Monthly Archives: June 2017

Montenegro Prime Minister Dusko Markovic, center, shakes hands with U.S. Under Secretary of State Thomas Shannon, right, with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, during an accession ceremony at the State Department in Washington on Monday June 5, 2017. Shawn Thew / EPA

NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged that member nations were not always on the same page.

We are an alliance of democracies and we have at time different political perspectives, but together we rise above those differences and unite around a common purpose, Stoltenberg said. To stand with each other, to protect each other, and if necessary to fight to defend each other.

The mood at the ceremony was celebratory as the small former Yugoslav republic of Montenegro, once considered a Russian stronghold, was formally inducted as the newest member of the security alliance.

"Montenegro should be commended in particular for asserting its sovereign right to choose its alliances even of the face of concerted foreign pressure," said Shannon. "America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path."

Related:

"[This] is a historic event for a country and a nation which endured enormous sacrifices in the 19th and 20th centuries in order to defend their right to a free life, the right to decide on our own future, the right to be recognized by the world under our own name, and with our national symbols," said Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic. "This is also confirmation of something that has never been questioned that Americans remain committed to the stability and security of the Western Balkans and Europe."

Still, it is unclear what the alliance's recent victory will do to sooth the concerns of U.S. European allies after the President's recent performance in Brussels.

President Trump is the only U.S. President since the alliance was formed almost seven decades to not explicitly state the U.S. commitment to "Article five" the core tenet of NATO's charter: "an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all."

"The times in which we could rely fully on others, they are somewhat over," German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared earlier this month following President Trump's remarks in Brussels. We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.

Anxiety over the administration's position on international agreements was only compounded by the recent decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, a landmark global agreement meant to curb emissions that cause climate change.

"I condemn this brutal act against #ParisAccord @realDonaldTrump Leadership means fighting climate change together. Not forsaking commitment," Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel tweeted following the announcement.

Secretary of State Tillerson unable to attend today's ceremony in Washington, was asked during a press conference in Sydney with his Australian allies to explain the administration's seeming move towards isolationism.

"I hope the fact that we are here demonstrates that that is certainly not this administrations view or intention to somehow put at arms length those important allies and partners in the world," said the Secretary of State.

See the original post here:
Montenegro Joins NATO, First New Member in a Decade - NBCNews.com

Although barely discussed at the May mini-summit in Brussels, Russia remains a growing threat to NATO. To deal effectively with this threat and others, the alliance is designing a new air power strategy. To take full advantage of NATOs overwhelming potential to deliver precise combat power from the air, this new strategy should focus on three long-term tasks.

For its first task, NATO air forces must improve readiness and sustainability to maximize its deterrent posture.

After the 2016 Warsaw Summit, NATO forward deployed a battle group to each of the Baltic states and Poland to demonstrate the alliances resolve and intent to meet its Article 5 defense obligations. Given the modest size of these NATO forces, they could be overwhelmed by a well-planned, determined short-notice Russian attack.

Some defense analysts fear Russia might be tempted to attack on the bet that the alliance could not achieve a timely consensus on the follow-on course of action.During a pause after the initial attack, Russia might seek to control the situation by threatening nuclear escalation or petitioning for a diplomatic solution, thus creating further political paralysis.

Several steps would go a long way to prevent or negate the dangerous pause that could put NATO and Russia at odds. European fighter aircraft need to be kept at high readiness, ready to fight tonight. Munition stockpiles must be robust and combat operations sustainable with precision-guided munitions. Aircrews and ground crews need to be available, combat ready and well trained. NATO airfields must accommodate high-tempo combat operations that support sortie generation to high levels.

For its second task, NATO air power must assure air superiority in anti-access area-denial (A2/AD) environments created by potential adversaries.Russian A2/AD deploymentsin the Kola Peninsula by the Barents Sea, Kaliningrad by the Baltic Sea, Crimea by the Black Sea and Syria by the Eastern Mediterranean will challenge NATO operations in those areas.The complete air superiority enjoyed by NATO during combat operations against terrorists may not be easily achieved in the future.Air superiority is not optional. If the Russians perceive that they can deny NATO flight operations, deterrence will be severely degraded and could invite conflict.

To signal a strong intent to maintain air superiority in peacetime or in conflict, NATO should transition from air policing to a more robust and enduring air defense posture under the command and control (C2) of a fully manned, fully integrated and validated air operations center (AOC) under the leadership of standing joint force air component (JFAC) commander and staff. To protect its own assets, NATOs Integrated Air and Missile Defense system also needs to be strengthened.

