This year is a "key year" for NATO, a year of "transformation", senior officials of the organization once said. But now, with the majority of the year having passed, the transformation has not progressed smoothly. It seems NATO has been troubled by a handful of major issues of late.
The situation in Afghanistan proved far more sophisticated than predicted. Operations in Afghanistan have been regarded the "No.1 task" of NATO this year, and a "top priority" in its transformation process. NATO troops have successively shot down Taliban militants and "military successes" hit headlines one after another. But these favorable news cannot cover up the troops' embarrassing position in the country: when the International Security Assistance Force painstakingly "regained land" from the hand of Taliban, reconstruction lagged behind; when some areas were ready for reconstruction, security was not guaranteed; local people, intimidated by Taliban, were hesitant to provide information to the troops, leaving NATO commanders in a desperate need for intelligence.
In southern Afghanistan, where troops from Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Denmark were doing the job, complaints also surged up: since all NATO allies said "yes" to Afghan operations, why some troops remained rooted to their place or even refused to rush to rescue? The operations thus turned out more much difficult than expected considering the small quantity of army men, barriers in reconstruction and clashes in troop rotations.
NATO's relations with Russia plunged low. The U.S. insistence to deploy NMD at the door of Russia and the continuous eastward expansion of NATO have caused Moscow to react strongly, and the NATO-Russia ties "stalled". Russia announced its suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), and NATO expressed "deep disappointment" upon that, showing a tinge of helplessness in a reserved rhetoric. Just as a NATO official frankly put it, there lacks mutual trust between the two sides. "Whatever NATO does, it would be interpreted as something to contain or weaken Russia." The NATO-Russia Council, though already five years old, has failed to change the pattern that the two parties "share the same bed but dream different dreams", and increasingly drift away from each other.
Strategy in central Asia staggered. Knowing by heart the strategic importance of central Asia, NATO has spared no efforts in recent years to push forward relations with countries in this region. But it is by no means an easy job for NATO to gain a footing given the overwhelming traditional influence of Russia in this area, which the U.S. and Europe can never dream to equal.
By focusing on hammering out the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia has displayed a strong sense of opposition against NATO. Now the low relations between Russia and NATO has added difficulty to the latter's implementation of its central Asia strategy. NATO once tried to level the area into its grasp by drawing itself closer to Kazakhstan, but the calculation seems hardly effective.
The U.S. pull within NATO declined. Washington's proposal to create a "global partnership" was rejected by allies and its call for more troops to Afghanistan received little response. A NATO official sighed: the NATO leader is no longer what it once was. It was widely hoped that the shift of top leadership in Germany, France and Britain might inject new vitality to the U.S.-EU relations. But it is still hard to say whether the new "troika" can usher in a situation Washington optimistically predicted.
Nevertheless, we should notice that the US and EU's determination in NATO transformation is unshaken. Along with the deployment of the NATO Response Force, the improved capacity of long-range troop installation, the highlighted role of protecting allies' energy security, the construction of NMD and the gradual eastward expansion, NATO is still trudging ahead towards its pre-set objectives.
By People's Daily Online</I>
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article