Anthony Spota, Author at 51łÔąĎ /author/anthony-spota/ Fact-based, well-reasoned perspectives from around the world Tue, 19 Nov 2024 05:51:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 The Evolutionary Nature of Crisis Communication /business/the-evolutionary-nature-of-crisis-communication/ Thu, 21 Nov 2019 19:42:18 +0000 /?p=83059 In an era when 280 characters can spur the demise or salvation of entire companies, so-called crisis communications has become an increasingly important and technically complex profession. Today’s successful specialists in this craft must be knowledgeable about a variety of topics including public relations, psychology, data science and law. They spend a great part of… Continue reading The Evolutionary Nature of Crisis Communication

The post The Evolutionary Nature of Crisis Communication appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
In an era when 280 characters can spur the demise or salvation of entire companies, so-called crisis communications has become an increasingly important and technically complex profession. Today’s successful specialists in this craft must be knowledgeable about a variety of topics including public relations, psychology, data science and law. They spend a great part of their professional lives between a rock and a hard place, working around the clock in key moments for the company to minimize the damage caused by others.

They must not only consider the ethical considerations of their communications but keep a Machiavellian eye on business results when managing their company’s overall reputation.


Our Personal Styles of Information Gathering

READ MORE


Whether it be Johnson & Johnson, Boeing or Volkswagen, large corporations are fully aware of the damage that a reputational crisis can have on revenues. Smart phones, social media and echo-chambers have amplified the speed at which it’s important to react. For this reason, the new generation of crisis communications experts are combining new technologies with theories in evolutionary and social psychology to come up with pre-formulated strategies to break in case of emergency.

But what are some of the latest technologies and theories behind this quickly evolving profession?

The New Tools of the Trade

From a technical point of view, today’s corporate communications specialists have a variety of tools at their disposal. Developments in data science — the multi-disciplinary field which combines computer science, business and statistics — has created a new generation of platforms. Through social listening tools like Hootsuite, Clarabridge and Talkwalker, companies can monitor what is being said about their firm on social media. Other platforms like Google Alerts and Google Trends focus on what is being mentioned about the brand more broadly online (not necessarily on social media), while video analytics tools search the web for images and videos related to the brand.

These platforms are being improved every day by developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) including sentiment analysis, the automated process that uses AI to identify positive, negative and neutral opinions from text; machine learning, or rather the capability of machines to improve the performance of a task and learn from structured data without explicitly being programmed to do so; and deep learning, a subset of machine learning with the key difference of not requiring structured data, but which can use unstructured and unlabled data to learn instead.

Companies can now quickly sift through thousands of social media comments, survey responses and product reviews, and create easy to read graphs and numeric scores that estimate their target audience’s overall sentiment. Popular with the higher echelons of corporate management, public relations decisions today can be measured numerically rather than on instinct, personal anecdotes or macro-level analysis.

However, even as these technologies advance, the same psychological instincts that helped us build communities and survive in the savannah more than 200,000 years ago are influencing our behaviors today. By understanding the psychology that has accompanied us throughout our history and combining it with the tools of the future, companies can not only mitigate, but also sometimes prevent reputational crises altogether.

Say Hello to the Bad Guy

Evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that our brains were designed to function in hunter-gatherer communities of approximately 150 people. To survive and compete against other groups and species, we created collective identities based upon shared traditions, rules and accepted behaviors. As the respect of these guidelines was crucial to the group’s collective survival, humans would lash out on those who broke them, including through violence.

Our ancestors who were wired to be part of the mob survived and prospered, while those who went against the pack mentality were ostracized and sometimes eliminated altogether.

As the world becomes smaller, and we slowly realize that the planet and our very existence are being threatened, this may be why it is so easy for us to label corporations as the bad guys when they don’t follow the rules. Even in moments when there is no one to blame, our groupthink mentality can often lead to us to make bad decisions collectively because we value harmony and coherence above rational thinking. Criticizing a scape goat online can give us the feeling that we are fighting for what’s right, increasing our self-esteem and feelings of social cognition even when we are not addressing our own responsibility or really doing much to improve the situation ourselves.

The horrors of the 20th century should have taught us that we are all capable of evil given the right circumstances, but instead parochialism and the us-versus-them mentality is returning under new guises. With a significant portion of the Western world frustrated at being worse off than its parents’ generation, online platforms have become an easy way to vent and identify common enemies.

Responding to Crises

In order to alleviate the damage a crisis of this type can cause, companies have developed specific communication strategies for different types of events. According to Timothy Coombs, there are four types of crises: faux pas, accident, transgression and terrorism. A faux pas is an unintentional tactless action made by the company, whereby an external agent is transforming the action. This could be, for example, the very poorly thought-out and culturally insensitive showing a Chinese woman eating pizza with chopsticks.

Accidents, on the other hand, while also unintentional, happen during the course of normal organizational operation. Boeing’s caused by what appears to be the malfunctioning of an anti-stalling system at first appeared to be one such type of crisis, although a recent lawsuit alleges an “” of a flaw in the design of the plane. Transgressions are intentional actions taken by an organization that knowingly place people at risk and break the law. Volkswagen’s , in which millions of cars worldwide were equipped with cheating software to make them seem less polluting, is one such crisis.

Lastly, terrorism refers to intentional actions taken by external actors designed to harm the organization directly or indirectly. The most famous example of this is probably the in 1982 when unknown perpetrators laced Tylenol capsules with potassium cyanide, forcing Johnson & Johnson to recall its products in the US market and overhaul its product safety regulations.