European air forces have very capable fourth generation fighter aircraft, but procuring fifth generation aircraft will provide the independent capabilities necessary to neutralize A2/AD environments. These overall improvements will require Europe to set a long-term goal of a capacity to manage at least one major combat operation on its own.

NATO allies should meet their obligation to the Defense Investment Pledge (2 percent of GDP for defense) and use enough of the increased defense spending to invest strategically in NATO air capabilities. Maximizing NATOs framework nation concept (in which a lead nation is supported by a smaller nation) will reduce duplication, enhance coordination and insure that the increase in defense spending is invested wisely to enhance deterrence and increase collective defense capacity. An air power framework nation consortium should be considered.

The three tasks discussed here plus the means to implement them should be central to NATOs new air power strategy.

Gen. Frank Gorenc served as the commander of NATOs Allied Air Command; commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe; and commander of U.S. Air Forces Africa. Hans Binnendijk served as the U.S. National Security Council senior director for defense policy, as well as the director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies. Both participated in a recent NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre study on air power strategy.

Go here to see the original:
Make a move: Key steps to a new NATO air power game plan - DefenseNews.com

On May 25th, President Trump, during his visit to the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Belgium, sharply criticized our European allies for, in effect, freeloading off the military dominance, and the military spending, of the United States. This is an accurate analysis, since only 4 of the 26 European countries in NATO currently spend the minimum level of GDP, 2%, judged by the organization itself to be sufficient to meet their obligations. (The U.S., by contrast, spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, and its defense budget roughly triples the spending of all other NATO countries combined.)

Moreover, the U.S. faces most of its military challenges in the Middle East, and European countries consistently lack either the will or the capability to contribute meaningfully to those missions. Ergo, Europe continues to rely on the United States to provide for its collective defense, but it fails to spend adequately to supplement and support U.S. forces, and it fails also to support U.S. operations elsewhere in the world, even when those missions are clearly relevant to European security (e.g. the struggle against ISIS). In a nutshell, the U.S. pays to defend Europe, and gets little or nothing in return.

Those who favor a continuation of this ruinous policy do so largely because they are stuck in a Cold War mentality, and, indeed, during the Cold War NATO made excellent sense to all of its member states, including the U.S. NATOs core mission was and is collective defense, achieved by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, penned in 1948-49 at the start of the Cold War. Article 5 states that, if a single NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries will respond as if they were themselves attacked, and consequently rush to the rescue. During the Cold War, this meant that, if the Soviet Union attacked any country in Western Europe, all of Western Europe, plus the United States and Canada, would go to war with the Soviet Union. Whether this pledge was genuine or merely a bluff, it succeeded in preventing Soviet aggression. And, in the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, although the United States bore the primary burden of defending Europe against Soviet assault, most NATO members took their defense obligations seriously and maintained militaries that could credibly have assisted U.S. forces. They also sometimes contributed substantially to anti-communist military operations around the world during the Korean War, for example. In short, during the Cold War, NATO imposed great burdens and risks on its members, but those burdens and risks were shared, and no one disputed the seriousness of the challenge posed by communist aggression.

Today, though, the Soviet Union no longer exists. For those panicked by the latest upsurge of Russophobia (or, for the John McCains of this world, for whom Russophobia has always been a way of life), this may seem like a hollow declaration, since Russia still possesses powerful military forces, and has proved willing to use them against several of its neighbors. The fact, though, is that no country on earth, including Russia, poses a threat to Europe in any way analagous to that of the Soviet Union. European countries have the human, technological, industrial, and economic resources to defend themselves, with ease, from any credible enemy and yet, unsurprisingly, they choose not to do so, because the United States continues to provide Europe with a blank check in the form of a security guarantee.

Europes position is understandable, as is American resentment of European freeloading, but what is different about the Trump administrations position is that, 1) President Trump is pointedly insisting that European countries boost their defense spending, and 2) Trump has not explicitly endorsed Article 5 and the concept of collective defense. In other words, he is being cagey about whether, if a European country was attacked, the U.S. would uphold its treaty obligations and use armed force to assist it. He has not disavowed the North Atlantic Treaty, but he seems to regard its obligations as reciprocal and therefore contingent on European nations paying their fair share. (They seem to be minimally receptive to this demand.) One can naturally criticize the message this policy sends to potential aggressors, since it calls into question NATOs reliability, but the only alternative is for the U.S. to fund Europes defense indefinitely and without conditions. Surely, this is unacceptable. Something has to give.

