Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "NATO for the Next Decade"

After the publication of 14 op-eds by atlantic-community.org members on the New Strategic Concept, the authors discussed their policy recommendations with three senior experts in the field of NATO affairs: Dr. Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, a member of NATO's Group of Experts, Dr. Olaf Theiler, a national specialist in NATO's Operations Division in the International Staff of NATO HQ and Dr. Jorge Benitez, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. The goal of the Strategy Session was to find a community consensus around the key challenges that should be addressed in NATO's new Strategic Concept. More information.

A working draft of the next Atlantic Memo has been created, but there is still work to do. You can be part of the process and provide your input on the recommendations below. How can the Atlantic Memo be made stronger? How can the policy recommendation be made more specific and clearly address key obstacles? Please provide your insight in the comments section.

The final Atlantic Memo will be sent to Ambassador Jiřί Šedivý, NATO's Assistant Secretary General of Defence Policy and Planning, who has agreed to provide feedback.

WORKING DRAFT: ATLANTIC MEMO #25

NATO 2020: A New Strategic Policy for an Alliance in Transition

17 atlantic-community.org members from the United States, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Poland, Finland, Turkey, as well as Russia and Azerbaijan, discussed the future of NATO in op-eds (special analysis week on NATO's Strategic Concept), as well as in a one hour Skype Strategy Session, which ended with a vote on the most important policy recommendations.

As a result of this collaborative process, it was determined that defining and strengthening Alliance capabilities, developing global partnerships, and launching broad public diplomacy initiatives should be the top three priorities for NATO.

1. Align the scope of the Alliance with its capabilities.

The Alliance should focus its operations on the European region (Lawson) and should not aspire to be a global policeman, while still being prepared to take collective action to respond to serious threats that originate outside of Europe (von Ploetz).

Out-of-area missions require a flexible response force, utilizing advanced technologies with a high level of interoperability. In light of limited resources, member states' standing troop volumes should be reduced to allow for the better training and equipping of the NATO Response Force (NRF), and an instrument should be created to ensure equitable and sufficient funding of NRF operations (Spiessberger). While national caveats can hamper mission accomplishment (Deren), they are a product of the democratic process in member states and should not be overturned by enforcing joint rules or abandoning the principle of consensus in Alliance decision making (von Ploetz, Theiler).

Defense priorities can only be set after conducting a realistic analysis of NATO force generation in order to close the gap between expectations and capabilities that undermines Alliance effectiveness (Deren, Ratti).

While NATO can continue to provide limited logistical support in humanitarian crisis, it should maintain its character as a military alliance; development issues and nation-building are functions better suited for other international and regional organizations (Benitez, Theiler).

2. Create Global Partnership Council to institutionalize and deepen cooperations.

NATO must continue to expand its global partnership network, and this process should be institutionalized by creating a Global Partnership Council with military, operational, and political consultation mechanisms (Seidler), even though such an institutionalization will be very difficult to achieve (Theiler). This "Partnership 2.0" approach will serve to pool resources for mutual benefits, enforce the idea of cooperative security and balance the doctrine of deterrence and thereby improving NATO's global image (Christman).

NATO should specifically strengthen the following partnerships:

Russia: NATO must unequivocally state that a strong partnership with Moscow is vital for the Alliance and further develop cooperation within the NATO-Russia Council (Nikolits). However, Russian membership of NATO is not a viable option for the time being (Benitez).

South Caucasus: A "safety zone" framework should be created, similar to the EU Neighborhood policy, to engage states in this region without relying on an eventual path to full membership. Additionally, NATO should mediate frozen conflicts (Sumerinli).

Middle East: The Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) frameworks should be strengthened and combined with public diplomacy programs in the Greater Middle East (Scatamacchia).

European Union: Cooperation with the EU should be improved (Rusila) and eventually the EU should become a NATO member, institutionalizing a two-pillar Alliance, with equal European and American partners sharing burdens and implementing joint security policies (Theiler).

