In 2001, the United Stated and its allies invaded Afghanistan with a simple mission: Replace the country’s rule of violence with a government capable of rule of law.

However, more than a decade of occupation later, the coalition is heading back home with former warlords in an ideal position to replace President Hamid Karzai in 2014.  The U.S.  and NATO are in many ways responsible for the rise of these now-political figures.

“With a few exceptions, Afghans and foreigners now believe that warlords no longer have power, or have false power because they do not have men and do not control territory,” said Romain Malejacq. A lecturer in International Politics and PhD candidate at Northwestern University, he has made several trips to Afghanistan and witnessed a political climate different from what much of the western media portrays.  “In fact they survive as resilient actors in Afghan politics.”

Two of the more prominent new warlords, Mohammed Qasim Fahim and Atta Mohammed Noor ,have two things in common. Both of them joined the mujahedeen forces of Ahmed Shah Massoud in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and both have become major political players since 2001.

Fahim is Afghan’s version of the self-made man. He joined Massoud in his early twenties, and quickly rose through the ranks of the mujahedeen. On September 9, 2001, two days before the World Trade Center attacks, al-Qaeda operatives assassinated Massoud, and Fahim took control of the Northern Alliance troops. That is when the U.S first reached out to Fahim.

“He received millions of dollars from the CIA to help the U.S. fight the Taliban and take Kabul away from them,” said Malejacq.

Four months later, the U.S officially declared victory over the Taliban, Fahim was invited to become Vice President in the transitional government led by Hamid Karzai, and Fahim’s half-brother was busy building a business empire through the newly formed Zahid Walid Group Fuel and Gas Services Company Ltd (ZWG).  After touring the U.S and Western Europe, Fahim secured a series of lucrative contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars for his family’s business, who would soon be pouring concrete for a NATO base, rebuilding the  U.S embassy in Kabul, airport and other large infrastructures.

“The story of Qasin Fahim and his half brother illustrates how military power can be transformed into political and economic power,” said Malejacq.

Today, Fahim is one of the richest, most powerful men in Afghanistan; and his position as First Vice President makes him one of the favorites to succeed Karzai.

He is anticipated to face, among other political figures, Governor Atta Muhammad Noor. The two men know each other well, having fought together in the northern province of Balkh to liberate the city of Mazar-i-sharif from the Taliban.  However, they followed very different paths after the war.

Fahim followed Karzai to Kabul, while Atta stayed in his native province, which he has governed since 2004.  Fahim invested in national and international business, while Atta focused on local politics. More importantly, Fahim benefitted directly from his contacts with the U.S., while Atta used the absence of U.S aid in his region as an argument of his personal capabilities.

Dipali Mukhopadhyay, a specialist on Afghanistan for Princeton University’s Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton, says Atta’s ability to govern without supervision or help of the coalition has not gone unnoticed.

“He has a record of ‘good performance’, which is exceptional amid a largely unimpressive group of provincial governors,” said Mukhopadhyay.

Atta is a ‘strong governor,’ a mujahedeen (or ‘struggler’) who fought to deliver his region, and was ready to protect it at all cost.

“Atta’s capacity to ensure security throughout the province has attracted a degree of investment and reconstruction in Mazar-i-Sharif that is exceptional in Afghanistan,” said Mukhopadhyay.

He also eradicated the region from its illegal trade dependency.  Under his governance, Balkh saw poppy cultivation reduced from 18,000 acres in 2005 to zero in 2007, and is now one of the only “poppy free” provinces.

According to Mukhopadhyay, Atta is one of the “two or three most important political figures” in Afghanistan, and has a chance to fulfill his national ambitions come the presidential race.

As the U.S and NATO continue to plan their exit strategy, many wonder what type of government will follow. While Afghans will have more than one ballot to choose from – in what the international community is hoping will be a fair, peaceful and democratic transition away from Karzai’s corrupt government – the names on those ballots may suggest for more strongman politics.

However, Mukhopadhyay believes the record shown by some of these men in their individual provinces should give Afghans a reason to be optimistic about their future.

“The form of governance represented by war-lord-governors may be the best compromise at present in Afghanistan,” she said.

Karzai is set to end his second five-year term in 2014 and isn’t eligible to run again under the Afghan constitution.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all … if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking … action as it deems necessary … to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

- Excerpt from the Washington Treaty, Article IV

“The problem is the willingness and the capability of those countries does not necessarily match their ability to spend …”

- Ajbinder Sull, President and Chief Investment Officer, Pacifica Partners Inc.

