Live-Blogging from Inside the Young Atlanticist Summit

Ana Miyares Photography

Conversation with NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 4:59PM on Monday, May 21 **

The Chicago Young Atlanticist Summit was closed by Alexander Vershbow, the American diplomat who is now deputy secretary general of NATO, wrapping up the Chicago NATO summit and what it meant.

Plans remain firm, Vershbow said, for Afghanistan to take the "lead responsibility for its own security" by next year, and "full responsibility" by 2014, leading to the pull-out of all NATO's combat forces. But support and training forces will remain behind, costing some $4.1 billion, of which the U.S. expects to pay about half.

The new French president Francois Hollande, attending his first NATO summit, confirmed his campaign pledge to pull France's combat troops out by the end of this year, Vershbow said—a pledge that the Obama administration had hoped he would break. But Hollande did promise to keep non-combat forces in Afghanistan as trainers, "so the French are still part of the team," he said.

Pakistan, on the other hand, did not budge on its refusal to re-open NATO supply lines into Afghanistan until NATO apologizes for an air strike that killed Pakistani soldiers. Vershbow said that other countries—including Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and some Central Asian states—agreed to help with this logistical snarl, which will get worse as NATO moves "a huge amount of materiel out of Afghanistan" during the winddown.

Vershbow did not try to hide the American irritation with the Pakistani stand and said it has to reverse this "if Pakistan wants to live up to its own words" about a stable Afghanistan.

Another source of "frustration," he said, is NATO's relations with Russia.

Vershbow, a veteran diplomat, said he has hoped "for a breakthrough in our relations with Russia. It's a source of frustration that they still see us as the main enemy."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: Energy Security: Visible Or Not?

• Samir Battiss, Lecturer and Research Associate, Quebec University
• Laura Dzelzyte, Senior Climate Finance Advisor, Minister of Environment, Government of Lithuania
• Corina Murafa, Public and Regulatory Affairs Expert, OMV Petrom
• Ansis Spridzans, Senior Associate, Sorainen Law Firm

By Jon Horek, Ph.D., P.E.

Chicago Young Professional and Professional Engineer

** Filed at 8:31AM on Tuesday, May 29 **

The multifaceted issue of energy security provides the Atlantic Community with some of its most difficult twenty-first century challenges. On the final day of the 2012 Young Atlanticist Summit recently held in Chicago, four Young Atlanticist delegates took part in a moderated discussion titled “Energy Security: Visible or Not?” The panelists illuminated a variety of views, but one common thread tied together the discussion: energy security is a challenge facing the transatlantic community at various levels, from supranational organizations such as NATO and the EU, to the problems encountered by individual countries.

One thing not explicitly mentioned (but critical for a complete discussion) is that energy security challenges extend to deeper levels within each nation. Regions, states, cities, and rural communities, as well as the branches of national militaries, must all answer the same basic questions regarding their energy and water supplies. Seeking collaborative approaches within the Atlantic Community—at and between these various levels of society—will be very helpful in establishing and maintaining energy security in the twenty-first century.

Panelists were first asked to define energy security and offer an opinion on what role NATO should play. A consensus emerged that energy security is fundamentally an economic matter. Three stated and implied questions characterized whether an entity has achieved energy security:

• Do energy supplies exist at a stable, economically attractive price for all possible end users, such as transportation and electric power generation?
• Is there a low risk of a negative supply shock, and would there be a resilience against this situation?
• Are there minimal adverse environmental side effects with negative economic impact?

Underlying all of these queries must also be the inseparable question of water security.

Laura Dzelzyte, senior climate finance advisor to the Lithuanian Minister of the Environment, spoke first about energy security at a supranational level, stating that the NATO alliance itself must enhance its strategy. In this age of financial austerity, she argued that NATO’s pursuit of energy efficiency methods and technologies is a necessity. This point also illustrates that energy demand reduction must be a key element of any energy security strategy. At the national level, Dzelzyte mentioned that energy security is an issue that each nation must address for its own people, but stated that NATO’s active defense of energy supplies on behalf of member states is an entirely different question.

Corina Murafa, public and regulatory affairs expert with Romania’s OMV Petrom, the largest oil and gas company in southeastern Europe, addressed the issue of NATO involvement by referring to Point 19 of the 2010 Strategic Concept, which states that NATO will contribute to energy security by protecting critical energy infrastructure, transit areas, and lines for its member states. On the other hand, she emphasized the responsibility that each nation must bear for its own energy security, noting that foreign investment may be needed to achieve the desired infrastructure in certain countries such as Romania.

Murafa further discussed energy security at the level of another supranational organization—the European Union—stating that a common European energy market would help to ease the energy security concerns of individual member states. However, she noted the complexities associated with national sovereignty and the political differences of opinion over energy market liberalization. Murafa reiterated this point, stating that the biggest obstacle to a comprehensive European energy strategy is simply that the EU is composed of 27 independent member states with their own voices and national interests.

Samir Battiss, lecturer and research associate in political science at Quebec University, again underscored that energy security is fundamentally about securing energy supplies, and he emphasized the difficulty of using NATO for the defense of critical infrastructure. Battiss asked the Young Atlanticist delegates to consider how nations can achieve energy security in ways that do not rely on military solutions.