Classifying crises into these four types is useful because it allows the company to respond with an appropriate communication strategy. The decision is taken based on how much the public perceives the organization as culpable for the crisis. For example, if there is a terrorist type of corporate crisis where there is a low perception of responsibility, the company can use a distance communication strategy whereby it finds excuses, external scapegoats and downplays the chance of the event happening again.

If the crisis, on the other hand, is a transgression, where the company is clearly to blame, it could use an acceptance communications strategy and apologize, remediate and illustrate the steps that are being taken to prevent such crises from happening again. It might not be too far of a stretch to compare this approach to one of our early ancestors asking for forgiveness from the rest of the group, thereby endorsing the established order, hierarchy and rules.

Playing with Memory

Since crisis management experts are focused on the long-term reputation of their firm, they consider carefully how salient the issue is in the public eye. Perhaps one of the most important realizations we have made about our brains in the last years concerns how imperfect our memory is. Not only do we have a hard time remembering information, we can quite easily be manipulated into creating false memories as well.

Corporate communications experts know this and realize that if they are able to weather the storm caused by a crisis, time can be on their side. For example, in the midst of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, the company handed out pamphlet’s urging people to join Emissions Anonymous — a 12-step program the company was creating to fight climate change. As of November 10 this year, the link to this website is no longer functional and its Facebook page has had little engagement since 2018. Meanwhile, Volkswagen sales have returned to pre-crisis levels.

What we have also understood is that our memory systems have evolved to help retain survival and fitness-related information. Therefore, if a crisis is perceived to potentially cause direct harm or death, it will be more likely remembered in the collective memory of the public. The best way to counter this for corporations is to tackle the fear factor at its root and actually solve the issue, even if it means taking a hit financially in the short term.

When in 1997 German media reports emerged that the new Mercedes A-Class would flip over when conducting an evasive maneuver test — the so-called moose test — the initial reaction of Mercedes was to attribute this to “extreme driving conditions that pushed the laws of physics.” It was only after this backfired that the company took the decision to recall all units sold and suspend sales until the problem was technically solved.

What added to the company’s successful elimination of the fear factor was the decision to add a stuffed toy elk as a gift. Furthermore, tennis star Boris Becker was featured with the slogan, “You are strong when you make no mistakes, but stronger when you learn from the ones you have made.”

It’s Still About Communication

There are many different theories about how early humans communicated and how language began. Amusingly, these theories are often referred to by the names chosen by those who criticized them. According to the , for example, early humans developed language when they first started imitating natural sounds such as birds. The yo he ho theory, on the other hand, stipulates that humans started using rhythmic chants and grunts to coordinate their physical work together.

Whatever the origin of language, we know that communication was an important part of our early story in that it helped us to hunt, gather and compete against other species. It also helped us to warn each other when there were dangers afoot.

An important step for a company in a crisis is to set oneself up early on as an authority and provider of useful and accurate information. Needless to say, when there are dangers to the public, the main purpose of the crisis communications function must be to serve as a hub of safety-related information. However, the need to set up an appropriate frame early on is also very important from a purely public relations point of view.

Crisis communications professionals today must deal with an abundance of fake news that they must counteract quickly. Juicy lies and gossip spread faster than the truth, so it’s important to make sure to grab the attention of a public already overloaded with information. In today’s environment, a witty soundbite can do much more than a structured logical response.

Fortunately for them, these professionals can select the keywords they use, identify influencers, run simulations and ultimately design their response strategies in a more targeted way than ever before. To ensure that all the employees in the company communicate in the same way, the corporate communications teams will often implement trainings, mock crisis simulations and general guidelines for employees to follow.

The main goal of a crisis communications expert is to make sure that the reputation of the company is protected. While there is a variety of new tools that make it easier to influence public opinion, corporate environment has clearly changed in the last years. Firstly, it has become increasingly difficult for sensitive corporate information to remain hidden in the long term. Therefore, a company should strive to behave ethically not only for moral reasons, but because the truth will eventually come out.

Old wounds can quickly be reopened when a company that was perceived as culpable for a crisis has another one, often causing even more damage to its reputation. Even though our memories are flawed, today we are able to retrieve online records at an almost instantaneous speed. Therefore, it is important for a tainted company to not only communicate virtually about what it’s doing to make amends regularly, but also to take appropriate actions to change.

Irrational Minds

Lastly, as the lifespans of companies continue to drop, the focus should be on maintaining a strong reputation in the near future. This can be best achieved by investing in preemptive strategies and tools that help prevent and manage the crisis quickly from the beginning.

While data tools will become increasingly important and effective in the coming years, the need for more humanistic-focused professions like psychology will remain. Ethical and legal restrictions on the use of data imposed by governments, which have struggled to keep up with the speed of the tech industry so far, will have an enormous impact on how the profession evolves.

Ironically, the limitations of our imperfect and often irrational minds make it harder for consumer attitudes to be predicted by AI, at least for the time being. That’s why combining these new technologies with a realistic approach to psychology will provide the best communications strategies in the short term. Above all, it will be important for both humans and machines to learn from past mistakes. Maybe Boris Becker had a point.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post The Evolutionary Nature of Crisis Communication appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
The EU Youth Guarantee: A “Lost Generation”? /region/europe/eu-youth-guarantee-lost-generation-69584/ /region/europe/eu-youth-guarantee-lost-generation-69584/#respond Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:39:11 +0000 Is the Youth Guarantee enough to get unemployed Europeans out of poverty?

