Blogs

Challenges emanating from the Mediterranean region, including those posed by failed states, terrorism, and a historic flow of migrants, have contributed to a surge in populism on both sides of the Atlantic that could imperil transatlantic unity and the European project itself, Alexander Vershbow, a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, said on February 1.  

Vershbow, who previously served as deputy secretary general of NATO from February 2012 to October 2016, said that these challenges “threaten to undermine the traditional values of openness and tolerance on both sides of the Atlantic.” Consequently, these conditions necessitate a fresh look at the security situation in the Mediterranean, focusing in particular on drivers of instability.

“The security interests of the transatlantic community and the Mediterranean have been closely intertwined for centuries… but never more intertwined than today,” he said.  
In facing the challenges of the world today, leaders and policymakers can draw on examples from the past in order to create hope for the future.  As described by Fred Kempe, president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council, one such example can be found in the late Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster, a military leader and statesman who worked through the twentieth century to help establish the current rules-based global order.

The Life and Work of General Andrew J. Goodpaster: Best Practices in National Security Affairs by C. Richard Nelson is a biography detailing the renowned general’s life and the ways in which he embodied “the defense of values, the defense of constructive leadership in the world alongside friends and allies to create a more secure future,” said Kempe.

Deborah Lee James, secretary of the US Air Force, said the transatlantic community is facing significant challenges

In light of numerous instances of Russian aggression around the world, the transatlantic security community must stand together in a coordinated show of force so as to deter Russian revanchism, Deborah Lee James, secretary of the US Air Force, said at the Atlantic Council on December 19.

“The transatlantic security community… is facing greater challenges today than at any time since the end of the Cold War,” said James. She said that Russia’s infringements upon the security of other nations are “poking and testing and pushing and seeing what the response will be.”

“We have to have resolve and we have to have an active response,” she said.
Donald J. Trump was elected the forty-fifth president of the United States on November 8. Atlantic Council analysts and board members describe the challenges and opportunities the new president will face as he takes office in January of 2017, and provide policy recommendations.
As its summit in Warsaw approaches, NATO is bolstering defenses on its eastern flank, increasing military presence, improving infrastructure, and conducting military exercises. While praised in some circles, NATO’s actions have also drawn criticism. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has accused the Alliance of “warmongering” and ratcheting up tensions with Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has characterized NATO’s actions as aggressive, hostile, and “Cold War-style.”

Nevertheless, the Alliance’s concerns are rooted in fact. As Russia stokes tensions near NATO’s eastern border, the Alliance must respond in a measured way to project strength, stability, and solidarity—especially if the United Kingdom acts on the decision of a majority of Britons to take the UK out of the European Union. While enhanced forward presence may not be the sole aspect of an approach that responds to Russia, it is certainly a vital one.
For one week in February, an Atlantic Council team and peers from Washington-based academic institutions and think tanks visited Tokyo, Hiroshima, Saijo, and Miyajima to learn about the culture, traditions, and international policies of Japan. We attended meetings with representatives of government agencies, private companies, and local think tanks. Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sponsored the trip. What follows is a combination of our observations.
The March 22 terrorist attacks in Brussels will have three major consequences for Europe’s political landscape.

First, it could deal a devastating blow to Europe’s open borders; the Schengen area is the magnum opus of a unified Europe. Following the terrorist attack, authorities shut down major public transport lines between Brussels and its European neighbors. France has sent an additional 1,600 police to “border crossings and air, sea, and rail infrastructure,” closing some major roads to Belgium. France’s Interior Minister also announced plans to implement checkpoints at domestic public transportation stations.

Apprehension is quickly spreading to other European capitals. The United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy, among others, have heightened security at large airports and transport points. British, Italian, Dutch, and Polish governments have also convened emergency national meetings amidst growing border security concerns. If nations begin to turn inward, shoring up borders and rejecting the Schengen zone, the foundation of the European project will be shaken to its core.
Funding issues and decision-making challenges may render obsolete NATO’s “spearhead” force, which was set up in response to Russia’s military aggression along its eastern flank.

This is another critical gap for NATO given Russia’s ramped up pressure on Eastern Europe, a move that has many Alliance officials even more worried after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent military intervention in Syria.

As NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, US Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, summed up before Congress in February: “Russia’s aggressive foreign policy toward Ukraine and the Baltic States amplifies a general sense of unease among NATO’s eastern flank members.”
For many years, the European Union and NATO have straddled the bounds between cooperation and competition. Even with the formal establishment of the EU after the Cold War, NATO continued to serve as a defense guarantor for Europe. Yet, as the EU expanded its capabilities as a security actor, adding the military element of its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), policymakers have raised significant questions about the role of each organization. Attempting to evolve with the changing global security environment, the EU and NATO have inherited an ambiguous set of overlapping and competing tasks. Beyond this, neither organization has a clear vision or plan to coordinate their actions in today’s context. Despite repeated calls for cooperation, the Turkey-Cyprus issue has continued to prevent a genuine EU-NATO partnership.
The US-led coalition that is conducting airstrikes on the Islamic State in Syria should more deliberately target the terrorist group’s infrastructure and “tighten the noose” around its de facto capital Raqqa, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said at the Atlantic Council on Dec. 11. 

“I hope now we are going to see new focus on the more deliberate targeting of the infrastructure that supports ISIS — the oil, the supply routes, the ammunition  depots, the logistics, the command and control centers — that will enable us to degrade ISIL, stop it resupplying its fighters in Iraq, and slowly tighten the noose around Raqqa where all this stuff is organized and directed and inspired,” Fallon said referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham's (ISIS) de facto capital in Syria.

Precision airstrikes could “choke off” Raqqa and ensure that the “grip that ISIL has can’t be reinforced,” the British official said.


    

RELATED CONTENT