DIPLOM ATICOURIER.com
A Global Affairs Media Network JULY 1 1 - 1 2 , 2 0 1 8 I S PECIAL REPORT ON TH E N ATO BRUSSELS SUM M IT
NATO 2018 SUMMIT
SPECIAL REPORT
GALLUP ANALYTICS: ANALYZE THE WORLD IN ONE CLICK.
GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT GALLUP ANALYTICS TODAY – EMAIL GALLUPANALYTICS@GALLUP.COM OR CALL +1-202-715-3131
Analytics
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m
Contents VO L UME 1 2 I S PE CIA L R E PORT ON TH E 2018 N ATO SUM M IT I J ULY 2018
06 I The NATO Summit’s Legacy
By: Silvana Smith
08 I Shifting Ally Tectonics: The Road to the 2018 NATO Summit
By: Samantha Thorne
11 I Trudeau to Reiterate Canada’s Commitment to NATO
By: Paul Nash
12 I Trump’s NATO Detour En Route to the “Bully Boy” Helsinki Summit
By: Ambassador Marc Ginsberg
14 I Germany Proves An Uncertain Leader In Confrontation with Russia
By: Michael Kofman
16 I The Fraying of NATO Relationships
By: Samantha Thorne
18 I Helsinki Summit: The Ball is in America’s Court Now
By: Samantha Thorne
Masthead Publishing house Medauras Global publisher & ceo Ana C. Rold Editorial Advisors Andrew M. Beato Sir Ian Forbes Lisa Gable Mary D. Kane Greg Lebedev Anita McBride Creative Director Christian Gilliham director of social media Madeleine Terry un correspondent Akshan de Alwis
DC EDITORS Michael Kofman Paul Nash DC Correspondents Margaret Evett Silvana Smith Samantha Thorne senior photographers Michelle Guillermin Sebastian Rich CONTRIBUTORS Charles Crawford Justin Goldman Joshua Huminski Sarah Jones Arun S. Nair Richard Rousseau
PUBLISHING. Diplomatic Courier magazine is produced by Medauras Global LLC, an independent private publishing firm. The magazine is printed six times a year and publishes a blog and online commentary weekly at www.diplomaticourier.com. PRINT. Print issues of Diplomatic Courier average 100 pages in length. Individual and back issues cost $10.00 per issue (plus S&H). Student rates are available to both part-time and full-time students with proof of school enrollment. New print issues of Diplomatic Courier are published and mailed in January, March, May, July, September, and November. Subscriptions commence with the next issue. EDITORIAL. The articles in Diplomatic Courier both in print and online represent the views of their authors and do not reflect those of the editors and the publishers. While the editors assume responsibility for the selection, the authors are responsible for the facts and interpretations of their articles. PERMISSIONS. Authors retain all copyrights to their articles. None of the articles can be reproduced without their permission and that of the publishers. For permissions please email info@medauras.com with your written request.
letters to the editor/editorial submissions Editors@diplomaticourier.org advertising/sponsorship/sales Info@diplomaticourier.org website/apps support ITsupport@diplomaticourier.org mailing address 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036 United States download the app for free
ISSN. The Library of Congress has assigned: ISSN 2161-7260 (Print); ISSN 2161-7287 (Online). ISBN: 978-1-942772-01-9 (Print); 978-1-942772-02 (Online). LEGAL. Copyright ©2006-2018 Diplomatic Courier and Medauras Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication can be reproduced without written consent of the publishers. All trademarks that appear in this publication are the property of the respective owners. Any and all companies featured in this publication are contacted by Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier to provide advertising and/or services. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information in this publication, however, Medauras Global and the Diplomatic Courier magazine make no warranties, express or implied in regards to the information, and disclaim all liability for any loss, damages, errors, or omissions. CONTACT. Mailing Address: Diplomatic Courier, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 501, Washington, DC 20036, U.S. Fax: 202-659-5234. E-mail: info@diplomaticourier.org and editors@diplomaticourier.org. ART/PHOTOGRAPHY/ILLUSTRATIONS. Cover photo and page 5, official White House photos by Shealah Craighead; page 6-7, 8-9, 11, 12-13, photos courtesy of NATO Intl; page 14, photo courtesy of the Russian President’s office; page 16-17, 18-19, official White House photos by Shealah Craighead. All other images by BigStockPhotos.com.