Leaders in Europe and around the world are hoping the worst of the economic and financial crisis is over and that 2014 will be a year of recovery.

However, when it comes to youth unemployment in the European Union (EU), there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel, save for a few exceptions. Youth unemployment has been on a continuous rise since the beginning of the crisis five years ago and, according to  (the European Commission's Directorate providing statistical information), it has now reached an average of 23.5%.

More specifically, there has been an increase of the "NEETs," young people who are not in employment, education or training. According to  — tasked with improving living and working conditions — as many as 14 million young Europeans fall into this category.

The post The EU Youth Guarantee: A “Lost Generation”? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
Is the Youth Guarantee enough to get unemployed Europeans out of poverty?

Leaders in Europe and around the world are hoping the worst of the economic and financial crisis is over and that 2014 will be a year of recovery.

However, when it comes to youth unemployment in the European Union (EU), there appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel, save for a few exceptions. Youth unemployment has been on a continuous rise since the beginning of the crisis five years ago and, according toĚýĚý(the European Commission’s Directorate providing statistical information), it has now reached an average of 23.5%.

More specifically, there has been an increase of the “NEETs,” young people who are not in employment, education or training. According toĚýĚý— tasked with improving living and working conditions — as many as 14 million young Europeans fall into this category.

Long-Term Effects

The problem has been particularly acute in the European “Southern belt” — Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Croatia — where roughly one in two young people are without a job. Many of the new Eastern European members, including Romania and Bulgaria, also face difficult youth unemployment problems.

In truth, the information produced by Eurostat does not provide a complete picture. First, it only takes into account people aged between 15-24, leaving out many youngsters that entered the job market during the economic crisis.

Moreover, many young Europeans are underemployed, holding jobs they feel overqualified for or working under precarious contracts such as internships, which are often unpaid or grossly underpaid.

Apart from the alarming size of the phenomenon, it is clear that youth unemployment will have a long-term effect on a big segment of the EU population. In this regard, many speak of “a lost generation” that will bear the scars of the crisis long after it ends. In addition to the immediate economic consequences, they will suffer in numerous other ways.

For example, according to theĚýĚý“Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014,” a generation that starts its career in complete hopelessness will be more vulnerable to populist politics and will lack the fundamental skills one develops early on in a career.

This generation will also have a higher chance of suffering from unemployment and poverty later on, which could lead to higher rates of crime.

Furthermore, countries with the highest rates of youth unemployment suffer from a “brain drain,” in which educated youngsters leave the country to try and find work abroad. Not only are these countries losing a motivated workforce, but all the money invested in its education has also been wasted.

The Youth Guarantee

Within the context of its social policies and the promotion of the movement of workers and their full employment, the EU has supported youth employment since long before the outbreak of the crisis. The main instrument of this support is the European Social Fund (ESF) – a structural fund investing around 10% of the EU budget in creating more and better jobs within the European Union.

According to the European Commission, from 2007 to 2012, 20 million young people under 25 benefitted from the ESF through training or mentoring. Many member states use ESF to modernize education and strengthen vocational training.

As a new targeted policy, the European Council endorsed the principle of theĚýĚýin June 2013, which was hailed by the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion as “the most ambitious reform yet” to tackle youth unemployment.

Under thisĚý, member states are to offer all young people up to the age of 25 a good quality employment opportunity, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of leaving their formal education or becoming unemployed. The Youth Guarantee is based on the model of earlier national plans that were successfully implemented in Scandinavian countries, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Poland.

As it has beenĚý, youth guarantee schemes create entitlements to certain measures for all parts of a population within a certain age group. The principal supportive measures of the initiative would consist of building up partnership-based approaches, early intervention and activation, and supportive measures for labor market integration.

Partnership-Based Approaches

This part of the program focuses on the actors that are to be involved in helping young job seekers. In order to work, the Youth Guarantee needs the full cooperation of national and regional authorities, as well as public employment services and participants from businesses and the third sector.

There will also need to be a public authority in charge of coordinating partnerships across all levels and sectors.ĚýBuilding partnerships will not be an easy task, as the situation within EU member states is characterized by a wide range of actors involved with combating youth employment. This includes an increasing presence of grassroots campaigns, such as theĚýGeração Ă  RascaĚýin Portugal,ĚýNo nos vamos, nos echanĚýin Spain, and theĚýGiovani Italiani BruxellesĚý— a watchdog of European and Italian policies to combat youth unemployment.

Early Intervention and Activation

The Youth Guarantee will support activities aimed at engaging and registering job seekers early on. This will include support for public employment services that should interact on a more regular basis with the schools.

There is also an emphasis on creating focal points that will ensure coordination between all groups concerned and the public authority responsible for managing the initiative. Providing people outside the system with information is also essential, and increasing the use of Internet and social media will be promoted.

Supportive Measures for Labor Market Integration

Perhaps most important to the success of the Youth Guarantee will be the steps taken to encourage a proper integration of youngsters into the labor market. One of the biggest issues, in many of the countries with the highest levels of youth unemployment, has been the apparent mismatch between the skills and competencies provided in education and those required by the labor market.

To give an example, the Italian high school system still places an emphasis on the study of Latin, whilst it ranks second to last in theĚýĚýamongst EU countries (with France ranking the lowest).

Apart from the provision of language training, which appears essential to enhance job mobility in the EU, the Youth Guarantee will support the acquisition of practical capabilities such as ICT and digital skills, which have been identified as one of the key sectors of growth in the labor market.