Ansis Spridzans, a Latvian attorney working in mergers & acquisitions, spoke last and noted that energy security is absolutely of critical consideration, given that various European countries have experienced extreme energy insecurity firsthand. As an example, he cited Ukraine’s experience with natural gas supply cutoff. Within Latvia, he noted that energy supply infrastructure was built to receive supplies from east to west only, limiting available options for gas supply into the country and leading to a lack of diversity and high natural gas prices.

The key question remained: what concrete steps can an entity take to ensure its energy security? NATO’s defense of energy assets is one small element of the broader discussion. Individual nations must still find some means to answer the three energy security questions stated above, and each panelist emphasized that handling the issue at a supranational level is naturally the most difficult. On the other hand, one can see clear mutual benefits in working on defined energy security problems at lower levels such as city-to-city, state-to-state, and military-to-military, laying the groundwork for higher level nation-to-nation and even supranational cooperation.

What specific partnerships might we expect to see? Numerous options exist: research collaboration, sister city exchanges for sharing of best practices, technology transfer, and joint corporate exploration for energy supplies. Eventually, the more complex goals of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, as well as the development of common markets, may follow. Battiss answered a question regarding Arctic thaw by stating that bilateral cooperation between the United States and Canada is an example of the kind of mutually beneficial nation-to-nation partnership one can expect.

Solutions that begin at lower levels may eventually diffuse more broadly; for example, a single nation’s military’s best practice or technology may spread to member states across the NATO alliance. Dzelzyte mentioned net-zero military bases under development by the U.S. Army to conserve water and energy. This is the kind of innovation that could diffuse to the level of individual cities, or perhaps more broadly as an element of NATO’s military operations. Such a result would also be consistent with the idea of NATO as a clearinghouse of national security best practices for its member states.

Atlanticism is routinely discussed as an ideal, but good relationships develop in the context of tangible projects handled organization-to-organization, person-to-person. Energy security is an excellent framework to guide this process because it is not simply a high-level diplomatic issue. Development of a nation’s energy security requires widespread involvement and problem solving at all levels, as there is no aspect of society untouched by the consumption of energy and water. The politics of energy security operate within constraints that are fundamentally technical in nature, advancing only as quickly as science and engineering solve the underlying problems.

This issue was best illustrated by an audience question regarding the lack of widespread adoption of renewable energy, despite considerable political will across the Alliance and even stronger investor interest. Dzelzyte responded that it takes not just interest and money, but time and effort by scientists and engineers. Concentrating the efforts of a greater number of experts from broad backgrounds is the best way to solve the challenges confronting renewable energy growth, such as reliable, economic energy storage methods and highly efficient industrial-scale solar cell production. When such breakthroughs occur, the results are profound. Technological progress can enable diplomatic, development, and defense options that may have previously been unfeasible.

Addressing energy security within the Atlantic Community will make all member states more secure and capable of addressing the full range of twenty-first century challenges. This strength will serve as a springboard to address similar challenges alongside global partners. Energy and water security truly underlie all lofty goals a nation may choose to pursue.

Each generation must actively choose to renew its commitment to the transatlantic alliance, and I believe that this is best achieved in the context of specific, tangible programs and partnerships. Energy security provides an excellent framework at all levels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: Women, War, and Peace: The Impact of UNSC Res. 1325

• The Honorable Melanne Verveer, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, U.S. Department of State
• Farkhunda Zahra Naderi, Member of Parliament, Afghanistan

By Cassandra Gaddo

Chicago Young Professional and Managing Editor/Electronic Media Editor, Today's Chicago Woman

** Filed at 5:02PM on Monday, May 21 **

Cassandra's posting can be viewed here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev

By Adam N. Schupack

Chicago Young Professional and Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

** Filed at 4:10PM on Sunday, May 20 **

Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev offered a remarkably optimistic view of Europe and Bulgaria’s role in NATO and European institutions in remarks to the 2012 Chicago Young Atlanticist Summit. Highlighting his country’s remarkable twenty-year transformation from an authoritarian socialist state to democracy with a market economy, President Plevneliev expressed his firm belief that the Alliance will be able to meet the economic and political challenges it faces.

Elected just four months ago, President Plevneliev praised NATO’s resolve in moving ahead with missile defense, long-term strategic transformation, and an Afghanistan exit plan. He also praised NATO for adopting Smart Defense as the Alliance confronts the need to meet future challenges with fewer resources. Although Smart Defense came about because of the financial crisis facing NATO members, President Plevneliev noted that “good ideas are born in difficult moments” and that it is precisely such moments that force world leaders to adapt and to improve their ability to lead.

Bulgaria benefits from NATO membership and can be a model for other countries aspiring to NATO membership. “My country was always weak when it was alone,” said President Plevneliev, and integration in NATO has helped stabilize and strengthen Bulgaria. Just as NATO membership helped Bulgaria’s transformation to democracy and a market economy, NATO should continue to maintain on open door for new members, including Serbia.  Bulgaria has taken the lead in supporting Serbian integration in the European Union and NATO.

While Bulgaria has worked hard to pursue economic growth and has maintained a low level of public debt, energy security remains a key challenge the country is working to overcome. Bulgaria depends on a single pipeline that renders the country vulnerable to supply disruptions and results in high energy prices. In 2008, the Russian-Ukrainian pipeline dispute led to the cessation of gas deliveries to Bulgaria in winter, and Bulgaria pays natural gas prices approximately six times higher than those in the United States.

