Q&A
Raluca Csernatoni, Sinan Ülgen
{
"authors": [
"Sinan Ülgen"
],
"type": "commentary",
"blog": "Strategic Europe",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"North America"
],
"topics": [
"EU",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
How to Judge Chicago’s Success
The success of the Chicago Summit is likely to be determined by its ability to cement the transatlantic partnership and whether the Allies will achieve unity of vision for the future of the Alliance.
By Sinan Ülgen
Published on May 4, 2012
The Chicago NATO Summit will be taking place against the backdrop of an almost irresistible tendency of U.S. retrenchment from Europe and the wider Middle East. The United States has already pulled back its troops from Iraq. The engagement in Afghanistan is slated to come to an end in 2014. Washington seems to have found the formula for limiting the scope of its engagement even under crisis conditions. As the Libya operation has demonstrated, “Leading from behind” seems to have caught the attention and support of many in the U.S. administration. For many, the Chicago summit will signal the end of the transatlantic dominion and usher in the much heralded “Pacific Century”.
As America’s attention drifts westward, European attention is turning inwards. The eurocrisis is sapping many EU leaders’ political capital. There is very little talk about the security partnership with the United States. On the contrary, in Europe, the focus is on assessing the impact of current and future austerity measures on regional and global security.
Against this backdrop, the success of the Chicago Summit is likely to be determined by its ability to cement the transatlantic partnership. The Chicago Summit has to address the consequences of this unfavorable environment. It should conclude with a stronger than expected commitment to the transatlantic partnership.
The second measure of success for Chicago can be whether the Allies will achieve unity of vision for the future of the Alliance.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been able to take advantage of two fundamental dynamics: enlargement and large scale operations. This era has now ended. There is no enlargement on NATO’s near term agenda. The few aspirant countries will not fundamentally alter this reality. Also large scale operations—Kosovo, Afghanistan—are likely to be absent from NATO’s playbook in the foreseeable future. As a result, the Alliance needs to find a new dynamic to maintain its cohesion.
The answer was tentatively given in Lisbon. The new Strategic Concept in effect maps the future of the Alliance. But the task in Lisbon was relatively easy. It involved long term objectives around which a consensus among the Allies was created. The task awaiting the Alliance leaders in Chicago will be different and possibly more challenging. They will have to devise the means for implementing the Lisbon vision. In other words, Chicago will have to be about how the Alliance can become what it decided to be in Lisbon.
It is from this perspective that key issues, such as smart defense, acquire significant relevance. Smart defense, as championed by Secretary General Rasmussen, is set to represent one of the most visible yardsticks for Chicago’s success. Smart defense is presented by the NATO leadership as the way forward for NATO. It is seen as the answer to many old and new problems that have and continue to bedevil the Alliance. Burden sharing between America and Europe can possibly be redressed by smart defense. The impact of the austerity measures can arguably be managed by smart defense. The generation of new and complementary capabilities can also be addressed by smart defense. It is no coincidence therefore that the concept of smart defense has figured prominently in the public speeches of NATO’s leadership. So it will be interesting to see to what extent NATO leaders will be able to commit themselves to a secure future for smart defense.
About the Author
Sinan Ülgen
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Sinan Ülgen is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, transatlantic relations, international trade, economic security, and digital policy.
- Can the EU Achieve Its Tech Ambitions?
- Can the EU Overcome Divisions on Defense?Q&A
Catherine Hoeffler, Sinan Ülgen
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Strategic Europe
- The Fog of AI WarCommentary
In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.
Raluca Csernatoni
- How to Join the EU in Three Easy StepsCommentary
Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.
Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni
- Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?Commentary
Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing ItCommentary
Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.
Rym Momtaz
- Win or Lose, Orbán Has Broken Hungary’s DemocracyCommentary
Hungarians head to the polls on April 12 for an election of national and European consequence. Three different outcomes are on the cards, each with their own implications for the EU.
Zsuzsanna Szelényi
