Report

INTRODUCTION

The Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association has the honour to present its report on its participation in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s (NATO PA) Spring Session in Tirana, Albania, from May 26 to 30, 2016. The delegation was led by the Honourable Joseph Day, Senator and included Honourable Senators Raynell Andreychuk, Jane Cordy and Michel Rivard. The delegation was accompanied by Jean-François Pagé, Association Secretary. The Spring Session was hosted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Albania and chaired by the NATO PA President, Michael Turner, Member of the United States House of Representatives. The session brought together close to 300 parliamentarians from NATO member countries, as well as delegates representing associate countries from North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

The NATO PA is an inter-parliamentary organization of legislators from the national parliaments of the 28 member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, as well as 14 associate member countries. It is institutionally separate and independent from the official NATO structure but serves as a liaison for NATO and member parliaments.[1] The Assembly strengthens parliamentary awareness and understanding of key security issues and provides greater transparency of NATO policies. Crucially, it also helps to deepen the transatlantic relationship which underpins the Alliance. Canadian parliamentarians draw significant benefit from their participation in NATO PA events. In addition to gaining a better understanding of strategic issues facing both the Alliance and Canada, Canadian delegates are presented with the opportunity to promote Canadian interests and values in the course of discussions throughout the NATO PA, its committees and during informal meetings with counterparts from NATO member and non-member states.

Consideration of the draft general report “Enhancing Euro-Atlantic Counter-terrorism Capabilities and Cooperation” by Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam (France), General Rapporteur

Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam began by stating that in the past, Daesh relied on lone wolves to organise attacks against Western societies. But today, Daesh is putting more efforts into training, equipment and terrorist coordination. Daesh has taken over Al-Qaeda’s global agenda while maintaining a more robust organisational pyramid. It is more efficient, has a greater online presence, and a more robust financial base. Therefore, the risk that Daesh or related groups will stage new large scale attacks against the Western societies has to be taken seriously.

Ms. Garriaud-Maylam noted that in general, the trend in the Euro-Atlantic community is to increase the powers of law enforcement agencies, reinforce border controls, step up electronic surveillance, and increase military assistance and actions in African and Asian countries. However, the recent attacks on the European capitals have revealed gaps in the European security and intelligence cooperation. National or bilateral efforts are no longer sufficient enough to combat cross-border terrorist networks which operate throughout the European Union. Therefore, a multinational approach is needed to tackle this issue. Although multiple mechanisms have been put in place on the European level to counter terrorism, these instruments are under-resourced and underused. In order to effectively combat terrorism, the Euro-Atlantic community needs to ensure that there is mutual trust and political will to use these instruments.

Ms. Garriaud-Maylam concluded with a call for action. She stated that the parliamentarians need to pressure their governments and national intelligence services to cooperate more closely with their counterparts. At the same time parliamentarians need to ensure that when fighting terrorism, there is a clear and established balance between preserving personal freedom and establishing security. This requires a democratic oversight, which would enable partners to build trust and share information more effectively. Although the Euro-Atlantic community cannot completely eradicate terrorism, it can bring the threat level down by acting together to change the practices and to disrupt terrorist networks.

Consideration of the draft general report “The Western Balkans: European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Challenges” by Ulla Schmidt (Germany), Special Rapporteur

Ulla Schmidt opened her presentation by thanking Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia for organising an outstanding visit in March 2016. The information received during this visit was integrated in the draft report. She then spoke about the developments in the region. Over the past 20 years, the Western Balkans has gone through enormous changes in order to become an area of prosperity. One of the most remarkable achievements is the establishment of the zone of security, which has so far prevented new armed conflicts from escalating. Parts of the Western Balkans, including Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, and recently Montenegro, have progressed in their integration towards the Euro-Atlantic community. However, challenges which pose a threat to the stability of the region still exist.

Ms. Schmidt expressed concern about the negative developments in some parts of the Western Balkans, especially in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, ethnic tensions continue to hinder the country’s progress. The Special Rapporteur argued that the Alliance should reconsider its policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Namely, NATO should review whether all conditions that were set regarding activating membership plan can be maintained. In regards to Belgrade and Pristina, the current arrangements under the April 2013 Brussels agreement provide a good basis for making progress on the EU integration path, but the ultimate membership will not be possible, until Belgrade and Pristina resolve the issue of the status of Kosovo or at least achieve a much higher level of normalisation of relations. The Rapporteur also stressed that the lack of clear membership perspective for some of the Balkan countries should not be used as an excuse to sabotage European reforms, tolerate corruption and neglect socio-economic needs for the people.