Moreover, many European countries have an insider-outsider labor market in which older people have permanent, often almost “untouchable” positions.

In Italy, for example, employers claim an important article of the workers’ statute, which dates from 1970, makes it very hard to fire workers and has promoted economic stagnation. Since the associated costs of hiring are so high, many companies have preferred to hire more experienced professionals, or sometimes to postpone the hiring process rather than spending time and capital on young talent as a long-term investment.

In order to help reverse these trends, the Youth Guarantee promotes wage and recruitment subsidies to encourage young people with an apprenticeship or job placement.

Some Critical Considerations

Part of the issue has been that European austerity measures are geared to promote healthy growth in the long-term, but have prevented spending by governments in the short-term.

Many European leaders find themselves having to both implement these difficult reforms and ensure their electorate remains content in order to avoid political instability. Often, there are tradeoffs that need to be made, and so far the young generation, which is frequently numerically smaller, has been chiefly on the losing end.

For example, Spain’s austerity budget in 2013 included new spending cuts, yet an increase in pensions using €3 billion of reserve funds.

The Youth Guarantee will provide a mechanism in which member states can take measures to tackle youth unemployment and receive money through the ESF; however, the extent to which they take advantage of this will ultimately be left to them.

Considering the crisis started over five years ago, it is important for member states to move as fast and efficiently as possible — also since there are age restrictions involved.

To increase available EU financial support for youth unemployment, the EU has also created a dedicated Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), which will provide €6 billion for regions experiencing youth unemployment rates above 25%.

The YEI will exclusively target NEETs aged up to 25 years but, where the member states consider it relevant, also those aged up to 30. In this case, however, member states will have to allocate additional ESF resources.

Many European countries have educational and societal systems in which students finish their tertiary studies after the age of 25. Part of the danger of trying to implement plans that worked in northern European countries in southern states such as Greece, Italy and Spain is that local considerations are not taken into account.

In Italy, for example, the average student finishes high school at age 19 and will usually graduate from higher education (first and second level) after the age of 25. For this reason, it would seem like a good idea to expand the application of the Youth Guarantee scheme to all people under the age of 30 automatically.

Furthermore, considering the EU recently approved a budget (multiannual financial framework) of €908 billion for the period 2014-2020, it appears the amount being allocated for the Youth Guarantee and other young employment initiatives is too small, consisting of €3 billion from a new line dedicated to youth employment matched by “at least” €3 billion from the ESF national allocations.

Although the European economy is no longer in the privileged geopolitical position it was after World War II, it still benefits from a highly educated population, high-quality outputs and the world’s largest trading block. In order to compete in an increasingly interconnected world, it will be necessary for the EU to coordinate its actions, stand together and implement best practices.

Nowhere does this seem more relevant than regarding its youth. Although the Youth Guarantee is a welcomed step in the right direction, it will be mostly up to EU member states to give the initiative the necessary impetus.

With the European Parliament election and the reshuffling of the EC expected for 2014, it seems like no better moment for EU representatives to step up their efforts to tackle youth unemployment as well.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright ©Ěý ĚýĚý All Rights Reserved

The post The EU Youth Guarantee: A “Lost Generation”? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
/region/europe/eu-youth-guarantee-lost-generation-69584/feed/ 0
Future Perspectives of the NATO-Russia Relationship /politics/future-perspectives-nato-russia-relationship/ /politics/future-perspectives-nato-russia-relationship/#respond Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:10:30 +0000 This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts.

The post Future Perspectives of the NATO-Russia Relationship appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts. The Ěýsummarized the history of NATO-Russia relations since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994.ĚýTheĚýsĚýfocused on the Theatre Missile Defense and other common initiatives. The third part examines what has been Russia’s position towards the NATO intervention in Libya and what the future perspectives of collaboration are.

PART 3 of 3

NATO Intervention in Libya

Russia’s posture regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO’s) intervention in the Libyan conflict gives an example of the ambiguous character of Russian relations with NATO. Following international condemnation of Gaddafi’s use of lethal force on Libyan civilians, particularly by the leaders of France, Great Britain and the United States, United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 were passed in February and March of 2011 respectively. Resolution 1970 condemned the killing of Libyan civilians and imposed an arms embargo on weapons being imported or exported from Libya. It also imposed a travel ban and assets freeze on individuals that were part of or closely linked to Gaddafi’s regime. Resolution 1973 authorized the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to “use all necessary means” short of a foreign military occupation of the country, to protect civilians. NATO implemented these resolutions with a “high operational tempo” against the Government’s forces, and its intervention was pivotal in allowing the rebel forces to defeat Gaddafi’s regime.

Russia voted in favor of UN Resolution 1970 and abstained from voting on UN Resolution 1973. This was hailed by some political commentators as an indication that the “reset” of relations was indeed working. They claimed that Russia would no longer go “out of its way” to counteract US Foreign Policy as it had done in the past. Nevertheless, the Russian response to NATO’s intervention as reported in the media was critical. At one point Putin even went so far as to compare the UN Security Council resolution to a medieval call for a crusade. The Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, reiterated this critical view when he declared: “We consider that certain actions by NATO in Libya do not correspond to its mandate.” In an interview with the EU Observer on September 1st, the Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin affirmed: “The war was the end-stage of Nato’s eastern expansion. From now on, Nato will expand toward its southern borders, it will project its efforts toward the South, toward traditional Islamic societies”. However Russia’s criticism of NATO’s mission was far less confrontational in other moments. Indeed, during the Nato-Russia Council (NRC) meeting in July in Sochi, in a trilateral encounter between Rasmussen, Medvedev and South African President Jacob Zuma, the Russian PM’s comments were quite toned down when he stated: “We look at Libya’s future practically identically, and everyone would like Libya to be a modern State, naturally, and a sovereign and democratic State.”

