The Race Is on to Be NATO’S Next Chief

A year ago, Jens Stoltenberg was preparing to begin winding down his term as NATO’s secretary-general and return to Norway to become the governor of its central bank, occupying himself with setting interest rates and managing the energy-rich nation’s massive wealth. He was the “best” man for the job, Norway’s finance minister said in early February last year.

Just a few weeks later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Stoltenberg quickly got an extension in his current job and a legacy as the face of Europe’s coordinated response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression.

That one-year extension, however, will lapse this fall, and Brussels is already abuzz with speculation over his replacement. In the 30-member alliance, there are nearly half as many names making the rounds.

“It is the least transparent election of all elections,” a European diplomat told Foreign Policy in Brussels. The selection “happens through consultations between powerful nations.” NATO’s decisions are based on consensus, but the top four economies—the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom—exercise inordinate influence, even if they don’t always claim the coveted position for themselves.

The United States usually refrains from the race for NATO’s political leadership because it has traditionally held one of the top military posts in the alliance—the supreme commander of Europe, which is usually a U.S. general. But who it backs carries weight in the final decision. Germany and France are unlikely to field their candidates this year since both have tried to diplomatically resolve the Ukraine conflict and met with Putin shortly before the start of the war. They have since tried to play a balancing act even while sending humanitarian and defense aid to Ukraine. Ian Lesser, vice president of the German Marshall Fund, said he didn’t think Germany would want the position since its stance on Ukraine is “already controversial.”

That leaves, most prominently, the United Kingdom, which wishes to exert power in post-Brexit Europe; the Scandinavians, who get along with everyone but have had their turn with Stoltenberg and his immediate predecessor; and Italy and the Eastern European nations that  once again are reminding their allies of their geographical significance.

Some argue a leader from a Baltic country would send a clear signal to Putin that NATO would rally behind the region with all its might if he aimed Russian missiles in that direction, but there is equal concern that they might be too hawkish to make peace with him whenever the conflict subsides. Some NATO observers have suggested geographical distance could be a diplomatic asset and point toward faraway Canada as a potential candidate. Others say the leader should be from the European Union, which has 21 members of NATO’s 30. Italy, a frontline border state on the Mediterranean and often the first point of entry for immigrants from poorer nations, is seen as a particularly legitimate contender.

Among the most-talked-about names are Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands, who, when recently asked about his aspirations, has suggested he might soon wish to leave politics altogether; Chrystia Freeland, deputy prime minister of Canada, who, according to Foreign Policy‘s sources (and a New York Times report), is backed by Washington; and Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s 45-year-old prime minister.

Then there’s a slate of current and former female leaders. Slovakian President Zuzana Caputova, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte, and former Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic have all been reported as possible candidates in the media, but according to three NATO observers that FP spoke to, their names are mentioned far less often in corridors of power. Freeland and Kallas are both dynamic women in top positions in their countries. NATO secretaries-general have traditionally been heads of government or state, but that is not an established rule, and many believe a deputy prime minister or foreign minister would also be acceptable.

Freeland is the granddaughter of Ukrainian immigrants to Canada. In 2015, after Crimea’s annexation, she wrote an essay called “My Ukraine” and mentioned how her maternal grandparents “saw themselves as political exiles with a responsibility to keep alive the idea of an independent Ukraine.” But the Canadian press reported that her grandfather was involved with the Ukrainian nationalist movement and edited Krakivski Visti, which has been described as a Nazi propaganda daily that was highly antisemitic. This association could play into the hands of the Kremlin, which has said it is trying to rid Ukraine of nationalist and Nazi elements. “American officials have publicly said—and even [former German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said—that there were efforts on the Russian side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn’t come as a surprise if these same efforts were used against Canada,” Freeland said when asked about her grandfather’s association with the Nazis. She was supported by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who expelled four Russian diplomats for trying to discredit her and tarnish her public image. Trudeau described the diplomats as “Russian propagandists” who were “sharing scurrilous stories about her.”

Several NATO watchers told FP that while Freeland was a good choice, the fact that Canada is not in Europe could be a source of friction at a time when cohesion is at a premium. Kallas is a worthy challenger to Freeland for the position not only because she is a European but also because Estonia, unlike Canada, spends at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense, which is a stated goal of the member nations. However, Kallas is seen as staunchly anti-Putin and has advocated against negotiating with him.

“Kallas is an outspoken leader, which could lead to discomfort in Western European nations. France comes to mind. They may have reservations with Kallas. What if [French President Emmanuel] Macron is backchanneling with Putin and Kallas comes out and rejects that?” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe program and the Stuart Center in Euro-Atlantic and Northern European Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The French have no qualms in raising their objections. Kallas would have to convince [them that] she gets the broader security landscape.”

Meanwhile, inside Estonia the focus seems to be on domestic elections. It would be a matter of pride for any of the Baltic nations to have one of their own leading NATO, but at least in Brussels the sense is that few find that realistic. Baltic, Eastern, and Central European nations have long been in line, said a European diplomat, but that doesn’t mean they will get the job this time. Kersti Kaljulaid, former president of Estonia, was in the running for the job before Stoltenberg was granted an extension, but it’s still unclear whether her ambitions might be fulfilled this year.

While Freeland and Kallas are seen as too implacably opposed to Putin for the comfort of some of the more powerful European nations, Grabar-Kitarovic may be dismissed for her perceived friendliness, having exchanged soccer jerseys with him when she traveled to watch the World Cup in 2018. Moreover, the comments of the current Croatian leadership could be taken against her. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic has opposed sending lethal weapons to Ukraine and said defense aid “prolongs the war.”

British Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace is another name that gets mentioned, as is former British Prime Minister Theresa May’s. Britain may find it hard, however, to convince Europeans, many of whom still feel jilted by its decision to leave the European Union. But others, especially NATO members in Russia’s neighborhood, find the U.K.’s military strength a huge advantage. “Britain has a very strong military. We love them for that. We are just sad they left the EU,” said a diplomat from a Central European nation.

Then there is Mario Draghi, an Italian economist, banker, and former prime minister, and Federica Mogherini, a former EU foreign-policy chief and Italian minister. “The issue is more, what are the Europeans and U.S. looking for, and I think part of the job is just being a pure diplomat. Corralling 30 or so countries does require familiarity with defense topics. Draghi may check the first but not the second. And an Italian might raise concerns among Eastern nations,” Bergmann said.

Lesser said that European unity and coordination with the United States is of paramount importance to defeating Putin and his wider ambitions. “The concern is an erosion of political cohesion,” he said. “It all tends to point in the direction of larger, long-standing members with a bit of geographic distance from the center of security risks, like the Netherlands, Canada, Italy—these are countries that would fit the bill.”

But Lesser said he would still bet on Stoltenberg. “One comes with a different name every week from NATO, but the gossip in NATO—after all, it’s about their boss—is around Stoltenberg. I don’t think it’s a given that the secretary-general will depart when his term ends. There is also credible talk his tenure might be extended.” Perhaps speaking in favor of that scenario is the fact that the Norwegian central bank job is no longer available for Stoltenberg.

On a trip to Washington this week, Stoltenberg applauded U.S. leadership and said, “Unwavering American leadership and bipartisan support have ensured that NATO allies are united like never before.” That unity may not last, however, when it comes to choosing his successor.