Alongside the issues of ethnic tensions, the membership status and the slow pace of reforms and the insufficient or distorted public knowledge of the Euro-Atlantic community are other aspects affecting the integration process. The Euro-Atlantic community needs to do more in order to explain what NATO stands for and what its actions are. Sensitive issues such as the 1999 military campaign in Serbia have to be addressed, in order to make it clear that NATO exists to secure peace and not to distort it. The Special Rapporteur stressed that Serbia is not lured to join the Alliance – rather it is free to choose its own security and defence path.

Ms. Schmidt closed her presentation by addressing the effect of the migrant crisis on the Western Balkans. Out of 1.3 million people applying for asylum in the EU, more than half travelled through the Western Balkan route from Greece to Europe. Although this route has been closed at the present, there are still many people in the Balkans. It is a duty of the Euro-Atlantic community to help the Balkan nations to provide for these people. She stressed that this humanitarian crisis is also an opportunity for the Balkan nations to enhance their regional cooperation.

Presentation by Dr. Enri Hide, Lecturer of International Relations, Security and Geopolitics, European University of Tirana

Dr. Enri Hide noted that over the past years, the Western Balkans’ aspiration to integrate into NATO or the European Union has managed to avert the perspectives of conflict within or among the countries of the region. However, peace and stability should not be taken for granted. Corruption, lack of reforms, political instability and even unemployment has posed challenges to the region’s security and stability. In addition, there is a rise of new threats, including religious radicalisation and extremism.

Dr. Hide proceeded to speak about the developments and challenges facing individual countries in the Western Balkans. In the case of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, political instability, corruption and deep political division prevails. Furthermore, the rights of minority groups, in particular Albanians, are curbed, he said. The future of this country is critical for the geopolitical stability of the region. In this stage of instability, NATO needs to keep its open door policy in relations to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the other hand, Montenegro has been invited to join the Alliance. This is an important step towards the Euro-Atlantic integration of the whole region. However, the integration has also triggered debates regarding Russia and its response to enlargement decisions.

In regards to Kosovo, its status continues to have an effect on the integration processes of both Serbia and Kosovo. The establishment of the Association of Serb Municipalities, which would grant Serb minority group in Kosovo greater rights than any other minorities groups, has been the latest point of tensions between Pristina and Belgrade. Meanwhile, Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to struggle with intensive ethnic tensions baring dangerous regional impact.

Dr. Hide outlined new challenges confronting the region. First, radicalisation and violent extremism constitute a potential threat. The number of foreign fighters originating from the Western Balkans has reached its peak in 2014. Currently, governments are concerned over returnees spreading extremist ideologies at home. NATO needs to adapt to this growing threat, boosting its intelligence sharing throughout Europe, Dr. Hide said. In the case of Albania, while it is known for its religious harmony, it should be monitored. The second growing threat is Russia’s interest in the future of the region which has intensified over the past few years, especially in the field of energy.

Dr. Hide spoke in depth about Albania’s development over the past few years. Albania has been actively promoting peace and stability in the region before and after it has joined the Alliance. Albania has been an active member in the global fight against terror, contributing troops to the United Nations and the Alliance whenever asked for support. Nevertheless, as a member of the Alliance, Albania needs to balance its foreign policy and move towards improving relations with its neighbours, including Serbia. Furthermore, it has to demonstrate its commitment to the NATO’s standards by implementing reforms in order to build solid route for the future democracy of the country. In this respect, the slow pace of reforms, particularly in the field of the rule of law, has negatively impacted and slowed Albania’s integration to the European Union.

Presentation by Dr. Ilir Kalemaj, Director of the International Relations Master Program, University of New York Tirana, on “Instability in Libya: Implications for the MENA Region and Beyond,” followed by a discussion

Dr. Kalemaj noted that since the overthrow of Gadhafi in 2011, the security situation in Libya has significantly deteriorated. The power vacuum and clashes between political elites pose threats to the stability and security of Libya and the region as a whole. In an attempt to create a Libyan unity government, the UN has tried to broker a treaty between the two rival parliaments; however, it has not been successful so far. As a result of the power vacuum, the oil-rich country which was once considered as the most promising is now facing a grave financial crisis.

