NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Barack Obama, and Dmitry Medvedev said the Lisbon summit was one of the most successful and productive ones in the Alliance’s 61-year history, and that it was a historic event.
It is true that a number of important decisions were made at the summit. Most importantly, a NATO strategy for the next decade was worked out. The 28 leaders worked out a new strategy in place of the previous one, adopted in 1999. This document determines the Alliance’s priorities, and the 21th century threats that NATO will combat together with international organizations. Secretary General Rasmussen noted this strategic concept means that NATO will continue to play a unique role in common security and defenses; that this action plan offers clearly formulated guidelines aimed at making NATO more effective, involved, and rational than ever before. To this end the Alliance plans to invest in its key capacity in an anti-missile network, cyber defense, long-range cargo aircraft, create a global partnership network involving other organizations and countries, and “cut the fat” but “invest in muscle,” specifically by decreasing the number of general officers by one-third.
The Lisbon summit succeeded in settling internal differences regarding the text of the new strategic concept, although it took quite some effort. Turkey insisted on leaving out the names of countries such as Iran and Syria that are being regarded by NATO as threats to international security. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France told a press conference that Iran constitutes a missile threat.
Another compromise was the settlement of differences between France and Germany in regard to nuclear containment and Euro-Atlantic territorial anti-missile systems. As requested by Paris, the strategic concept reads that NATO will not dismantle nuclear weapons systems for as long as such systems remain in place elsewhere in the world. On Berlin’s insistence, the text includes a clause to the effect that NATO’s objective is a nuclear-free world.
The New Strategy Concept for the first time contains a clause that reads that NATO will “develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defense, which contributes to the indivisible security of the Alliance.”
The Lisbon summit adopted procedures starting the process of transfering, to Afghan authorities, the responsibility for this country’s national security, scheduled for early 2011, and to be completed before the end of 2014. Rasmussen declared that NATO will remain in Afghanistan for as long as its [peacekeeping] mission requires.
The third topic on the summit agenda was NATO-Russia relations, as reflected in Clauses 33 and 34 of the Strategy Concept:
“33. NATO-Russia cooperation is of strategic importance as it contributes to creating a common space of peace, stability and security. NATO poses no threat to Russia. On the contrary: we want to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia, and we will act accordingly, with the expectation of reciprocity from Russia.”
President Medvedev several times referred to the NATO-Russia summit as “historic” during a press conference, adding that he believed the period of cool relations and differences between Russia and the Alliance was over; that Moscow counted on rapprochement in all respects; that NATO’s Strategic Concept reflects the member countries’ desire to build constructive relations with Moscow.
This rapprochement appears to be in the making. First, Russia has agreed to take part in the working out of an anti-missile system in collaboration with NATO countries. Second, Russia and NATO have agreed on expanding the framework of ground transit and deliveries of NATO military cargoes to and from Afghanistan, also to expand the list of such deliveries.
However, this rapprochement isn’t likely to go far. On the one hand, the Russian president never answered a US journalist’s question about the accords signed in Lisbon meaning that Russia trusts NATO. Also, Medvedev’s statement during that press conference about Russia expecting normal, full-fledged, predictable, and transparent relations with NATO, that the warm climate and the physical condition of a great many citizens depend on the relations between the Alliance and the Russian Federation, was rather curious. Has NATO ever planned to attack Russia or given any reason for this assumption? NATO is stressing the need of predictable and transparent relations with Russia, whereas Russia’s military doctrine that NATO and its expansion eastward constitute a threat.
In response to a Portuguese journalist’s question about the possibility of Russia’s NATO membership, President Medvedev said: “At the moment... I cannot envision Russia joining the Alliance, but everything changes, and so does the North Atlantic Alliance… if and when it comes to our closer collaboration, there will be no topics discussed behind closed doors. We can discuss them in the presence of good will and desire on the part of our Alliance partners.” The logical question is, How should NATO change to make Russia wish to join it?
Ukraine’s political leadership also appears pleased with the Lisbon summit’s outcome. Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryshchenko told a press conference in Lisbon that the New Strategic Concept’s formula in regard to Ukraine meets Kyiv’s interests: “The main point that this document reads that NATO ‘will develop the partnership with Ukraine.’ In the context of our status, this fully conforms to our interests. We are interested in practical cooperation with the Alliance, with regard to programs that answer our interests.”
In fact, Clause 35 of the New Strategic Concept reads that NATO will “continue to develop the partnerships with Ukraine and Georgia within the NATO-Ukraine and NATO-Georgia Commissions, based on the NATO decision at the Bucharest summit in 2008, and taking into account the Euro-Atlantic orientation or aspiration of each of the countries.”
Prior to the Lisbon Summit, President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine signed the Edict “On Measures to Secure Further Constructive Partnership between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