For diplomatic reasons, President Trump has backed off the claim he made during the campaign that NATO is obsolete, but in many ways he was right. NATO was founded based on two presuppositions: that Europes freedom was in imminent jeopardy, and that Europeans were incapable of defending that freedom by themselves. Neither of these assumptions holds water today. Thus, we should applaud President Trump for pushing NATO members to rethink their roles and obligations. His message may not have been a popular one, but it is ultimately in the best interests of Americans and Europeans to heed it.

More:
On NATO, Trump Gets It Right - The Daily Caller

Vice President Mike PenceMike (Michael) Richard PencePence on NATO: 'Our commitment is unwavering' Trump unveils plan to separate air traffic control from government US defense leaders offer Asia reassurances in age of Trump MORE on Monday reaffirmed the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members to stand together in the fight against terrorism, citing the recent deadly London terror attacks.

"And make no mistake: Our commitment is unwavering. We will meet our obligations to our people to provide for the collective defense of all our allies," Pence said at the Atlantic Council's Global Citizen Awards event.

Penceexpressed condolences on behalf of the Trump administration for the people affected by the attacks at left dozens dead and many more injured in the United Kingdom.

He voiced support for NATO Article 5, which says "an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies."

"An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us," he said at the event hosted by the nonpartisan organization.

President Trump cited the recent attacks this week as further reason to institute a travel ban to protect the U.S. and prevent individuals from "dangerous countries" coming over the nation's border.

Trump also repeatedly spoke out against NATO on the campaign trail, calling it "obsolete" and complaining that it is too reliant on the U.S. for funding.

The president has softened his stance on the organization since, in April saying it was "no longer obsolete" at a White House press conference with the NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other foreign leaders also spoke at the Atlantic Council event Monday night.

NATO was created in 1949 as a collective military and security alliance among several Western states against the growing threat of the Soviet Union.

See more here:
Pence on NATO: 'Our commitment is unwavering' - The Hill

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trumps Mideast visit just two weeks ago was marked by speculation he would discuss an Arab NATO military alliance. But it was never mentioned by name.

Now a diplomatic rift between Qatar and four Gulf neighbors shows why a military union to fight terrorism and push back against Iran is easier said than done. The diplomatic row has also left U.S. officials to play down the incidents impact even as the host of the largest U.S. naval base in the region, Bahrain, and the host of the largest U.S. air base in the region, Qatar, no longer share diplomatic relations.

On the trip, Trump vowed to improve ties with both Riyadh and Cairo to combat regional terror groups and contain Iran and announced$110 billion in U.S. arms sales to Riyadh. The White House said the sale, "bolsters the Kingdom's ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on U.S. military forces."

Some analysts argued that Trumps over-simplistic rhetoric set the stage for the crisis, giving Saudi Arabia and other countries the green light to isolate Qatar, which irritated its neighbors with a softer line on Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood as political expressions of Islam.

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen, on Monday cut ties with Qatar over its support of militant groups aligned with Iran, sparking a major diplomatic crisis in the Middle East as the nations began pulling out diplomatic staffs. Airlines also suspended flights into and out of Doha, the capital of Qatar. And Saudi Arabia closed its land border, cutting off much of the food imports into Qatar and leading to a run on supermarkets there.

The concept of an Arab NATO is now falling apart. Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A., Pentagon, and National Security Council staffer, concluded. And beyond damaging the prospects for an alliance, Riyadhs aim appears to be regime change in Qatar, Riedel said.

The Saudis and Emiratis late last month blocked Qatar's Al-Jazeera network last month after Qatari Emir Shaykh Tamim bin Hamid Al Thani publicly said the Gulf states need to engage Tehran, and called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to congratulate him on his re-election, Riedel noted. But the best indicator of how serious the Saudis are, he said, is that the kingdom orchestrated a May 28 letter from the Wahhabi clerical establishment challenging the legitimacy of the Qatari ruling family.

This is now about regime change in Doha, not muzzling al Jazeera, Riedel said.

Saudi Arabia said it took the decision to cut diplomatic ties due to Qatars embrace of various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilizing the region including the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida, the Islamic State group and groups supported by Iran in the kingdoms restive Eastern Province. Egypts Foreign Ministry accused Qatar of taking an antagonist approach toward Cairo and said all attempts to stop it from supporting terrorist groups failed.

Tensions between Qatar and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are longstanding, and inter-Arab politics have long stymied Western efforts to build greater unity on security, or forge formal treaty arrangements, said Ilan Goldenberg, director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

On discrete issues, like the Islamic State, the Arab states will band together, but progress on a cross-border approach to missile defense against Iran has been slow. The countries are generally more comfortable with the U.S. as the role of coordinator, Goldenberg said.

