"I first want to thank European University and the International Programs Office for giving me the opportunity to travel to Brussels as a participant in the 2013 Successor Generation Program held at NATO.
I traveled to Brussels from March 13-16, as part of a contingent that included 24 Russian citizens from academia, NGOs and the press, and myself, the only non-Russian and citizen from a NATO member nation. It was a very eye-opening and enriching experience and I would like to provide you with some of my key takeaways from my attendance in this program.
As a bit of background, the Successor Generation Program was created to bring members of the current generation of Russian scholars and policy professionals to NATO in an effort to expose them to the organization in a way that previous generations of Russians have been unable. It is well-known that NATO was created in the wake of the Second World War by the capitalist powers of the West in order to counter the threat and contain the expanding influence of the communist Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe. Ever since then, and despite the fact that the Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, NATO-Russia relations have remained tense. This program thus seeks to overcome this by shedding light on all aspects of NATO to the generation of future leaders who will likely be charged with improving these strained relations in their lifetimes.
The first day of the program was spent at the NATO Headquarters building in Brussels, while the following day was spent in the small town of Mons, Belgium, at the Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) building. Throughout both days we listened speakers discuss both the political and military aspects of NATO-Russia relations. The speakers discussed the creation and utilization of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) as the primary vehicle for negotiation between the 28 NATO member states and Russia. The diplomats who spoke to us came from the delegations of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation, and they all sought primarily to draw attention to the areas of successful cooperation between NATO and Russia:
- Combating Terrorism (i.e. Combined Airspace Initiative)
- Support for ISAF (i.e. Northern Distribution Network (NDN) and the NRC Helicopter Maintenance Trust Fund)
- Counter-narcotics training in Central Asia and Afghanistan
- Nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear accident response training
- Direct military-to-military cooperation (Partnership for Peace; Combined naval operations, particularly in the area of submarine accident rescue)
- Counter-piracy operations in the Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa
In light of these successes, however, there are some specific points of contention:
- Logistical impediments to cooperation (i.e. NATO nation ships use different gauges of hoses to refuel ships than their Russian counterparts' ships)
- Theatre Missile Defense - the single greatest obstacle to cooperation
Both sides that addressed us over the course of the program agreed that the United States' missile defense system planned for Central Europe is the greatest impediment to improving NATO-Russian relations. Both also agreed that resolution of this problem requires political agreement before any military cooperation can be possible.
While I appreciated that the diplomats from these various nations took the time to speak to us and introduce us to topics with which many of the program participants had little prior knowledge or experience, I feel the greatest aspect of the program was the development of personal relationships amongst the participants. Diplomats at this level are professionals at mincing words and while they like to talk, in my opinion they actually say very little. The questions and comments from the participants thus matched this restrained attitude. In the more informal gatherings however, such as on the bus rides to-and-from the program sites and in the restaurants and pubs each night after the 'working day' was over, we had the opportunity to discuss these issues informally. These informal settings provided us with the unique opportunity to get to know each other personally, as co-inhabitants of an increasingly integrated world and not as political or military adversaries situated on opposite ends of a geopolitical spectrum. As the only American in the delegation, this was especially true for me and I gladly took questions from the others that ranged from inquiries about what I really think of NATO, to what I think America's real intentions are with missiles in Europe, and to what I think of my country's paying the lion's share of the NATO budget. These were very challenging questions and I appreciated their being asked of me. It dawned on me a little later that this was the real virtue of the program: not putting us in the same conference room to listen to diplomats talk about missile systems; but rather putting us on the same charter buses and in the same hotel and restaurants to become friends first. As the "successor generation," we are the first generation to grow up without any recollection of the Cold War and of the prejudices that often accompany that experience. It struck me as vitally important that this generation get to know each other on a personal level first, to grow to respect and trust each other, before then talking about missiles.
In sum, I am very grateful to the university and to NATO for the chance to experience this once in a lifetime opportunity. I hope this university continues to send students to the Successor Generation Program in the years to come, and in particular that it continues to send students of non-Russian backgrounds to really foment this unique informal dialogue that would not have been possible has EUSP not sent the only non-Russian to Brussels this year".
Anthony Cruitt
IMARES student, 2012-13