The first Strategic Concept seminar took place in
Luxembourg on 16 October, under the chairmanship of The Honorable Madeleine K.
Albright, chair of the Group of Experts and Vice Chair Jeroen van der Veer. The
meeting was addressed by H.E. Jean Asselborn, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Luxembourg; H.E. Jean-Marie Halsdorf, Minister of Defence of Luxembourg; and
the Deputy Secretary General, Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero. All members of the
Group of Experts participated in the discussions.
Participants from government, non-governmental
organizations, think tanks and academic institutions presented a variety of
challenging and provocative ideas and held lively discussions to begin thinking
about the following broad themes:
NATO’s ENDURING PURPOSE IN A CHANGING SECURITY
ENVIRONMENT
The new security environment: NATO’s strategic
interests, what priorities and what vulnerabilities? NATO’s contribution to
global security. The aim was to reach a common understanding of major changes
in the security environment and the implications of these changes for NATO’s
essential purpose and contribution to the freedom and security of its members.
CORE TASKS OF THE ALLIANCE:
Collective defence in today’s security environment.
Article 5 credibility and changing requirements. Adapting deterrence to the 21st
century. The aim was to review the fundamental security missions of the
Alliance and assess what remains unchanged and what needs to be adapted. As
well as identifying what new tasks the Alliance still needs to address.
NATO’s POLITICAL ROLE:
Is NATO still the focal point for transatlantic
political consultation and policy formulation and coordination? Anticipation
and prevention: how to promote knowledge-based security within NATO? The aim
was to explore the scope and efficiency of political consultation in NATO.
PRIORITIES FOR A NATO STRATEGY IN THE 21st
CENTURY:
Three round tables discussed NATO’s level of ambition in
a constrained environment; hard and soft security – soft; and smart power and
prioritization of missions – prevent, deter, protect, fight.
The purpose of the seminar was to stimulate a lively
discussion and not to come to any conclusions at this point. Some of the
highlights of presentations and discussions among participants included the
following points, which the Experts Group will continue to discuss and explore
in the coming months.
NATO’s past successes have an enduring value: they made
war unthinkable among its member states; they provided a framework for
democratic consolidation in Europe; and ended East-West conflict on peaceful
terms through the path set by the Harmel report of pursuing defence and détente
in tandem. NATO is a collective defence arrangement involved in cooperative
security activities and a values-based political-military alliance.
NATO’s core purpose remains the defence of its members.
The most likely future threats to member states are hybrid and asymmetrical,
rather than classical armed attack. New capabilities are required for effective
defence against terrorist, long range missile, and cyber attacks. One urgent
task is to protect against a WMD attack by a non-state actor, which requires
steps to secure nuclear weapons, possible preventive actions to disrupt such
attacks, and an active counter-proliferation policy.
New transnational threats are only half the story,
however. Geopolitics is back. Article 5 remains at the core and strategic
reassurance of all members is important. In order to be out of area, NATO needs
to be in area; there is a need to preserve a strong link between Article 5 and
non-Article 5 tasks. Article 5 actions today would likely require deployable
forces, so there is no inherent tradeoff between preparing for force projection
and collective defence.
Other tasks are likely to include: stabilization of weak
and fragile states; prevention of genocide; strengthening governance and
stability along NATO’s periphery; mitigating the effects of natural or man-made
disasters; combating piracy; and safeguarding energy flows. To deal with these
challenges, the Alliance needs to develop partnerships and cooperative security
arrangements.
NATO’s focus has shifted from the protection of
territory to the protection of common strategic interests. Defence of these
interests in the future will be more reliant on naval power.
Other developments in the world, such as climate change,
are likely to be threat catalysts and NATO may be called upon to deal with
their security consequences. These could range from safeguarding sea lanes in
the High North to dealing with future conflicts or humanitarian disasters in
Africa.
Consultations on security under Article 4 of the
Washington Treaty remain a key principle and the very existence of this
mechanism makes conflict less likely, but Article 4 consultations are
underutilized. NATO needs a higher level of ambition for consultations. NATO
also needs an effective crisis management and conflict prevention mechanism.
Effective strategic reassurance under Article 5 requires
contingency plans and a tailor–made deterrence, which should reflect the more
complex strategic environment, be applicable out of area, be reinforced by the
resolve to act, involve more actors, and be integrated with political dialogue.
NATO must be ready to operate and reinforce deterrence in a proliferation
environment through missile defence and other capabilities.
Getting the issue of strategic reassurance right is key
for handling relations with Russia. Strategic reassurance of allies and
engagement of Russia on issues of mutual interest are complementary policies.
To achieve NATO’s fundamental tasks the following means
are required: effective partnerships with governmental and non-governmental
entities; a cooperative relationship with Russia; a better coordination of the
constituent elements of policies; a reallocation of resources by strengthening
non-military and drastically restructuring the military to make it more
deployable; and a better division of labour between NATO-EU.
Effective strategy will also require political will,
effective means, and clarity about goals. What makes NATO unique is its
integrated military structure, so there is a need to avoid a renationalization
of defence policies in the context of the economic crisis.
Afghanistan is a critical test for the Alliance.
However, there is more to Afghanistan than NATO, and NATO is more than
Afghanistan. Even if NATO does everything right, Afghanistan could remain
unstable due to weak governance and the shortcomings of other actors and
neighbouring states. This underscores the importance of the comprehensive
approach and effective partnerships. Allies face an array of other security
challenges that NATO must also be prepared to address.
The new Strategic Concept needs to clarify NATO’s
identity – what NATO is about; NATO’s effectiveness – how it does things; and
NATO’s legitimacy. It should address the following issues:
·the balance between military and security activities;
·the identification of threats, taking into account that a strict
focus on unconventional threats will not reflect the preeminent concerns of all
allies;
·NATO as an Alliance of values – the re-emergence of the West as a
political category;
·how to deal with uncertainty about Russia;
·Article 5 should be seen not just a military issue, but one of
mindset – how credible is the Alliance solidarity; and
·nuclear weapons – the 1999 Strategic Concept had a very clear
articulation of the role of nuclear weapons in deterrence, but it will need to
be reviewed in the context nuclear policy changes.
·ultimately it must be understood by our democratic publics.