the acronym NATO which was appropriate in the 1st Cold War environment is now a misnomer. people i talk with wonder "what's an organization like NATO doing in a place like Afghanistan. it NATO is to be the policeman of the world then it has to morph its name as well as its structure and functions to meet the new world of the 21st century. it has written off some parts of the globe (latin America and Africa --- both sharing the Atlantic Basin) to get involved with.

many organizations restructure, very few re-function. NATO is correct to rethink its role in a 21st century world that is quite different from the world after WWII. our bureaucracies are not thinking about how they are organized or capable of coping with multifaceted, multidisciplinary, multisectoral problems. MHG

The positive role of NATO in the world is well understandable. Works carried oud by NATO are positive and contribute to reach more safety in the world in particular in some regions. I think that this role has to be linked with decisions of the UN. The French positions are reliable and efficient and have to be considered for peace and well being of people.

Regards

Since the Western societies allegedly are knitted close together with the Democratic Peace, what I suggest NATO's role should be is to become a Democratic Intelligence Unit. Just like any other liberal democracy needs an effective intelligence service to be safe from terrorists and the like, a community of democracies needs to step up to reality and be able to fight the threats of the 21st century: nuclear spread, cyber crimes & IT-warfare, trafficking, and terrorism.

Obviously there needs to be a capable military arm of NATO still to deter potential aggressors. But the fact of the matter is that most threats of the 21st century (save for a potential hegemon) will come from less powerful states (or from entities within any state).
Yet, though democracies are prone to prolonged wars in distant territories with little chance of success (e.g. Afghanistan), they are not prone to fighting any enemy that can stand its ground. Democracies - and hence NATO - are too casualty sensitive to be fighting the long, hard and dirty wars.

I don't intend to be disrespectful in any way, but I have to say that NATO is sort of a "custodian of the Big Peace", that is, keeping the international/western districts free from conflicts that might have an impact on trade & treasure during the current Great Power armistice.

One way to make NATO relevant for the remainder of this century is to transform the organization into a global intelligence service (knowing that its service won't be welcomed in most countries outside the Western liberal democracies) and thus fulfil the aspirations of the Democratic Peace thesis.

It is hard to believe that Russia has changed much since the opening days of the Berlin Blockade. Their attack/retaliation - whatever your want to call it - on Georgia should be evidence enough. I think NATOs roll as a bulwark against aggression on democracies is a good thing and should continue.

However, adding members to NATO should not be so easy as a phone call. I do not want NATO to become anything like the United Nations. UN membership is "cheap" and meaningless. It is funded by generous nations and run by dictator nations. The UN has no goal or purpose any more... it just exists. NATO membership should not be based on your fears about neighboring countries. It should be about your beliefs in wanting to change your own country.

I don't like how the USA goes around "spreading" democracy. If a country wants it, they will adopt it. But if a nation falls to totalitarianism, NATO should find out why, and attempt to stop it. NATO has to be willing and able to say "NO" once in a while.

I understand this is a difficult task ahead of you, and I am not much of a visionary. However, I do like to know what is happening around the world, because eventually, it comes back to us... all of us... wherever we live. ML

As an example or micro-model the United States Coast Guard would be a likely source for proven methods for emerging threats to civilian populations protected by the NATO umbrella.Based upon listed risks faced in the 21st century a method similar USCG activities involves emegency measures dealing with natural disaster response to actions off the coast of Noramndy 1944.Growth of membership should be carfully weighed as a business model.Growth extending beyond a level where sustaining activities might stretch resources or place a level of bureaucracy that would be overly burdensome.Partneships with other regional organisations such as the African Union (exp.) should encourage a co-operative enviroment amongst all nations. Both defence against aggression and natural/manmade disasters.Thank You

What does mean the new defense-systems in the new Russian-European Security System? No more connection between security and the Human Dimension. Security only means weapon-systems. Nothing more. No values, no question about what we should defend.
I.Endreffy Ph.D.

