North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

		Website: www.nato.int
		Keywords: NATO Tactical Directive, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Afghanistan, Geneva Conventions, Membership Action Plan, Russia

Recent Development: NATO in Afghanistan

Afghanistan remains the focal point of NATO military activity. According to NATO its ‘main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance’[ notes ] . The concerns over reducing the number of civilian casualties, one of the main criticisms regarding the conduct of the war thus far in Afghanistan, has resulted in a revised Tactical Directive for NATO forces.[ notes ] The Tactical Directive acknowledges the legal issues surrounding the use of force, in particular, where there are high numbers of civilians present. While only portions of the document are unclassified, the publically available excerpts focus upon targeting decisions. This extends to the assurance that civilians are not present before a target is attacked with the only exception the need to protect the lives of the soldiers and the lives of civilian Afghans as a matter of self-defence.

The high number of civilian casualties that have resulted from the use of aerial attacks, such as at Nawabad[ notes ] where reportedly up to 92 civilians had been killed, raises questions regarding the conduct of operations by NATO. This new Directive is aimed at reducing the numbers of civilian injuries and deaths and to date appears to have had some affect. The Directive states that, 'we will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill, but instead on our ability to separate insurgents from the centre of gravity - the people'. It goes on to state that the use of certain weapons against residential compounds is only authorised in very limited and prescribed circumstances. The increased number of US troops or the recent surge of troops sent to the country has also lead to a change in the type of operations undertaken; particularly in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.[ notes ] The surge is intended to be a precursor to the complete withdrawal of active foreign forces within Afghanistan and the return of sovereign control to the Afghan Government.  

In a further development, Afghanistan acceded to the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in June 2009.[ notes ] Additional Protocol II which covers non-international armed conflicts is of relevance to the current conflict. It will strengthen the application of the rules contained therein which were until now applicable to the territory based on customary international law. They entered into force 6 months after the deposit of the instrument of accession; in December 2009. The Additional Protocols apply between the state and rebel forces, therefore it will not directly apply to NATO forces; however the Afghan government may be held responsible for actions undertaken by NATO, as it is under their auspices that NATO forces are in Afghanistan. It could also apply to operations undertaken by NATO forces together with domestic Afghan forces. 

The new phase in the war in Afghanistan has also pointed to the potential withdrawal of foreign combat troops over the next few years. The Netherlands withdrew its forces in July of 2010, Canada is due to withdraw its troops in 2011, Poland in 2012.  The US has announced a slow withdrawal of troops beginning in 2011, and this has been mirrored by announcements from the UK.[ notes ] This will require control of security to be passed to the Afghan military and police. While the UN mandate was recently extended,[ notes ] the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan does lead to questions of authority and responsibility for some of the military actions undertaken, particularly when local and foreign forces work together to complete operations. It may also lead to further conflict should foreign troops leave before the Afghan forces are able to exercise full authority.

Recent Development: Expansion of NATO membership and relations with the Russian Federation

The Membership Action Plan (MAP) is a NATO programme of support for countries wishing to join the Alliance.[ notes ] The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro are the only countries currently participating in the MAP. Macedonia will be invited to join NATO once issues relating to its name are settled with NATO member Greece.[ notes ]  Albania and Croatia acceded as Members of the Alliance in April of 2009, further expanding NATO's membership in the Balkans. Bosnia and Herzegovina have continued its Intensified Dialogues on possible future membership, with an assurance that membership will be forthcoming once domestic reforms have been implemented.[ notes ] The Ukraine and Georgia, after the Bucharest Summit decisions in 2008, have also continued in their preliminary discussions.[ notes ]

The NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC), created after the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008,[ notes ] has continued to operate. In December 2008, NATO foreign ministers decided to further enhance the NGC through the development of an Annual National Programme (ANP), replacing an earlier programme based on future membership as well as the establishment of a NATO Liaison Office in Tbilisi. In a statement issued by the NATO Secretary General in June 2009 it was stated that NATO did not recognise the elections held on May 31 in South Ossetia, one of the two breakaway states of Georgia and further added that the holding of such elections 'does not contribute to a peaceful and lasting settlement of the situation in Georgia. The Alliance reiterates its full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders.'[ notes ] This support has continued, with endorsement of future membership being restated in 2010.[ notes ]   The last of the UN observers has left the region as Russia vetoed an attempt to extend their remit.[ notes ]  The observers had been in Abkhazia since 1993 under a Security Council mandate.[ notes ] This has put further strains on NATO's relationship with Russia.

During the most recent NATO-Russia Council meeting held in September 2010, both NATO and Russia reiterated the need for continued cooperation.[ notes ] This meeting follows on from the re-establishment of the Council following its suspension subsequent to the events in Georgia in 2008. Secretary General Rasmussen reported after the meeting that relations between NATO and Russia were on a solid path.[ notes ]   The continued disequilibrium regarding NATO and Russia’s relations reflects some of the questions regarding the future of the organisation itself. This includes the continued extension of membership to former members of the Soviet Union and satellite states. Tensions are thus arising between those members who wish to establish a strategic plan in case of Russian invasion and those who consider such an action to be unnecessarily provocative.[ notes ] The NATO Treaty sets out a clearly defensive alliance and therefore from a strict textual analysis it would be difficult to accuse NATO of taking any offensive activity. However, the continued unease in the relationship with Russia points to a need to understanding of the limits of NATO’s activities as a military alliance.

Aoife O’Donoghue
Durham School of Law

October 2010