|
|
|
|
Istanbul Summit and the Future of NATO
By Tomáš Valášek
Abstract
NATO Heads of States met in Istanbul in June 2004 for a summit preceded by great expectations. Many viewed the event as a chance to put behind, once and for all, the rifts created by the Iraq war. In the end, while progress has been made on Iraq and a new Middle East initiative, the meeting failed to bring about the desired reconciliation. The reasons for continued tensions are complex but can be roughly divided into strategic and tactical or, put another way, policy differences vs. political/personality differences.
The latter category includes efforts of many European heads of states to distance themselves from President George W. Bush, and to deny the U.S. leader political ammunition of potential use in the forthcoming presidential elections. Even on issues where real progress has been made, allied leaders continue to publicly question the importance of the breakthrough.
One of the best examples is Iraq. France, Germany and other critics of the Iraq war refused their involvement in the stabilization of the country on the grounds that the U.S.-led occupation is illegal. While careful not to make any promises of military assistance, they nevertheless created an expectation that should power in the country be handed over to an indigenous government—and should the United Nations authorise and request military assistance—they, too, would join the stabilisation process.