05
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
THE NATO SUMMIT’S LEGACY By: Silvana Smith
O
ver the past 69 years since NATO was formed, the organization and the decisions made during these summits have played a considerable role in how the western world navigated major historical events, from the Cold War to 9/11. After World War II, the Allied forces created NATO to strengthen their alliance, offer political and military security protections against Soviet attacks, and formalize the decision-making process between nations. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty defined much about the military defensive purposes of the organization and outlined their policy of collective defense. Throughout the Cold War, collective military plans were made through NATO and helped defined the West’s attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. In 1955, NATO saw a Soviet response to West Germany joining NATO with the Warsaw Pact. Although NATO was able to centralize a lot of power in Europe and offer protection to smaller nations, the organization contributed to the polarization of power between the western world and other developing nations. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO’s purpose continued in support of multinational cooperation but J U LY 2 0 1 8 06
restructured and downsized its military purposes. Although NATO was formed as both a political and military alliance, the organization has historically prioritized diplomacy over military force. The first military intervention was not until 1992, in Bosnia, and the first time NATO acted under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was after 9/11. Although these actions were employed primarily under peacekeeping efforts, they helped solidify the strength and capability of NATO’s military defense. NATO had set a precedence of mostly defensive measures, but in 1999 agreed to the use of offensive airstrikes without the approval of the UN. In more recent years, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has sought to develop better relations with past soviet nations and foster less hostility between western and eastern regions. The NATO nations have increasingly centered their focus on counter terrorism measures, but priorities of peacekeeping and protection remain the same. Today, the organization’s working structures consist of member and partner nations that form different committees. Each member nation has a delegation that serves on the North Atlantic Council, described as the principal political decision-making
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
body at NATO, and headed by the Secretary General. NATO summit meetings are effectively meetings of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) at its highest level. The NATO Secretary General is the “top international civil servant” and is also the chair of each summit “responsible for steering the process of consultation and decisionmaking in the Alliance and ensuring that decisions are implemented.” Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s current Secretary General, acts as both NATO’s chief spokesperson and the head of their International Staff. Each delegation is comprised of different experts and representatives that also serve on smaller subcommittees that deal with more specific issues. When military decisions are made, the process primarily involves the Military Committee, the International Military Staff, and the military command structure. The military command structure is composed of Allied Command Operations and Allied Command Transformation, and fully relies on the forces of each member nation to carry out any military actions on a volunteer basis. The NATO Strategic Commands are responsible for the development of defense plans for their respective areas, for the determination of force
requirements and for the deployment and exercise of the forces under their command control. Aside from member nations, partner nations and their representatives attend NATO meetings and participate in either the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the NATO-Russia Council, or NATO-Ukraine Commission and contribute to efforts to include more nations in decision making in the years since the end of the Cold War. At the summit level, these countries are “represented by their Foreign or Defense Ministers or by their Head of State or Government.” Although these countries add to the dialogue, the decisions are ultimately up to the cooperation of the member nations alone. NATO EAST? The NATO alliance is no longer unique to the Western experience of military and security cooperation. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), created in 2001, deals with Eurasian political, economic, and security issues on an international level and functions in many of the same ways as NATO. SCO was formed to counter western interests, with an agenda focused on military
07
cooperation. SCO’s main goals are strengthening trust and cooperation in politics, trade, research, education, and security while “moving towards the establishment of a democratic, fair and rational new international political and economic order.” The organization consists of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, India, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. But the alliance is increasingly inviting new partners to join. The alliance represents a united, non-western force, self-described as “a permanent intergovernmental international organization.” The SCO serves as a continuation of some of the opposing and anti-U.S. sentiments seen in the Warsaw Pact through the involvement of the leading nations of Russia and China. Although still relatively young, the SCO represents over half the population of the world. The SCO’s June meeting this year, served a similar purpose to the NATO summit, as the highest level of the organization’s decisions making. As the SCO grows and develops over time, NATO’s legacy of united western power will continue to be tested. The upcoming summit will help determine how NATO will continue its legacy in the current political climate and on what terms. ●
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
SHIFTING B ALLY TECTONICS: THE ROAD TO THE 2018 NATO SUMMIT By: Samantha Thorne
russels, Belgium—Following a volatile G7 Summit, the world anxiously awaits the NATO Summit this week and its revelations about current ally dynamics. As Russia has pervaded North American-European discourse through a Trump conduit—specifically in regards to comments of Russia’s G7 membership and a scheduled TrumpPutin meeting—allies worry that the American President may prioritize an aggressive Russia over long-standing NATO relationships. Such uneasiness will play a role in this year’s summit and the future of the Alliance. At the 2018 NATO Summit, Allies plan to tackle issues related to burdensharing and the growing threat of terrorism as security tectonics continue to shift the global landscape. Following Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statements, the Alliance will address strengthening NATO forces’ readiness, improving EU-NATO relations and maintaining its “dual-track” approach of strong defense and meaningful dialogue with Russia. How the contemporary Trump-Putin relationship will shape NATO going forward is uncertain. Some parties view such interactions as a G7 déjà vu and a threat to the Alliance, while others perceive the two leaders’ July 16 meeting as J U LY 2 0 1 8 08
consistent with NATO’s stance of defense and dialogue with Russia. 2017 NATO SUMMIT: LOOKING BACK In an effort to pay homage to the Alliance’s past contributions while recognizing its role in the modern era, NATO leaders, specifically Chancellor Merkel and President Trump, dedicated the Berlin Wall and 9/11 Article 5 memorials on the grounds of the new NATO headquarters—a “21st century headquarters for a 21st century Alliance.” As the 2017 Summit followed the Manchester terrorist attack, an air of solemnity encapsulated the meeting, adding gravity to discussions focused on making the North Atlantic region and rest of the world more safe and peaceful. Intrigue surrounded the summit when President Trump not explicitly stating that the U.S. upholds Article 5, the Three Musketeer “one for all, all for one” clause of collective defense. However, Secretary General Stoltenberg predicated that actions speak louder than words and that the United States has proven its support for collective defense through its
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
military budget and NATO involvement. President Trump later offered his support of Article 5 in May of 2018. Last year’s summit highlighted fairer burden-sharing across the Alliance. Stoltenberg and Trump in particular prioritized defense spending and the 2014 Defense Investment Pledge with its call on NATO members to fulfill its 2-20 rule of spending two percent of national GDP on defense, with 20 percent of that allocated towards equipment. By discussing development plans, the Alliance questioned how its members would share the burden of military spending, invest additional funding in key military capabilities and also how they would contribute to NATO missions and operations. Leaders outlined measures to combat terrorism through support of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. The summit confirmed NATO as a full member of the Coalition while noting that its membership does not imply that NATO will engage in combat. Stoltenberg asserted that NATO will improve the Coalition’s airspace management using AWACS surveillance planes, arguing that collective Alliance actions will provide more information, flying hours and air-to-air refueling.