Yet President Plevneliev is optimistic that Bulgaria can achieve energy diversification and independence. Bulgaria is actively working with its neighbors on new pipelines, including the proposed South Stream project, and plans to work with international partners to explore for natural gas in the Black Sea.

Despite his overall positive outlook for Europe and the Alliance, President Plevneliev cautioned that the nations of the Alliance must not pursue growth at the expense of saddling their nations with mountains of debt. “The next generation should be free to have their own priorities and be capable of funding them.”

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 3:43PM on Monday, May 21 **

The new Bulgarian president, Rosen Plevneliev, left the NATO summit to speak to the Young Atlanticists on the progress his country has made since joining NATO and the European Union.

During the international embargo on Milosevic-era Serbia, Bulgaria found itself nearly cut off from its natural markets in western Europe. At a time when Bulgaria was just emerging from communism, this geographical handicap left it with a heavy burden of poverty and corruption.

Bulgaria still has a poverty problem, Plevneliev said—"we're the poorest country in the richest club"—but it has progressed through its membership in NATO and the EU and a concerted drive to build sectors in information technology and life sciences. As a result, he said, 82 percent of Bulgarians are pro-European, a higher pro-EU rate than in any other member country.

Bulgaria is focusing now on diversification and independence of energy supplies. Its dependence on Russian natural gas resulted in an embargo during a long cold winter of 2008, Plevneliev said. To keep this from happening again, he said, Bulgaria is developing new sources from Romania, Turkey, Greece and Serbia.

Bulgaria still is handicapped by the high prices it must pay for gas—twice as much as Germany, six times as much as the United States, which he called a clear deterrent to drawing foreign investmnet to help build Bulgarian industry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: U.S. Security Priorities After Chicago

• U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Chairman, Atlantic Council
• General James L. Jones, Jr. USMC (Ret.), Chairman-designate, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council

By Jordan Stark

Chicago Young Professional and Vice President, Resolute Consulting

** Filed at 2:33PM on Monday, May 21 **

Former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel and former NATO Allied Supreme Commander, General Jim Jones, engaged in a robust dialogue on the future of the alliance and its collective 'security priorities after Chicago.' Both highlighted the critical need for NATO to recalibrate to the challenges of the twenty-first century.

In a globalized society of nearly seven billion people, Senator Hagel stated that, more than at any other time in history, there is a need for multilateral institutions. Building on common interest (as opposed to differences), Senator Hagel believes "we have more capacity to deal with these global problems" than ever before.

General Jones described the dramatic differences in threats NATO faces now as opposed to those in the twentieth century. General Jones said that NATO "must pivot" and adopt a framework where operations fuse, proportionally, the three pillars of influence: military capability, economic development, and the rule of law. He believes the alliance is dynamic and is far more than a military organization. General Jones pointed to NATO serving as a bridge between the developed and undeveloped world.

Ultimately, Senator Hagel and General Jones are optimistic about the Alliance's future. They both see NATO as a key entity that can prevent future conflicts by strategic engagements and private sector involvement (i.e. food security). In the words of General Jones, "NATO can be proactive without being preemptive."

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 1:46PM on Monday, May 21 **

Most of the speakers at the Young Atlanticist Summit have been largely upbeat, optimistic about where NATO is and where it's going, concerned about economic pressures and immediate chores like the post-combat role in Afghanistan. But few have questioned whether NATO knows what it's doing and where it wants to go.

Two veteran American policymakers, former U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and former National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, raised these issues and, while supporting NATO as crucial to the global future, indicated it is still an alliance in search of a mission.

Hagel, perhaps best known as the leading Republican senator against the American war in Iraq, asked, "What is the mission of NATO?" In the heady post-Cold War days, he said, NATO never asked itself that question, but pursued enlargement instead—widening instead of deepening, as the European Union would put it.

Now, he said, every major institution created after World War II is under new global pressures, especially economic, and NATO is no exception.

"Our fundamental strength is economic," he said. "If we don't get this (economics) right, we won't get anything right."

Jones, a former U.S. Marine Corps commandant, agreed. If twentieth-century security rested on armed force, he said, security in the twenty-first century "will require cohesion between the public and private sectors. [...] Economic realities will be at the forefront of anything we want to do."

"This is a different world," Jones said. "A world where global competition is going to be at the forefront. Economic realities bind us together. NATO has to think about where it fits."

To do this, the general said, NATO has to transition from being a defensive and essentially "reactive" alliance to being a "proactive" alliance that anticipates problems and deals with them—not necessarily in a military way. Instead, it can bring new partners around the world together, or use NATO skills to help African nation combat drug trafficking—in essence, a NATO role but not a full-fledged NATO operation.

This is a Western task, not an American one, Jones said.

"No one nation any more can do it all," he said, in a rare concession at this summit that the era of unchallenged American hegemony is passing. Instead, he said, we need a new TWA, or "Trans-World Atlanticism," based on employing the ideals and skills of the Western alliance in a global setting.

"We've got an existing organization," he said. "We can prevent future conflicts by early engagement."

Jones seems to put more emphasis on working with partners as opposed to admitting new members. For a nation to join NATO, he said, sheer desire isn't enough. Instead, it has to add something valuable to the alliance, sounding skeptical that all the new NATO members met that standard.

Jones said he felt NATO had laid the groundwork for a successful future Afghanistan, but warned that much depends on a positive role for Pakistan.

