I recently attended the 62nd annual General Assembly meeting of the Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA), an organization that brings together politicians, diplomats, military officers, academics, and others to promote the values of the North Atlantic Treaty. The two-day conference was held in downtown Toronto and brought together a diverse group of people from all over the world to reflect upon the importance of NATO.
Josh (who is an Estonian citizen) pictured with three of the four-member Estonian delegation to the conference. Unsurprisingly, Russia’s neighbours such as Estonia, Ukraine, and Georgia seemed to have a particularly high number of representatives in attendance.
In the opening ceremony Hon. Hugh Segal of Massey College and chairman of the NATO Association of Canada set the tone for the conference. In his short address he made it clear that the chief threat facing NATO is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which he labeled after a short pause to search for the right word, “our competitor.” The notion of an aggressive Russian “competitor” resonated throughout the rest of the conference and in the speeches and ideas of every panelist and presenter.
The keynote address was split three ways between Stephane Dion, Canada’s Minister of Global Affairs; John Heffern from the U.S. State Department; and James Appathurai from NATO headquarters in Brussels. Minister Dion opened his address asserting that “diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments,” thus stressing the need for NATO. He announced that “Canada stands firm with its NATO allies” and declared that Canada’s decision to deploy troops to Latvia as discussed at the recent Warsaw Summit represents a broader resurgence of a Canadian “return to peace operations.” Ambassador Heffern of the U.S. reiterated the American position that Ukraine has a right to defend itself, along with its steadfast conviction that “Russia is the aggressor.” NATO’s James Appathurai concluded the keynote address on a dark note by announcing that NATO and Russia are now in an antagonistic relationship, ending the alliance’s 25 years of mutually beneficial relations with Moscow. He highlighted the broad challenges from Russia, including its relentless cyber attacks, restriction of its neighbours and withdrawal from critical arms control agreements. While NATO is trying its best to avoid a return to a division of Europe, he said, it must be able to provide credible deterrence.
The remainder of the conference was divided primarily into four panels that addressed the various threats to NATO; political cooperation and diplomacy; military collaboration, planning and capacity building; and economic cooperation. While I cannot summarize all of the discussions and their conclusions, I have highlighted some key and recurring points:
U of T professor and veteran Canadian diplomat David Wright proposed four main threats to NATO: European countries turning inward; refugees/the South; Putin; and the U.S.’ growing concerns with burden sharing. Brexit was widely condemned. The notion that democracy is prevailing across the world was debunked and criticized. The ambiguity around NATO’s requirement of 2% GDP spending on military was heavily debated. The panel on military collaboration focused exclusively on cyber and technological warfare.
As Canadian senator Raynell Andreychuk said, “the art of diplomacy is when being attacked by an angry dog to say, “nice doggie,” while reaching for a heavy stick.” This seems to be what NATO is trying to focus on, while also preparing for issues as wide-ranging as refugees, climate change and cyber defense.
Much of the discussion and debate at this conference dealt with looming questions facing NATO and many of the military leaders in attendance seemed to be listening eagerly to the opinions of academics and professors. It seemed that academic scholarship was providing an important base for real policy decisions made by this powerful military alliance. From research papers identifying weaknesses in current NATO cyber security doctrine, to talk of reform to the mechanism for judging inter-NATO-member burden sharing, I realized that academia has an important role in real-life geopolitical action. I discovered that the world’s strongest military alliance is significantly impacted by academic work and research—similar to the subject matter that we PCJ students research, discuss and study daily. For the first time, I understood our academic field and its importance beyond scholastic debate and unprofitable books.