The summit also addressed counter terrorism initiatives related to military training. Alliance leaders confirmed the continuance of NATO training missions in Afghanistan and Iraqi forces training. Ally nations were tasked with increasing troop contributions to further the cause. Additional summit plans included improving NATO’s new Intelligence Division, fully utilizing the Alliance’s Special Operations Headquarters and instituting a southern hub at NATO’s Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy. The Alliance welcomed Montenegro’s membership and designated a senior NATO official to implement the meeting’s action plan. Pressure for NATO allies to increase defense spending took center stage both during and after the Summit. However, it is important to note that the act of calling on Allies to increase their defense spending outlays is not new; President Trump’s delivery was. In response, some Allies, including Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau, asserted that there are many metrics other than military spending that can evaluate a nation’s contribution to the Alliance. The Secretary General, however, argued that the two percent goal is reasonable and vital to an increasingly perilous world.
09
“If we are decreasing defense spending in times with reduced tensions, we have to be able to increase defense spending when tensions are going up; and now tensions have gone up,” Stoltenberg stated. 2018 NATO SUMMIT: MOVING FORWARD This year’s NATO Summit will prioritize strengthening the Alliance’s deterrence and defense. The summit aims to address long-term NATO goals, which include promoting global stability, fighting terrorism and enhancing the Alliance’s strategic partnerships. Other agenda items relate to garnering more fair burden-sharing and modernizing the Alliance. Cyberspace and hybrid threats will also be pressing topics as 21st century complexities assail the 21st century Alliance. In the fight against terrorism, this week’s Summit will emphasize a NATO Readiness Initiative referred to as the “Four Thirties.” It aims to have 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels ready within 30 days or less by 2020. The summit will build upon the June NATO Defense Ministers meeting in launching a new training mission in
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
“has the United States’ historical role in supranational organizations regressed in favor of a more isolationist status prior to World War II?”
Iraq and extending funding for Afghan forces into 2024. Efforts to strengthen military partners and further NATO’s support for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS will also be discussed. In regards to NATO’s goal to strengthen its EU relationship, a recent Friends of Europe report discusses the implications that Brexit will have on NATO and the European Union defense cooperation. As British officers have traditionally served as the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR)—a right-hand position to NATO’s American military commander—since the position’s inception in 1951, EU leaders argue that losing that influential position “could be one of the casualties of Brexit.” The British refute this statement of losing their position however, highlighting their historic and substantial role within the NATO Alliance. Great Britain will play a significant role in how NATO-EU relations pan out moving forward Defense spending and its relation to burden-sharing remains a pressing topic going into the summit. This past year, allies made efforts to increase their military budgets. From 2016 to 2017, Canada registered a .13 percent increase in GDP spending towards defense, with Germany increasing its outlays by .04 percent, and Spain raising defense spending from .81 to .92 percent. Following the Secretary
General’s 2017 Annual Report, “defense spending among European Allies and Canada increased by 4.87% from 2016 to 2017, with an additional cumulative spending increase of USD 46 billion for the period from 2015 to 2017.” Whether or not this progress will satisfy NATO leadership and President Trump will affect the summit’s proceedings. According to Reuters, Canada and European nations spent an average of 1.45 percent of GDP on defense outlays in 2017, paling in comparison to the United States’ 3.57 percent. Though the United States has traditionally been tasked with greater defense spending in international organizations because of the size of the American economy and military, there is significant room for NATO spending to improve and achieve the 2-20 goal associated with the Defense Investment Pledge. Many allies worry that budget shortcomings could spark Trump backlash simulating G7 tariff arguments and the communiqué fallout. As Presidents Trump and Putin have scheduled a summit for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland, Allies wonder what it signifies for the NATO Summit. Will the back-to-back meeting structure mirror the G7 fallout and ensuing North Korean amiability? Will Trump prioritize Russia over NATO?