* * *

The Chicago NATO Summit yielded an important, albeit somewhat imprecise, message regarding NATO’s commitment to Smart Defense: In light of economic turmoil, member countries are dedicated to sharing resources and working together to develop capabilities they could not otherwise achieve.

Already, NATO has implemented a handful of initiatives that fall under the canopy of Smart Defense. In a press conference following the Summit, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called attention to an agreement between NATO allies in the Baltic States to take turns patrolling that airspace. Doing so, Rasmussen said, allows the countries to contribute additional resources to other areas, such as Special Forces.

During the Summit, NATO members also agreed to what Rasmussen called a “robust package of more than 20 multinational projects” moving forward. The agreements range from acquiring remote-controlled robots that help in clearing bombs, to pooling and sharing boats for patrolling tumultuous areas such as the Horn of Africa.

But the challenge ahead will be whether NATO countries, amid escalating economic turmoil, can make good on their intentions financially. Even as Rasmussen speaks of plans to purchase, acquire and share, NATO members are slashing their defense budgets — the irony, of course, being that some countries may find themselves unable to financially support the programs specifically designed to ease that burden.

For example, Spain presented its 2012 budget in April, and announced a plan to cut €27 billion. Although the defense sector isn’t the hardest hit, the proposed budget nevertheless calls for €6.3 billion in defense cuts.

In February, Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Italy would reduce its fighter jet order by more than 30 percent, from 131 F-35s to 100 or slightly fewer. The Ministry reported that overall cuts also include personnel cuts: 22,000 soldiers, 7,000 Navy sailors and 10,000 members of the Air Force.

Greece also plans to cut defense spending significantly. Cuts would include a reduction in the purchasing of military material by €300 million, as well as a reduction in other military expenses by at least €100 million.

Speaking of Greece – it’s impossible to mention the deteriorating country without acknowledging the growing skepticism that it may soon exit the eurozone. Martin Edwards, a political scientist and member of the New Rules for Global Finance Coalition, said Greece’s exist from the eurozone would have tremendous global repercussions.

“It’s not because the Greek economy is so big – far from it,” Edwards said. “It’s that the spectrum of that leaving is going to produce all sorts of turmoil in markets, and I don’t think we’re ready for the level of pressure that Spain, Portugal and Italy are going to fall under.”

“Because once Greece leaves,” Edwards continued, “the question is ‘OK, who’s next?’”

In light of widespread budget cuts and the eurozone’s uncertain future, concrete examples of Smart Defense may be harder to define. It is worthwhile, then, to look at a sample of NATO countries in the framework of their niche capabilities, or services they specialize in and contribute to the alliance.

Sally Painter, Chief Operating Officer at Washington-based consultancy Blue Star Strategies and a member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, said a focus on unique capabilities is particularly important when considering NATO’s smaller member countries.

“For instance, smaller countries aren’t going to have a huge military air force,” Painter said. “But they could do other things.” Painter offered Estonia and Latvia as examples. While Estonia specializes in Special Forces and cyber security, Painter said, Latvia specializes in de-mining capabilities.

Poland, another example, specializes in training and deploying armed forces. Poland Armed Forces regularly contribute warships to NATO’s maritime operations, and has helped train Afghan Army and police forces.

“It’s interesting because some of the smaller countries have per capita the largest group of people on the ground,” Painter said. “And so there is recognition that it may not be your dollars, but you’re giving us something even more important – you’re giving us your people.”

But some economists say willingness without spending power might not be enough in times of severe financial turmoil.

“I think the issue it comes down to,” Sull said, “is if other European countries are no longer willing to shoulder their share of the burden, or they aren’t able to, then perhaps NATO will have to shrink its mission, it’s mandate or the number of members.”

BY ALI DURKIN

Leaders of the 28 NATO member countries viewed the 2012 Chicago Summit as an opportunity to put into action plans outlined in the New Strategic Concept of 2010 designed to shape and transform the future of the alliance.

“Lisbon was an ideas summit,” said Mark Jacobson, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Washington D.C., who studies NATO. “What you need to follow on from that is an implementation summit.”

The New Strategic Concept— it was adopted in Lisbon in 2010—outlines NATO’s path for the future. It highlights how the alliance must evolve to remain relevant in the face of changing global-security threats.

