Despite Robert Gates' "two-tier" wake-up call, NATO is a budgetary one-tired alliance of broke states. However, all 28 Allies with highly strained resources share the need to tackle the new geopolitical environment. The US is likely to turn inwards and towards Asia, whereas the EU will never make its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) work. But turning inwards accompanied by a steady look to Asia will not be enough to handle the four global commons (air, space, sea and cyberspace) and the security of resources in times of enormous geopolitical shifts. China will not wait until all NATO allies have saved their budgets. Thus, it is time for the transatlantic partners to focus together on common strategic interests.
Even if Mr. Gates is partially right to highlight the `collective military irrelevance´of Europe, the ongoing struggle for the control of the global commons and resources will, in the end, not be decided by the number of aircraft carriers, boots on the ground or ammunition supplies. Yet this will be the most important struggle of the 21st century. Instead, as geopolitical weights shift, the US and Europe are not capable of acting politically the way they want to on all global commons and the resource questions. Look at China´s or India´s activities in Africa, Russia´s status in energy security or at China´s and Russia´s role in space and cyberspace; all without the means that Mr. Gates considers relevant. And precisely because of constrained budgets, the transatlantic partners have to work together if they want to protect their common interests.
When NATO tackles the global commons, it needs to seek partners worldwide. Beyond the Partnership for Peace (PfP), Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) , the alliance only has worldwide partnerships with the `Contact Countries´ Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. But the PfP, MD and ICI are no more than military dialogue programs; although quite valuable ones as the Libya crisis has shown. However, what NATO needs to pursue its interests is strategic partnerships rather than such activities. All allies like the Contact Countries share the interests of freedom of movement in the air and on the seas, a secure cyberspace and the prevention of the militarization of space. Furthermore, these 32 states most importantly share the pillar of democracy. All share a desire not only to keep this pillar stable but also to spread it to other countries; even if there are some differences over 'how' this should be achieved.
The rise of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) represents a new global block. But it is not in the interests of the transatlantic partners that the democracies of India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) align too closely with Russia and China in particular. Given the rivalry between China and India alone, BRICS will never become a military block. So why does a military alliance like NATO have a role to play in this great game? IBSA is pushing for military cooperation, for example through joint naval exercises. And especially on the seas, but also in space, cyberspace and for the security of resources, IBSA, NATO and the Contact Countries share, based on a common democratic pillar, the interests of secure sea and communication lanes, the prevention of cyberwar and the peaceful use of space and cyberspace. Because they are free market economies, none of these countries are interested in resource conflicts.
Intensified cooperation with IBSA and the Contact Countries is quite an ambitious project. Moreover, due to inner-alliance differences, other states reactions, e.g. China or Russia, and reservations within the seven desired partner countries a trilateral NATO-Contact Countries-IBSA cooperation is unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, due to its common pillar and common interests, NATO should not dismiss starting on this track. As such, first step cooperation and dialogue with Contact Countries on all global commons, especially sea lanes and cyberspace, must be intensified. Secondly, NATO should seek to reach out to IBSA by starting with low level dialogue that can be pushed and intensified over the next years. Moreover, with the NATO-India dialogue and joint NATO-South Africa naval exercises, there is already a basis to start from. Later on, based on longer cooperation and identified common interests, Contact Countries and IBSA could be brought on the same NATO table to discuss the global commons.
There has been significant criticism of NATO´s partnership activities. It is indeed true that over 1,400 means for cooperation make for an impervious jungle. NATO therefore needs a more streamlined partnership structure. Nonetheless, as the Libya crisis has shown, criticism of NATO for seeking partnerships with countries it has no direct dealings with is wrong. Before the Arab Spring and Libya, very few people valued the MD and ICI. Now, many people should be happy to have established contacts and cooperation with these countries.
Future crisis are likely to be related to the global commons. But the more the broke transatlantic partners 'two-tier', the less they will be able to pursue their interests in a multipolar world. Instead, NATO must adapt its partnership policy to a further multi-polarizing world. The alternative is the looming collective irrelevance of the alliance´s strategic interests on the 21st century horizon.
Felix F. Seidler graduated with an M.A. in political science from Würzburg University and blogs about security policy at Seidlers Sicherheitspolitik.
- 8
July 3, 2011
Hans Reuther-Fix
Congratulations on your well written report.
When you propose IBSA, NATO and Contact Countries, such as Australia,
to seek partnerships, which could materialize in NATO-India, as well as
NATO- South Africa naval exercises with the intention to put a wedge between
Russia, China and now IBSA, NATO and Australia, for example, or simply
marginalize BRISC, you seem to elevate NATO to bogeyman practitioner.
Yes, there is a need for controlling and protecting and not exploiting global commons and resources, as you say it, but let me put this into perspective:
The commons are actually resources that are collectively owned and shared between or among populations. Part of the commons are, let me say "life commons" e.g. the human
genome or rather the quality of Human Capital.
It would mean sharing responsibility, accountability, etc. within the scope of our values, such as freedom and liberty.
But like Greek history teaches, the freedom as an individual has its differences when compared to an individual living within a society, multi-polar or otherwise....
But this is what it is all about, competitive cooperation and not wasteful confrontation.
Recently a Chinese submarine penetrated one of a US aircraft carrier battle group
without being noticed. In addition India and Russia are developing super torpedoes (speed ), which are marginalizing US naval superiority.
These are the battle groups parading up and down the China Sea and the Indian Ocean.
And on the other side of the globe we are resorting to hunting people from
unmanned aircraft.
But before bullets and missiles are flying, they need to be manufactured and paid for.
You are right, we are living in times of enormous shifts.
A economic Ponzi mentality," the belief in non existing reality combined with the old fool theory", combined with integrated recessions, not only created a unseen polarization of capital, but also Bank Holding Groups, which almost questions the value of a country's
sovereignty.
It is now not only about the poverty of people, but also the level of deficit of sovereign countries.
And with the excess liquidity floating around, it is now a question of for how much a
country can be acquired for, no need for military.
With that however military objectives will be more focused and sophisticated, especially as it is becoming trendy, as to how much one can steal through cyberspace.
Finally, as Thomas Jefferson suggested in 1802, when banking holdings arrive to control
currencies through inflation and deflation they will become more dangerous to our liberty
( our values ) than standing armies. The time will then come, when the children will not be able to sleep on the land their fathers once conquered.-------
How does NATO fit into all this.
HRF