J U LY 2 0 1 8 10
Allies fear that President Trump will confront NATO members on their slow increases in defense spending while adopting a friendlier tone with President Putin. Trump’s transactional approach to international relations and a similar G7-NATO summit timeline of international allied summits preceding bilateral discussions with hardline leaders have built into this fear. A hopeful strain of Trump-NATO theories forecast that the U.S. president could capitalize on both defense spending progress and his scheduled summit with Russia. Specifically, Trump could commend the allies’ progress, push for further military spending and voice NATO concerns to the Russian president and increase dialogue between both parties as the threat of Russia in the Baltics has consistently permeated NATO operations since its genesis. However, as recent statements from White House spokesman Hogan Gidley reveal, President Trump will maintain his stance of America not being “the world’s piggy bank.” How the other allies will react or how this approach will play out remains to be seen. WHAT’S NEXT The 2018 NATO Summit is surrounded by uncertainties, mainly concerning defense spending and Russia. The key question remains: has the United States’ historical role in supranational organizations regressed in favor of a more isolationist status prior to World War II? Recent information reinforce the global community’s belief that President Trump is leading a charge against global institutions and multilateralism. Both multilateralism and fair-burden sharing have been the cornerstone to securing an increasingly unsafe and complex world. The 2018 NATO Summit will play host to these tough conversations as allies seek to shape the future of global discourse and security. ●
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
TRUDEAU TO N REITERATE CANADA’S COMMITMENT TO NATO By: Paul Nash
ATO, Trudeau said in a press release, “is a cornerstone of Canada’s international security policy, “and an important alliance as we look for more stability in a world going through rapid change. I look forward to meeting with leaders from NATO member states in Belgium to deepen our already strong relationships, and to discuss what more we can and must do to advance peace and security for our citizens and people around the world.” Ahead of the NATO summit, U.S. President Donald Trump, in a letter to Trudeau, called on Canada to increase its military spending to $44 billion a year. Canada currently spends C$25 billion a year on its military, which represents approximately 1.2 percent of its GDP. In his June 19 letter to Trudeau, Trump claimed that Canada is undermining NATO’s strength by failing to fulfill a pledge made in 2014 by Canada’s previous Conservative government under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to increase the country’s military spending to NATO’s non-binding target rate for members of two percent of GDP. “There is growing frustration in the United States,” Trump wrote, “with NATO allies like Canada that
11
have not increased defense spending as promised.” In Canada’s most recent Defense Policy, published in 2017 under the title “Strong, Secure, Engaged,” Trudeau’s Liberal government outlines its commitment to an increase in military spending over the next ten years from C$18.9 billion per year (on a cash basis) in 2016-17 to $32.7 billion per year by 2026-27. Renee Filiatrault, a spokeswoman for Canada’s Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan, said that the Trudeau government’s planned spending increase has been “rigorously costed, is fully funded, and serves Canada’s defense needs.” She added: “It also upholds [Canada’s] long-standing role as an active contributor to global peace and security.” Filiatrsult also said: “Canada is proud to have contributed to every NATO operation since the founding of the alliance more than six decades ago.” Canada, together with 11 other countries, was a founding member of NATO in 1949. Filiatrsult added: “Canada’s participation in NATO operations around the world is a tangible signal of [the country’s commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliance. In his letter to Trudeau, Trump praised Canada’s global defense contributions in trouble spots such as Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan (where Canada participated in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] in Kabul and later assumed responsibility for counterinsurgency operations in Kandahar province), in addition to Canada’s strong contributions to various UN peacekeeping missions around the globe. He also describes Canada as “one of our most capable allies and a leader in worldwide security,” adding, however, that Canada’s “continued defense spending of less than two percent undermines the security of the alliance and provides validation for other allies that also are not meeting their defense spending commitments.” Canada’s Department of Defense says that the government’s currently planned spending increases are expected to “provide the Canadian Armed Forces with the force size and equipment required to achieve excellence across the full spectrum of military operations, from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, to peacekeeping, to combat.” ●
