Beatrice de Graaf reflects on NATO summit: “A summit that could be historical”

While The Hague was hermetically sealed off, there was a select group of experts who were invited to the very NATO summit. One of them is Beatrice de Graaf, Faculty Professor and Chair of History of International Relations. She was, among other things, a speaker at the Public Forum, on how NATO should relate to terrorism. A retrospective.

Invitation from NATO

“A few months ago, I received an invitation from NATO, asking if I wanted to speak at the Public Forum as an expert in my field and presumably also because I have been chairman of the EU Commission’s Radicalisation Awareness Network.” De Graaf did not waste that opportunity.

What follows is months of silence while participants are vetted. “Only a few days in advance was I given the green light and was I permitted to apply and register. That was to be done on the spot in The Hague, where all was thoroughly checked as well.”

Terrorism marginalised

As an expert on terrorism and security, De Graaf discusses how NATO has evolved in this area. Whereas 10 years ago the fight against terrorism was still at the top of NATO’s agenda, today the situation is different. “Terrorism has been pushed to the margins. In itself, this is a good thing,” she observes. “In short, when NATO countries participated in the Global War on Terror, it was not that successful.”

“Practically speaking, you cannot possibly bomb away terrorism, you usually only makes it worse. Counter-terrorism is something of the civil, criminal or international law domain. The derailments of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, have greatly undermined the legitimacy of the Western alliance and of NATO countries.”

The fight against state-sponsored terrorism

But NATO does still have a task when it comes to counterterrorism, De Graaf stresses: “Namely to intensify intelligence and communication collaboration. For example, when it comes to identifying and preventing state-sponsored terrorism, sabotage and support to terrorist proxies by Russia and Iran.”

Proxies are organisations and individuals supported by a state in their terrorist activities. In the latest Terrorism Threat Assessment Netherlands, the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) warns that Russia is increasingly facilitating and supporting right-wing extremist groups in Europe. “Also, Russia is systematically carrying out acts of sabotage against NATO countries. And the fact that Iran supports terrorist organisations as proxies is also something that affects NATO countries,” De Graaf says.

You cannot bomb terrorism away, you only make it worse

Wars and impending cultural alienation

As a historian, she found it particularly interesting to attend the NATO summit: “This was a summit that has the potential to be historic. Since Trump, the political divide between the United States and the European Union has been significant. At the same time, there is a violent war going on in Ukraine and the Russian threat is as high as it has been for a long time. This places heavy pressure on the alliance. Subsequently, an important decision on rearming NATO countries was still taken.”

“I have more often in my research used eyewitness accounts of previous international security conferences, such as in 1815, 1918, 1945. Of course, this is not such a big summit. But still, it is fascinating to be able to be an eyewitness to this myself for once.”

Human rights violations and war crimes outside NATO territory

Wars are also raging outside NATO territory, putting pressure on international law and NATO values. These include human rights violations and war crimes in Israel. “Israel is not NATO territory, but NATO and EU countries are involved there. And Israel is a partner of NATO. That puts the success of this summit in a stark light though: what do those successes mean for the legitimacy of the alliance elsewhere in the world?”

The summit reminded De Graaf of 19th century summits: “Where the greatest opponents kissed each other’s rings and manipulated each other terribly. Those kinds of summits always have a ritualistic character too. We saw that here too.”

Looking back with mixed sentiments

De Graaf looks back on the summit with ambivalent feelings. She is hopeful when she considers how Europe has come through previous crises. “In times of crisis, Europe has found its very own way of muddling through together. To some, that may seem slow and hesitant. But take the crises of 2008, 2011, 2015: Europe still managed to find a solution then, come up with aid measures, which are widely supported and sustainable.”

It is fascinating to be able to witness this for once

Yet she is also concerned about what will happen after this summit: ‘Now that commitments have been made to increase defence spending to 5 per cent and the huge ReArm Europe package, it is important to keep a close eye on it.”

‘How are EU countries going to structure that increase, how is that going to relate to the character of the European Union?”, De Graaf wonders. “How is this going to support or perhaps erode the welfare states of Europe? Will it mean more executive power for member states and more militarisation? Or will Europe succeed, as it did after 1950, in combining the strengthening of deterrence and defence with reconstruction, democratisation and a strong welfare state?”