NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. Strasbourg and Kehl, the twin towns of Germany and France — and which the two countries once warred over — will host 5000 members of the diplomatic community from today. The summit should see the charter undergo structural changes, redefining its core; the coalition of the willing doesn’t see itself in a position for celebration, but for serious debate. The primary question: what, precisely, is NATO’s role in the 21st century?

NATO’s modus operandi is contained in its “strategic concept”, up for review this year. 1991 and 1999 saw changes within the concept. These were the obvious: the conventional Russian threat was gone; the alliance defined itself not through new challenges and threats but rather through the absence of former challenges and threats. This upcoming review should leave no space for speculation, taking into account the changing geo-political order in its reinvention. And not through the single prism of the Afghan War, but through other strategic developments.

Foremost amongst them is the need to recognise the usefulness of a future Russian ally. Not that Russia is in any way ready to enter the alliance: far from it. However, recent Russian overtures indicate a mild rapprochement. Consider the recent American expulsion from the base in Kyrgyzstan base used for the Afghan war effort. That decision wasn’t the local Bakiyev leadership’s alone; experts agree that the power influencing the decision was the Kremlin. But then Russia offered NATO a transit route through its own territory. This unprecedented gesture has enormous implications: a cooperative Russia could alter NATO’s make-up tremendously. Further, it displays a more assertive Medvedev, and a departure from Putin’s policies.

... contd.