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
TRUMP’S W NATO DETOUR EN ROUTE TO THE “BULLY BOY” HELSINKI SUMMIT By: Ambassador Marc Ginsberg
hich Donald Trump will arrive at this week’s tense NATO summit? The tariff tantrum Trump, or a president eager to bring the curtain down on the soap opera he created last month at the Quebec G7 summit? As with all things “Trump” it will greatly depend on what Fox New Channel’s Rasputin-like Sean Hannity instructed Trump the evening before. It is rather appealing, after all, for an egged-on Trump to lather up his base of supporters how badly NATO allies are freeloading off of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. NATO, the European Union, Merkel, Trudeau automobile tariffs, refugees— it’s all the same to Trump. European leaders—particularly those who run the European Union—are not worthy of honorable mentions, the sort that Trump enjoys dishing out to the likes of Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin. When Trump saches into the gleaming new NATO headquarters building in Brussels (which he found time to critique a few months ago) he most likely will say to himself: “what a terrible waste of American taxpayer dollars, and my name is not even on it!” If anyone believes that Trump’s goal at Brussels is to squeeze NATO members to cough up more of their J U LY 2 0 1 8 12
national budgets for defense to meet the prescribed 2% GDP allocation, I have a bridge over the East River to sell them. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with jawboning NATO allies to get to that goal ASAP. Every prior U.S. president has echoed that refrain. But NATO cannot, nor should we stand by and permit Trump to browbeat its members as if they were all Trump Company real estate subcontractors. Does it matter to Trump that NATO members have substantially increased their defense spending under his watch (the majority now on track to reach the requisite 2% GDP defense spending goal by 2023) and that he has made a substantial difference here? But to Trump, the NATO budget agenda is a means to other ends. Sadly, Trump’s likely objective in Brussels is to continue roughing up America’s allies to instill uncertainty into NATO’s solid front against Russian aggression. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he considers America’s essential leadership in NATO as a bargaining chip to get his way on his tariff war with NATO’s key members—particularly Germany, which is only spending 1.2% of its budget on national defense (and fleecing U.S. automobile manufacturers with high tariffs, to boot).
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
Who would be shocked if Trump declared that NATO military exercises are a waste of money and a “provocation” against Russia. Or that he tweets out one of his idiosyncratic messages en route to Brussels or to his Helsinki meeting with Putin muddying the waters again on the U.S. binding commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty just to disrupt and sow discord? So rather than an inconvenient detour, the NATO Summit fits quite nicely into Trump’s domestic agenda— even more so because he knows that Europeans do not share his obsequious, mysterious dictatorship envy with the crown jewel of autocrats, Vladimir Putin with whom he will be meeting just a few hours after he leaves his trail of spilled blood in Brussels. Everyone had fair warning of which Trump would show up. Trump reportedly sent out approximately one dozen angry “Dear Jane and Dear Joe” letters to key NATO leaders in June just to make sure they got the gist of his planned Summit salvos. In his uniquely undiplomatic correspondence to our key allies, Trump insinuated that they are intentionally underspending on defense and threatened that the U.S. would alter its attitude toward NATO unless every
NATO member met the alliance’s 2% of GDP defense spending goal set at the Wales NATO summit meeting in 2014. When Trump is confronted by his advisers with “NATO facts” detailing how essential the alliance’s contributions is to America’s security (in Afghanistan, Syria, or in sub-Sahara against ISIS) all Trump sees are U.S. dollars flying out the door. Trump conjures up another of his alternative facts that there must be some sort of NATO club piggy bank that each member contributes to so that he can make a big withdrawal and wave a big check around as if he just won the Publisher’s Clearing House payoff. It’s regrettable that one must have to come to the defense of NATO’s critical importance to American global security in this age of Trump. NATO is the anchor to check Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe, to combat radical Islamic terror, and the backbone of our global alliance structure—reaching all the way into Afghanistan and into sub-Saharan Africa. And at Brussels, leaders are planning to unveil an ambitious new plan to create two new military command structures which would enable NATO to deploy 30 battalions, 30 squadrons of planes and 30 ships—within 30 days—to address threats to the Alliance.