For: Anders Fogh Rasmussen,
Secretary-General, NATO.
Sir-
In my opinion the best way for NATO to engage with the public and non-governmental institutions from member countries would be to schedule hearings in Brussels to which oral and written submissions were invited. A model could be found in the procedures of Parliamentary Select Committees in the UK.
I am personally concerned, and also concerned as the current chair of one of this country’s NGOs, Abolition 2000 UK, with NATO nuclear weapons policies. Major contributions could be made to facilitate a path to nuclear disarmament, the hope expressed by President Obama in his Prague speech, within a new NATO strategic concept. These would include a clear statement of a ‘no first use’ NATO nuclear weapons policy and a commitment to withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons from bases in Europe. Numerous recent scholarly analyses of these ideas have been published on both sides of the Atlantic (see, e.g., “NATO’s strategic concept and the emerging nuclear abolition imperative” by Ernie Regehr of Project Ploughshares Canada, available from www.ploughshares. ca, and “Nuclear weapons in NATO’s new strategic concept” by Christos Katsioulis and Christoph Pilger of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Genrany, available from www.fes.de/ipa).
And the Blix WMD Commission (2006) Report’s recommendation no. 15 states that: “All states possessing nuclear weapons should declare a categorical policy of no-first-use of such weapons, pre-emptive, preventive, or in retaliation for attacks involving chemical, biological or conventional weapons”, while no. 22 says “Every state that possesses nuclear weapons should make a commitment not to deploy any nuclear weapon, of any type, on foreign soil.”
NATO tactical weapons have already been withdrawn from Greece, from one base in Germany and from Lakenheath in the UK. A declaration of policy that made this a formal and publicly acknowledged commitment would be welcomed.
Abolition 2000 UK and I personally would be happy to expand on these ideas at an appropriate NATO-sponsored forum.

In ‘Mystery man’ by D. Harrington, p.78 ; Mexico – making war possible -, the autor says that in 1939 ‘The intractable policy of Big Oil was pushing Mexico into the arms of the fascist states. By April, the consequences of the nationalization had created an anomalous position in which Mexico’s antifascist government had turned to fascist Germany and Italy as the principal market for its oil. The bizarre anomaly would continue as long as Germany and Italy needed oil and as long as other countries continued to boycot Mexican oil.’ An example to emphasize my argument that in our post-2ww civilization Western democracy is one thing, but the power of those who make our society prosperous – and we depend on them ; they play the world-wide game of chess – is another. In a globalising world of competition the defiant attitude is their true character. Once the sphere of interests is at stake , history proves, cloak and dollar often join the ranks.
The meaning of the Washington Treaty’s Article V, the collective defence clause of the Alliance, is that it is the guardian angel of the Alliance. Defiant proof that NATO is our security for peace.

NATO's core task remains unchanged. The question is whether it can execute it any longer.

The Baltic States are not free of threat, for instance, but there is less and less belief that NATO would respond if they were invaded outright, or that Germany would allow any response to base from its territory. The aftermath of events in Georgia was instructive, and signals a deep shift within Germany that had been masked by its continuing NATO membership.

Increased rumblings regarding a Nordic Alliance that includes de facto military support across Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland if any are attacked, is just one manifestation of the responses underway to that calculus.

Meanwhile, the recession and falling hydrocarbon prices have blunted Russia's growing strength, but those prices and their consequences will return once a global recovery begins. It has bought time, but that is all.

It sounds harsh, but until and unless NATO can address the critical weakness at the heart of its original rationale - certain protection of all of its existing members from outside military attack - then the rest doesn't matter very much. There are lots of other potential challenges for NATO, from external threats, to the danger of Afghanistan becoming its graveyard as it was the graveyard of the Soviet Empire, to the efforts to supplant it via EU battlegroups (while disingenuously claiming to do no such thing). I'm not arguing that any of them are unimportant. But they'll all pale to little significance, and become much harder to address in the bargain, if NATO's core rationale continues to be seen as weak.

Germany is the key, and Germany no longer wants to play. If that conundrum can't be resolved, the alliance becomes a military standards body, and should apply for status in the ISO process.