These seemingly inconsistent declarations have some strategic reasons behind them. Under the Gaddafi regime Russia had important economic interests in Libya such as a 2.2 billion euro equivalent railway contract, a 3.2 billion euro weapons contract, and millions of euro equivalent invested in oil and gas exploration. Naturally, the regime change puts all of these economic interests into jeopardy. Indeed, Vladimir Chamov, the ex Russian Ambassador to Libya, allegedly told the daily Moskovsky Komsomolets that endangering profitable ties with Muammar Gaddafi’s government was “a betrayal of Russia’s interests.”

More in general, the Kremlin is also worried that the Arab Spring might have a spillover effect into the Russian Federation, which is already subject to strong separatist and Islamist movements in North Caucasus, as well as in the former Soviet Republics in Central Asia. In comments broadcasted on national television, Medvedev told Uzbek President Islam Karimov last June that he hoped events in the region would advance “in a way that is clear and predictable for us… Everything that relates to providing for regional security and stability, and consequently what is occurring in North Africa and the Middle East, cannot fail to concern Russia and Uzbekistan”.

At the same time, the Russians realized that it would be in their best interest to keep good relations with the new regime. Had Russia blocked the UN resolutions, there would have been no guarantee that a non-UN mandated coalition of say France, the UK and the USA would have not intervened all the same, and that the Gaddafi regime would not be eventually overthrown. On the other hand, a Russian veto would have ensured that the Libyan rebels would stay away from collaborating economically with Russia. A Russian veto would also have caused a cooling of relations with western countries, a particularly untimely move as a meeting of NRC’s Foreign Ministers was about to take place in April in Berlin shortly after the UN vote.

Another important aspect to take into consideration is that Russia does not want to promote NATO’s ongoing trend of taking part in operations outside its traditional North Atlantic geographic area of activity. As is known, after the fall of Communism NATO’s focus of interest expanded to “out of area” parts of the world, first the Balkans and the Middle East, then Afghanistan then, with a few humanitarian interventions in Asia and America, up to a level considered by some at least potentially worldwide. The Russians have constantly tried to check this geographical expansion of NATO activity and this was most recently demonstrated in September, when Russia rejected a UN proposed resolution condemning the Syrian crackdown on protestors. Having learnt their lesson from Libya, Russia (and China for that matter which also voted against,) did not want to see a doorway open for a possible NATO intervention in Syria. Indeed, Damascus remains a close ally of the Kremlin’s and hosts a Soviet-era naval base in Tartus.

Future Perspectives of the NATO-Russia Relationship

In conclusion, in the several years since its establishment, the NRC has been a useful venue for collaboration in a wide range of areas of common interest between NATO and Russia. Even when their relationship was at its lowest, the NRC ensured that there never was a complete breakdown of the dialogue. Both sides remain aware that modern day political undertakings remain global in nature. Furthermore, many areas of mutual common interest exist between NATO and Russia. However, whether the progress made at the 2010 Lisbon Summit will succeed in having a major impact on the relationship and make it less unstable is a point that remains to be seen.

The joint proposal for a Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) system was a major achievement of the Lisbon Summit. A failure in the negotiations relating to its implementation would have dire consequences for the NATO-Russia relationship and for the vitality of the NRC. Should the present stand-off not be solved, the Russian leaders have threatened the start of a new arms race with the positioning of tactical missile systems targeted against Europe on Russia’s western borders such as in the Kaliningrad enclave. Although such an arms race between NATO and Russia remains quite unrealistic, and both sides are facing a difficult economic period in which increased military spending is not possible, failure to agree on TMD would undoubtedly have a spill-over effect that would cause a stalemate in other common initiatives as well.

Following the meeting of the NRC Defense Ministers in June, Secretary General Rasmussen noted that there was still some time to reach agreement: “…I have a summit in May next year as my time horizon. I would expect us to make steady progress. It will be hard work but I am still optimistic. I think at the end of the day we can reach a solution.” During the Sochi meeting in July, the May 2012 summit in Chicago was once again mentioned as the proposed timeline. “My hope is that we can all meet again in less than a year at the NATO summit in Chicago, and that we will be able to agree on a solution on missile defense that can make the security of NATO territory and of Russian territory more effective. Let’s build the path of partnership together, from Sochi to Chicago” Rasmussen said. There seems to be a genuine hope that in Obama’s home city progress can be made and no one is advocating this more than NATO’s Secretary General.

But the clock is ticking, and unless both sides are able to make some concessions, there is the possibility that the TMD negotiation will fail. There is also the question of how the 2012 US Presidential election will affect the NRC’s progress. The Obama campaign is well underway and Chicago will host its headquarters. Should the President appear amongst the American public as too yielding to Russian interests it would definitely be held against him. In the case that a Republican candidate prevails who will be less likely to make concessions to the Russians, the NRC will probably have a harder time reaching new agreements on major issues such as TMD.