“It is the blueprint for an alliance even more actively engaged in building international security, and upgraded for modern defense,” said Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a 2010 speech in Brussels. “Which is exactly what we need to do to maintain our shared security for the coming decade.”

Discussions in Chicago focused on three major issues and the decisions made in those meetings reflect the vision of the 21^st century alliance outlined in the New Strategic Concept: ending the mission in Afghanistan, improving NATO capabilities to defend against modern day threats and enhancing partnerships.

Before member-country leaders could discuss improving NATO capabilities for the future of the alliance, they had to address a more pressing concern, Afghanistan withdrawal, Jacobson said.

On May 21, the 28 member nations met with 22 partners involved in the International Security Assistance Force mission to establish a plan for implementing the transition from NATO forces to Afghan security forces by 2014, a move decided at the Lisbon Summit.

“Lisbon was about the political resolve to get us into transition and the Chicago summit was setting the political resolve to wrap up transition and provide support to Afghanistan post 2014,” Jacobson said.

During the summit, leaders agreed that by the middle of 2013, Afghan security forces will take over combat operations and “ISAF forces will have shifted from combat to a support role in all parts of the country,” said U.S. President Obama in a press conference.

The Chicago Summit was also an opportunity for NATO to realize the goal outlined in the New Strategic Concept to enhance the alliance’s capabilities against the threats of the 21^st century.

On May 21, alliance members released an agreed-upon Deterrence and Defense Posture Review, an analysis of the NATO’s conventional, nuclear and missile-defense capabilities.

“This posture review confirms that the Alliance is committed to maintaining the deterrence and defense capabilities necessary to ensure its security in an unpredictable world,” the document stated.

In that defense review, the alliance announces “interim capability” for its missile-defense system. This means NATO’s missile-defense system is now capable of providing “real protection for parts of NATO Europe against ballistic missile attack,” said Ambassador Ivo Daalder, Permanent Representative to NATO, in a press briefing.

In Chicago, the alliance also agreed on “NATO Forces 2020,” a document that establishes goals for modernizing and streamlining NATO capabilities over the course of the next eight years.

NATO Forces 2020 establishes “military forces that are strong, flexible and deployable,” Rasmussen said. “Forces that can work alongside each other. And that can cope with the full range of security challenges we might face.”

A third major aspect of the New Strategic Concept that came to life at the Chicago Summit was the alliance’s emphasis on enhancing partnerships between NATO and other countries and organizations.

“The promotion of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organizations around the globe,” according to the New Strategic Concept. The document highlights the need to improve NATO’s relationships with organizations such as the United Nations, European Union and other outside organizations.

In Chicago, the leaders of the 28 member countries met with 13 partner countries with which NATO has military or political relationships. This meeting was the first of its kind in NATO’s history, demonstrating the importance the alliance is placing on building more and stronger relationships in the future.

Both the mission in Afghanistan, where 50 nations have contributed troops to the ISAF mission, and Libya, where the Arab League of Nations played a vital role, have demonstrated the need for the alliance to operate with outside countries and organizations.

Despite the actions in Chicago, the alliance continues to grapple with how to create a cohesive mission for the 21^st century. NATO no longer faces a common threat, but a multitude of global-security issues.

“What the organization has set out for itself are such broad aims—so it is not like the aims of the Cold War,” said Richard Rupp, author of “NATO after 9/11: An Alliance in Continuing Decline” and professor of political science at Purdue University Calumet.

In the aftermath of the decade-long mission in Afghanistan, the alliance must resist the urge to “retreat behind its European walls and say ‘we are only about collective defense of the geographic borders of the alliance,’” Jacobson said. “It must realize that in order to be relevant it must protect against the threats that face the alliance,” he said.

Those threats, such as cyber security, simply no longer have borders.

With the strategic partnership agreement confirmed in Chicago at the May NATO summit, President Hamid Karzai and President Barack Obama committed to a plan for NATO troops in Afghanistan to withdraw by 2014 and for long-term military aid in the country through 2024. Despite the public accolades, however, there is a backdrop of tension and domestic political pressures for both presidents, and many questions about whether Afghanistan can police itself without extensive security help from NATO troops.

“It seems to me that Karzai is a bit like a teenager who balks at instructions and thinks he is ready for greater responsibility but isn’t quite as ready as he would like to think,” said Daniel Serwer, senior fellow in the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, in an email interview.