It seems to me that NATO neglects researches in neurosciences to determine its social policy and to expect a predicted response from societies in the nation-states. There is a great difference between “scientific explanations” which are used to rationalize the existing situation and researches which are carried out to demonstrate empirical data. Moral thinking is inherent and it is different from national cultures and traditions though it is influenced by them as many neuroscientific findings report. The appeal must be to these human innate moral categories but not to the national traditions and religions if we want to avoid conflicts, because they have a universal basis. The possibility of fighting terrorism based on religion by arms is a wishful thinking of NATO’s military experts. If they knew about the effect of deeply religious mind and visions they would know that these people live in the other reality and biological life is less important due to a new acquired feeling of a much deeper reality and a changed neurobiology of a brain and besides the basis of all conflicts is a regarded unfairness which is also an inherent feeling not only in people but animals as well as it has been demonstrated by recent neuroscientific studies. Here is a starting point for improving the situation with wide-spread terrorism. Weapons are used by people whose mind/brain decides to use them or not. A shifted neurochemistry of brain and newly acquired neural networks under unavoidable stressful social circumstances lead to a changed personality. The question must be the study of what social organization can be optimal for a human mind/brain’s normal state to live in and neuromorality first of all.

It seems clear that the arguments for nuclear deterrence are becoming weaker by the day - There is no large identifiable opponent who can be realistically deterred by NATO nuclear weapons.

The arguments for NATO nuclear disarmament as part of a global nuclear disarmaments strategy grow stronger by the day:

-It is becoming clearer over time that for NATO and countries within NATO to hold nuclear weapons, whilst arguing that it is immoral and illegal for non NATO countries to hold them does not work. The effect it has is to give internal and international justification to other countries to develop nuclear weapons.
it also adds to the view within governments and citizens of non NATO countries that we hold them in contempt - that we are somehow morally superior to them that we are able to hold Weapons of Mass Destruction, whilst they are not.

The effect of this is to turn those governments and communities away from co-operation, from trust; and towards anger, distrust and violence, both at the state level and as terrorism. All of this makes us less safe.

There is a clear and growing consensus within both citizens, experts and politicians in NATO countries that nuclear deterrence has had its day.

So let's bite the bullet, and have the courage to say that the emperor has (no longer) any clothes - the time for nuclear deterrence is over.

Of course the big problem would be - what to do with all that money saved...?

.........

Well here's a possibility:

American forces in Afghanistan are starting to implement policies with greater emphasis on working with local communities.
To put it crudely, the plan there is moving towards 'creating good guys' rather than killing bad guys.
As one American military commander put it recently (I paraphrase) - you kill one insurgent, he's got two brothers - where does that get you?

NATO has the expertise and experience to make the world a safer place, both for those within NATO countries, and the rest of the world, by offering practical, financial and organisational support for the maintenance and creation of locally managed infrastructure in trouble spots.

We teach our children in school that safety comes from working together through our differences, by building community and consensus, and by listening to and looking after each other.
We should apply this simple wisdom in our international relations and strategies.

This really is an opportunity for NATO to lead a new and effective push for security, by finding out from communities what support, safety and structures they need, and using the resources of NATO to co-create that.
It then becomes very difficult to persuade those communities to become terrorists or to support governments opposed to NATO and its member countries.

It is utterly unrealistic to continue to believe that we can make the world a safer place by threatening countries and communities with nuclear weapons or military intervention. Hence the timeliness of this consultation

Realistically, the difficult truth is that we are only safe when we support everyone to be safe.

