Daily Times

NATO’s 28 members and some dozen partners will convene this Sunday at a heads of government, heads of state summit in Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown. These summits have been held roughly every two years. The previous one took place in Lisbon in November 2010, where a new ‘strategic concept’ was approved redefining NATO’s purposes for the 21st century with specific challenges and dangers of a post-Cold War world two decades on.

The US last hosted a summit in 1999 commemorating NATO’s 50th anniversary as an alliance. That summit met amidst NATO’s first war being waged over Kosovo and the bombing campaign to force Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic to cease the killing of ethnic Kosovars and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. This summit will lack that drama.

For most people, NATO is not a term used in the daily lexicon. It occasionally appeared in the press last year over the campaign that successfully removed Muammar Qaddafi as Libya’s ruler and in the persistent conflict in Afghanistan. But aside from several rooms full of experts and literati, Americans are far better acquainted with movie stars, celebrities and television programmes than the most successful military alliance in history.

None of this is necessarily bad. But public indifference does shift the balance between NATO as relevant or as a relic to the right. With the Soviet Union in its grave for more than a score of years, public opinion in the US and Europe souring over the Afghan war, and in the absence of a clear and present danger, the obvious rationale for the alliance must be largely taken on faith, and as an insurance policy against future threats, provided the price tag does not yield sticker shock.

The themes of this summit are Afghanistan and the planned phase down of NATO forces to be completed by the end of 2014, maintaining defence capability, i.e. military forces, in an “age (politely described as) of austerity”, meaning no money, and “partnerships” to provide global reach. Yet, the summit takes place in the dark and thickening shadows of economic crisis in Europe extending across the Atlantic, and a perilous situation in Afghanistan. There are ample critics of the strategy and viability of negotiations with the Taliban adversary, the inherent weakness and corruption of the Kabul government to assume full responsibility for the future security and stability of the country, and the US presidential elections in which Chicago almost certainly will be a showcase for pitching Mr Obama as commander-in-chief.

The presence of the new French President, Monsieur Francois Hollande and uncertainty over Paris’ commitment to stay the course in Afghanistan and the absence of the new Russian President Vladimir Putin will complicate the summit and its expectations. At this writing, Pakistan has finally received an invitation. Without Pakistan, any solution to Afghanistan will be incomplete. However, there are downsides. Without substantive agreements, the peace process will be harmed. And, regardless, Pakistan’s unprecedented anti-Americanism will be magnified, distorted and directed even more viciously against President Asif Zardari who will be portrayed as yielding to Washington and its despised policies.

More importantly, the alliance’s main business is unfinished — fashioning a credible message for its politicians and publics as to why NATO remains relevant to the security of its members and partners in the 21st century. The current argument, sadly, is circular. We need NATO or NATO matters more because we need it more or because it matters more. That is an article of faith and a belief. That argument is not sufficient to convince largely indifferent or disinterested publics and absent palpable threats of the need to sustain NATO for the indefinite future.

One option is for NATO to consider a name change for the long term. It is ironic and interesting that of NATO’s 28 members, only Canada, Norway, Iceland (with no military), and the northern tips of Britain and the US touch on the North Atlantic. The southwest of France, Spain and Portugal border on the South Atlantic. The remaining 20 have no direct access to the Atlantic except through other routes. So perhaps NATO could become the Transatlantic Alliance, reflecting a broader geostrategic treaty rather than a military pact. And since Atlantic would remain part of the name, what about potential partners on this side of that ocean to the south?

That Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other partners in the Pacific have relationships with NATO, does it not make sense to reconsider expanding the nature of the partnerships programmes? The answer is yes. However, that will not happen soon.

NATO, no matter the name, is crucial to security and stability of its members. If not now, sometime soon and before the next summit that case must be made. Otherwise, NATO risks becoming a relic — no longer relevant to the demands of the 21st century.

The writer is Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business and Senior Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council