The history of corruption within the Afghan government is a key risk area for the partnership, according to Marvin Weinbaum, scholar-in-residence at the Middle East Institute and a former analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan in the U.S. State Department. Karzai also enjoyed a warmer relationship with the Bush administration than with Obama’s. And the withdrawal plan relies largely on the tenuous ability of the Afghan National Army to secure the country.

The largely American-driven initiative, and the dependence of NATO allies on the United States, also affects the nature of the commitment. Some experts say that a commitment by NATO allies, particularly in Europe, is a consequence of allies’ wanting to fall in line with the United States, not a dedication to Afghanistan.

“It’s not about Afghanistan. It’s about dependence on the United States. But they can’t say that to their own electorate,” said Anatol Lieven, a former war correspondent and co-author of “Ethical Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World.”

Obama and Karzai also need cooperation from each other in order to achieve domestic goals. Some experts say Obama needed to plan a strict withdrawal plan in order to wind down an increasingly unpopular war in the face of an upcoming election, and Karzai needed financial and military support from alliances like NATO in order to hold onto power.

“Karzai is willing to cooperate with Washington because he has something Washington needs, which are the bases within Afghanistan,” said Jack D. Segal, a former chief political advisor to NATO’s operational commander who traveled frequently to Afghanistan from 2002 to 2010. Segal, who also attended the NATO summit in Chicago, emphasized that such bases are needed in order to deploy drones in the region and that Obama has never ruled out the possibility of future counterterrorism efforts.

Karzai has said he would step down in 2014 (and is constitutionally barred from taking on a third term as president), but no Afghan leader has stepped down voluntarily so far and no clear leader appears ready to lead citizens through what will be a tumultuous time in the country as the withdrawal comes to a head, according to Thomas Barfield, president of the American Institute for Afghanistan Studies and author of “Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History.” Karzai has discussed holding elections earlier in 2013 in order to avoid such a scenario, which Barfield said presents clear dangers.

“You don’t want political uncertainty or difficulties to break out at a time when the security situation is most vulnerable,” Barfield said.

Americans know as well as anyone how politics can get in the way of progress. For the Eurozone, it’s same song, different verse.

At a meeting of the European Parliament committee meeting on May 31, Mario Draghi, European Central Bank president, called the Eurozone “unsustainable.” During the same meeting, International Monetary Fund leader Christine Lagarde denied that a bailout was being prepared for Spain, while Spain’s economy minister, Luis de Guindos called for Berlin’s help. All this came after a seemingly staid meeting of the world’s top economic powers at the G8 summit in May.

The release of the Camp David Declaration following the summit indicated the member countries’ philosophical shift toward growth measures for a European economic recovery. In fact, the word “growth” appeared 10 times in the document’s 500-word section on the economy.

It seemed that Germany, previously the strongest proponent of European austerity, had taken a revised stance.

“The G8 summit has really marked an important moment highlighting the change in position,” said Domenico Laurenti, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. Angela Merkel’s “fiscal consolidation policies are being contradicted.”

To some economists, the G8 summit’s conclusions seemed to only treat the symptoms rather than the infection itself. The proximity of the NATO summit overshadowed much of what the G8 needed to accomplish.

“It seemed to me while NATO was fiddling, Greece was burning,” said Sean Kay, an Ohio Wesleyan University professor and author who specializes in international politics. “These two large meetings produced almost nothing for one of the most serious crises.”

“In a European context, growth versus austerity is a non-argument,” said Steve Dunaway, an adjunct senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. “A lot of economists have strongly urged growth versus austerity. It’s easy to say that when it’s other people’s money financing growth.”

No country knows that better than Ireland, which recently voted to ratify the deficit-fighting European Fiscal Treaty Referendum. Passing with a 60 percent vote on June 1, the treaty will add to the already dire straits of the Irish people, who are already taking a huge tax hit as an attempt to keep the country from going bankrupt.

If Europe is to truly spark the growth called for in the Camp David Declaration, investments will have to be made, and that money will need to come from somewhere. The declaration underscores the need for boosting the Eurozone countries’ private sectors, as well as increasing public-private partnerships.

While this won’t necessarily mean the Acropolis would become the Coca-Cola Acropolis, EU leaders will have to find new ways to dig themselves out of debt.

“You can’t, with conventional means, pursue both austerity and growth,” said Alan Deardorff, associate dean and economics professor at the University of Michigan who has consulted for several international economic and trade organizations. “There’s an inherent contradiction in the two objectives they have in mind.”