"Until we have a better idea what Pakistan is going to do [about safe havens there for terrorists], the odds of continued violence in Afghanistan will remain high. Pakistan represents a bigger impediment to achieving that goal [of Afghan stability] than anything that is going on in Afghanistan itself."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense Ellen Tauscher

By Jonathan Schweitzer

Chicago Young Professional and Assistant Director for Communications and International Relations, Chicago Chapter of the American Jewish Committee

** Filed at 12:11PM on Monday, May 21 **

Ellen Tauscher highlighted the evolving relationship between the United States and Russia at the 2012 Young Atlanticist Summit in Chicago. Speaking about the Obama administration's desire to shift from a mutually assured destruction mentality to a mutually assured stability outlook, Tauscher, a former member of Congress from California, identified what she called "sweet spots" of cooperation between the two nations. Still, she cautioned that much more work is needed to build the trust required to jointly tackle emerging threats.

"We have many other threats that we have to align ourselves against in order to have a more robust security," said Tauscher, who held out the P5+1 talks on the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program as an example of the United States and Russia working together. She noted that the Obama administration's "reset" policy with Russia led to the ability to further such cooperation with the ratification of the New START Treaty in 2009.

Tauscher spoke about the importance of handling emerging threats, like short-, medium-, and long-range missiles from the Middle East. She underscored her message that the inability of the United States and Russia to develop trust and redefine their relationship means that both nations have to divert important resources away from other  priorities.

To further her point that Russia should not be concerned about NATO's missile defense system, Tauscher asserted that the missile system is designed to protect the alliance from threats from smaller states like Iran and other Middle East threats, and not designed to counter threats from a larger nation like Russia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 11:26AM on Monday, May 21 **

Dr. Sherwood-Randall briefed the Young Atlanticists on the debates and conversations at the NATO summit going on next door. President Obama opened the summit Sunday, she said, by announcing increasing assumption of powers from member nations, including the command of missile defense in Europe, the set of new Smart Defense agreements, and Baltic air policing.

But this isn't enough, Obama said. Each country still has "legacy" defense systems, built for another era and no longer useful. Each country must deal with this and tool itself militarily for the twenty-first century.

On Sunday evening, the twenty-eight NATO heads of state met over dinner at Chicago's Soldier Field to talk about their mutual obligations in Afghanistan after the Alliance's combat role there ends in 2014.

Throughout, Sherwood-Randall talked about the end of 2014 as the target date for the end of NATO combat operations in Afghanistan. "There is no rush to the exits," she said, apparently responding to published reports that the Obama administration has moved the target date for an end to combat operations to mid-2013.

The second session began Monday with a larger meeting, including thirty-five partner nations plus the United Nations and the European Union, to talk about the transititon from combat to civilian presence in Afghanistan.

NATO won't admit any new members at this session, Sherwood-Randall said, but the NATO foreign ministers met with nations that have asked to join to discuss their progress toward membership.

The last session before adjournment will salute the role of NATO's partners from the Mideast to eastern Asia, Sherwood-Randall said. As she described it, this was clearly more than a pro forma tip of the hat; rather, it recognized a key point of this summit—that as NATO's global responsibilities increase, the Alliance will rely on non-member partner nations to help carry out these missions. This, she said, will be based on the political will and military capability that each nation brings to the mission—a recognition that NATO will have to sign up partners in corners of the world where some European nations have no interest in operating.

In this new thinking, she said, NATO "is emerging as a hub of global alliances." This involves identifying a joint project, then seeing which nation—inside or outside NATO—has "the capability to contribute."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 10:49AM on Monday, May 21 **

The first day of the Young Atlanticist Summit focused largely on smaller members of NATO, many of them from central and eastern Europe. It was a chance for the Young Atlanticists to hear that there's more to NATO than just the headline issues, such as Afghanistan, and to learn that each member has its own priorities and regional concerns—for many of them, their proximity to Russia—and to see their own roles within the Alliance in this light.

On the second day, the focus swung largely back to the United States and American policy, headlined by an hour with Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state in the Clinton administration. It was a tour d'horizon, ranging from her own girlhood in Czechoslovakia to relations with Russia to modern challenges and the Responsibility to Protect.

Albright, herself a refugee from Communism in Europe, said that NATO is virtually the story of her life and remains "the most amazing alliance. What's going on in Asia doesn't detract from NATO in any way."

But the problem today in the post-Cold War world is "the relevance of an organization that was set up for another regime." This, she said, is exacerbated by the frequent failure of the European members to understand threats and interests outside Europe and the role of Europe in meeting these challenges, often in cooperation with non-member partner nations.

Albright chaired a NATO Group of Experts that looked to the challenges of the future, including terrorism, cyber-warfare, and the growing threats in South and Southeast Asia.

She complained that Europeans too often do not see these new tasks for NATO. Politicians there haven't explained these issues—financial or otherwise—to their people, she said.

"We have to explain the interdependence of the world," she said. "All countries have economic problems, so how do you persuade people that what's happening on the other side of the world is of importance to them?"

Albright suggested that Russia still hasn't come to terms with the end of the Cold War and the loss of their empire.

"Russia today doesn't know what it is," she said. As secretary of state in the immediate post-Soviet years, she said she tried to turn Russia's defeat in the Cold War into something less than a total defeat and a new relationship with NATO. It hasn't worked, she said. Russia feels that, for purposes of its own identity, it has to be highly nationalistic and President Vladimir Putin is part of this, she said. For this purpose, Russia has to see NATO as its biggest threat.

