Chicago 2012 is the largest-ever NATO summit, with representatives from over 60 countries attending. It’s the first such gathering in the U.S. since 1999, and the only one to ever be held beyond the Beltway. It’s a set piece of the world’s diplomatic calendar. The only problem is that you wouldn’t actually know it by being here. Despite all the press coverage and pre-conference buildup, President Obama’s NATO summit is a pretty low-key affair.
Over the last three days, I’ve been given privileged access to the summit as part of an Atlantic Council group, which consists of 53 young people from 35 countries. We’ve been treated to a steady procession of the great and the good dropping by to dispense their wisdom: Madeleine Albright, James Jones, Rahm Emanuel and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to name just a few. Not only are these private briefings more interesting than the pre-scripted speeches that the heads of government are no doubt delivering to each other, they’re also a never-ending source of quotes for the ages. (“Georgia is a regional superstar. Very soon I think Georgia can be a world star” — President Saakashvili).
It’s certainly been an enjoyable few days. After all, who couldn’t enjoy watching motorcade after motorcade arrive to deposit world leaders? To me, that’s like having front-row seats at the Super Bowl. Yet at the same time, I can’t shake the nagging feeling that the unofficial mantra of NATO (“No action, only talk”) is in danger of being vindicated.
The summit certainly isn’t going to produce any policy surprises. The agreement on winding down the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, soon to be known as the Chicago Accords, has been so thoroughly leaked that it’s become a non-story. The best explanation one participant could give for why the publication of the accords would be a significant event was that “previously agreed-upon decisions are being approved at a higher level.” That’s hardly something that makes news editors hold space on the front page. Likewise, speaker after speaker has placed great hope in the idea of “smart defense” — coordinating national defense expenditures in order to help each country reduce its individual expenditures. Yet details are light, and the progress that will be reached by world leaders is expected to be limited. Perhaps most noticeable of all has been the absence of discussion relating to NATO enlargement and the Western world’s relations with Russia. Those two issues tend to produce the most interest at gatherings of this kind. Yet on this occasion these topics are low on the agenda. No new country will gain admission into the organization this time, and an agreement with Russia on missile defenses in Europe is nowhere to be seen. Indeed, Putin has skipped the summit entirely, sending only a sub-cabinet delegate.
One is (sheepishly) forced to ask: Where’s the drama? Where’s the evidence that breaking news is happening all around me? Perhaps the mood of calm is shaped by the environment. The city has closed off a huge area around the conference, allowing us to type away from within the safest square mile in the world: a veritable Green Zone on the shores of Lake Michigan. To pass through the security cordon is to enter a ghost town. Once inside one finds oneself wandering along empty streets, devoid of sound. I’d been prepared for mass protests, but given the precautions, we’ve seen none. Indeed, the greatest inconvenience we’ve encountered is the new willingness of Anonymous and Occupy groups to follow our Twitter feeds. 1968 it is not.
Maybe the tranquility is to be welcomed. In the 1990s, many questioned whether NATO served any purpose at all. Now, after coalition military action in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya, the benefit of international defense co-operation is widely accepted. For those who take an interest in these matters, it’s nice to attend a NATO conference where the media isn’t screaming “crisis!” from the sidelines.
Yet at the same time, the peace and quiet is a little unnerving. As a “Young Atlanticist,” I’ve been identified as someone who can persuade future generations that NATO is both necessary and relevant. Yet where do you begin when it doesn’t seem as though anyone’s noticed what you’re doing? At the Cubs-White Sox game on Saturday, I met a fan who asked me what NATO was going to do to create jobs in America. When I suggested that that wasn’t what NATO was for, his curiosity turned to bemusement: “Oh. Then what’s the point?”
Clearly I’ve got my work cut out for me.
Timothy Stafford is a member of the Atlantic Council’s Young Atlanticist Program.