Just like the cold war (at the origin of the creation of NATO) has developed into a prolonged low intensity confrontation, enabling the world to overcome its own annihilation due to the arsenals involved, it is my belief to think that the role of NATO is most effective when addressing long term threats.
Provided the threats that NATO is seeking to address are recognized to be genuine, significant and global in nature, requiring thereby a sustained long term strategy with an overarching multidisciplinary response, where the military force acts as a deterrent but nevertheless effective dimension, then a consensual alliance such as NATO is bound to grow and gain in relevance.
I found the Environmental Security initiative introduced during the last strategic Concept of 1999, which was linked to NATO’s rather minimal but successful scientific cooperation program when NATO had 19 members compared to the 28 it has today, and when NATO’s focus was very much on challenges within Europe or on Europe’s periphery, to be an interesting path to pursue.
In the light of the preparations of the Copenhagen conference of December 2009, it appears that the effects of Climate change, closely linked to the notions of energy, security and environmental sustainability will remain the major long term, consistent threat that our world will be confronted to in this 21st century.
In this regard, NATO can act as a fireman reacting to crises whenever they occur (regional wars, mass migrations, lawlessness, terrorism, trafficking, etc…) or act as a strategic alliance capable of building a consensus and dealing with these threats before they occur. This ought to be one of NATO’s core tasks, as the latter would imply building collaborative capacities on a regional / sub-regional base and projecting long term consensual solutions/responses to these challenges.
NATO as a concept could in fact be expanded, duplicated, or replicated elsewhere as a complementary response to future global energy, environmental and perhaps resources depletions crises, if sustainability models (strategic in nature) are not introduced or agreed upon soon enough.

Mihail Grigorov,
Editor in the “Military and National Security” division of “Bulgarian Army” newspaper

In the future NATO must combine military strength with the broader political debate. NATO should be concerned with the prevention of conflicts. Be ready and have the technological opportunity for immediate response to new security challenges such as cyber attacks. NATO’s operations have become a symbol of human justice. It is especially important to keep strong the faith of people in NATO member countries as a key factor for common security. Therefore NATO must work with the media. To get deeper the cooperation with other organizations - the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe, the United Nations. NATO should be an environment for strategic thinking and to engage actively with NGOs through the ATA. Euro-Atlantic ideas should become a leading modern political theory advocating peace and justice, appealing to young people and the largest parts of the population of the planet. Perhaps decisions must rank in order to be effective. Maybe, if immediate action is required, decisions must be made by fewer people. If the issues are strategic decisions will be taken by consensus. NATO operations must have a military, social and cultural nature.

L.s.

Most future visons forecast risks and threats to our national and collective interests, territories and ways of life to become more diffuse and asymmetric, caused by an ever more complicating combination of rising demands for natural resources, linked with international opportunism on one side, and increasing globalism and international interdepdancies on the other.

On the positive side, this will most likely reduce the chances of classical military conflict between political or economic opponents.
However, on the negative side, national opportunism may very likely become increasingly intertwined with international terrorist and criminal activities.
Knowingly or unknowingly they will most likely become the chess pieces of choice in future international power play.

Most agree that their damaging and undermining effects can only effectively be neutralised with a holistic and coordinated approach.
This means that coordinated law enforcement will most likely become the central focus and core activity for both nations and international organisations to protect our interests, territory and way of life.

For countries and international organisations based on democratic principles, this means that defense organisations and assets will have to play a more supporting role to law enforcement and inspection agencies than leading and conducting military campains.
This Based on the experiences of Iraq and Afghanisatan, the case if the focus in crisismanagement may shift to prevention in stead of intervention and stabilisation, as the political freedom of choice during intervention is much better than during subsequent stages of crisismanagement.

Coordination and cooperation are therefore key aspects to survive the future challenges discribed in the various strategy papers. Luckily these are exactly NATO's strong points.
A wealth of experience, knowlegde and expertise on these aspects is harnassed in numerous NATO Publications, that are still useable, albeit with some translation to the current and expected ways for conducting international military cooperation.
Also there is a vast expertise in NATO on Rerearch & Development and Concept Development & Evaluation and the availablitiy of secure and robust networks.

All these valuable assets can make NATO very useful, now and in the future, as long as political agenda's can stay out of the equation, and NATO is willing to take a more supporting stance, for example towards the EU.

To my opinion the best role NATO can play is "Smart Integrator" and "Facilitator" in Operational and Tactical Cooperation, coordination and integration.
NATO's role can be compared to the national role the military increasingly play in the national domain, which is increasingly focussing on interdepartmental cooperation.