There are limits to what NATO can do about this, Albright said, because "a great deal of this is internal to Russian politics." But, she stressed, "Russia today is no longer our number one geosecurity threat. That's living in the past," an implicit dig at Republic presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has said this about Russia.

One of the big internal debates in NATO now revolves around the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P—the concept that when a government abuses or fails to protect its own people, the world has a responsibility to intervene. NATO exercised this in Libya and is debating doing it in Syria.

It's a touchy issue, Albright said, often for reasons of sovereignty to which the United States itself is not immune: she noted that Americans would have been outraged if China, for instance, had intervened to help New Orleans citizens ill-served by their government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

On Syria, she said, the world has a "toolbox" of foreign policy weapons, from diplomatic arm-twisting to sanctions to outright force, some of which can be done by NATO and others that may need U.N. authorization. "In Syria," she said, "we're now going through the toolbox."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 4:55PM on Sunday, May 20 **

Carl Bildt represents a country that is in the EU but not NATO. Nevertheless, he was in Chicago to discuss security issues with NATO nations because, as he explained, security is no longer national but global. Issues and threats cross borders that once protected nations.

One of his most important meetings here, he said, will be with NATO's partner nations, "which confirms the new ways of working together in this new world."

In response to a question, Minister Bildt said social media has become a crucial factor in world affairs, especially in China, which has more internet users than the United States.

George Orwell's novel, 1984, foresaw a world in which an all-powerful central government controlled the population through modern communications. The reality, Bildt said, is just the opposite. Today, "the ability of the center to control communications is less."

Bildt is a former EU High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-97) and former UN Special Envoy to the Balkans (1999-2001). Asked about Bosnia, he was guardedly optimistic. "Bosnia is a complicated society but not the only complicated society in Europe," he said. Bosnia lies somewhere between Cyrpus, which is totally divided, and Belgium, "which works, sort of." There is "no risk," he said, of Bosnia sliding backward toward emulating Cyprus. But, Minister Bildt admitted, he would like to see it moving faster toward emulating Belgium.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: U.S. Foreign Policy and Alliance Security: A Senate View

• U.S. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)
• U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 3:50PM on Sunday, May 20 **

The briefings switched from Europe to the United States with a panel featuring two Democratic senators, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Both agreed that NATO remains vital to American and Western security, even as threats change to cyberwar and terriorism.

Shaheen asked about the possibility of Western intervention in Libya, said the situation in Syria is different, not least because other Arab countries, while calling for peace there, are not urging a direct intervention as they did in Libya. Durbin added that he has been active in urging Syria's ally, Russia, to push for peace there.

Durbin was asked if Congress will maintain support for a European-based missile defense system if the European governments themselves fail to increase defense spending. He answered that economic problems are the top issue here and that U.S. defense spending has gone up 60 percent since the Clinton administration—more than any other major category. The obvious implication is that, if the United States is to cut its budget, defense spending has to take a hit.

"Will we turn and walk away (from Europe)?" Durbin said. "I don't think so." But, he said, Congress is looking to America's allies to increase their spending.

By Carl Bindenagel

Chicago Young Professional and Policy Researcher

** Filed at 3:45PM on Sunday, May 20 **

Senator Durbin opened the discussion with a brief exposition of NATO’s historical origins in defending freedom for Western democracies from Soviet threats. He highlighted his personal connection to the transatlantic relationship and the promise of freedom, relating his visit in 1978 to his mother's birthplace in Lithuania during Soviet occupation. He is confident that NATO is now, as it was then, a guarantor of stability and freedom. He cited General Jim Jones, his classmate from Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, who foresaw for NATO an important role in out-of-area operations with a global responsibility and response capability. Durbin believes Chicago is a fitting location for this NATO summit, for Chicago’s rich cultural diversity reflects the strength of the nation as a whole.

Senator Shaheen remarked that NATO remains one of the most influential international institutions, linking the world’s most democratic countries together. She responded without hesitation that NATO is relevant, and that Europe and North America maintain an indispensible relationship. She also pointed out that the world is undeniably more closely networked and linked than ever before. The United States must work more closely in NATO and with NATO, she believes.

Senator Durbin suggested that any honest proposal to bring the U.S. structural deficit into balance, which is necessary, must allow cuts to all parts of the budget. He hopes for more military commitments from European partners while the United States will likely need to reduce some military expenses.

Senator Durbin briefly explained the War Powers Act in response to a question regarding Congress' role in declaring war. But he cited the complexity of some modern threats and he pointed out the seriousness of timing and scale of modern engagements. The nature of conflicts has changed, and he suggested the Senate had an important role to continually evaluate how to fulfill its constitutional role in responses to threats such as cyber-attacks.

One delegate asked how the United States might expect to work more with NATO when Republicans and Democrats in Congress appear unable or unwilling to cooperate. Senator Shaheen suggested that the Congress should look to the cooperative model of NATO as an example for collaborative relationships.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversation with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili

By Brett Dobbs

Chicago Young Professional and Associate, Dobbs Law Offices

** Filed at 3:25PM on Sunday, May 20 **

Stakes are high for Georgia at the 2012 NATO summit. Prior to his arrival in Chicago, President Mikheil Saakashvili made clear that integration into NATO was crucial for avoiding future conflict with Russia. In public talks leading up to the summit, the President talked about 2008, when, like 2012 Russia, the United States and Georgia all faced elections. NATO did not intervene in five days of armed conflict between the two nations.

