Lisbon summit?
All 28 prime ministers and presidents of the NATO member states, including one Nobel Prize winner (Barack Obama), will be in attendance at Lisbon. At the summit, NATO will adopt a new strategic concept for the next decade and set a more or less definite date to begin withdrawing coalition forces from Afghanistan (the United States will start drawing down its forces next summer). It will also discuss the prospect of handing over control to the Afghan army and security forces by 2014-2015.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will also be in Lisbon for the Russia-NATO summit.
This, in short, is the agenda.
NATO's Russian summit
The main items of this agenda form a loose knot that cannot be disentangled or cut in one fell swoop.
NATO needs outside assistance, but there is no one left to turn to except Russia. Many of NATO's problems cannot be solved without Russia, and yet many of NATO's actions and plans are a source of concern for Russia.
The new strategic concept to be discussed in Lisbon directly affects Moscow's interests - regional, economic, demographic, social, climatic, you name it. This is hardly surprising, as the concept calls for NATO to expand its sphere of activities and responsibilities from European security to counter-narcotics, energy security, climate and "cooperative security" - in other words a broad partnership with suitable allies to resolve crises in any region of the world.
NATO has been discussing the new concept for almost a year now. A draft was ready by early autumn. In February, a group of NATO experts led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even came to Moscow to seek out Russian concerns, which they promised would be addressed in the document. But concepts like this are rooted in ideology and open to wide variety of interpretations. Moreover, the concept merely enumerates the many new functions NATO has assumed over the years.
NATO needs Russia more than Russia needs NATO
Russia will be a big focus at the meeting, because NATO needs Russia to solve the growing number of challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq. But NATO will not be able to secure Russia's help without first addressing its interests and concerns. Among Russia's concerns are the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe, NATO's eastward expansion, the balance of military forces and spheres of interest, and transparency in NATO-Russia relations. Russia wants to know the limits, if any, of NATO's expanding role in the world.
Now that the United States has moved the front in its war on terror to Afghanistan, NATO needs Russia more than Russia needs NATO. Supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan are interrupted by regular attacks of Taliban on NATO convoys in Pakistan. Currently, 75% of fuel, food, ammunition and equipment are delivered to the Pakistani port city of Karachi and then transported by trucks through the Khyber Pass to Afghanistan. The remaining 25% of supplies crawl through Pakistan's Baluchistan region. Taliban commandos stage frequent attacks on convoys travelling both routes. The losses have become intolerable, and more and more supplies have to be delivered to make up for them.
Russia's demands
Preparations for the Russia-NATO summit, including numerous visits by defense and foreign ministers, have lasted almost a year. At the summit, the sides are expected to sign a number of agreements - on allowing NATO to transport military and other cargoes to Afghanistan through Russian territory by air, rail and road; supplying (selling or leasing) Russian helicopters and weapons to Afghanistan; training Afghan pilots, special forces, military, counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism units using Russian experts and in Russian institutes and training centers; and, finally, Russia's participation in NATO's missile defense system, provided there is complete equality, respect for the interests of both sides and open information exchange.
In Lisbon, NATO plans to adopt a program to transfer control over national security to the government of President Hamid Karzai. According to the timetable, NATO must reduce its presence in Afghanistan to a minimum by 2014-2015. The United States has promised to start withdrawing troops next summer. The Afghan army has 144,000 "trained" soldiers, and another 10,000 still undergoing training. Meanwhile, illiteracy and drug addiction are rife in the army. Many Western experts admit off the record that making the fledgling Afghan army responsible for the country's future national security at this stage is like making an embryo responsible for finding a job in the future.
In exchange for its help in Afghanistan, Moscow has the right to demand guarantees that NATO will draw down its forces in member countries of the former Eastern bloc, remove the issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (this may be wishful thinking) and launch a campaign to destroy opium poppy plantations in Afghanistan. Russia's demands are clear, and by no means should it consent to sending Russian troops to the frontlines to be cannon fodder. We've already been to Afghanistan once, thank you very much.
True, Moscow has already made itself a target of the Taliban and Al Qaeda by helping to train soldiers of "the pro-West Karzai regime," opening the "Afghan corridor" for NATO supplies through Russia, and participating in joint counter-narcotics operations with the Western enemy. But there is nothing we can do about that. The situation in Afghanistan will only get worse without the help of Russia and NATO.
The key is to avoid falling into bad habits at the Russia-NATO summit. One of the leading Russian think tanks, the Institute of Modern Development (INSOR), compiled special recommendations for the summit regarding the development of a Russia-NATO strategic concept. The authors warn that "grandiose joint statements are bound to lead to new disappointment" and that "Russia-NATO practical cooperation on Afghanistan will be the decisive test of their ability to transform their relationship."
Objectively speaking, there has never been a better time to improve the relationship. President Barack Obama cannot "reset" relations with the New START treaty (Republicans in Congress are blocking ratification), so he will have to make good on his reset through NATO instead. Here is a chance for the Nobel Peace Prize winner to actually earn his award.
The views expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