The turmoil in the country has enabled Daesh to gain a foothold in the east, the south and the west. The Daesh enclave around the city of Sirte is providing a safe haven for jihadists to train, fund and plan attacks in the Mediterranean. Other main Islamists groups control strategic points, including Tripoli (controlled by the Libya Dawn) and Benghazi (controlled by Ansar al-Sharia). On the other side, the Libyan National Army led by General Khalifa is fighting Islamist militias.

Dr. Kalemaj outlined external and internal challenges confronting Libya. The country was compared to an arms and human trafficking “bazaar”. The economic situation is threatened by Daesh’s attack on oil facilities in the country. In response to the growing security threat, Tunisia is building a border security barrier along its borders with Libya. According to the Tunisian foreign affairs minister, the economic situation in Tunisia is precarious and therefore cannot cope with the refugees from Libya. The war and instability in Libya has displaced 400,000, with people moving northward.

Overall the situation in Libya is significantly deteriorating, resembling Somalia in the 1990s, with an economy in shatters and militant fractions disunited in their aim. The country has the highest youth unemployment in the MENA region, with a lack of the middle class. The new threat of the refugee crisis poses an additional burden on Libya’s economy. An estimated 87% of refugees travel from Turkey and Greece, many of whom travelled through the Western Balkans. Now that this route has been largely closed, a potential future route could be through Libya. This represents high security risks as terrorist could disguise themselves as refugees.

Presentation by Milva Ikonomi, Minister of Economic Development, Tourism and Trade of the Republic of Albania, on “The Economic Situation in Albania and in the broader Western Balkans”

Milva Ikonomi considers NATO to provide a crucial guarantee of security, including economic security, to its members. Moreover, through NATO, Albania, a country that for decades was utterly isolated from global affairs, has been able to contribute to regional and global security. Regional cooperation has provided an essential vehicle for turning the Balkan region into an attractive and competitive market. In this context, Albania has been able to shift from a remittances-dependent economy to a more competitive and innovative one. A series of structural economic reforms have stabilised the country - a judgement shared by both the IMF and the World Bank, and confirmed by the recent high GDP, private consumption and investment growth. There are still structural problems to overcome. Even though many new businesses have registered in Albania, the overall number remains low. The government has therefore prioritised improvement of business climate, together with maintaining political stability, reducing bureaucracy, pursuing judicial reform, and combatting pollution. Despite the fact that over a 100,000 people escaped poverty in 2015, the level of poverty remains too high. The accession of the Balkan countries to the EU must be accompanied by security integration and regional cooperation in various fields, including energy, transport and business. Regional business clusters, for example, provide an important means to facilitate deeper regional integration.

Presentation by Jean-Christophe Dumont, Head of International Migration Division, OECD, on “The Economic Dimension of the Migration Crisis”

The global numbers on migration remain uncertain and so policymakers are compelled to work with estimates. Regardless, the figures are clearly historically high. Outside of Europe, there are an estimated 2.7 million refugees in Turkey, over 1 million in Lebanon, and 0.7 million in Jordan. As many as 7 million have left Syria and millions of others remain internally displaced. Following the recent EU-Turkey deal, the number of Mediterranean crossings has sharply decreased. Surprisingly, women and children make up well over 50% of the people fleeing to Europe.

Syria is certainly not the only source of refugees. Even when Afghanistan and Iraq are added, people from the three countries still represent only 67% of the total asylum-seekers in Europe. EU countries have been disproportionately affected, with Sweden, Austria and Germany being the most exposed. Overall, the 2015 inflow represents only 0.3% of the total EU population. But solidarity and coordination crises, in Europe and globally, have aggravated the problem.

The most affected EU countries will bear significant economic costs related to migration; Germany projects additional public spending worth 0.5% of GDP, Austria 0.3%, and Turkey 0.8%. In the short-run, this additional public spending will likely act as a demand stimulus. Importantly, only a small proportion of migrants will be offered refugee status and hence be able to enter the labour market (around 700,000 in the whole European Economic Area (EEA) by the end of 2016). Many of these refugees will need time to develop skills needed to enter the EEA labour market.