This afternoon, President Saakashvili used every ounce of his famous charm to continue to make his case for Georgia’s entry into the alliance. The president recalled Georgia’s history since the 2003 Rose Revolution, including: an anti-corruption campaign that led to the firing of the entire police force in one day; the creation of an incredibly efficient tax collection regime; and, he claimed, the lowest crime rate in Europe. He also highlighted Georgians changing attitudes and growing respect for multiculturism, cooperation, and democracy.

The president later characterized Georgia's reform efforts as the "third way," compared to Yeltsin’s free but chaotic Russia and Putin’s strong but repressive regime.

His claims were buoyed by an introduction from Young Atlancist Shalva Dzidziguri of the Georgian Mission to OSCE, who shared a personal admiration for the President's reformation of Georgia's armed forces and expressed pride in Georgia's ability to contribute forces to NATO.

The President also used his sense of humor to deflect strong criticism that he and his country have received from Russia. Joking that he has shown Russians that Georgians not only don’t eat babies but are sometimes vegetarians, the President shared that he expected over one million Russians to visit Georgia as tourists in the next year.

But Georgia’s aspirations are likely to be denied, at least in Chicago. Earlier in May, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations about the U.S. perspective on the issue. Ambassador Daalder stressed that the United States works with Georgia on a day-to-day basis and pointed out that, by October, Georgia is slated to be the largest non-NATO contributor to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). He also said, however, that Georgian membership won’t happen in Chicago, even if the United States is "committed to have it happen as soon as possible."

President Saakashvili is aware of this, of course, but he expressed confidence that the Bucharest commitment will be honored and expressed optimism that Georgia has shown that even with its geographic challenges, it has been put in an informal group of four that “everyone knows” will join NATO. He also stressed that Georgia would not become another “annoying consumer” of security and would also act as a "provider."

Saakashvili responded to a variety of questions from Young Atlanticist delegates—some more pointed than others. In a response to Chicago Young Atlanticist Seth Berliner, the president said that Georgia must continue to push for equal rights for women, stating, “I strongly believe women are better than men."

Another Young Atlanticist asked how Georgia planned to get Russia out of Abkhazia. The president responded that the best way to change is to change Russia. The President emphasized his belief that Russia is engaged in imperial nostalgia, but he claimed that even Russian nationalists want Russia to be a “normal” country.

Saakashvili, however, could not escape a question related to the revocation of the would-be opposition candidate Bidzina Ivanishvili’s citizenship in the lead-up to the election. The president was less successful at answering this question.

President Saakashvili concluded by expressing hope that Russia will change in the near future and expressed pride in changes in his home country. He repeated that Georgia had hit successful benchmarks of reform. He exited the Young Atlanticist Summit to the warmest round of applause received thus far.

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 3:05PM on Sunday, May 20 **

The young president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, renewed his plea for NATO membership for Georgia.

Earlier speakers had doubted Georgia's progress toward reforms or had cautioned that NATO might not be able to defend a country on the eastern side of the Black Sea, isolated from other NATO nations. But Saakashvili listed a long catalogue of reforms and said that Georgia is "a small country with a strategic location," a sort of gateway to the Caucasus and the Middle East.

On top of that, he said, Georgia has a record of defending itself: "Which other government has survived a Russian invasion in the past ten years?"

"We know our (membership) in NATO is a matter of time," he said. "Our commitment is absolute."

Saakashvili predicted that the communiqué from the NATO summit will reconfirm the Alliance's commitment—stated at the Bucharest summit four years ago—to bring Georgia into full membership.

Saakashvili, like the leaders of other former Communist countries, didn't hide his scorn for Russia and its governments. Russia currently occupies Abkhazia, which is part of Georgia, and Saakashvili said that the best way to change this "is to change Russia itself."

Russia still is seized with "imperial nostalgia," he said, but this "will inevitably change."

Saakashvili criticized the protestors in Chicago demonstrating against NATO as "a relic of the past" or as a "war-mongering" organization. The protesters themselves "are relics of the past," he said, adding that hearing these attacks reminded him of the same anti-NATO articles that he used to read as a boy in Pravda, the official organ of the Soviet Communist Party.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: The Alliance of the Future: What Challenges, What Relevance?

• Audronius Ažubalis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania
• Urmas Paet, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Estonia
• Alexandr Vondra, Minister of Defense of the Czech Republic
• Espen Barth Eide, Defense Minister of the Kingdom of Norway
• Moderated by Barry Lowenkron, Vice President of International Programs, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

By Adam N. Schupack

Chicago Young Professional and Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

** Filed at 2:31PM on Sunday, May 20 **

NATO’s main goal must remain the security of all its members, but providing for that security in an era of diminishing defense budgets and multipronged threats requires innovative, smarter approaches, a panel of European foreign and defense ministers told the 2012 Chicago Young Atlanticist Summit. Panelists agreed that NATO nations must implement “Smart Defence,” a strategy that involves burden-sharing, specialization, and interoperability, in order to maintain a credible deterrent in the face of both new and old threats.