Arie van Treuren.
CDR RNLNavy

Nato's core tasks must be:
1. Securing Nato countries from any external military attacks, extraterestrial included, if needed pro-active.
2. Under command of the United Nations protect unconditionally human populations from genocide
3. Under command of the United Nations protect the earth against meteor attacks.
4. Nato's military intelligence should more uniformely communicate with other intelligence agencies.
5. Nato must support at natural extreme disasters which exceeds boundaries of many Nato countries.
6.Under command of the United Nations Nato must have a global rapid deployment rescue team or army for natural disasters worldwide to provide support within 24 hours.

Agreed with Khalid.

AK

The role of NATO in combatting terrorism could be acheieved by having a firm stand on the fundamental underlining principles agreed upon by all members states of NATO without any compromise whatsoever. The recent release of the Libyan terrorist Al-Meghrai convicted of blowing up the American Airliner Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 on humanitarian grounds by the Scottish Justice minister is a perfect example of the dilemma that member states of NATO have to face in handling such situations.

Then what is acceptable to one member state may not be acceptable to another, just as in the above incident the United States expressed its dismay to the British Government.

The need of the hour is for all member States of NATO to have a common unified policy on terrorism and which does not compromise on any such issue as the one mentioned above for their own personal gains.

Jerzy DEREN
At the beginning let me ask a few questions on wital topic - Afghan Forces Requirements – challenging test-bed for NATO Nations credibility

1) Is considered by NATO to adopt addressed by US Strategy project ( Kagan W.F ., Kagan K , Afghanistan Force Requirements,. AEI and ISW, 19 Sep 2009) and its interdisciplinary scope and holistic approach to various security fields?.
2) Why gen Stanley A. McChrystal’s step out NATO chain of command and playing his role in US hat, has issued publicly his “confidential assessment” (Gen S. A. McChristal., COMISAF’S INITIAL ASSESSMENT Unclassified , HQ ISAF, Kabul 30 August 2009) to inform on ISAF operation's decisive points and centre of gravity?
3) Why NATO campaign on Afghanistan is very weak to reach and convince international opinion within countries contributing troops to ISAF, that today as never before after WW II, the contemporary World is facing such serious security problem and is responsible for the next generations to make transparent decision on capability which are required and must be provided to fight War on Terror in order to overcame asymmetric threat and establish condition for peaceful and benign environment in Afghanistan instability.

Having opportunity to express my views also let me present a few considerations:

Firstly, Strategic concept should address a new solution to push forward NATO defence planning process, consensus mechanizm. It should be addressed to broader international community with sound judgment of present strategic situation showing critical shortfalls and even permanent lack of capabilities in some areas what hamper ISAF mission accomplishment, what craetes sitation that ISAF forces are far away from desire and properly structured level.
Secondly, NATO and non- NATO Nations which provide troops to ISAF follow so called NATO Force Generation Process (FGP) which is a branch of NATO Defense Planning Process identified as an excellent mechanism for obtaining capabilities which are sought, however on the other hand, reality are more nonpermisssive and FGP serves in the Theatre in several cases only as Nations’ flag show up mechanism, in spite of that deployed troops are not capable to conduct required tasks. (attack and transport choppers, UAVs with required payloads, CIS and C4ISTAR assets).
Thirdly, I may have wrong impression, but every day I’m learning from media that not all remembers NATO understood properly that Afghan War is not only US war, and after 9/11 art.5 has been invoked as the result of consensus of all NATO Nations. As an example we can call today's polish public opinion research which shows that only 17% of population expects successful mission end state, but significant majority - 77% wants to press government for hasty troops withdrawal. Such data might have wrong impact on politicians and their decisions. In spite of such attitude, NATO Commanders must be covinced that they are doing right job and ISAF National contingents should follow ISAF OPLAN’s, and if it required by mission statement to conduct assigned tasks even with combat ROEs. However, NATO assissance to ANA and ANP kandaks deployment should reach level of embedded capabilities.
Finally it is worth to stress on one extremely negative and kiling factor for mission accomplishment which is officially known as ‘national caveats’. Presence of such caveats creates situation when forces from National Contingents are hampered because of lack of core capabilities to conduct planned tasks for mission accomplishment. In doing so, subordinated troops limited by caveats can not fully follow issued by ISAF: OPRDERs/FRAGOS, SOP/SOIs and TTPs in line with AOO operational requirements. Who calculated what is today number of such formations within ISAF Chain of Command? This conditions would lead to misinterpretation and miscalculation of capabilities during decision making process (DMP) since expected capabilities are not filled by required troops quantity and quality. It also might undermine, so fragile in international environment unity of command and unity of effort – core capability required in combat zone to approach enemy center of gravity. NATO must understand that now is the last chance to prove and even enhance NATO credibility. I wish you good luck in pushing forward with all this projects.
Shaping strategic and operational mission’s future, strong coordination ISAF activities with Coalition Command (US led) CSTA-A whith special focus on ANSF development is recommended.
Sincerely
Jerzy DEREN Col(R) Dr Eng.

very good discussion at the starting point and I hope it will keep going so.

However three questions seem to be critical for NATO as a globaly acting military-plitical organisation:

first - have the political-military objectives a geografic limitation

second - with regard to open door policy, can the consolidation of new democracies be regarded as one of the primary missions

and the third - are there the red lines for NATO with regard to some countries clearly violating not only international law but essential values of democratic community. the latter refers to the need to call the things with their real names and not to fall in politcorrectness sacrifying the core and the soul of the transatlantic treaty

everything else is derived from these three essential questions and have to be regarded as consequences of the response to the questions set above; be it operation in Afghanistan or Russia-Georgia War and the question with Ukraine

Panel of Experts,

How important will the concept of a "Comprehensive Approach" to security issues be to NATO's new Strategic Concept?

Sincerely,
Richard Dodge
Graduate Student, University of Oklahoma

Dear Experts,

NATO should make the new policy on Kosovo and to take Serbia as the ally on Balkan, just like in WWI and WWII. You must to know that Serbia will never recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Serbia, after Milosevic dictatorship, will be the most important power in Balkan, especially when return the monarchist state order. Please, consider this when you make a new strategic concept.

Capt. of Kings Guard Vladimir Petrovic, Nis, Serbia

Energy supply security and other new challenges:

Le nouveau concept stratégique de l'OTAN est en préparation et sera révélé au publique en décembre 2010 lors du sommet de Lisbonne. Ce document se voudra synthétique et abordable pour "l'homme de la rue". Toutefois, et même si ce document fondamental sera complété par une série d'annexes, comment retranscrire en termes clairs la volonté de l'OTAN (exprimée par Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) de jouer un rôle plus actif dans la sécurité des approvisionnements énergétiques? De fait, l'Alliance vaudra sans doute, en la matière, jouer un rôle complémentaire aux autres organisations spécialisées et limités à un niveau d'expertise... Mais le fait est également que l'on parle de "nouvelles menaces" (dans le cadre de la "comprehensive approach") depuis plusieurs années sans jamais préciser le rôle que l'OTAN entend jouer concernant la sécurité des approvisionnements énergétiques ou les changements climatiques.

Au delà des exemples et d'hypothétiques missions, peut-on attendre une réponse de l'OTAN sur ces question à travers les documents annexes au nouveau concept stratégique? En effet, le fait d'utiliser le terme de "menaces" (threats) induit normalement la nécessité du recours à des moyens exclusifs dans un délais strictement limités. N'y a-t-il pas, de la part de l'OTAN, un volonté de mobiliser les dites "nouvelles menaces" pour justifier un plus grand nombres de missions hors article 5 ("out of area")?

Bests,

Lionel

PS: This message has been writen in French because it is an official/international language that is not of great use anymore. I hope that it will be either translated or explained to the ones who do not speak French but wish to participate in such a great debate. Thank you.

Dear experts,

what place can we expect to see for the partnerships (PfP, MD, ICI) in the next Strategic concept? How to (re)vitalize them? What does NATO expect from them and what can NATO offer to them?

paul (france)

I would like to know paricipant's views about the possible difficulties of the ongoing enlargement process (Ukraine and Georgia, etc.) and change of NATO to a global organization with the core task of collective defense o member states

Dear Experts,
Good afternoon,
Yasemin Ozden Charles from Turkey.

I would like to know where do we need to locate European Defence's Ambitions for 202O under the new Strategic Concept of NATO.
Thank you.