Multidimensional burden sharing among all stakeholders over time is essential – on the national and local levels. Countries need to undertake a range of measures to better integrate migrants into the labour market. It has taken too long to educate and prepare migrants for life in the West. Integration needs to be approached as an investment for future economic growth.

The soaring number of unaccompanied minors arriving in Europe is alarming, and more needs to be done to address the root causes of this phenomenon. Governments should also adopt policies focused on assisting particularly vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, women with children, and those lacking basic education. Integration offers should be matched with settlement prospects and needs.

Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Transition and Development on “The Corruption-Security Nexus” by Richard Benyon (United Kingdom), Rapporteur

Corruption and security are inextricably linked. Both petty corruption and systematic corruption undermine the state, making fighting corruption harder still. Erosion of public confidence in the state, combined with government failure, pose serious security threats and hinder economic progress and development, not least because of suppression of innovation, discouragement of investment, and outflow of human capital.

Corruption has also been used as a tool of statecraft – as demonstrated by Russia’s efforts to undermine societies on its borders. Russia exploited its leverage over the energy sector in this manner. Ukraine has also suffered from corruption. The corruption problem continues to undermine Ukraine’s democratic and economic transition despite several government successes to counter the problem.

In the Middle East, popular discontent with corrupt leaders was at the heart of protests that erupted in the spring of 2011. Massive corruption, high youth unemployment, the lack of control systems, tax evasion, media restrictions and a weak judiciary, have all slowed progress throughout the region. National defense establishments have also been weakened by endemic corruption. International organisations such as the EU, NATO, the UN, the OECD and others have run programs to help address these problems. Civil societies play a critical role in fighting corruption, as do journalists exposing corrupt practices.

Greater efforts are needed to ensure that western financial institutions and commercial concerns are actively blocking laundering of revenues generated through corrupt practices. This requires tightening up legislation and ensuring that anti-corruption laws are fully implemented. Helping to bolster salaries for the police and public administrators can build an esprit de corps in the ranks of public administration and lower the temptation to engage in corruption. Providing support for strong public accounting and auditing agencies should also reduce opportunities for abuse and help instill much needed confidence in public institutions. Deregulation represents a highly effective weapon against corruption.

Eliminating consumer subsidies and replacing them with cash transfers to the most needy can save countries billions of dollars and reduce opportunities for corruption. Of course, good police work is essential to fighting corruption and imbuing the state with legitimacy in the public’s eyes. Western police forces with strong anti-corruption credentials should partner up with countries seeking to reform their police forces. Anti-corruption units in these forces can help monitor police activities. Georgia is a country that has made great strides on this front. Governments should close loopholes to make foreign financing of political parties illegal or subject to full public disclosure.

It is important to build on the body of international law dedicated to the fight against corruption. International support for those dedicated to transparency and accountability should remain a priority for Western democracies. The NATO PA needs to do more work on the fight against corruption with partner countries both to the east and to the south. Sharing lessons on fighting corruption in the defence sector and in public administration more generally should remain a priority area, for example, in the Rose-Roth program and other Assembly parliamentary training programs.

Presentation by Mimi Kodheli, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Albania, on “National and Transnational Security Challenges in the Current Security Environment”

Mimi Kodheli opened her presentation by highlighting the importance of NATO as a community of core, unifying values. She remarked that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in particular is emblematic of the democratic values undergirding the Alliance.

Ms. Kodheli noted that two years had passed since Russia’s annexation of Crimea and initial intervention in Ukraine. In the same period, she continued, the post-Arab Spring violence continued to grow and further destabilise the Middle East. Daesh and other terrorist groups, fuelled by foreign fighters, are now a constant threat to all NATO member states and their partners. The attacks in Ankara, Paris, and Brussels are a clear demonstration of the growing dangers of terrorism for all states. She reminded the assembled delegates of the dangers posed to the Alliance’s collective capabilities after a protracted period of cuts in defence spending and investment; such trends must be reversed. In the face of the diverse challenges they are facing today, the principal manifestations of the Euro-Atlantic project – the EU and NATO – must persevere; no matter what differing perceptions of threat may be throughout the institutions.

Minister Kodheli noted that some regions are unable to handle the challenges of the 21st century security environment alone; the Balkan region being one of them. Hobbled by continued economic challenges, she stressed, the need for stronger unity is clearer than ever today in the Balkans. This is a central reason why Albania welcomed Montenegro’s accession into NATO membership; it would further regional stability and consolidation. Albania, she continued, needs a constructive partnership with Kosovo as well.

Ms. Kodhelli said that Albania has been consistent in financing defence spending and in its contributions to NATO; noting that this year Albania would increase its contributions to Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. At the same time, she said Albania would maintain its current levels of support to the Kosovo Security Forces. Albania is also working with the train, advise, and assist missions to Georgia and Ukraine. In addition, Albania will create a NATO Centre of Excellence to counteract the foreign fighter phenomenon regionally.

Consideration of the Draft General Report “New Defence Imperatives: The Implementation of Wales Pledges and Prospects for Warsaw” by the Hon. Joseph A. Day, General Rapporteur

Senator Day began the presentation of his draft report by noting the difficult security context in which the Alliance currently finds itself with the dual challenges to the east and south. The pledges made at the 2014 Wales Summit, he noted, were made in a security environment perhaps less complex than the one NATO is in in the run-up to Warsaw. The committee’s general report, he notes, seeks to note the progress of the implementation of the principal outcomes of the Wales Summit (the Readiness Action Plan - RAP - and the Defence Spending Pledge) and the adjustments that may need to be made at Warsaw.

Senator Day pointed out that the evolution of the European security environment between Wales and Warsaw makes clear that more investments are still needed and even closer collaboration. For effective deterrence on the eastern flank, the RAP should be more robust with the installation of more heavy equipment in the region and a permanently rotating presence of Allied forces in the region. This stronger posture would allow for a position of strength, which must be the sine qua non for reengagement with Moscow at any level.

Senator Day noted that the efforts by the United States to quadruple its pledged European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) funding were a clear sign of the continued US commitment to the security of all Alliance members. He noted that increased ERI funding will be used for new equipment, the increased rotational presence of US forces (including the provision of a new brigade in Europe), increased exercising, and support to Allies and partners threatened by potential Russian aggression.

Senator Day remarked that such an initiative by the United States could be seen as a call for a parallel United States Reassurance Initiative on the part of the Europeans. He noted that the trend of declining defence spending, particularly by European member states, seemed to be stopping. While this is positive, he said, reversing the trend and engaging in significant defence investment to reach the goals of the Defence Spending Pledge will be the most important indicator of the health of the Alliance going forward.

Senator Day noted that his draft report also mentions the developments of the Russian military as a means of demonstrating the efforts being made by Moscow to change the balance of forces and wills in the European security environment. Such robust levels of investment, coupled with more aggressive behaviour in the international arena, he noted, should serve as a reminder of the drivers for NATO to build a stronger deterrence posture in Europe. Senator Day drove home the idea of constructing a solid defence for all Allies in NATO’s eastern territories as a goal of the Warsaw Summit. He continued by noting the need to build a comprehensive framework for security in NATO’s southern neighbourhood – something that would depend on continued investment in partner development at all levels. Senator Day concluded by stating that continued strength and solidarity remains the only answer to NATO’s security challenges of today and tomorrow.

Delegates complimented Senator Day on his draft report. A Dutch delegate stated that Warsaw was perhaps the most important summit since 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell and the general feeling was that perhaps the model of collective defence presented by NATO was no longer needed. Given today’s reality, he continued, this is clearly not the case. The delegate suggested that the report might need more indicators than the 2% GDP benchmark for defence spending; such a measure he noted often does not tell the whole story.

A Lithuanian delegate pointed out that the sections on Russia’s anti-access, area denial (A2/AD) capabilities should be studied, as they indicate the changing security reality in many areas of the Alliance. A UK delegate stressed that deterrence is both conventional and nuclear, noting that he supports the discussion of nuclear deterrence in the report. The delegate continued by asking the Rapporteur whether the report could add more on this evolving dynamic, given the mention it will likely receive at the summit. Senator Day agreed with both comments and noted he would be sure to look into including more about nuclear deterrence in the wake of the Summit.