In addition to the symmetrical military threats of the kind NATO was founded to deter, Alliance members now face the transnational challenges of terrorism, climate change, nuclear proliferation, and energy security. But the financial crisis in Europe and the failure of many NATO allies to reach the target defense budget of 2 percent of GDP has led to the deterioration of NATO’s ability to respond to symmetrical threats. NATO members' collective defense spending is decreasing while Russia and China are increasing their respective defense budgets.

And the gap between American and European defense spending is widening. The defense budget is the first to be sacrificed as European countries move to reduce their national debt, said Defense Minister Vondra. "The average citizen doesn’t see vital actual threats to justify spending on defense at the expense of other priorities,” said Vondra. Defense Minister Eide lamented that the European financial crisis has diminished the attractiveness of the European Union, NATO, and the Euro-Atlantic model, with unknown consequences for the ability of NATO nations to exert influence and provide stability.

For NATO nations on Russia’s borders, Russia continues to pose a threat, said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Ažubalis. He noted that it is not NATO but current Russian policy that is a relic of the Cold War. NATO must remain focused on Russia, continuing to engage in meaningful dialogue on missile defense and nuclear security, maintaining credible deterrence, and actively supporting democratic development and civil society.

The underlying message of the panel is that NATO will remain relevant to their countries and the cornerstone of their foreign and defense policies, yet the key challenges for NATO are twofold. First, NATO must respond to multifold threats, asymmetrical and symmetrical, requiring both hard and soft power. While there is broad agreement on those threats, the salience of each threat is still determined by the geography, history, and politics of each member state. For instance, Russia is a more pressing threat for the Baltic nations than for Italy or Spain. NATO’s ability to prioritize threats and balance competing interests will play a key role in the ability of the alliance to meet future challenges successfully.

Second, NATO must meet these challenges with far more limited financial resources. Plans for joint air patrols over the Baltics, joint airlift capability, national specialization, and interoperable weapons systems are necessary measures. Yet it remains to be seen how Smart Defense will be implemented on a broader scale. Smart Defense must mean doing more with less, not a slogan masking an alliance forced to do less with less. Coming out of the Chicago summit, NATO allies must ensure that Smart Defense allows the Alliance to continue to protect its members and to be a vital force for peace and security throughout the world.

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 12:12PM on Sunday, May 20 **

This panel brought together ministers from three northern countries—Lithuania, Norway and Estonia—and the Czech Republic. Financial issues loomed large, with the Estonian foreign minister, Urmas Paet, suggesting that NATO could stretch its resources by working more closely out of area—that is, beyond the North Atlantic area—with its new partners in the Middle East and Asia.

Espen Barth Eide, the Norwegian defense minister, urged NATO not to push its Article 5 commitment too far. This article commits all NATO allies to respond if any ally is attacked. This has become an issue in the enlargement debate: that is, would NATO really defend Georgia, for instance, if it was attacked? Eide said that the credibility of Article 5 "is not what it used to be," largely for financial reasons, and advised NATO not to take on problems that it can't solve.

Audronius Azubalis, the Lithuanian foreign minister, comes from a country which, like the Czech Republic and Estonia, was under Soviet domination during the Cold War. He made it clear that this memory remains fresh and these nations still view post-Soviet Russia warily, to say the least.

Azubalis noted that one Soviet general recently described NATO's plans to build a missile defense system, ostensibly intended to prevent an attack from the Middle East, as an anti-Russian act that could lead to a Russian counter-attack. To Azubalis, this is an over-reaction and a misreading of Western intentions rooted in old Cold War thinking.

Azubalis suggested this Russian posture may stem from a feeling in Moscow that it's being ignored, that it's not the old superpower of old. "It seems Russia wants to be on this map," the minister said, and so assumes itself to be the target of non-existent threats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PANEL: NATO and "Unfinished Business" in Europe and Beyond

• Vesna Pusic, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Croatia
• Miroslav Lajcak, Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic
• Moderated by Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council

By Shayne Kavanagh

Chicago Young Professional and Senior Manager of Research, Government Finance Officers Association

** Filed at 10:33AM on Sunday, May 20 **

The day's first panel discussion addressed the issue of a Europe that is not yet fully integrated or at peace. The panel featured Vesna Pusic, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Croatia, and Miroslav Lajcak, the Foreign Minister of the Slovak Republic.

The discussion around the expansion of NATO—and the EU for that matter—has been lively over the past number of years. Pusic pointed out that the initial enthusiasm for expansion was fueled by a political euphoria of Western triumphalism after the Cold War. However, the Greek’s problems and Euro crisis has dampened the enthusiasm for further enlargement.

Within this context, Lajcak outlined three elements of NATO’s unfinished business:

• First is the capabilities needed to complete the mission, such as the alliance's “Smart Defense” initiative. Also included in this are the institutional capabilities to work with an expanded membership. Pusic stated that consensus does tend to be easier to achieve in NATO than the EU, due to the nature of the issues involved (e.g., budgets and agricultural subsidies are a ready political football, compared to the issues that make up the typical NATO agenda), so expansion of the NATO membership may not be as difficult as it might be in the EU, at least in this regard.
• Second is potential new members, such as Georgia. Lajcak stated that NATO should stand by its commitment to include Georgia in its membership. His view was that geopolitical strategic considerations should not determine NATO membership decisions—rather such decisions should be made according to NATO’s guiding principles. However, another view is that new membership decisions should be based on whether a new member will add stability or reduce stability within NATO and its mission. Hence, it seems that NATO enlargement decisions are not clear cut and that more debate lies ahead.
• Third is developing appropriate relationships with nearby non-member states, such as Russia  and the Ukraine. Lajcak expressed a concern that existing mechanisms for working with Russia have not worked optimally. The conflict in Georgia and Russia’s consternation over potential expansion have not made the relationship any easier. Pusic agreed with Lajcak that Russia should not have a “veto power” on NATO actions, but NATO should be able to anticipate concerns that Russia may have and take more proactive measures to address these concerns.

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 10:16AM on Sunday, May 20 **

The first speakers began with the continuing importance of Europe to the United States in an era of shifting focus on Asia, and then dealt with roadblocks to the future enlargement of both NATO and the European Union, the inability to strike a steady relationship with Russia and, both explicitly and implicitly, with Greece's problematic role within both alliances.

Hubert Van Rompuy, the president of the European Commission, noted that both the United States and the EU have big economic problems and "any transatlantic blame game doesn't help anybody. Each side must put its own house in order." While recognizing the ocntinuing crisis in Greece, he noted that both Italy and Portugal have instituted important reforms, and the northern nations in the EU are doing so well that the entire Eurozone will show positive economic growth this year.

As to Greece, he said, "Greece belongs to Europe and has to stay in the Eurozone." He stressed that any Greek government does not have the right to pull out of the euro, because any government has to live up to earlier commitments by the Greek state itself.

Much attention is being given at the NATO summit to new NATO "partners," such as the Gulf states. But Van Rompuy said that, as valuable as their help has been, none of them have matched the contribution by the European nations in Afghanistan, let alone Libya.

"Europe and the United States," he said, have more in common with each other than either has with Africa, South America or China"—part of his plea for continuing and closer transatlantic ties.

One improvement, he said, would be closer institutional cooperation between NATO and the EU, a cooperation partially blocked by the hostility between Turkey, which is in NATO, and Greek-run Cyprus, which is in the EU.

Vesna Pusic, the Croatian foreign minister, reported that the enthusiasim for enlargement of both NATO and the EU has waned since the 1990s and the early 2000s. Enthusiasm then focused on the political benefits of enlargement, partially as a symbol of the Cold War's end, Pusic said. Now, she said, economic problems which challenge the existing alliances have cooled ardor for enlargement, both among members and aspiring members. In addition, Greece is blocking membership for Macdeonia—"a near miss," Pusic said.

Finally, she said, NATO enlarges to increase its strategic reach, while the EU expands only when candidate countrries meet the bloc's standards—an implication that some countries, like Georgia, haven't reached that level yet.

Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, agreed that Georgia needs to show more progress before joining NATO. Both ministers agreed, although with differing emphases, that Russian opposition to Georgian membership is a problem.

Lajcak said that NATO can't ignore Russia, but can't give Russia a veto over NATO policy, including enlargement. But Pusic said the goal of NATO is to increase stability and security, and relations with Russia are part of this goal.

Lajcak noted that the NATO-RUssian Council "is sort of working," but not as either side had hoped. The dialogue has not eliminated differences over Georgia or missile defense. Underneath these differences, he said, basic cultural tensions exist—that when the Russians enter the room, the tone of conversations change.

Croatia and Slovakia are relatively new members of both alliances—Croatia, in fact, will only join the EU in July 2013—and Pusic commented on the differences between the two blocs. As she said, it's easier to get consensus through NATO, which is an existing organization with a firm strategic goal, while the whole point of the EU, and the solution to its current problems, is "more Europe"—that is, the creation of more state-like structures, what the Europeans themselves call the "deepening" of the alliance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Richard C. Longworth

Senior Fellow, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

** Filed at 8:31AM on Sunday, May 20 **

We are blogging live from the Chicago Young Atlanticist Summit, which is taking place alongside the NATO summit at McCormick Place. The Young Atlanticist Summit is being held, as it has been at previous NATO summits, in conjunction with the NATO summit, and will draw on the rich global assets and knowledge of the NATO meeting.

The program today and tomorrow will bring together world leaders, starting with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and followed by heads of state and ministers from various NATO nations, to talk with the Young Atlanticists. These Young Atlanticists are an impressive group of young professionals from all 28 NATO nations, plus a group of 20 members of the Chicago Council's Young Professionals organization, chosen competively to take part in this program. Some of these Chicagoans also will be blogging on this space, under their own bylines, giving their slants on what they hear here.

The idea is to give a running account of the policies, thinking, national ambitions, and international tensions that are the heart of a multinational summit meeting. This summit is the largest NATO summit in history, bringing together some 60 NATO nations and their partner nations. The goal of this running blog is to reflect this diversity and, not incidentally, to portray what the Young Atlanticists—the summiteers of the future—are hearing, learning, and thinking.

Some of the leading speakers on this first day of the summit come from outside the NATO nations themselves, but are closely tied to NATO, for various reasons. First will be Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose nation and its future will be at the top of the summit agenda. [Update: President Karzai canceled his engagement in the hour following this post.] Others include Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Montenegrin Prime Minister Igor Luksic: both countries have applied to join NATO. Swedish foreign Minister Carl Bildt, a leading international statesman, will talk about security issues from Sweden's point of view. Other panels will bring together foreign or defense ministers from Croatia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic,  and Norway, plus two American senators, Dick Durbin of illinois and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.