2006 Riga summit
Riga summit | |
---|---|
Host country | Latvia |
Dates | 28–29 November 2006 |
Venue(s) | Olympic Sports Centre |
The 2006 Riga summit or the 19th NATO Summit was a
Security measures
The summit was held in the Olympic Sports Centre, Riga. Roads in the center of Riga were closed down and parking was not allowed at the airport or at several roads, out of fear of car bombs.[3] About 9000 Latvian police officers and soldiers took care of the Summit's security, while more than 450 other airmen from seven European NATO countries were called upon to ensure a no-fly zone above the summit in an operation called Operation Peaceful Summit. This enhanced ongoing Baltic Air Policing activities with additional aircraft, communications and maintenance support.[4]
Summit
All agreements were not actually made in the North Atlantic Council meeting, but in fact, it was made in the Istanbul Summit, 2003, except for the signing of the missile defense contract which happened on 28 November. The Council meeting was held on 29 November.
Main topics
While the tensions between NATO members from the build-up to the
War in Afghanistan
Before and during the summit US president
While the NATO countries in question refused to participate in the fighting in the south, they agreed to remove some of these national caveats, and in an emergency situation, all national caveats should cease to exist, meaning that every ally should come to the aid of the forces that require assistance.
Political scientist Joseph Nye commented that "while the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the US are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north. It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."[11] The controversy surrounding the differences in contributions to Afghanistan indeed remained after the summit. For instance, in March 2007, British commanders accused the NATO members that refused to fight in the conflict-ridden south (in non-emergency situations) of causing "huge resentment" and a sense of betrayal and undermined the credibility of the alliance. They added that despite the earlier pleas for reinforcements or to have "operational caveats" removed, some countries, notably France and Germany, were still not heeding their requests.[12]
Besides the above discussion about contributions and caveats, the summit was noticed to paint an optimistic picture of the war in Afghanistan and Afghanistan's future.[9] For instance, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that "real progress" had been made in Afghanistan and that this was the main highlight of the summit. He strongly disagreed with visions of "doom and gloom," and added that five years after the defeat of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan had become a democratic society that is "no longer a threat to the world." He also believed that the defeat of the insurgency was only a matter of time, stating that the war in Afghanistan "is winnable, it is being won, but it is not yet won because, of course, we have many challenges in Afghanistan." In his opinion, these challenges included besides military engagement mainly reconstruction and development work.[13]
Role of NATO
The second, more fundamental rift, concerned a discussion about whether NATO should form close relationships with countries far beyond NATO's borders, in particular Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Other topics
Kosovo
At the Riga summit, NATO members confirmed the role of NATO-led KFOR in ensuring a stable security environment there.[16][17] This is perceived to be a reference to the possible United Nations decision in favour of independence. Because Serbia strongly opposes the break-away of Kosovo, the resulting tensions between Serbia and Kosovo could create instability in the region.
Enhanced cooperation with non-members
Enhanced cooperation with non-member states closer at home was less controversial and two offers were made: an extension of Partnership for Peace membership, and a training initiative.
- Partnership for Peace (PfP) membership was offered to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. NATO hoped that this would bring these countries more into the Euro-Atlantic community as the PfP is a programme of practical bilateral cooperation between individual Partner countries and NATO, thereby allowing Partner countries to choose their own priorities for cooperation.[18] It is expected that PfP membership is for these three countries the first step towards NATO membership. As a result, the PfP offer sparked the anger of the UN tribunal trying suspected war criminals from the Balkans.[10]
- NATO launched a Training Cooperation Initiative offering to share NATO training expertise with its Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) countries (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan) and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) countries.[19] The initial phase included expanding those countries' participation in relevant existing NATO training and education programmes, and the establishment of a Middle East faculty at the NATO Defense College in Rome. As a second phase, NATO would consider supporting the establishment of a Security Cooperation Centre in the region, to be owned by the MD and ICI countries, with regional funding and NATO assistance. Senior NATO staff have tended to highlight this project as evidence of NATO's forward-thinking and its desire to avoid becoming a party to a "clash of civilizations".[2]
Comprehensive Political Guidance
The CPG policy document is regarded as self-contradictory for at least two reasons. Firstly, it identified the two greatest threats to NATO as terrorism and the proliferation of
Energy security
The Riga summit was the first NATO summit that underscored the need for
2008 membership invitations
The NATO Heads of State and Government congratulated the efforts of the three Balkan states currently in NATO's
NATO Response Force
NATO Secretary-General
2010 Theatre Missile Defence
In September 2006, NATO selected an international consortium led by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to build an Integration Test Bed for the Alliance's future Active Layered Theatre Missile Defence (ALTBMD) capability. After two months of negotiations, ALTBMD Programme Manager, General (Ret) Billard, and SAIC contracting Officer, Mr. Robert Larrick, signed the contract on the first day of NATO's Riga Summit.[30] This decision was based on an unpublished report agreed upon earlier by NATO ministers following a study into the feasibility of theatre missile defences.[2]
This programme is one of three programmes that NATO is pursuing in the area of missile defence. The contract puts the Alliance on track for having, by 2010, a system to protect troops on missions against
Views on the summit
For the three formerly Soviet-occupied states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania such a high-level event was held for the first time in the region. As a consequence, it held symbolic meaning.[16] It is perceived to have increased the visibility of these three Baltic states as NATO members.