3. Launch broad public diplomacy initiatives to make the case for NATO's existence.

NATO's Public Diplomacy Division should be expanded to focus more on appealing to the general public rather than to specialist circles. In these efforts, the Alliance's civilian structure should be stressed (Spiessberger). Specific attention should be paid to the Greater Middle East for instance by providing more information on the internet in Arabic and hosting annual seminars with MD and ICI states (Scatamacchia). Presently, only two PDFs in Arabic can be found on NATO's website - much more should be done to reach this key geostrategic demographic (Benitez).

Increasing transparency is key to fostering public support for the Alliance. To this end, a working draft of the Strategic Concept (for example, after the mid-October NATO Council meeting) should be published. Alternatively, the new Strategic Concept should be ratified by the parliaments of all 28 member states before it comes into effect (Davis).

This Atlantic Memo DRAFT is based on the op-eds and/or contributions during the Skype Strategy session by:

Jorge Benitez, Director of NATO Source and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council - United States

Walter L. Christman, Associate Professor of Global Public Policy at the US Naval Postgraduate School - United States.

Ian Davis, Founding Director of NATO Watch and Senior Advisor to ISIS Europe - United Kingdom.

Jerzy S. Deren, Retired colonel conducting independent research on international security - Poland.

Oya Dursun-Özkanca, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College - Turkey.

Olga Kolesnichenko, Freelance journalist and coordinator for military issues for YATA-Russia - Russia.

Greg Randolph Lawson, Director of Communications for a political advocacy organization - United States

Colette Mazzucelli, Adjunct Associate Professor in the Center for Global Affairs at New York University and in the Department of Political Science at Hofstra University - United States.

Daniel Nikolits, Graduate Student in International Relations at Humboldt University in Berlin - United States.

Luca Ratti, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Roma Tre University and the American University of Rome - Italy.

Ari Rusila, Development project management expert - Finland.

Donatella Scatamacchia, Graduate from the University of Naples with an MA in international relations and with a PhD offer by King's College London - Italy.

Felix F. Seidler, Student of Political Science, Law and History at Wuerzburg University - Germany

Klaus Spiessberger, Member of the German Council on Foreign Relations and currently working for PHOENIXgroup - Germany.

Jasur Mezahir Sumerinli, Head of the Doktrina Center of Journalist Union on Military Research - Azerbaidschan.

Olaf Theiler, National Expert in the Operations Division at NATO HQ in Brussels - Germany.

Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, Group of Experts, - Germany.

Youth Atlantic Treaty Association, Lake Constance Chapter - Germany: Marcel Raecker, Yves Steinebach, Yann-Lukas Schaefer, Juri Schnoeller, Matthias Garbin, Aylin Matle, Lukas Bresser, Florian Sies, Jonas Massing, Lina Drexler and Nikolina-Romana Milunovic.

Dr. Theiler and Dr. von Ploetz participated in a private capacity and were not speaking for NATO or the Group of Experts.

This is a DRAFT memo and work in progress. Therefore please do not quote it.

Click on the above names to read the author's op-eds. You can also listen to a recording of the one hour Skype Strategy Session in the audio stream below or download the mp3 (50 MB) by right-clicking here.

Please weigh in with your opinion, insight and advice so that we can make the recommendations even more specific and the memo as strong as possible!

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

September 8, 2010

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

The majority may have came to conclusion “that defining and strengthening Alliance capabilities, developing global partnerships, and launching broad public diplomacy initiatives should be the top three priorities for NATO.” I strongly disagree.

My core message was described very well in one of the comments of my op-ed: Get rid of NATO. I was proposing a New Security Structure – which could replace NATO – and which should in my opinion cover the whole crisis cycle, from prevention to crisis management to post-crisis stabilization and capacity-building measures. From the EU perspective, the core of this structure should be a combination of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and EU Battlegroups (EUBG). One crucial question during the transitional period from NATO to the New Security Structure, is the coordination of US hard power with EU soft power in ongoing operations.