The announcement in September that Putin will run for the Russian Presidential election in 2012 does not substantially change things on the Russian side. An excessive enthusiasm following the Lisbon Summit led some political commentators to speculate that since Medvedev was more “western leaning” than Putin he was therefore more open to collaboration with NATO. The reality of the situation is that Putin ultimately controls Medvedev’s decisions, and that the two have engaged in a “good cop/bad cop” strategy when dealing with the West. Should the Russian leadership support the hostile sentiment held by the majority of the population, a substantial step forward will not be made. In recent times NATO and the Obama administration have extended a hand, yet it appears that Russia still views cooperation with NATO as a zero-sum game. In this case the pattern of progress and setback in the relationship that has been described above will continue in the future. Quite on the contrary, let’s hope that Rasmussen’s stated optimism will eventually prove right.

The post Future Perspectives of the NATO-Russia Relationship appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
/politics/future-perspectives-nato-russia-relationship/feed/ 0
NATO – Russia Relations: Theatre Missile Defense /region/middle_east_north_africa/nato-russia-relations-theatre-missile-defense/ /region/middle_east_north_africa/nato-russia-relations-theatre-missile-defense/#respond Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:04:10 +0000 This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts.  summarized the history of NATO-Russia relations since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. PART 2 of 3

The Theatre Missile Defense

The post NATO – Russia Relations: Theatre Missile Defense appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts.  summarized the history of NATO-Russia relations since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. PART 2 of 3

The Theatre Missile Defense

Strategic armaments appear to be the most delicate issue in NATO-Russia relations. A critical rift ossified during the April 2011 Berlin NRC (NATO-Russia Council) Foreign Ministers’ meeting regarding Theatre Missile Defense (TMD). As stated in the 2010 Strategic Concept, NATO seeks cooperation on missile defense with Russia and other Euro-Atlantic partners. Under President George W. Bush the United States planned to place several ground-based interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar system in the Czech Republic, a move that was heavily opposed by the Russians. As a consequence of the "reset" of relations, President Obama decided to explore the possibility of creating a European Missile Defense System that included the participation of Russia. This plan would include interceptors in Romania and Poland, a radar system in Turkey and a central reliance on Ballistic Missile Defense capable Aegis-class ships equipped with SM-3 Block . The European Missile Defense System could protect against a ballistic missile coming from a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea and be of great use to both NATO members and Russia. Currently Russia is pushing for a unified, jointly controlled missile shield whereas NATO wants two missile systems that would work together and share information. "From the NATO side, our position is very clear: we are thinking about two separate systems, a NATO system and a Russian system, but with a common objective" US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted in this respect.

The impasse between these two different positions was demonstrated last June when NRC's Defense Ministers met. “While I had hoped we would be ready to move ahead on this subject in the NATO-Russia Council, it is clear that we will need more time" noted former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the conclusion of a bilateral meeting with his Russian counterpart Anatoliy Serdyukov. More recently, on the occasion of the Sochi Summit in July, Medvedev asked NATO for a formal guarantee that the TMD would not neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Anders Rasmussen replied that a legal guarantee would not be necessary, since the 1997 Founding Act already included a non-aggression obligation.  

Russia is also at odds with the US Department of Defense "Phased Adaptive Approach" (PAA) in developing the European Missile Defense Shield. This consists of a flexible missile defense system structured to respond to current threats, but which can also incorporate relevant technologies quickly and cost-effectively in order to respond to new threats. The PAA will be implemented in four phases, the details or timing of which can be adapted to advances in technology or future changes in the threats. The Kremlin is made uneasy by the anticipated appearance of American missile interceptors near Russia's borders to take place during phases 2-4, which it says would hamper the capacity of Russian intercontinental missiles.

Tensions on this issue became acute in early May when Romania announced that it had finalized the agreement with the United States to deploy a missile interceptor system at a disused Soviet airbase on its territory. "We have seen once again that the United States plans to unfold its system de facto without waiting for the end of [missile defense] talks with Russia, as the situation with the treaty with Romania shows," Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Ambassador to NATO told journalists after an ambassadorial-level NRC meeting on May 5th.

The US representatives insist that the PAA would not be a threat to Russia because, as the TMD system would be located near the border, it would not be able to intercept Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles. "The system that is being deployed by the United States as a contribution to the architecture that NATO will build is not capable of threatening Russia, not aimed at Russia, not in any way destabilizing the secure strategic balance that the United States has with Russia" Robert Bell, US Secretary of Defense Representative to Europe said in a meeting with the European Parliament last November. Nonetheless in a statement to the press in June, Rogozin made clear that "Russia always has and will continue to maintain its national security, and that includes with the assistance of new ." He noted that if NATO wants to reduce tensions with Russia, it should cancel the PAA. "We have always criticized these plans as ,"he said. More recently, on the occasion of the Sochi Summit, Rogozin indicated to a Moscow newspaper that NATO’s disregard for Russia’s requests regarding the TMD could lead to a Russian withdrawal from the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and to a deployment of Russian missiles closer to NATO borders.

Of course, the essential aspect underlined by such hostile statements is that the Russian military elites (and most citizens for that matter) still view NATO as an instrumentality of the US and ultimately an enemy. Moreover, Russian apprehension over a possible NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine is still very relevant. In fact, the 2010 Russian Military Doctrine lists NATO expansion on its borders as one of the most important external threats to Russian security. Mistrust is also clearly present on the US side, and was most recently manifested when a group of 39 Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama in April warning that relaxation on the TMD could compromise national security and urging the administration not to share information about missile interceptors with Moscow.