He explained that the obvious way to stimulate growth is to spend more or tax less, both of which increase deficits. This would be the exact opposite of austerity. Deardorff said there are attainable fixes such as removing barriers for trade and reducing friction in labor markets, but that’s where politics get in the way.

“What’s important to keep in mind is the lack of physical integration in the EU,” said Jakob Thomas, research analyst at the Milken Institute, an economics think tank in Santa Monica, Calif., highlighting the fundamental differences in economic makeup for each of the European Union member countries. “There needs to be some other equalizer.”

Some ideas on the table include: issuing Eurobonds, a consolidated debt instrument sold by the EU as a means to fund the Eurozone; increasing lending from the European Investment Bank to boost the private sector and infrastructure projects; and lifting regulatory barriers that limit hiring and firing abilities, adding flexibility to the labor market.

The Eurozone member countries were having to wait until the next EU summit on June 28 and 29 to see if there will be any political muscle behind these ideas.

And economic experts aren’t optimistic about any quick movement forward.

“I don’t see the G8 doing much,” said Mark Weisbrot, co-director for the Center on Economic and Policy Research. “It’s really up to the European authorities — i.e. the Troika [the EU, IMF and ECB] — to put an end to this mess, and they are moving quite slowly at present.”

BY PREETI UPADHYAYA

In the saga of the financial crisis crippling the Eurozone, it is fitting that Greece has been the currency union’s Achilles Heel.  The country is running on fumes.  Under a caretaker government, its coffers are nearly empty and there are legitimate fears that by the end of June, Greece will be unable to qualify for a second round of bailout disbursements negotiated by the EU and the International Monetary Fund.

On top of that, the radical leftist anti-austerity party Syriza came in second place in last month’s elections and its leader, Anthony Tsipras, has laid out specific policy proposals that are in direct opposition to the country’s financial backers.  The combination of these forces has turned the once distant possibility of Greece exiting the Eurozone into a much more plausible event.

However, experts say there is little incentive for either the Greeks or the rest of the Eurozone for an exit to happen.  An exit from the Eurozone is unprecedented, and the cost of Greece leaving is difficult to calculate, though the figure has been roughly estimated between 600 billion and one trillion euros.

A Greek exit “would trigger a huge wave of contagion and uncertainty throughout the Euro area.  A Greek exit would especially endanger the adjustment efforts in Italy and Spain, and we’re talking about a potential meltdown of the whole Eurozone,” said Domenico Laurenti, senior fellow in the Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

Greece’s economy would also suffer tremendously were it to leave.  Without aid from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, Greece would likely see severe economic contraction and might enter a long, painful period of slow rehabilitation.  It would also be isolated from most of its major trading partners.

“Essentially Greece would be cut out of the European markets.  As long as they stay, Europe will provide a better anchor of stability that goes well beyond the common currency.  Were Greece to leave the Eurozone and the EU, the anchor of stability would be lacking and there would be financial panic all over the country, which could trigger adverse political actions,” said Laurenti.

There are plenty of arguments suggesting that a Greek exit from the Eurozone is not a matter of if, but when. The country’s ballooning government debt and rigid economic structure make it extremely uncompetitive on the global market.

Steve Dunaway, formerly a senior official with the International Monetary Fund, explained that while an exit from the Eurozone might be initially very shocking and painful, it could be the best option for Greece in the long term.

“The benefit is that the Greeks would get their old currency back and an immediate, sharp exchange rate depreciation which would help make the country more economically competitive, especially in terms of tourism,” Dunaway said.

Greeks will go to the polls to elect a new government on June 17, and this election will be a deciding factor in the country’s economic fate.

“The Europeans have factored [Greece’s situation] into their policy plans and as long as Greece will be able to form a pro-European, pro-Reformist cabinet, they will find a solution,” said Laurenti.

He added, “These are uncharted waters and with such a complex situation and multiple players, an unexpected bad event could happen that could escalate the crisis and push Greece out.”

If Greece in fact cannot make the necessary adjustments to remain in the Eurozone, it will be an unprecedented change in the twelve-year-old currency union, and the economic and political ramifications are largely to be determined.  Fears of a domino effect are at the top of the minds of policymakers.  If Greece goes, the next countries likely to follow suit are Spain and Portugal, and potentially Italy.

