NATO's recently adopted Strategic Concept (StratCon2010) offers the right wording. In general, “active engagement” and “modern defense” are the right steps forward. However, despite the accent on new security challenges, some areas are not described in detail. Hence, after political consensus has been found, the concept needs a plan for practical implementation. Otherwise, the alliance may lose the coherence found in Lisbon.
The alliance is absolutely right in aiming to “promote security with partners around the globe”, and to counter “new threats” in an “unpredictable world”. However, some of the main points of StratCon2010 are in the wrong order. Proliferation, (no's 8 and 9) and terrorism, (no. 10) are prioritized before cyber and energy security (no's 12 and13).
If the concept wants to fit to Madeleine Albright's motto of “NATO 2020”, the accentuation is wrong. But NATO needs a clear line to act towards 2020. Secretary General Rasmussen pointed out, that Lisbon would be the most important summit in NATO's history. However, there would be repercussions for the perception of the alliance, if the result of such a summit were to fizzle out. Therefore, NATO has to pay greater attention in practice towards cyber and energy security, which will increase in importance in the years to 2020.
Of course, proliferation and terrorism, especially in cases of Iran and Al-Qaeda, will remain important topics. Nevertheless, cyber and energy will overrule both issues. Technical developments will make government's actions, even in cases counter-terrorism/proliferation, dependent on cyber infrastructure. Counterterrorism depends on the sharing of states intelligence data, which is necessarily done via electronic networks. Additionally, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be tackled without computers being used as analyzing instruments. Furthermore, terrorists are likely to seek cyber space as new theatre. In sum, if there is no secure cyber space, there will be no successful fight against proliferation and terrorism.
However, the wording of StratCon2010's 12th point speaks for itself by pointing out that cyber attacks “can reach a threshold that threatens national and Euro-Atlantic prosperity, security and stability”. Technical advancement and diversification will enhance this issue. Doubtlessly, such wording makes it undeniable that cyber security is a top priority. Thus, it will be important to turn the insight into practice.
StratCon2010 underlines that NATO member's “energy supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption”. Thus, the vital dependence on supplies makes energy security a top tier priority. Counterterrorism, however, is widely a tier within energy security. For example, instability in infrastructure caused by terrorism, in resource rich countries would affect the alliance's energy security. Furthermore, parts of the proliferation issue are Western worries, that a nuclear missile armed Iran, might affect oil and gas supplies coming from the Gulf.
Moreover, StratCon2010 lacks a paragraph on maritime security. In different paragraphs the concept mentions a number of things, which are necessarily maritime, like “global engagement”, “deployability”, “missile defense” (based on US warships) and “protecting transit areas and lanes”. Thus, these issues combined with the factors of growing naval armament worldwide and disaster relief; make future naval theatres more likely for NATO. Certainly, the absence of a paragraph laying out a coherent maritime policy will complicate future decisions in this policy field. Any revision of StratCon2010 or discussions about an implementation plan, therefore, has to include the development of a maritime paragraph as a political guidance.
Beside the pointing and wording, it is more important that the alliance makes the right priorities in its future policy and operational practice. During the foreign minister's meeting in 2011 and the next summit 2012, transatlantic leaders must implement written words into concrete policy.
Nevertheless, this cannot mean wordy "nice to read" declarations according to a few of the concept's paragraphs. As NATO has done much for its public diplomacy and gained greater attention, it can not afford to be inactive. Otherwise, tax payers may ask themselves why they paid for a process which has no concrete outcomes. Therefore, the alliance has to satisfy its citizens as well as to demonstrate that alliance cohesion is living. However, if the alliance wants to engage actively and defend itself in a modern manner, it needs a coherent implementation plan, which, of course, has to be acted upon.
Felix Seidler is a student of Political Science, Law and History at Würzburg University.
Read related articles from atlantic-community.org members:
- 3
December 11, 2010
Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (280)
Interestingly, the author misses the cracks in NATO resulting from the shifts in international relations and the economic and political differences between the members, incl. disputes over currency matters and exports. The new NATO strategy is nothing more than a verbal compromise between divergent interests. There was grosso modo agreement on the growing role of the military, but disagreements about the strategic direction of the alliance. Deep differences on how to deal with Russia remain. Moscow may have agreed to participate in the missile defence shield, but nothing is settled.
Those seem the elements that should raise questions, not the implementation of a strategy which by no means is warranted.