The memo DRAFT has avoided a core question: Is NATO needed in the post-Cold War security structure, or could today's challenges be better met by replacing the Alliance with existing, modernized organizations?

[Editor: This comment was written by Ari Rusila, who then decided to delete his membership. The editorial team has not deleted his account.]

September 8, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I like this comment! What's this?

In response to Mr. Rusila's question, "Is NATO needed in the post-Cold War security structure, or could today's challenges be better met by replacing the Alliance with existing, modernized organizations?", I would say yes.

While NATO should not, in my opinion, be searching for out of theatre missions, it remains the most viable option for continuing European stability and protection from potential (even if unlikely) external aggression.

The other organizations Mr. Rusila refers to are untried and it would seem any transition period could be deeply problematic. Additionally, the role of the U.S. is pivotal to making NATO work as an effective European security instrument. Attempting to rely solely on European contributions during this time of fiscal tumult and, in some quarters austerity, seems unwise and will lead to a serious diminution of European global clout.

While NATO should be strategically circumscribed, it can still be indispensable as the glue that maintains a meaningful trans-Atlantic relationship.

September 8, 2010

Claudiu Dan Degeratu, EURISC Foundation, Silver Contributor (64)

I like this comment! What's this?

Speaking about trans-Atlantic relationship, at least we have some more positive feedback after Sec.Gen. visit in Washington on the future of ACT NATO HQ.
I still reflecting on Global Partnership Council future , its place and role in an optimum equation which includes human security, collective defense, collective security and cooperative security. Do we really envisaged what balance mechanisms shall we put in place for that?
Shall we follow EU in assuring a close cooperation with the first ring of other non-Atlantic global players like BRIC or at the opposite, to encourage a more UN style of doing business?

A more systematic approach concerning NATO and its future as a cooperative security organization you may find on this work.

Cooperative Security: New Horizons for International Order

Author: Richard Cohen and Michael Mihalka

"But how much of the world can a practical and effective Cooperative Security system cover? What should be the limits of its ambitions and its interests? These are questions which are not easy to answer.
Given that the members of a Cooperative Security system must be open and democratic with a close commonality of values and interests, there is clearly a practical limit to the size of a Cooperative Security organization. There is also the important question of geography."

http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/files/College/F_Pu...

September 9, 2010

Kazimierz Wiesak, Pennsylvania State University, Silver Contributor (73)

I like this comment! What's this?

What are GOALS of NATO?
Can anyone answer that question?

If the answer is "provide security to its members" then the present form is sufficient. As they say in USA "if it isn't broken don't fix it".

Maybe people shouldn't know what are the goals of NATO? Such knowledge could hinder "the case for NATO's existence".

September 9, 2010

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

With the knowledge that NATO may be one of this open think tank's sponsors, the role of OSCE, and its relations with NATO, should also be discussed here, as well, along with US, EU and Russia etc.'s take on this issue.

The following document , by Deputy Secretary of State of the US, may serve as a reference :

http://osce.usmission.gov/media/pdfs/2010-statements/july-2010/7-17...

"United States Mission to the OSCE

Statement at the Informal Ministerial Meeting in Almaty, Session 1
delivered by Ambassador Ian Kelly,
July 17, 2010

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to comment on how we can move our security dialogue forward.

It has been a year since we launched the Corfu process, and we believe that now is the time for nations to focus on turning the ideas generated through Corfu, into practical results to make the OSCE more effective. Some of the key areas we should focus on include crisis response, military transparency, and implementing our commitments under the Human Dimension.

As you know, we are ready to join consensus for a summit in Astana this year. If we are able to reach consensus for a summit, then we all have a lot of work in front of us to produce an agenda worthy of our heads of state and government.