“One of the benefits of a currency union is that it lowers transaction costs and increases trade.  The smaller the union gets, the less these benefits apply, so the less attractive the EU becomes altogether.  Nobody wants to set this precedent,” said Jakob Thomas, a research analyst at the Milken Institute, a Santa Monica, California- based economic think tank.

And while Greece constitutes only 2% of the Eurozone’s GDP, Spain, Italy and Portugal are a “really systemic component of the Euroarea”, said Laurenti.

Until Greece’s elections are determined, it is a waiting game to see whether the country will remain in the Eurozone.  However frightening the possibility is, a Greek exit from the Eurozone is not a deliberate policy on anyone’s part.  Not only would Greece be leaving the currency union, it would also have to forgo its membership in the European Union.

“Keeping Greece in is important to the stability of the Eurozone, which is important to the stability of the whole global economy,” said Laurenti.

When French President Françoise Hollande announced a withdrawal of French combat troops from Afghanistan, NATO officials expressed respect for Hollande’s decision. But some experts fear the withdrawal signals the beginning of a waning alliance by opening doors for other countries to leave early—and in turn, a weakening mission.

“[The French withdrawal] questions the integrity of NATO at the global stage,” said Ahmad Majidyar, a senior research associate at American Enterprise Institute who advises U.S. military officers on terrorism and domestic politics of Afghanistan. “It is the most major combat mission for NATO since its creation. If it fails, it damages NATO’s credibility.”

The French, the fourth largest troop contributor, will leave 1,300 troops in Afghanistan in unspecified non-combat roles, Hollande announced in Kabul a few days after the summit. French combat troops are leaving two years before the rest of NATO. Hollande, standing along with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, told press in Kabul that the mission had been completed for the French.

Such decisions go against the “in together, out together” mantra that has dominated the Afghanistan operation, said Georgetown University Professor Mark Vlasic, a former White House Fellow and special assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

“Every NATO ally is important, and thus it is critical for those in the alliance to ensure their decisions are coordinated in a responsible way,” Vlasic said in an email. “[The French decision] sets an unfortunate precedent, and one that I hope French officials are able to mitigate over time.”

Bucking the mantra sends the wrong signal to enemy forces, too, Majidyar said. He sees newspapers in Pakistan discussing French withdrawal as an admittance of defeat. Majidyar, who thinks the 2014 timeline is more realistic, warns that French combat troops are currently in known insurgent safe havens, and an end of year deadline could be disastrous.

“It creates a vacuum at a very important time,” he said. “Afghan security forces are not able to clear out insurgents in eastern Afghanistan only with help of advisers. It endangers transition period on the whole.”

Nevertheless, NATO officials expressed confidence in France’s role in the mission. General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, told press at the summit that the French’s training and advising would be enough to complete the mission successfully. And Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said all the allies respected Hollande’s decision.

“The important thing is that all Allies and partners will stay committed to our mission throughout the transition period to the end of 2014,” Rasmussen said, “and the French President has confirmed that’s also his position.”

All things considered, France still has a sense of global responsibility—which is difficult to find in Europe outside of the United Kingdom and France, said Leo Michel, a research fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies who previously worked in the office of the secretary of defense as director of NATO policy. Hollande wants to maintain a good relationship—military or otherwise—with the United States and NATO, Michel said. The alliance is far from being broken.

“France is not trying to throw roadblocks,” Michel said. “The alliances are always a work in progress. [But] everybody has an interest, in the end, of helping each other and protecting each other.”

The 2012 NATO Summit focused on looking-forward concepts such as the “smart-defense initiative” and unconventional and technological threats, but the Baltic nations remain focused on the alliance’s traditional raison d’être.

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia continue to feel most seriously threatened by neighboring Russia, and look to NATO for territorial defense.

“The most important message for all three Baltic states is that NATO is committed to collective defense and in particular to Article Five,” said Ramūnas Vilpišauskas, the director of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science at Vilnius University in Lithuania.

Article Five asserts that an attack against one NATO member is equivalent to an attack against al. For the former Soviet members of the organization, proximity to Russia makes the reaffirmation of this original NATO stance all the more important, Vilpišauskas said.

Russian cyber-attacks against Estonia in 2007, though not officially attributed to the government, as well as the five-day Russian war on the former soviet nation of Georgia in 2008, are fresh in the minds of Baltic citizens. All of the Baltic nations in NATO have a higher percentage of Russian nationals than Georgia does, according to the United States Department of State.