13
Unfortunately, I predict Trump has zero intention to emerge from the NATO summit healing the divisions and the acrimonious discord he orchestrated at the Quebec G7 meeting. And how does all this NATO discord play in the hands of America’s adversaries? Mr. Putin is testing the Alliance daily. In Estonia (cyber-attacks), with Russian subs and planes violating NATO sea and airspace, with Putin’s grinding war in eastern Ukraine, and with meddling in the democratic elections of virtually every NATO member. A divided NATO is music to Putin’s ears. And where is the pushback from Republican members of Congress to Trump’s trans-Atlantic demolition derby? The very Republicans who have championed the importance of NATO to America’s security? Hiding their heads again. Are they going to be co-drivers to Trump against our allies and NATO and stand idly by? It is one thing to withdraw from a non-binding Iran nuclear deal. It is entirely another to intentionally decay American constitutionallybinding treaty obligations. No Commander-in-Chief has that authority, not even you, Mr. Trump. ●
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
GERMANY I PROVES AN UNCERTAIN LEADER IN CONFRONTATION WITH RUSSIA By: Michael Kofman
t may be difficult for an American to admit, but the confrontation between Russia and the West will not be solved by the power and influence of the U.S. The contestant on behalf of the West is Europe, led by a Germany that steadily sees itself as the guardian of European values. Much depends on Berlin in how this confrontation plays out, because it has become the unifying factor in Europe’s stand against Russian actions in Ukraine. Europe’s success is far from certain, because Russia has a clear vision for how the use of force can achieve its desired political ends. Russia has the means and the political will to execute it. Germany, however, has not presented a vision for how Europe’s use of economic and diplomatic power will result in a resolution to the conflict in Ukraine or in the broader confrontation with Russia. Almost a year into the crisis, this is a problem. In Ukraine, Germany’s only visible plan so far is to keep the Europeans together on the several tiers of sanctions leveled against Russia. Not a simple task, given France’s desperation to deliver the Mistral helicarriers, and other member states looking for the first excuse to start repealing them. The sanctions have J U LY 2 0 1 8 14
worked to hurt Russia, according to the Minister of Finance, Anton Siluanov. They have cost $40 billion in 2014, but they are not a deciding factor in any part of this conflict. Russia has lost another $100 billion due to the crumbling oil prices and the fact it was already entering a recession at the start of 2014. This year’s growth expectations have been slashed from 1.2 percent of GPD to a .8 percent contraction, the ruble has devalued by over 30 percent, and inflation is likely to be in the 9 to 10 percent range. The sanctions have put Russian companies in a bind by cutting them out of the Western financial system and creating an artificial liquidity problem. But this problem is within Moscow’s financial means to solve. The challenge for Europe is that not only have the sanctions failed to be coercive, they are ineffectively punitive. Russia faced economic adversity anyway, and there are no Western terms it can meet in Ukraine that will serve to improve global oil prices. Saudi Arabia’s decision to suppress U.S. shale production by keeping its oil output level at a loss is more to blame for Moscow’s economic woes than anything Europeans have done all year.
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
Ultimately the sanctions make a great scapegoat for economic failures that would otherwise have been blamed on Vladimir Putin, and rally the Russian public to an extent unseen during his 15 year tenure. They have thus far gained no demonstrable respite for Ukraine on the ground. Germany is busily keeping Europeans together in this policy, reminiscent of its austerity prescriptions for the financial crisis in Europe. But these temporary measures could soon become the norm in the West’s relationship with Russia. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, nothing is as permanent as temporary government measures. Nothing good can come of these sanctions becoming permanent, because they are not a visible means to any political end. If the strategy is to raise the cost of aggression for Moscow, then clearly the West has not figured out a price that Russia is unwilling to pay for pursuing its interests in Ukraine. Such a price might easily be beyond the West’s will to implement. It is evident that Germany rallied European states to implement these sanctions too soon, and likely did so out of a political calling to become the unifying voice in Europe as opposed to just the mediator. Now it is stuck, because Moscow is undeterred, and applying further economic pressure on Russia risks damaging its economy so much that it could eventually collapse or politically destabilize the country. Ukraine itself is just at the start of an arduous journey as a country. Its economic and political needs would test Western commitment on their own, but how can Germany lead an effort to rebuild this dysfunctional nation if Russia plans to sabotage it? With each month, the EU discovers not only that Ukraine will need billions more in bailouts, but additional sectors of the country’s economy where Russia has the controlling leverage. Having temporarily solved the gas-pricing dispute, the EU quickly finds that half of Ukraine’s electricity depends on coal in separatist hands. Its defense sector is highly interdependent with Russia’s. Ukraine has lost more than 7 percent of its GDP, its reserves are desperately low, and the currency valuation is a disaster. Meanwhile,
Russia has augmented roughly 25,000 separatist fighters in the breakaway enclaves with 7,000 to 8,000 of its own regulars, an arsenal of heavy armor, and weekly shipments of ammunition. This is a force quite capable of driving through Ukraine’s army if Vladimir Putin decides there should be another offensive. The ceasefire signed in Minsk was a stopping point, not the basis for a permanent agreement. Russia appeared under the impression that Western leaders would press Ukraine into hard compromises with its proxy separatist representatives, giving them autonomy and influence over national politics. Otherwise there was no reason for it to propose a ceasefire when it had Ukraine’s army completely routed. Certainly the separatists had no need for it. Instead the West has keenly used the deal to push for Russian troop withdrawal, demand a ceasefire, and buy precious time for Ukrainian fighters to regroup without having Kiev sacrifice anything in the process. Ukraine’s parliament approved an opaque limited autonomy for select parts of the separatist enclaves and promptly repealed it after the elections. This is a brilliant negotiating approach, except that it gives Moscow little choice but to resume the war to force a new agreement that might give it what it wants. Hence the Russian general staff is busily setting up the military option in the Donbass. More sanctions seem to be a mismatched response, if there is anyone in the Kremlin, who is not on the janitorial staff, still left to sanction. Russia poses a long-term challenge to Europe as well, besides the mess in Ukraine—a bigger problem Germany has yet to answer. Russia had been working to increase its influence and improve relations with key EU member states for years. Ironically, Germany was its primary target, and Moscow worked extensively to improve economic and political ties. Trade reached not an insignificant $76 billion in 2013; the Nord Stream pipeline came online despite Baltic opposition, and Vladimir Putin’s best relationship was arguably with Angela Merkel. Russia had made targeted energy,
