The failure of the goals of the Chicago summit of NATO: Germany has ceased to understand the role of the alliance
The German government conducted a confidential analysis by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the implementation by Germany and the European NATO member countries of the decisions of the May 2012 of the Chicago summit of this organization. The report details the challenges facing the alliance, ranging from cooperation in the creation of a European missile defense to scarce funds allocated to ensure an "effective security policy." The main conclusion of German analysts is that the decisions of the May 2012 of the summit are not carried out by the European participants of NATO. The report's authors conclude that progress after the Chicago summit is going on in "turtle steps." The document states: "There was no opportunity to reach any consensus in key areas." In the time since the summit, the NATO partners had difficulty finding mutual understanding on the most important issues, German analysts say. As an example, a plan for a European missile defense system is given. The United States, Turkey and the Baltic countries are mainly interested in discussing operational issues. Other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy, bring to the fore the political side of the problem regarding Russia's critical position on this project. The discussion is essentially about how non-NATO countries can be integrated into this project. "Progress in the field of missile defense, as one of the leading issues in Chicago, has not been achieved," the report of the German Foreign Ministry said. Everyone does his own thing, without taking others into account. The sides of the axis suspect each other: the Americans of Europeans are unwilling to bear the burden. Europeans Americans that they lose interest in Europe and reorient themselves to the Pacific region.The NATO summit in May 2012 put forward a broad-based reform agenda for the military alliance. The final decisions of the May summit were considered no less than the beginning of a "new era of cooperation" within the framework of a military alliance. At the Chicago summit, NATO leaders announced the main goals, the main one of which was the provision in the communiqué on the need to expand NATO's cooperation with the European Union. In the interest of optimizing military spending, NATO member states committed themselves to better coordinate their defense projects. The Europeans thereby promised to improve their military capabilities. In the main, the European NATO members agree that the reduction in financing of defense articles should be compensated by closer cooperation in various areas of defense policy, in particular, military equipment and technologies. Not every country needs its own Tanks, fighter-bombers or submarines, but at the same time it is necessary to create common military capabilities with the division of roles so that in a crisis situation military equipment will be given to those who do not have it in peacetime. One of the main goals of the renewed defense policy of the North Atlantic Alliance is to balance military spending between the United States and European NATO members.
But all this remained empty promises. When NATO defense ministers met 21 on February 2013 of the year in Brussels to launch the main initiatives of the Chicago summit, they could not even agree on key core documents. As a result, the "Chicago Defense Package" was recently laid under the cloth.
The German report demonstrates that in Berlin they accuse others, but not themselves, of sabotaging the execution of the decisions of the Chicago summit because of the "apparent incompatibility of the positions of key nations." Problem countries in the implementation of defense cooperation in the Chicago program, the German Foreign Ministry considers France and Turkey. The French, for example, have conceptual problems with the planned NATO (that is, the Americans) missile defense system. In the opinion of the authors of the analysis of the German Foreign Ministry, the French government is placing too much emphasis on national sovereignty on this issue, which is a sign that Paris is not interested in consensus on this project. A nation-state is more important for Paris than joint efforts in the field of defense, they believe in Berlin.
The same applies to Turkey. According to the German report, the key problem is the refusal of the Turks from "constructive support for the concept of partnership." Ankara refuses to cooperate with NATO partner Israel and ignores cooperation with the European Union because of the conflict around Cyprus. It is for this reason that the Turkish representative blocked constructive work at a meeting of NATO defense ministers last week. The Turkish office at NATO headquarters informed the Allies that "fundamental differences make it impossible to reach an agreement at the moment."
The German analysis obscures the role of Berlin in the absence of progress, only hinting that Germany’s NATO partners do not believe in its reliability in emergency situations. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called the refusal of his country's participation in the Libyan military operation "culture of military restraint", which only increased the skepticism of Britain and France towards Germany. Each military action of the Bundeswehr must receive the support of the German legislators in the Bundestag, which makes plans to involve Germany in military operations abroad unpredictable on the result. German Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere proposed to change the order of using the Bundeswehr in the framework of NATO military actions, but did not receive support even in his own department.
And then, the past year after the Chicago summit, NATO demonstrated that the European allies are not going to increase their military spending. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated this once again in early February of this year. From his mouth it sounded again that Europeans without American assistance would not have been able to conduct a military operation in Libya in 2011. 2 February 2013 at the annual conference on transatlantic security in Munich Rasmussen said that after Libya, the military campaign in Mali once again demonstrated the inability of France on its own without the help of the United States to conduct air combat operations. 31 January 2013 year NATO published its annual political report on the past 2012 year. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke in Brussels on this issue. “If current defense spending trends continue, it will limit the practical ability of European NATO countries to work with their North American allies. But it would also risk losing the political support of our alliance in the United States.” Rasmussen warned that the continued evasion of Europeans from increased funding for military spending would lead to a decrease in political support for NATO in the US Congress.
In connection with this problem, analysts of the German Foreign Ministry state: "Feedback demonstrates that all nations are facing significant problems when it comes to the planned burden." In secret, authorities in most European capitals believe that Washington will not abandon them in the event of any military incident. Defense financing is a key issue for US allies in Europe. On the one hand, the Afghan mission demanded an increase in spending on it. On the other hand, the financial crisis in Europe makes it necessary to reduce military spending. The past decade demonstrates roughly an 15% reduction in the military budgets of European NATO member countries. Meanwhile, the Americans, through the mouth of Secretary General Rasmussen, inform everyone that the US share in the total military expenditures of NATO countries has increased from 63% to 72% over the past ten years. Last week, US President Barack Obama showed that he no longer intends to tolerate the similar behavior of his European allies. For June 2013, a NATO summit is scheduled to be held in the US capital, Washington. At this event, Obama expects to achieve from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron and other European leaders of public statements about the need for additional military spending.
Meanwhile, Europeans have no intention of increasing their military spending. Moreover, they hope to save money released after the end of the Afghan mission in 2014. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen has already demanded that these funds not be withdrawn from defense budgets. The likelihood that his demand will be accepted by Europeans for execution is small. In the European Union, national military spending at the level of less than 1% of GDP has become common. Under the existing conditions of decision-making in the EU, it is impossible to fundamentally change anything, after which the level of military spending in the national budgets of EU countries will grow. Therefore, there is no sign that the Allies will be able to achieve any significant changes before 2014, when Rasmussen resigns, and a new NATO leadership will be elected. In the meantime, the new headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance is being built in Brussels - a building with an area of 250 thousand square meters and worth one billion euros. The project is carried out with delays regarding the construction schedule.
And in conclusion about the most important thing. German analysts in their report write: “In particular, there is one more unanswered question: Quo vadis, NATO?”. That is, we are talking about the absence of a common political doctrine of the military organization of the West. As NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismey (1952-1957), determined in his time, NATO’s goal was to “keep the Americans” in, the Russians “out”, and the Germans “down.” Apparently, this kind of installation is still in effect However, it seems to German analysts themselves that such an approach no longer corresponds to modern reality. Two decades after the end of the Cold War, they believe, the role that the military alliance is going to play in the changed world has not been officially defined yet. Asian economies and the associated military potential, and NATO goes with the flow and moves without moving along the usual inertia, when the global balance of power changes in the world.
Information