These recent conflicts help legitimize the nations’ concern and leave them skeptical of legitimate cooperation between NATO and Russia, said Andres Kasekamp, the director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute in Tallinn.

In addition to reiterating traditional defense, the Baltic nations received a formal announcement of an indefinite extension of NATO policing the air space in their region on the first day of the 2012 Summit.

The program, which began when three countries joined NATO in 2004, was extended so the “Baltic allies can focus their resources in other critical areas,” NATO Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmussen said.

The program also serves as a perceived deterrent to Russian interference, Kasekamp said.

Although air policing was extended, Rasmussen also expressed a desire to collaborate with Russia on arms control and counter-piracy initiatives.

“We will continue our dialogue with Russia, and I hope at a certain stage Russia will realize that it is in our common interest to cooperate on missile defense,” Rasmussen said after the first session of the Summit.

These efforts have yet to bear fruit as Russia seems uninterested in an open dialogue with NATO, an attitude that does not surprise the Baltics, Vilpišauskas and Kasekamp said.

“The further you are from Russia, the more you compromise with Russia. Whereas the countries neighboring Russia have this experience that the Russians generally don’t respect weakness or concessions,” Kasekamp said. “So we go along with these initiatives but fully with the expectation that they will fail because Russia isn’t interested.”

More productive and legitimately friendly relations between NATO and Russia would stand to benefit the Baltic nations most but these relations are not likely in the near future, Vilpišauskas said.

As NATO leaves Chicago, entering a new era with unconventional threats and continuing to reach out to Russia, the Baltics remain wary of the attempts and primarily concerned with traditional defense measures.

BY KELLY GUSTAFSON

One of the central achievements of the NATO summit in Chicago in May was a timetable for transitioning troops out of Afghanistan, but President Obama and other leaders failed to address—at least publicly—how the transition might work without Pakistan’s cooperation.

Relations with Afghanistan’s neighbor have been sour since a United States-authorized drone strike on the country’s border in November accidentally killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers. Tensions have only escalated in recent months after Pakistan shut down NATO supply lines to Afghanistan following the strike.

Pakistan played what it thought was a trump card by shutting down the supply lines, but the fallout was not the disaster that it could have been, said Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

“This is no longer a source of leverage they hold over the United States,” Curtis said.

Though trekking vehicles and weapons through Pakistan is the easiest way to get supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan, the United States has tapped into other, albeit circuitous, routes through central Asian states and Russia.

Now is there a way to “get around” Pakistan if it is unwilling to help a smooth transition  out of Afghanistan?

“The question isn’t really about getting around Pakistan as it is so much about getting Pakistan to support the U.S. goals,” said Curtis.

One of NATO’s top goals has been to eradicate terrorists seeking sanctuary in Pakistan who would undermine the alliance’s hard-won efforts.

The Obama administration came in with a strategy of engagement toward Pakistan, but the trust between the two countries has only deteriorated.

“I think that we could see a better relationship so long as Pakistan decides it’s in their interest to crackdown on these groups that are targeting the U.S.,” Curtis said referring to the terrorist groups seeking safe haven in Pakistan.

“Unless Pakistan uses its influences with the Taliban to bring them to compromise, then I think it’s difficult to see how we can fully repair the relationship.”

Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid said Pakistan’s biggest conundrum is its foreign policy. He said Pakistan’s foreign goals have dominated its domestic policy for too long, and Pakistan needs to realize the importance of making friends with its neighbors.

“Maybe things will get much worse before they get better,” Rashid said during a Chicago Council on Global Affairs conference prior to the summit.

Some experts, like Curtis, doubt Pakistan’s willingness to cooperate and help establish lasting peace in Afghanistan. Others say a longterm peaceful Afghanistan isn’t possible, regardless of Pakistan’s regional cooperation.

For the Obama administration to say the guarantees of the Pakistani government—if negotiated— could secure Afghanistan post-2014 would be “foolhardy”, said Gordon Adams, an international relations professor at American University.

“We’re leaving behind an economy in shambles, a country awash in trafficking in poppies and heroin and a thoroughly corrupt Afghan regime,” Adams said. “The corruption of the government alone is enough to make the country unstable, whether the Pakistanis play ball or not.”

But pushing back the proposed pullout date would only worsen things, he said, completely against the notion of “the longer we stay, the better things get.”