An Estonian delegate complimented Senator Day on the quality of the report and added that he would like to see more efforts on the part of European states, and not only the United States, to invest in their defence institutions. He corrected some of Senator Day’s estimates about the Baltic States’ abilities to muster forces in the event of a Russian offensive; noting Estonia alone can field a force of approximately 21,000 in an emergency. The delegate also highlighted the importance of unity and collective action.

A UK delegate stated that Russia maintains nuclear power with a first use policy, noting that NATO should be realistic about this when debating the issue at the Summit in Warsaw. Finally, a Dutch delegate admitted that he is afraid that permanent rotation might bring unwanted escalation, hence we should make more efforts to reboot dialogue with Russia, in order to avoid unnecessary incidents.

Presentation by Prof. Dr. Rexhep Meidani, Member of the Academy of Sciences, Former President of the Republic of Albania, on “Russia and the Western Balkans”

Offering a comprehensive presentation on Russia’s influence in the Western Balkans, Professor Meidani suggested that Russian Foreign Policy in the Balkans is largely founded on “soft power” and economic interaction. According to him “soft power” components include reference to Pan-Slavism - as a renewed doctrine for common identity and integrity of different Slavic peoples through language, education and religion. Moscow would also exploit its leverage over Balkan countries in fields such as energy, infrastructure and tourism to increase its influence. It would not shy away from advancing its interests through corruption and bribes if necessary, he posited.

While Serbia and Bulgaria have always been central to Russian foreign policy, due to their geographic position, cultural ties and Christian orthodox orientation, Russia’s policy towards the Balkans evolved significantly after the post-communist transition, the speaker noted. During the term of President Boris Yeltsin, Moscow maintained a delicate balance between using its leverage over Balkan countries and maintaining good relations with the West. Under President Vladimir Putin, the Balkans again became a focus of Russian foreign policy. By offering incentives, e.g., via loans, energy projects, trade and other investments, Russia increased its engagement with the region, thereby also trying to delay the integration of the Western Balkans into the EU. However, the economic situation in Russia and the weak rouble limit its ability to compete with the EU at regional level, Professor Meidani concluded.

In the ensuing discussion members inquired whether EU member states remain unified in their approach to Russia, particularly with regard to continuing the sanctions as long as Russia will not change its attitude to Ukraine, and whether it has a comprehensive, and consistent, strategy. Concerning the sanctions regime imposed upon the country following its annexation of Crimea, the speaker suggested that recent statements by Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who had commented that the sanctions were not productive, were unfortunate and detrimental to European unity. Professor Meidani said he did not think the time was right to lift sanctions nor to invite Russia back into the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. However, NATO and the EU could consider thinking about an “exit strategy” from the contentious relationship with Russia. Members acknowledged that the continuation of sanctions and the reinforcement of military deterrence are essential, but also called for more efforts to establish a dialogue of substance with Russian authorities.

Presentation and panel discussion on “Strengthening Deterrence, Promoting Arms Control in Europe” by Elbridge A. Colby, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, and Lukasz Kulesa, Research Director, European Leadership Network

Lukasz Kulesa, Research Director at the European Leadership Network, took the floor first in this panel debate on Strengthening Deterrence, Promoting Arms Control in Europe. He started out by stating that the confrontational situation with Russia was the new normal, rather than a passing situation. Hence, NATO needed to focus on deterring Russia in the short-term, but on arms control in the longer term. Reinvigorated and updated arms control agreements could help the Alliance achieve its goals vis-à-vis Russia.

Historically, arms control mechanisms had facilitated transparency and regulated strategic stability. However, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) and the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE), which were the key elements of the arms control regime, had been damaged by recent Russian actions, Mr. Kulesa argued. Therefore, arms control needed to be reinvented with the aim of better management of relations with Russia. This would help minimise the risk of escalation, miscalculation, and surprise. Three objectives were crucial: first, to lower the possibility of a major war; second, to lower the cost of confrontation; and third, to stabilise the relationship.

By demonstrating a will to work on arms control, the Alliance could signal its desire to regulate tension and also test Russia’s reactions. At the moment, Russia showed little interest in arms control efforts, but this might change after the conclusion of NATO’s Warsaw Summit, when Moscow might seek de-escalation, savings on military spending, and an increase in prestige.

There were many particularly useful elements of the existing regime that should be developed further and, where needed, modified, Mr. Kulesa underlined. This included the INF, the Open Skies Treaty, restraint on non-strategic nuclear weapons, and measures to avoid unintended escalation, agreements on missile defence, the Vienna Document, and regional arms control regimes.

New measures could include increasing predictability and more notifications of military exercises. Discussions on military doctrines should be held to clarify terms and strategic thinking as well. Forward military deployment should be restricted to prevent escalation and avoid risks of dangerous military engagements. Bilateral agreements should also be updated and new ones concluded.

Elbridge A. Colby, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for New American Security, delivered complementary remarks. The main military challenge to NATO was posed by Russia, Mr. Colby said. It identified the Alliance as a threat and had demonstrated a willingness to use force. Rather than conquering NATO territory, Moscow might be interested in debilitating the Alliance by undermining its credibility and thus its value. If NATO denied Moscow plausible ways to achieve these aims, the risk of a confrontation would be significantly mitigated. Despite Russia’s strength, it was weak compared to NATO. However, the Kremlin could leverage NATO’s potential lack of willpower through brinkmanship, including nuclear brinkmanship.

Hybrid warfare tactics might be used to exploit vulnerabilities, including in the Baltics region. Simultaneously, Moscow could use its significant conventional forces to conquer certain parts of NATO territory. Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities, tanks, and other equipment made it a formidable military power. In NATO’s east, Russian forces would face little opposition and could rapidly advance and use its developed so-called Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities to block NATO. NATO would need to deploy large forces, relying on US assets, to recover lost territory. However, unity and political will for such an action from NATO’s side were unclear, Mr. Colby argued. Moscow could be tempted to use nuclear forces in order to terminate the conflict before NATO could introduce its superior conventional forces. However unlikely, this scenario could not be ruled out, Mr. Colby said.

To deter Russia from attacking NATO, the Alliance needed to close down opportunities and demonstrate the futility of any hostile action towards NATO, Mr. Colby argued. The potential costs of adversarial actions had to be increased to make potential gains unattractive. Force deployment could signal unity and willingness to rapidly face Russia in case of a conflict. A so-called tripwire force, however, would not be efficient as it allowed Moscow to militarily and politically manoeuvre around it. Instead, a robust defence posture in the East was essential to compel Russia and shift the burden of escalation to Moscow. This required sufficient conventional forces which would force Moscow into confrontation should it decide to attack.

Mr. Colby concluded his presentation with a number of concrete suggestions. First, NATO needed to commit to a more robust defence posture in the East, ideally comprised of several multi-national mechanised brigade combat teams, reinforced by heavier forces in the rear that were rapidly deployable to the frontline. Surge forces capable of degrading a Russian offensive needed to be made available as well. The Alliance also needed to have nuclear forces ready and usable for credible deterrence. Arms control was desirable if it increased the Alliance’s security. Deterrence should be strengthened while arms control agreements were being negotiated. Baltic deployments should be demonstratively defensive and Russia could be invited to observe the deployments. A failure to adopt such a posture might undermine the collective defence commitment. Leaving vulnerabilities could invite Russia’s revisionism.

Delegates inquired about the perspectives for arms control agreements with Russia, expressed concerns about NATO Allies’ security, and questioned whether such deals are needed. Mr. Kulesa reminded delegates that the Ukrainian conflict had demonstrated that conventional capabilities still matter – and hence should be regulated by arms control agreements. He emphasised that arms control should focus not only on systems, but also on materials.

Parliamentarians were interested in the nature and immediacy of the threat posed to NATO by Russia, particularly in the Baltic Sea region. They asked whether a position of weakness or strength could better prevent a Russian aggression. Mr. Colby underlined that Russia could be tempted by signs of lack of unity and cohesion in NATO and the EU. Therefore, the most important work needed to be done internally. Lack of clarity in statements, and not backing statements by actions, also could tempt Russia. At the Bucharest Summit, statements on Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership revealed the lack of unity and inspired Russia’s military action against Georgia, he argued.

Respectfully submitted,


Hon. Joseph Day, Senator for:

Mr. Jean Rioux, M.P.
Chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association