Regarding that agenda, we support the idea of developing an action plan for future work, such as that suggested by the EU, but we need near term results as well.

We have heard much about improving OSCE’s effectiveness. The key to effectiveness resides in reaching consensus on tangible actions that address security issues of concern in all three dimensions. Implementation of commitments, not formalizing structures, is what will revitalize the European security community.

The OSCE has the tools, experience, and commitments – the capacity – to help prevent and deal with inter-ethnic strife in Kyrgyzstan – a few kilometers from where we are. Given the urgency of the situation, the OSCE should deploy a police advisory group as soon as humanly possible.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman."
____________________________________________________________________________

September 9, 2010

Felix F. Seidler, Atlantische Initiative, Platinum Contributor (329)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Kazimierz,

The goal of NATO is an Euro-Atlantic area where people can live in PFP: Peace, Freedom, Prosperity.

Beside, I do not think that "The Alliance should focus its operations on the European region" fits very well to my idea of a Global Partnership Council.

Such a council will be needed, if NATO continues operationg "Out-of-Area". Operations limited to the European Area do not require a dialogue with partners worldwide.

Therefore, my is point we should make more clear, whether we prefer a "globalizing" or a "europeanizing" NATO.

September 9, 2010

Oya Dursun-Ozkanca, Elizabethtown College, (2)

I like this comment! What's this?

The improvement of the relationship between the EU and the NATO would require significant diplomatic efforts to resolve the problems between Turkey and Cyprus, as these countries are currently blocking the exchange between the two institutions on security affairs.

September 9, 2010

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (507)

I like this comment! What's this?

As to Mr. Seidler's comments, I would argue that even a "Europeanized" NATO can still work with a "Global Parntership Council" to coordinate some amount of intelligence among varying regional security bodies when dealing with non-state actors that may be operating from out of the region. Potentially, this could also incorporate some limited, targeted special force operations. That could still be considered cooperation and require a forum for discussion, it just would not be an overly grandiose "partnership."

I would say, it seems, given the military budget decisions being made by Germany and Great Britain, that the resources for a more "global mission" for NATO will be not be available. This is a major reason I support a more circumscribed role. To try and do so much more on what will by necessity be a shoestring budget seems to be reaching too far and will ultimately leave Europe open to internal problems that could be dealt with should NATO remain focused.

September 10, 2010

Kazimierz Wiesak, Pennsylvania State University, Silver Contributor (73)

I like this comment! What's this?

Felix F. Seidler wrote:

"The goal of NATO is an Euro-Atlantic area where people can live in PFP: Peace, Freedom, Prosperity."

I respond: if it isn't broken don't fix it. As far as I know NATO has fulfilled this mission very well for the last 60 years. If it isn't broken don't fix it. This applies to NATO.

I suspect that the goal is quite different, but cannot be stated explicitly. Since I don't care, I will state it: the goal of NATO today is to help USA to dominate the world. In my opinion, mankind is at a crossroads: World Republic ruled by international law, or World Dictatorship where all important decision are taken at one center. We'll wait and see if the world will evolve toward World Republic, with many players, all subject to international law, or toward World Dictatorship where the will of one center will be the law.

The choice will be made not by academic discussion but by correlation of forces: from information force to military force.

September 10, 2010

Mustafa Celik

I like this comment! What's this?

“World Republic?”

A great idea to ponder on and fiddle around with...

This also seems to be an excellent medium or long term goal to be set to be achieved in time and its due course with utmost care & attention not to distrupt “World Peace”.

It may also be quite worthwhile to consider complementing it with some concepts like "World Security", “World, Inc.,” etc…..

Respectfully,

Mustafa CELIK

September 11, 2010

Jasur Sumerinli Mammadov, “Doctrine” Journalist's Military Research Center, milaz.info portal, Bronze Contributor (23)

I like this comment! What's this?