References
- ^ Mitropolitski, S. (November 2006). "NATO summit: Border with Russia is (almost) drawn". Archived from the original on 5 February 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i M. BUCHER, "NATO, Riga and Beyond" in Disarmament policy, (2007), 84, NATO, Riga and Beyond | Acronym Institute Archived 2 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ I-LATVIA, NATO Summit in Riga, 2006 Archived 8 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ L. NEIDINGER "NATO team ensures safe sky during Riga Summit" in Air Force Link, 8 December 2006, U.S. Air Force – Mobile Archived 10 May 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Reynolds, Paul (27 November 2006). "Nato looks for global role". BBC News. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
- ^ X, "NATO and Nuclear Weapons" in Disarmament Policy, 29 November 2006, Can NATO transform for the 21st century? | Acronym Institute Archived 5 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ The Financial Times, 29 November 2006, Nato makes limited progress on troops – FT.com Archived 16 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, NATO boosts efforts in Afghanistan, 30 November 2006 Archived 27 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b c d Lobjakas, Ahto (29 November 2006). "Afghanistan: NATO Summit Stresses 'Progress'". Riga: RFE/RL. Archived from the original on 14 June 2008. Retrieved 11 May 2008.
- ^ a b Agence France-Presse, "Afghanistan being won: NATO" in The Daily Telegraph, 30 November 2006, [1] [dead link]
- ^ Nye, J. (14 December 2006). "NATO after Riga" Archived 27 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ T. HARDING, "Do your fair share in Afghanistan, Nato told" in The Daily Telegraph, 10 March 2007, News – Latest breaking UK news – Telegraph[dead link]
- ^ Closing press conference by NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Archived 3 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ BBC News, Nato looks for global role, 27 November 2006, BBC NEWS | Europe | Nato looks for global role Archived 4 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Briefing on NATO Issues Prior to Riga Summit
- ^ a b c X, NATO – The Way to Riga and onward, 2006 Archived 20 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b c NATO, Riga Summit Declaration, 29 November 2006 Archived 12 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, Alliance offers partnership to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, 30 November 2006, [2] Archived 5 March 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, NATO launches training initiative for Mediterranean and Middle East, 30 November 2006, [3] Archived 3 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, Comprehensive Political Guidance, 29 November 2006 Archived 14 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 28 December 2006, [4] Archived 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO,, 30 November 2006, "NATO sets priorities for new capabilities for next 15 years" Archived 3 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ J. DE HOOP SCHEFFER, Lesson Learned: NATO Must Shape Up For The 21st century, 43rd Munich Security Conference, 10 February 2007.
- ^ Radio Free Europe, Afghanistan: NATO Summit Stresses "Progress", 29 November 2006, Afghanistan: NATO Summit Stresses 'Progress' Archived 14 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ S. CASTLE, "Call for unity among Nato in Afghanistan" in The Independent, 29 November 2006, [5] Archived 30 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, New countries could be invited to join NATO in 2008, 30 November 2006, [6] Archived 3 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ T. KUZIO, "Georgia outshines Ukraine at recent NATO summit in Riga" in German Marshall Fund, 20 December 2006, [7] Archived 31 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, NATO Response Force declared fully operational, 30 November 2006, [8] Archived 3 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ The NATO Response Force At the centre of NATO transformation Archived 9 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ NATO, NATO on track for 2010 theatre missile defence, 30 November 2006, [9] Archived 26 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine
External links
- Riga Summit, Official Web Site, [10]
- NATO, NATO Riga Summit, http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2006/0611-riga/index.htm
- US Department of State, The NATO Riga Summit, https://web.archive.org/web/20071212224704/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/2006/76799.htm
- M. Bucher, "NATO, Riga and Beyond" in Disarmament policy, (2007), 84, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/84nato.htm Archived 2 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine