May 22, 2013 20:49 UTC

World

Afghanistan Tops Agenda at NATO Summit in Chicago

Read, listen and learn English with this story. Double-click on any word to find the definition in the Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary.

Reporters talk with a summit official on Friday before heads of state gather for the NATO summit in Chicago.Reporters talk with a summit official on Friday before heads of state gather for the NATO summit in Chicago.
x
Reporters talk with a summit official on Friday before heads of state gather for the NATO summit in Chicago.
Reporters talk with a summit official on Friday before heads of state gather for the NATO summit in Chicago.

Multimedia

Play or download an MP3 of this story
TEXT SIZE - +
This is IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English.
 
NATO leaders will meet Sunday and Monday in President Obama's hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Afghanistan will be the top issue at the meeting of the twenty-eight member North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  
 
The United States last hosted NATO leaders in nineteen ninety-nine. That was two years before al-Qaida launched attacks on the United States. Those attacks led to the first use of the common defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty of nineteen forty-nine.
 
As a result, for more than ten years now, the coalition has directed its attention on Afghanistan. The United States and NATO have about one hundred thirty thousand troops serving in the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF.
 
They plan to withdraw all of those troops by the end of twenty-fourteen. The Afghan government is supposed to lead the country's security beginning next year. President Obama talked about the change when he flew to Kabul this month to sign an agreement with the Afghan government.
 
BARACK OBAMA: "International troops will continue to train, advise and assist the Afghans and fight alongside them, when needed. But we will shift into a support role as Afghans step forward."
 
President Obama is to meet this Sunday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari also plans to attend the NATO summit. But President Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, says there are no plans for a private meeting with Mr. Obama.
 
NATO has identified a support level of four billion dollars a year for Afghanistan. Stephen Flanagan of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies says the question is who will pay it.
 
STEPHEN FLANAGAN: "Most allies have not met their pledges to the existing NATO training mission in Afghanistan over the past four years, so their willingness to do so after the ISAF forces are withdrawn, when they are even more dependent on Afghan forces for their security, particularly given the incidents we have seen of late, that is a key question."
 
 
 
The United States has paid an increasing share of the costs of NATO operations. A year ago, Robert Gates, in his last major speech as defense secretary, criticized cuts in European defense spending. He warned of what he called "the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance" for the alliance.
 
The NATO summit will include France's new president. Francois Hollande was sworn in Tuesday as the first Socialist president in almost twenty years. In Chicago, Mr. Hollande will have to defend plans for an early French troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. He promised during his election campaign to remove troops by the end of this year. Former president Nicolas Sarkozy had announced plans to remove them by the end of twenty-thirteen.
 
Charles Kupchan is a NATO expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. He says the leaders in Chicago will once again discuss how to make sure European powers carry their fair share of NATO's military work. Mr. Kupchan says the issue takes on a new importance for several reasons.
 
CHARLES KUPCHAN: "One is that the United States is pivoting out of Europe, putting more emphasis on the Middle East and East Asia -- our footprint in Europe is going down to about thirty thousand troops.  Number two, the U.S. is constrained fiscally and its own defense budget is going down. And that makes the U.S. more sensitive to what its partners in the NATO alliance are doing. And then you have the financial crisis in Europe"
 
Experts say a good example of sharing responsibility was the intervention last year in the Libyan conflict. The Europeans took a leading military role. But they needed a lot of help.
 
And that's IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English. I'm Mario Ritter.
 
___
 
Contributing: Lisa Bryant, Andre de Nesnera and Dan Robinson
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Yoshi from: Japan
05/21/2012 1:46 PM
I understand NATO was allyed among European countries and the U.S. againt the threat of Soviet Union at the cold war era. Now, the Soviet Union was dessolved and the cold war has ended. Why does NATO still exist? It's probably because the U.S. is intending to use the union to protect the U.S. itself from terrorism and revenge against Alkaida. So, NATO troops are send to Middle-east, Afganistan which in the home of taliban. Japan is not allyed in NATO, but have been doing a lot of financial supports to it. The U.S. should be couragious to free from being selfish.



by: FRANZ JOSEF HILDINGER from: BRAZIL
05/20/2012 10:24 AM
I think all governments have to think about stop expending public money with wars. Stop the wars. How? I think we have to change a problem into a solution: poor people will became a consumer. We can do this investing in social policy in poor countries and education. In 20 or 30 years we'll not have problem with war. We have to combat non democratic countries with another strategic like a kind of isolate but with responsibility. The international crises is the result of a large expending public money with war. If we had expended that money with our citizens we would be in another good situation. "Intelligent" countries like US and Europe
expending a large mount of money with war and China don't... earn money selling weapons.


by: Laurent from: fRANCE
05/19/2012 5:02 AM
It'S a difficult question. The world become more dangerous with the increase in power of China and Russia, and the threat of terrorism. But in the same time, the Western economies are in decline. Our future security will be a great issue.


by: Dstiebs from: CT. USA
05/19/2012 12:43 AM
NATO needs to be abolished. It is Obama's tool to do away with the Constitution. Obama is a Socialist like Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev. He is trying ruin America. The arms treaty will take away your Right to Bear Arms, allow the cops to lock you up for no reason in the camps they have set up around the country without a hearing and also do away with Congress. Think I am wrong? Can you afford to lose your freedom? Go to Chicago and protest to dissolve NATO.

In Response

by: NRA supporter from: Russia
05/24/2012 10:40 PM
NATO is very useful organization, it was created to protect freedom and democracy. NATO doesn't need to be abolished, do not even think so. NATO doesn't contradict the Right to Bear Arms. The Right to Bear Arms is Sacred and Untouchable. Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev were communists, not socialist. There is very big difference between communist and socialist.
A communists is like an islamist. Both are extremists and want to conquer the world.
NATO is a tool like a gun that may be needed at any moment.