Its a lot more complicated than were just going to unify the entire Sunni world against Iran, Goldenberg said. Its not NATO, where you can bring all these countries together, like in Europe, with something that has quite frankly evolved over a long period.

Setting aside the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition has been intervening in the civil war since 2015, the security cooperation there between the Gulf partners in the war is a remarkable step toward an alliance, Goldenberg said.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups are expressing concern about the administrations emphasis on arms sales without it acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Im very concerned about the ratcheting up of the arms race in the region, and that all the pressure on Iran will lead them to militarize as much as they can, said Jeff Abramson, of the Arms Control Association. From the rhetoric from Trump you wouldnt even know that we care about the people on the ground, in Yemen. I dont see what his military-only approach will accomplish.

Bockenfeld, of the Project on Middle East Democracy, noted that in spite of Bahrain's human rights abuses, Trump met with its king, Sheikh Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa, and vowed warmer ties. His administration is planning to pursue a $5 billion sale to Bahrain of 19 Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft and related equipment, which was held up last year by human rights concerns, according to Reuters.

The United States maintains the largest concentration of military personnel in the Middle East at Al Udeid Air Base, outside Doha. The base serves as a logistics, command, and basing hub for the U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, area of operations.

In the near term, U.S. officials are saying the dispute between the Gulf states and Qatar will not have a significant impact on the fight against the Islamic State.

"I think what we're witnessing is a growing list of irritants in the region that have been been there for some time, and obviously they have now bubbled up to a level that countries decided they needed to take action in an effort to have those differences addressed," Tillerson said.

Defense Secretary James Mattis, speaking beside Tillerson, said he believes the issue will resolve itself.

At a breakfast in Washington Monday, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said, "It hasn't changed our operations at all at Al Udeid and, obviously, it's more of a diplomatic issue at the moment."

A Pentagon spokesman said U.S. military aircraft continue to conduct missions in support of ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

"The United States and the coalition are grateful to the Qataris for their longstanding support of our presence and their enduring commitment to regional security," Marine Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway said in a statement. "We have no plans to change our posture in Qatar. We encourage all our partners in the region to reduce tensions and work towards common solutions that enable regional security."

According to a Congressional Research Service report, U.S. concerns regarding alleged material support for terrorist groups by some Qataris have been balanced over time by Qatars counterterrorism efforts and its broader, long-term commitment to host and support U.S. military forces active in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the CENTCOM area.

In December 2013, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel visited Doha, met with Emir Tamim, and signed a new 10-year defense cooperation agreement, followed in July 2014 by agreements for $11 billion in advanced arms sales.

Military Times Staff Writer Stephen Losey and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Qatar rift sets back Trump's 'Arab NATO' - DefenseNews.com

This to me is the most worrisome [signal] that I have seen from this administration. Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations

Thats Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, reacting early Monday on MSNBC to a Politico report that a reaffirmation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations founding document the collective-defense commitment appeared in an earlier draft of the remarks President Trump was to make late last month at the alliances new headquarters in Brussels but then was left out when Trump actually spoke.

See: President Trump doesnt affirm mutual-defense pact in speech to NATO leaders

To Haass, widely believed to have been considered by Trump as a prospective secretary of state before that post went to Rex Tillerson, that suggested a danger that the so-called Steve Bannon wing had drowned out more moderating influences and reawakened a perception that the last adviser in the room with Trump is likely to have outsized influence on an ultimate decision. Haass, on Twitter, called it a recipe for disaster.

See the article here:
Article 5 reaffirmation appeared in Trump's NATO speech before being edited out: report - MarketWatch

The head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said Sunday that he absolutely believes President Trump is committed to the alliance.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general, said that while he believes Trump is committed to the alliance because it is a treaty obligation, the president has also reaffirmed his support for NATO in various meetings.

Trump has stated that hes committed to NATO, and his security team has also stated that very clearly, Stoltenberg said.

The NATO chief said that Trump has stated several times that he is committed to the alliance and that the presidents calls for member nations to increase defense spending have helped to convey a very clear message about NATO commitments.

Stoltenberg's comments also follow Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and his first trip to NATO headquarters in Brussels. The president received criticism after the visit for not explicitly mentioning his support for Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, which stipulates that a threat to one nation member is a threat to all nation members.

Read this article:
NATO head 'absolutely' believes Trump is committed to alliance - The Hill