Over the latest decades, a controversial question has roamed the environments of Global Security, both in academia and on the political scene: is NATO an obsolete institution? Many wondered what purposes might the organisation serve in a world where its initial rationale as an opposing party to the Soviet Union had fallen, and its member countries suffered virtually no active threats to their territorial integrity.
At the time of the publication of the Strategic Concept in 2010, such question seemed legitimate; twelve years ago, in fact, while concerned about terrorism and rising cyber-attacks, the leaders of the Western world were in agreement that “the Euro-Atlantic area is at peace and the threat of a conventional attack against NATO territory is low.”[1] They even came so far as endorsing the establishment of a “true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia.”
In June of 2022, as we move into the fifth month of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Heads of NATO countries meet in Madrid to define a new Strategic Concept, the statements of its predecessor appear not only outdated, but almost ironically absurd. Now, in fact, NATO considers that “the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.”[2] Indeed, interrogations as to the usefulness of NATO have also virtually disappeared; rather, the Organisation has witnessed a revival of support from all fronts, with discussion in multiple countries regarding the possibility of membership in light of the newly incumbent threat posed by Russia. Nations that have formally put forward their will to enter the Alliance include Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Sweden, and Finland; furthermore, internal talks on the topic are ongoing in Ireland, Moldova, and Serbia. In accordance with the awareness of a need for a multilateralist approach and with NATO’s reaffirmed Open Door Policy, representatives of several of these countries joined the Madrid Summit. Their participation contributed to the definition of provisions for “tailored political and practical support” to Eastern partners such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Moldova, in order to support their defence systems and preserve their political independence and territorial integrity. Moreover, Finland and Sweden have, in a historic move, ended decades of neutrality: agreements were set to sign their Accession Treaties to the Alliance as negotiations successfully led to the finalisation of a trilateral agreement that convinced President Erdogan lifted Turkey’s ban on the Nordic countries’ membership.
Erdogan had, in fact, underlined his country’s significance for the Alliance and blocked Finland and Sweden’s membership, citing the arms embargo imposed by Sweden on Turkey, which contradicts the fundamental rationale of a military alliance. The President also mentioned the countries’ relations to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), remarking how any change in Turkey’s approach to the matter would be conditional to the candidates’ commitment to conforming with joined efforts against the group. The PKK, a militant group advocating and fighting for Kurdish independence within Turkey and closely linked with the Kurdish militias in neighbouring Syria, is considered a terrorist organization by the European Union and the United States; given the importance for President Erdogan of thwarting any change for Kurdish independence across the region, he requested that the two Nordic countries explicitly conform to such classification of the PKK.
Resolution of such dispute was of the utmost importance in the current global power dynamics; a failure to reach a deal, as duly noted by former American ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, would have sent the wrong message to the world and to President Putin, as it would have implied internal divisions within the Alliance and could have been interpreted as a show of weakness. Negotiations led by NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg and diplomatic action by several other member states, as well as behind-the-scenes threats by the US to deny Erdogan’s request for F-16 jets, however, yielded results. The joint memorandum signed by Sweden, Finland, and Turkey, described as a wonderful kick-off of the Summit by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, stipulated the abjuration of the PKK by both countries, as well as their commitment to amending national legislation to facilitate the extradition of persons suspected of terrorism. Furthermore, to functionally implement the concrete steps that shall lead to the achievement of such changes, the three countries will establish a Permanent Joint Mechanism, with the participation of experts from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Justice, as well as Intelligence Services and Security Institutions, open for other nations to join.
While the accession process is still months away from its finalization, leaving plenty of time for new disputes to emerge, the memorandum and the commitment stated in point 18 of the Madrid Summit Declaration hold great political weight. On one hand, together with the several provisions for international cooperation in defence and security determined in the Declaration, they reinforce the message that NATO is internally cohesive and dedicated to a multilateral approach, as well as its role as a primary security provider on the global scene. From the point of view of Russia, however, the expansion of the Alliance is seen as an explicit threat, particularly in light of the strongly worded condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine and the pledge of assistance against the Russian Federation. President Putin, in fact, did not hesitate to define the accession of Finland and Sweden as “imperial ambitions” and an attempt to establish “supremacy” by NATO. Given the plan of the Alliance to increase the stationed combat-ready forces in Eastern countries, Putin promptly pronounced himself ready to respond symmetrically if the same were to happen close to the new 1,340 km border between NATO – through Finland – and Russia. Though the Kremlin’s leader acknowledged that the two nations are free to “join whatever they want,” he also warned of the “serious military and political consequences” that Russia would be obliged to undertake to “restore military balance”, including the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in the Baltic Sea.
The new Strategic Concept elaborated in the Madrid Summit, during what the Concept itself calls a “critical time for our security and for international peace and stability,” not only reinforces the rationale of NATO as a defensive organization, but also its existence in opposition to the Russian Federation. Though the Concept itself explicitly states that NATO intends to pose no threat to Russia, it underlines how the Kremlin was the first to have “violated the norms and principles that contributed to a stable and predictable European security order,” thus ending peace in the Euro-Atlantic region, and enumerates several concrete provisions that the Alliance will take to counter the attack. The Madrid Summit thus resulted in consistent re-affirmation of many of the core principles of NATO, such as counterterrorism and the need to manage the threat of cyber-attacks; simultaneously, it opened a renewed chapter of increased activity from the self-proclaimed “strongest Alliance in history.” While the stated intentions of the 2022 Strategic Concept are to foster international security, however, initial reactions to the declarations of the Summit imply that such an approach can lead to increased tensions in the global strategic scene, particularly taking into account the proven unpredictability of major decision-makers exemplified by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which many had deemed unrealistic before it became a reality.
Sources
The Economist. (2022, May 30). Recep Tayyip Erdogan on NATO expansion. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from The Economist website: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/05/30/recep-tayyip-erdogan-on-nato-expansion
Jazeera, A. (2022, June 29). Putin condemns NATO’s “imperial ambitions”, warns Finland, Sweden. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from Aljazeera.com website: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/29/putin-condemns-natos-imperial-ambitions-warns-finland-sweden
NATO 2022 – Strategic concept. (2022). Retrieved June 30, 2022, from Nato.int website: https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
“Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation” Adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
NATO. (2022). Madrid Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Madrid 29 June 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from NATO website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_196951.htm
NATO. (2022). Trilateral memorandum between Türkiye, Finland and Sweden. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from NATO website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_197342.htm?selectedLocale=en
The Economist. (2022, June 28). Turkey lifts its block on letting Sweden and Finland join NATO. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from The Economist website: https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/06/28/turkey-lifts-its-block-on-letting-sweden-and-finland-join-nato
[1] “Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation” Adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
[2] NATO. (2022). Madrid Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Madrid 29 June 2022. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from NATO website: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_196951.htm
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