“I don’t know if it’s optimistic or pessimistic, but I think it’s realistic. We are not going to make this happen,” Adams said of the successful transition as outlined by NATO leaders.

Part of the problem Western countries face when trying to broker deals with Islamabad is the country’s own instability.

“To assume that they’re going to be able to help establish peace in Afghanistan when they can’t even restore order in the northwest territories and federally administered tribal areas is just a bridge too far,” Adams said.

The fragile situation of women in Afghanistan is likely to aggravate dramatically after NATO’s troop withdrawal by the end of 2014, say experts on the volatile region, in addition to women’s-rights activists.

NATO  forces amount to a shield of protection for Afghan women and the possible chaos and power struggle ensuing NATO’s exit will lead to an erasure of whatever achievement made during the past decade, those experts say.

NATO’s military presence facilitates the environment for women’s-rights development in Afghanistan. It creates stability in the war-torn country and helps to develop the nascent legal system, which is crucial to the advance of women’s rights. There is widespread worry that NATO’s exit will leave Afghanistan’s own national security forces unprepared for the unrelenting onslaught of the ousted Taliban regime, which has systematically suppressed women’s most basic human rights during its rule.

“The Taliban and its messages are gaining ground,” said Candace Rondeaux, Kabul-based senior Afghanistan analyst at the International Crisis Group,  a non-profit aimed at preventing and resolving deadly conflicts.

“It is going to get much worse after the withdrawal of troops,” said Robdeaux,  in a telephone interview.

Female leaders in Afghanistan call for a “responsible” NATO exit.  Farkhunda Naderi, Kabul representative in the lower house of the Afghanistan’s National Assembly, said NATO must continue to provide training and education of the Afghan security forces, especially female security forces,  and help put women in Afghan’s Supreme Court  to ensure that women would not again encounter the inhumane treatment implemented by the Taliban regime.

“If the withdrawal is done in a very responsible manner, then of course at the end of the day we are the one that is responsible for our country,” she said in an interview in Chicago. “When you think about 2014, everything is happening very quickly;  what you could accomplish in 10 years you could not accomplish in two years. We need more attention in different parts to ensure women’s rights.”

However, retraction of the protection of women’s rights is already happening in Afghanistan. In March, President Hamid Karzai endorsed the discriminatory edicts from the Ulema Council, the country’s top religious council (men are considered fundamental; women, secondary) under mounting pressure to get the Taliban back to the negotiation table. The reading of his move is that President Karzai is reaching out  to the Taliban to make his tenuous presidency more secure after NATO’s exit.

“In the last five years, we have seen a progressive move towards more restrictions on their [women’s] access to work and the ability to go to school,” Rondeaux said. “The Afghan government has not demonstrated sufficient political will to protect women’s rights.”

There is still hope for women in Afghanistan, but much of it depends on international help, according to Zalmai Rassoul, minister of foreign affairs of Afghanistan. He characterized the promotion of women’s rights “irreversible” and said the movement has “very deep roots” in Afghan society.

“The only thing that will spark a catastrophe is the coming back of the Taliban,” said Rassoul, one of several experts and officials appearing at a recent event sponsored by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,  “If the NATO alliance stops helping Afghan security forces in the next decade, we will go back in these things.”

Human-rights workers in Afghanistan say though there is some development in Afghan women’s rights, as demonstrated by the beginnings of women’s presence in politics, national security and the peace process today, women are still in desperate need of help because they simply don’t have any way of supporting themselves.

Maria Van Hoorn, development associate at Hagar International, an organization helping women and children recover from human-rights abuses, said about 80 percent of women and girls in the country have been subject to abuse and the cultural rules have only exacerbated the problem.

“This is extremely difficult,” she said, in a telephone interview.

Perhaps the only thing that can truly make things for Afghan women less difficult is education. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, only 12.6 percent of women in Afghanistan above the age of 15 can read and write, meaning that most Afghan women don’t even know they have rights.

Melanne Verveer,  U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, an office under the Department of State seeking to empower women globally, said educating women is a way of incorporating them into the peace talks with Taliban so they can have a say in how their country should be run. She said education should be extended to the entire society so male leaders could be more open to women’s rights and come to the forefront and do the right thing.

“They can make a big difference because they are in a position to influence so many others,” said Verveer at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs event, “Don’t underestimate for a second what it means when people are educated and when they are not.”