Progress on Some Common Initiatives

Notwithstanding the tensions arising from the different plans on how to implement a TMD system one would err in concluding that there have not been at least some steps forward in the NATO-Russia dialogue in recent months.

So far Russia has indirectly taken advantage of the war in Afghanistan as a buffer against the growth of extremist movements near its borders. When the ISAF forces will eventually leave Afghanistan, Russia will have to make sure that the country and the surrounding region remain stable. A politically troubled area near Russia’s borders would constitute a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalist movements and would aggravate the already delicate situation in Chechnya for example. Instability would also lead to more problems involving regional drug trafficking and organized crime that would directly affect Russia.

In this context, as part of an ongoing process to cooperate in the fight against terrorism, in April the NRC Foreign Ministers approved an updated Action Plan on Terrorism that expands the scope of cooperation drawing on the “NRC Joint Review of 21st Century Common Security Challenges” endorsed in Lisbon.

NATO and Russia have also increased collaboration regarding the transit of NATO's ISAF forces fighting in Afghanistan. Indeed today over 20% of American cargo flies over Russia (up from 5% two years ago) as well as half of America's troops. This has been very important for NATO's mission since Pakistan is no longer considered as a viable transit country. The Kremlin knows that by allowing NATO forces to pass through its territory it will earn NATO's willingness to appease Russian foreign policy. Nonetheless, the Russians are careful with collaborating too openly with an organization they don't trust. They are worried that NATO’s presence in Afghanistan will lead to the long term spread of its influence in Central Asia. In order to counter such expansion, they have pushed for the closing of American military bases in Central Asian states such as the one established in Manas, Kyrgyzstan. Nonetheless, current plans are in place to use Russian territory for the withdrawal of ISAF forces from Afghanistan, the execution of which will obviously depend on how NATO-Russia relations develop in the upcoming months.

The NRC Helicopter Maintenance Trust Fund is another example of a Lisbon initiative that has taken concrete form in recent months. This trust fund is under the overall supervision of the NRC Preparatory Committee. Germany acts as Lead Nation and NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA), as Executing Agent. The Fund was launched in March to provide maintenance and repair capacity to the Afghan Air Force. Its establishment is essential for the expansion of such an Air Force that is fundamental in operating over remote areas of the country. So far, the Fund has received financial contributions from Russia, Denmark, Luxembourg and Turkey. “This is tangible proof that working together brings real security benefits” noted NATO Secretary General Rasmussen at the April NRC Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Berlin.

The NRC’s Cooperative Airspace Initiative has also shown some tangible results in recent months. As mentioned this is one of the first projects that was launched by the NRC and it is aimed at fighting terrorist attacks by sharing information on movements in NATO and Russian airspace, and by coordinating interceptions of hijacked aircrafts. On June 7th NATO’s and Russian fighter jets took part in their first-ever joint exercise called "Vigilant Skies 2011". It simulated the response to the hijacking of a commercial passenger plane and included sharing information on movements in the respective airspaces and coordinating interceptions of renegade aircraft.

A Russian submarine also took part in NATO's "Bold Monarch 2011". This exercise took place off the cost of Southern Spain in May-June and included the participation of 20 nations. It simulated the multinational rescue of a bottomed submarine crew, and is part of a series of exercises that were developed following the loss of the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk in 2000. Several submarines were bottomed in chosen locations and a range of rescue forces from Russia, the United States, France, Sweden, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom simulated the rescue of their crews.

The of this article will examine what has been Russia's position towards the NATO intervention in Libya and what the future perspectives of collaboration are.

 

The post NATO – Russia Relations: Theatre Missile Defense appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
/region/middle_east_north_africa/nato-russia-relations-theatre-missile-defense/feed/ 0
What’s happening with NATO – Russia relations? /politics/whats-happening-nato-russia-relations/ /politics/whats-happening-nato-russia-relations/#respond Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:54:47 +0000 This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts. The first section summarizes the history of NATO-Russia relations since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. 

PART 1 of 3

The post What’s happening with NATO – Russia relations? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
This article explores the status of NATO-Russia relations in particular since the NATO Summit that took place in Lisbon in November of 2010. It is divided into three parts. The first section summarizes the history of NATO-Russia relations since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994.Ěý

PART 1 of 3

Many political commentators celebrated the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Lisbon Summit on November 20th of last year as a significant success for NATO-Russia relations and an important step forward after the impasse of the 2008 Georgian Crisis. “We will leave behind us not only the Cold War, but also the post Cold War period …and will move forward,” noted NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in a BBC interview.

During the Summit, the Heads of State and Government of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) affirmed that they would increase cooperation on such issues as Theatre Missile Defense, Arms Control and the intervention in Afghanistan. Many saw the Summit as a step forward in the “reset” of relations with Russia under President Barack Obama’s administration, and hoped that a new era of collaboration could now start. They argued that the warming of relations was also a result of a “new Russia” under the Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, which seemed more open to negotiation with NATO than Putin’s Presidency had been. “All that we wanted to tell each other, but were afraid to earlier, was said today, and this makes me optimistic” Medvedev himself told journalists after the Summit. The logic was that as long as delicate issues such as the presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the Transnistrian region of Moldova were not addressed head on, progress could be made in other areas of mutual interest through the NRC. “We underscore that the NRC is a forum for political cooperation at all times and on all issues, including where we disagree” the NRC’s Joint Statement of the Lisbon Summit reads.

