---

On March 3, the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Center for Transatlantic Relations at John Hopkins University hosted a conference launching the joint report: Alliance Reborn: an Atlantic Compact for the 21st Century highlighting the state of NATO and the future transatlantic relationship in light of its 60th Anniversary. The symposium opened with GMF Brussels Executive Director Ron Asmus outlining the security environment facing NATO's partners today.  The report was then released by Dan Hamilton of The Center for Transatlantic Relations and co-authors Hans Binnendijk of the National Defense University and Steve Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies along with NATO HQ representative Diego Ruiz-Palmer.  The report's main theme was clear:  NATO, the institution of ‘political minds' and ‘military means' is in need of a new strategic mandate and the current political climate has shifted so that the time to make this change is now.

Discussion began with panelists tackling the escalating situation in Afghanistan, the main security concern that is currently facing NATO. Dr. Jamie Shea, Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the Secretary General, emphasized the need to stay the course and added that member states must be willing to make the commitments necessary to complete the task at hand.  Experts Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation and Daniel Korski of the European Council on Foreign Relations responded by stating that NATO's approach must be re-evaluated and that it is necessary to consider a bottom up approach to security that could offer a long-term vision for the Afghanistan.

This was followed by a discussion on the NATO's relationship with Russia and how best to respond to recent actions taken by the Russian Federation.  Katinka Barysch of the Centre for European Reform, Kadri Liik of the International Centre for Defense Studies, and Camille Grand of the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique theorized about the motivations for actions on both sides of the relationship.  It remains unclear how the relationship will develop in the short term leading to the larger questions of who should be leading the dialogue between Russia and the West. Is this a task for NATO leaders or its member-states?  There was clear consensus that the Alliance must be prepared to react and respond in an uncertain future.

After a short break, co-author Steve Flanagan and Norwegian State Secretary for the Ministry of Defense Espen Barth-Eide discussed the role NATO should play at home and how to balance solidarity and inclusivity into the practice of collective defense.  This was followed by Binnendijk, Christa Meinsderma of HCSS, and Andrej Karkozska of PriceWaterhouseCoopers looking at how best NATO should evolve for future away missions and how article 5 fits with the new posture that has been taken by the alliance.

The event closed with U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Voelker, Dutch Ambassador to NATO Herman Schaper, Asmus, and Hamilton discussing institutional reforms and the potential impact of the new American administration. Panelists agreed that NATO must evolve to be flexible enough to address the ever-changing security environment. Questions of what NATO's role should be in the realm of non-military activities should be, and how NATO and the EU can best work together loomed. There was an agreement that some of the hardest questions would need to be decided amongst NATO leaders, but that the conditions for a new strategic mandate were right.