RSS

 

For more than half a century, NATO has been the source of stability for the alliance of liberal democracies. Bound by the collective defense commitment outlined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Alliance endured through an increasingly uncertain and unpredictable world. Regardless of how successfully NATO steered through the post-Cold War security environment, the argument that NATO needs to have its role readdressed and restated in a new Strategic Concept has prevailed.

The expansion of the alliance brought in new threat perceptions; events of 9/11 shifted attention toward Islamic terrorism, asymmetric threats, counterinsurgency warfare and failing states. Differing threat perceptions and differing stances over NATO's global role (particularly the debate over Afghanistan) in the United States and Europe have become new topics on NATO's agenda.

The argument that prevails in the NATO 2020 report, developed by a NATO group of experts, asserts that the Alliance should maintain its core missions. Additionally, the report articulates an ideal role for the Alliance, which assumes a synergy of territorial defense and the promotion of stability and security outside of NATO's traditional realm of influence.

However, what is absent from the report is a clear prioritization of what NATO will do in the next 10 years. In the field I know best, resource management; prioritization plays a great role, especially when dealing with scarce resources and financial constraints. As the NATO 2020 findings outline the leading issues for the new Strategic Concept, the world wide economic crisis continues to adversely impact the willingness and ability of members to meet previously agreed upon commitments, much less entertain any thought for increased financial contributions.

Therefore, while developing its future missions, the debate over financing and prioritizing when picking battles should be concurrently considered. This unfortunate situation can have lasting damage for the Alliance's assumed missions and operations. Unless mechanisms are established and adopted to increase contributions for collective security and to undersign such missions and operations with appropriate funding, this will be the greatest challenge to the transatlantic partnership in the future.

The lack of defense spending on the European continent has dominated NATO's agenda for over a decade now. Due to the discrepancy in spending, the Americans have many times called upon their European allies to maintain their defense spending to the agreed threshold of 2 per cent of their GDP, but to no avail.

In this period of financial and economic crisis, budget realities add additional pressure to the continuous downward trend of defense spending. As available funding decreases, equipment upgrades and force modernization continue to be the largest drain on resources; which leads to diminished capacities and reduced interoperability over the long term.

Unless burden sharing is adequately addressed and resolved, the countries providing the greater contributions may well demand greater influence based on their higher contributions. Should that be the case, the primary security challenge for the Alliance will derive from within its own backyard and create divisions within NATO.

Finally, an absence of clear prioritization and substantial and committed funding by allies could undermine the Alliance's credibility, the cornerstone of the West's defense for more than half a century. In that case, regardless of what the Security Concept states, NATO's strength and the health of the organization will be at risk, as it will not be able to afford to support and carry out its missions.

Lidija Levkovska works for Booz Allen Hamilton, a strategy and technology consulting firm.

Related Material:

• Atlantic Memo: A New Strategic Policy for an Alliance in Transistion
  
• Jiri Sedivy: NATO Responds to Atlantic Communitie's Memo 
• Felix F. Seidler: NATO's Cyber Partners