Since these declarations, media coverage over the progress of NATO-Russia relations has been largely overshadowed by other events such as the “Arab Spring”, the death of Osama Bin Laden and NATO’s military intervention in Libya. Notwithstanding this, on July 4-5 of this year, a NRC meeting took place in Sochi, Russia, that helped shed some light on the progress of the dialogue. It seems that, as has been mostly the case since the fall of Communism and the launching of the Partnership for Peace program in 1994, NATO and Russia are once again collaborating in some areas and remain at odds with each other in others.

NATO Russia Relations: Fifteen Years of Progress and Setbacks

If one briefly goes over the history of NATO-Russia relations over the last fifteen years or so, one can detect a pattern of alternating success and setback. As known, the NATO-Russia Council had its predecessor in the Permanent Joint Council (PJC), established by the “NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security” of 27th May 1997.

Though some progress in NATO-Russia relations was made during the PJC’s first year and a half of activity, the Council would not prove strong enough to overcome the confrontation that occurred in March 1999 on the occasion of NATO’s bombing campaign in Serbia. The breakdown was short lived and in July 1999 the PJC was re-established with the purpose of collaborating in the reconstruction efforts. Russia had realized that it would be against its own interest not to take an active role in that process and NATO thought that it was necessary to continue cooperation with Moscow, and to work together on common issues of strategic importance.

As known, the events of September 11th demonstrated the need for NATO to worry less about conventional threats by sovereign states and to re-focus its strategy on the fight against terrorism. One of the main ways to achieve this endeavor would be to include the participation of important global actors, such as Russia, which could play an essential role due to its strategic position, strong military and significant political experience. Thus, the solidarity originating from 9/11 was fundamental in creating the conditions for the NATO-Russia collaboration to take up a more advanced structure than under the PJC. In May of 2002 this was the main factor leading to the creation of the NRC in its present form, which attributed to Russia not only the co-decision rights but also the obligations inherent in participating in a consensus-based organization.

In establishing the NRC, the declaration titled “NATO-Russia Relations: a New Quality” reinforced the principle of consensus and offered a mechanism within which NATO and Russia could cooperate in nine areas: struggle against terrorism, crisis management, non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, small arms control, theatre missile defense, research and maritime rescue, military cooperation and defense reform, civil emergencies and new threats to security. “The NATO-Russia Council will provide a mechanism for consultation, consensus-building, cooperation, joint decision, and joint action for the member states of NATO and Russia on a wide spectrum of security issues in the Euro-Atlantic region” the declaration reads. Notably, the document also included a “safeguard mechanism”, by which any member could veto the continuation of the process in case of conflict with its own interests.

Looking at the decade or so of NATO-Russia relations, one can conclude that the general rapprochement has had the NRC as one of its main instruments. In this respect, the NRC can be said to have achieved several goals in the above-mentioned areas of intervention, most notably in the fight against terrorism. In 2003 for example, the Cooperative Airspace Initiative (CAI) was launched by the NRC to increase air traffic information exchange and help build confidence in case of airspace infringements. This Initiative has greatly increased air traffic transparency and serves as an early notification system of a terrorist hijacking for NRC members. The system reached full operational capacity in 2011 and has seen some important operative progress, as will be later discussed. Also, in December 2004, the NRC agreed on an Action Plan on Terrorism that laid out common areas of interest in which NATO and Russia could collaborate. This plan was fundamental in identifying a common direction and is subject to regular review. A NATO-Russia project on Counter-Narcotics training for Afghan, Central Asian and Pakistani personnel is also being carried out, and by June 2011 over 1500 personnel had been trained. The illegal drug business has been an important financial resource for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, and the Counter-Narcotics Initiative is essentially aimed at reducing this type of income. In 2006, 2007 and 2008 the Russian Navy also participated in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, NATO’s anti-terrorism patrol in the Mediterranean. Such participation was subsequently halted due to the crisis in Georgia, however Russia confirmed its interest in resuming support for the mission on the occasion of the Lisbon Summit.

At the same time, the NRC has clearly shown its inability to deal with several major problems. One of the biggest failures was the inability to bring the NATO members to ratify the Adapted Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which was signed on the occasion of the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit. NATO member states were unwilling to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty until Russia fulfilled the political commitments it undertook on the occasion of the OSCE Summit, namely withdrawing its forces from Moldova and Georgia. Russia maintained that it had already fulfilled its Istanbul commitments, and eventually in November 2007 it withdrew from the Treaty.

Another major setback was the NRC’s inability to avoid the Georgian crisis in 2008. In that case there was a general Western criticism of Russia’s intervention, maintaining that the sovereignty of Georgia had been breached. The event led to another halting of NRC’s operation and the suspension for some time of the dialogue between NATO and Russia. In much the same way that the PJC was not able to prevent the crisis in the Balkans in the late 1990’s, the NRC was not able to function as an early warning mechanism, nor as a forum for negotiating with Russia, a solution to respond to the crisis. Nonetheless, after the end of the turmoil, NATO-Russia relations returned to normal in March 2009.

But what have been the latest developments in NATO-Russia relations? It appears that, even though there has been some specific progress since the Lisbon Summit on some initiatives, the major collaboration that was hoped for is still not underway, notably in the area of strategic armaments.

The sĚýof this article will focus on the Theatre Missile Defense and other common initiatives. TheĚýĚýwill examine what has been Russia’s position towards the NATO intervention in Libya and what the future perspectives of collaboration are.

The post What’s happening with NATO – Russia relations? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

]]>
/politics/whats-happening-nato-russia-relations/feed/ 0