I think that NATO's role in modern world is indeed object of dispute. I want to give my opinion to this problem from different side. For my opinion NATO is great, world' security structure. First it defends security of member countries. And second NATO is interested to spread new ideas about democracy, human right, reform in sector of security and defense.. etc.

I think that create cooperation with NATO is important way to realize military and political reform in the each country. Today South Caucasus' states have began their military and security reforms connecting with different plans, as PfP and IPAP. Georgia creates new and modern army in standards NATO and wants to be member of alliance. Azerbaijan also is realizing military and security reforms. It's right that sometimes this or other reform has been delay. But it is true that reforming process already has been began. And it is positive moment in the military and security sector of South Caucasus' states. We also pay attention to Armenia and it's relationship with NATO.

What do we see? After collapse USSR former soviet republics were in dangerous situation for their future sovereignity and territorial integrity. Former Soviet security system had destroyed and new security rules were not clear. This situation prolonged for 3-4 years. In 1994 most of soviet republic signed the frame document PfP with NATO and from that time security situation in postsoviet territory had been began to change. For example in Azerbaijan in 1997 was established new military education system related NATO standards. In 1994-2005, Azerbaijan was signed about 200 documents with NATO and reforms which was implied in this documents included different directions. In 2005 Georgia and Azerbaijan signed important IPAP document with NATO and this document was important for military and security reforms. Suitable to this document Georgia and Azerbaijan must completely change military system. It was clear for everybody in South Caucasus - Azerbaijan and Georgia want to create modern army suitable to NATO standards and they wanted to join NATO's security zone. But connecting with different reasons which had began from 2008 august' events in Georgia we watched some changes in security policy of South Caucasus countries. It is clear for everybody that Russia want create own security system in this region and give it under control of CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization). I think that it promises non-stability for this region.

Result of my short analysis that NATO must pay attention to South Caucasus as more. We saw that in 1994-2008 years in states of this region had happened different changes to positive directions. But from 2008 situation get worse.

I support my opinion that NATO must create special "safety zone", similar to the EU Neighborhood policy, to engage states in this region without relying on an eventual path to full membership.

And I think that NATO must pay attention to reforming process in partner countries.

September 12, 2010

Jorge Benitez, NATOSource, Silver Contributor (33)

I like this comment! What's this?

The draft of Atlantic Memo 25 raises three key recommendations for NATO to consider in the development of its new Strategic Concept. These are:

1. Align the scope of the Alliance with its capabilities.
2. Create Global Partnership Council to institutionalize and deepen cooperation.
3. Launch broad public diplomacy initiatives to make the case for NATO's existence.

The good news is that these recommendations are so insightful and important that NATO is devoting a great deal of analysis and discussion on how to make them work. The bad news is that the first two recommendations can work against each other and that all three are challenging to implement.

Regarding the scope of the Alliance, there are those that agree that NATO should reach out to new and old partners, but that the core mission and priority for NATO should remain Article 5 and the direct protection of the territory and population of its members. A recent example of this view promoted within the Alliance is the Op-Ed, Reset With Russia, but With Reassurance, by Lithuania’s Ambassador to NATO, Linas Linkevicius.

Regarding institutionalizing and deepening partnerships outside of Europe, there are those that believe that NATO needs to develop such new linkages in order to meet the new security threats and changes in the international system. A recent example of this view promoted by the Secretary General of NATO is his recent speech in Madrid, where he discussed in detail why “the Alliance must reach out even more actively to partners around the globe.” As you can see, the supporters of these views are debating not just in the online forum of the Atlantic-Community, but within NATO HQ and the national capitals how to accommodate one another, while ensuring that their priority is met. There will no doubt be public agreement at the Lisbon Summit, but the extent to which these two visions of NATO are reconciled will not be known until later through the details and implementation of the final wording of the Strategic Concept and other NATO agreements.