15
infrastructure, or military deals with other EU members as well. Despite years of effort to create bilateral ties, EU members unified anyway in opposition to Moscow’s actions. Undoubtedly a surprise and disappointment for Vladimir Putin, this only accelerates Russia’s other strategy to grow its support in Europe at the sub-national level. Europeans have awoken to discover that Russia has been heavily involved in supporting right wing and euro-skeptic parties across the continent. This effort has not been wasted; 2014 saw these factions make record gains in national parliaments. Russia has tried to posture itself as the model of more traditional, conservative, European values. It does not pose an existential threat to the EU, but it alters the meaning of EU expansion. At this point, the more the EU expands, the less of a threat it is to Russia. Many of the likely prospects for EU expansion are either traditional Russian allies in the Balkans, like Serbia, countries where pro-Russian parties represent a significant portion of the legislature, like Moldova, or countries that are owned by Russia outright, like Montenegro. Georgia has walked quite far off the reformist path Mikhail Saakashvili put it on and Turkey just hosted Vladimir Putin for a state visit that looked anything but on point with Western attempts to make Russia look isolated. Eurocrats have not considered the possibility that Russia has headed them off at the pass. This is the broader geopolitical contest with Russia that Europe may have already lost, because the countries on its future admission list are just as likely to become pro-Russian voices in the vein of Hungary than they are to be team players. Here Germany’s leadership has consisted of little more than complaining about Russia’s interference in the affairs of these states. It would be better were Russia to burn its political capital to keep them out of the EU. The greater danger is if Moscow happily sent them in, securing its influence, and steadily corrupting the EU from the inside. Instead of stopping to deal with this insurgency, and put its house in order, the EU boldly presses forward with blinders on. ●
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
THE W FRAYING OF NATO RELATIONSHIPS By: Samantha Thorne
ashington, DC—At Thursday’s National Press Club Newsmaker event, Governor John Kasich said that President Trump has adopted an “America Alone” rather than an “America First” approach to foreign policy. As his remarks promptly followed the close of the 2018 NATO Summit, Kasich remarked that President Trump’s unsustainable “wrecking ball strategy” to international diplomacy has exacerbated fraying NATO Ally relationships. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NATO ALLIANCE While discussing the summit and its action plan related to defense spending and fair-burden sharing, the Ohio governor noted that decisions reached at Wednesday’s summit were nothing new or groundbreaking. “Every president has decided and made the case...that NATO needs to do more to support themselves,” Kasich stated. “What was achieved at this summit, from what I can tell, is that they agreed to what they had agreed to before,” in reference to the 2014 Defense Pledge to raise ally J U LY 2 0 1 8 16
defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024. However, the manner in which President Trump interacted with fellow allies was alarming. Noting a stark difference between Marshall Plan-era diplomacy and current U.S.-ally interactions, Kasich expressed his concern that America is no longer perceived as a reliable ally to the rest of the world. “When you run around and spend your whole time getting into these disagreements in a disagreeable way, it’s pretty hard to come back and ask your allies to support you when the going gets tough,” Kasich commented, noting that America needs strong allies when confronting China for their intellectual property abuses. In addition to a tense interaction between President Trump and Secretary General Stoltenberg, Kasich keyed in on Trump’s discussion of Germany’s dependence on Russian energy as an example of poor diplomacy. Viewing the president’s statements as oblivious to its audience, the governor asserted that if the president is going to prioritize straight talk, he must do it right. “If there’s anyone that understands the rule of communism in a leader in
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
THE TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT
“Governor John Kasich said that President Trump has adopted an ‘America Alone’ rather than an ‘America First’ approach to foreign policy.”
As President Trump is poised to attend a “loose-meeting” with President Putin in Helsinki this Monday, Kasich hopes that arms control will be the meeting’s primary focus rather than concessions to remove troop rotations in the Baltics. Additional meeting agenda items that he hopes are discussed include Russia’s menacing involvement in Syria, its cybersecurity threats, and the country’s interference in U.S. elections. Many have questioned whether the Trump-Putin summit will further unravel an already snagged ally unity. Kasich, however, noted that the two leaders need to have these conversations, but recommended that the president adopts an apprehensive view of Russia’s past aggressions and future advances. “I think that Putin is a tremendous threat, but that does not mean...that we don’t talk to them,” Kasich said,
asserting that Trump must solidify that Americans reject Russia’s threatening actions and recognize that the U.S. “has more not in common than in common” with Russia. Though Governor Kasich recognized that NATO unity is fraying, a new seam of tactful diplomacy can tailor the Alliance’s current tattered state. He prescribed that the president refrain himself from bashing fellow allies and pursue hardline conversations in private. The governor additionally espoused that other U.S. politicians should voice to allies that not all American leaders share the president’s views in how to conduct foreign policy. Though the world has become increasingly erratic, alliances must be strengthened to sew together an unraveling world. ●
the world, it would be Angela Merkel, who grew up in East Germany and understood exactly what it was like to be a victim of communist rule,” Kasich asserted. “She doesn’t really need a lecture.”