This brings us back to the challenge each of the recommendations face in implementation. The “the gap between expectations and capabilities that undermines Alliance effectiveness” is a thorny problem because there is already NATO agreement that it should be resolved, but political will is lacking among many members to fulfill their promised commitments. Likewise, there is agreement within NATO of improving cooperation with partners in theory, but in practice, the idiosyncrasies in specific cases (such with Russia and the EU) are tangible and enduring obstacles to progress. “Launch broad public diplomacy initiatives to make the case for NATO's existence,” is a great idea and has been warmly embraced by NATO and the Secretary General in particular. But the penetration and effectiveness of existing initiatives has been limited. This is an area where there is great room for improvement and in which the public could and should have a much more direct and creative participation. The members of the Atlantic-Community are contributing to this through initiatives such as NATO 2020: A New Strategic Policy for an Alliance in Transition. I welcome your future efforts.

September 17, 2010

Felix F. Seidler, Atlantische Initiative, Platinum Contributor (329)

I like this comment! What's this?

Global scope does not mean the Alliance`s capabilities will be overstreched. A Global Partnership Council does not require 5 carrier strike groups with a NATO flag. Two of the council´s purposes should be managing capabilities and developing synergy effects. Thereby, overstrechment of capabilities could be avoided.

Transatlantic partners are lacking money anyway. Hence, NATO needs partners to fullfill its jobs. Partnership does not mean that one side is giving, rather contains a benefit for both sides.

NATO´s scope will be global, but capabilities are rare. Cooperation among other actors is a must to align the alliance´s scope with its capabilities.

September 18, 2010

Claudiu Dan Degeratu, EURISC Foundation, Silver Contributor (64)

I like this comment! What's this?

Jorge's second point on
"2. Create Global Partnership Council to institutionalize and deepen cooperation."
Remembers me about the debate on streamlining different tracks of cooperation or better said, how to manage the unique situation that NATO has more partners than members!

Some lessons learned from my personal experience:
- the more partners willing to enter into NATO the more beauty contests we faced;
- the more new partner willing to cooperate with NATO the more formats we have to invent. Every bilateral format tends to be the same because we cannot spend resources and time to have a real tailored format.
- the coherence among formats was successful employed only for the new members, why? because it has a focal strategic point related with well defined single objective: peaceful Europe.
- The more focal points you have in a strategy for partners the bigger the chance to lose the vision and the strategic image which will be replaced by a set of adaptive and ad-hoc strategies.
- old partnerships within NATO had benefited from a 15 years old, significant, deepen and homogeneous pol-mil allied infrastructure in terms of public-diplomacy assets, programs and regional cooperative initiatives. I do not even think that a partnerships across the globe does not need the same approach.
- new partners were identified within the context of an Allied mission, old ones were placed within the context of the end of the Cold War and enlargement. So, the Global Partnership Council should have a precise functional identity within the NATO Strategic Concept. Does the Council contribute to a certain objective? or not.
- deepening the cooperation with major players from different regions across the globe means also an immersion not only in bilateral agenda but also into the regional agenda. I expect that many allies do not have the necessary expertise to contribute to an informed decision concerning certain issues or areas. So, we may expect very diverse reactions, from lack of interest to biased reactions.

Some policy implications:
- the Global Partisanship Council should have a single focal point defined in terms of security objectives for the Alliance,and it must avoid the vague cooperative security language.
- there is a need to upgrade the NATO Offices concept towards a more permanent political and diplomatic body. The existing allied rotational system is not enough because lacks the speed and the direct operational link between Sec Gen the national Embassy.
- assessing the benefits from promoting at the official level the role of "lead nation"principle within the Alliance for public diplomacy programs.

January 23, 2012

Talha Bin Tariq, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan, Gold Contributor (101)

I like this comment! What's this?

Why we need NATO for next decade ?
I dont think so we need NATO ..
What are its goals ?
What positive impact NATO is creating ?

Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq

September 12, 2010 | 15 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion

NATO for the Next Decade