17
D I P L O M AT I C O U R I E R .c o m 2 0 1 8 N AT O S U M M I T
HELSINKI H SUMMIT: THE BALL IS IN AMERICA’S COURT NOW
elsinki, Finland—Following Monday’s disruptive TrumpPutin Summit, both the American public and U.S. allies are concerned. As President Trump and President Putin discussed matters pertaining to Syria, arms control and election interference, both the statements that were made and left unsaid contributed to widespread apprehension of the future of Russian-American relations. While most of the news coverage has focused on the behavior of President Trump at the press conference following their meeting, here is what we know on the substantive issues they said they discussed. COUNTER-TERRORISM IN SYRIA
By: Samantha Thorne
The leaders highlighted cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts in Syria as a means to reconcile U.S.-Russia relations. Agreeing that Syria has sparked both regional and humanitarian crises, President Putin cited the “Treaty of 1974” (specifically the Israel-Syria Separation of Forces Agreement) and the need for Syrians to fully comply with the treaty that calls for Israeli and Syrian forces to separate and disengage. President Trump J U LY 2 0 1 8 18
stated that the Syrian crisis is “a complex one” and prioritized further cooperation. However, as it has been widely reported Russia’s backing of Assad and the United States’ support of an opposing rebel faction to the government makes cooperation unlikely. ARMS CONTROL In terms of denuclearization, the presidents stated that they hope to construct a disarmament agenda. President Trump commended himself on his meeting with Chairman Kim last month while President Putin highlighted extending “the strategic offensive arms limitation treaty.” Putin also stated his apprehension of the global American anti-missile defense system. A Wall Street Journal article notes, however, that “Mr. Putin didn’t urge deeper cuts in nuclear arms” and avoided discussions related to Russia’s violation of the 1987 accord. ELECTION INTERFERENCE The issue of Russia’s interference in American elections garnered the most attention at the summit’s press conference. As the Helsinki summit
S P E C I A L R E P O RT
followed U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to indict 12 Russian intelligence officers for “conspiring to hack into Democrats’ computers, steal documents and interfere in the U.S. presidential election,” many wondered how President Trump would use this information going into his meeting with President Putin. When directly asked if he believes Putin or U.S. intelligence agencies regarding election interference, President Trump failed to use this opportunity to “denounce [Russian] meddling.” “I WILL SAY THIS: I DON’T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD BE [PRESIDENT PUTIN],” TRUMP STATED. “BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO SEE THE SERVER BUT I HAVE, I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN BOTH PARTIES.” Rather than confronting the issue, President Trump focused on Hillary Clinton, her emails and the Democratic National Committee. The American president asked, some variation of “Where is the server?” on five different accounts. When President Putin was asked whether he wanted Mr. Trump to win the
election, Putin responded saying, “Yes, I did. Yes, I did.” The Russian president additionally argued that the acts of private Russian individuals do not mean that the Russian state was behind their actions and that election meddling is an issue to be solved in courts. A CEREMONIOUS HANDOFF? At the summit’s closing, President Putin handed a World Cup soccer ball to President Trump, stating “And now the ball is in your court.” While this interaction could be perceived as a ceremonious handoff to the United States co-hosting the World Cup in 2026, it is also a symbolic indication that Putin views himself as the summit’s overall victor—even though the summit was intended to open up bilateral diplomacy between the two nations. The summit was largely more pomp and circumstance than substance, but many fear how President Trump was “played by old KGB hands.” As GOP allies have took to Twitter to call Mr. Trump’s summit statements as “disgraceful,” “wrong” and even “disgusting,” individuals across the political spectrum recognize that President Trump’s
19
The American president asked, some variation of “Where is the server?” on five different accounts. When President Putin was asked whether he wanted Mr. Trump to win the election, Putin responded saying, “Yes, I did. Yes, I did.” passivity against Russian aggression is alarming. His preceding summit tweet, opening conference statements and failure to denounce Russia’s meddling in the election all buttress the growing argument that Donald Trump “Blames America First” rather than prioritizing “America First.” ●
Unify & Amplify Global Voices Hyperdrive Global Solutions Version 1 [SOCRATES] Hashtag Library uniďŹ es global sentiment to surface the most meaningful voices, ideas, content and solutions. It synchronizes our thinkers, doers and research, to supercharge global solutions and power tribes.
A Living Archive of Humanity Find Out More hashtaglibrary.com
Where nations connect Effective diplomacy requires influence and in DC’s international circles no place says influence like the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Whether an economic summit, trade negotiation or a private diplomatic affair, our international trade experts and expansive network of leaders enable embassies and governments to amplify their message and strengthen their impact, locally and globally. Expand your reach. Grow your influence with us.