NATO's transformation
Dear Visitors,
Thanks again for your continuing participation!
As you know, our online discussions follow the themes of the Seminars held by NATO’s Group of Experts on the developing Strategic Concept. The fourth such Seminar will take place on 23 February, in Washington, DC. Hosted by Supreme Allied Command Transformation and the US National Defense University, the subject of the Seminar will be the Alliance’s transformation of its structure, forces, and capabilities.
Accordingly, our next topic for discussions is, “What changes in structures, forces and capabilities are required for NATO’s transformation into an Alliance that can deal successfully with 21st century challenges?”
Please share your thoughts, concerns or questions. We will try to respond to your ideas and summarize the discussion with another live video session.
As background, please consider reading the most recent two-part edition of NATO Review, available at www.nato.int/review. The edition examined issues related to the new Strategic Concept, the Comprehensive Approach and NATO’s transformation.
Let us know what you think!
The Moderating Team
- Moderator's blog
- Add new comment
Comments
Dear colleagues!
I wonder about such a new challenges of transformation like deeper invasion to the World Ocean. Does it require more ships, more submarines, more strong Navy forces?
Thank you very much.
Olga Kolesnichenko from Moscow
newspaper ‘Military Industrial Courier’
http://www.vpk-news.ru/
Dear NATO Transformation Seminar Hosts,
I am a member of the Presidency Team of the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR). I will be in the United States during your 23 February Seminar, having then recently returned from our Winter meeting at NATO HQ. How can I arrange to be present at the National Defense University for this event?
Thank you for your attention in this matter,
Henry E. Plimack
Captain, US Coast Guard Reserve (Ret)
Once upon a time, there was NATO, SEATO and other organizations devised for the defense of their part of the world. I believe that NATO is now toothless, because we of the North Atlantic Alliance have allowed other nations, with other interests, to become part of NATO and manipulate our bottom-line interest, which was the protection of all nations in the North Atlantic. Until we return to the nature of our origins, we will be a silly, one-world, ineffective bunch of men blowing hot air. God bless America, because we're gonna need all the help we can get.
The NATO is the unique organisation capable qualitatively and quickly to reflect attack and to strike back to the prospective opponent. This organisation during the existence has developed standards on which military departments of many states equal. But the NATO тoo it is not ideal and requires constant changes.
The NATO is necessary to achieve necessarily an object in view as last years its authority was strongly loosened.
It is necessary to create the ideological case from various nationalities knowing many languages. That one orator can make that the whole army cannot make.
Separate terror and religion.
Connections of terror with religion favourably only to terrorists.
This union an eternal reserve of terrorists as many NATO can destroy terrorists as much terrorists will be taken by their places from among believers. Block road of terrorists to believers.
Create in the countries partners the representations with more large powers for work with youth. It will yield the fruits the next years. Number of supporters of the NATO will increase. Will increase quantity of seminars spent by you in all countries partners. It will help to rapprochement from the NATO to adult generation.
In my opinion, the first step for ensuring the development of NATO’s structures and capabilities is for the member states to observe the principles standing on the basis at the foundation of the Alliance, namely freedom, truth and justice.
Secondly, the Alliance should:
• regularly verify through surveys the expectations that nations have from the Alliance;
• ensure that it attracts in NATO people that capable and loyal to the Treaty’s principles;
• verify continuously its personnel in order to ensure they observe NATO’s internal rules and procedures and avoid conflicts of interest;
• ensure training of recruits from member states and verification of training performed by member states themselves;
• maintain and improve databases with existing or potential terrorists; I hereby refer to all means of such behavior including the state terrorism.
• annihilate of any disturbing factors within the Alliance;
• continuously verify the legitimacy of its members;
• ensure that management positions are occupied by people with strong character and sending them in operation theatres to be effectively verified;
• ensure political stability for improving and developing both itself and its allies. Such stability can only be achieved through justice and freedom or otherwise it will collapse. Dissimulation can not be used between allies, but only against enemies.
In order for the relationship between the members of the Alliance to move forward and constantly improve, this should continue to remain based on honesty, common ideals, honest affairs and respect of dignity. Nothing durable and stable will be achieved as long as most important ideals of mankind are not observed. I believe that those that will first understand this will the real winners.
The states intervening against their people will in fact undermine their authority and legitimacy, will become more and more weak and in constant need of help from the Alliance rather than capable of offering their help within the Alliance.
“The rule of law is one of the human grandeurs” used to say a Romanian thinker. I agree with this, with the observation that such rule of law should not be imposed through force, but must be understood and accepted by all the participants to the democratic process of all nations.
It is said that the Alliance trains people in order to achieve both national and international objectives. However, this aspect triggers certain problems: the Alliance either does not train people well, or it does not train enough people in terms of numbers, or the Accession Treaties are not observed. This state of fact must cease immediately. In other words, some East-European states are still tied by their communist past, although they claim to be democratic. Such states alone, without help, can not rescue themselves from this flagellation. The citizens of such states can not be protected by NATO as long as freedom and justice represents an utopia for them in their home countries and if we look backwards, such citizens can not help the Alliance at their turn, as it would be normal if the democracy mechanism would become functional for them as well.
The reason why I am saying the above, also turning back to the beginning of this letter, is because the Alliance must ensure that it evolves on the solid grounds on which it was established, as nothing can be built on injustice. In the future, the Alliance will need such solid grounds, as the challenges will not impede to appear.
The NATO’s force and capability is given by the people working in its structures, their legitimacy in front of their states, the behavior of the member states’ governments towards the citizens they represent and the perception of the latter over the objectives of the Alliance. Such objectives must be brought to their knowledge, together with the measures to be taken for achieving them. It is essential that such measures do not harm the fundamental rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the national interests of the Alliance’s members must be correlated with the international ones so that they do not overlap over one another.
As regards other aspects on this topic, they are only of organizational nature.
Manciulea Marius, Romania
I would encourage a look at "first principles" as we consider the future of NATO. Is today's security environment sufficiently similar to that of 1949 that demands, inter alia, a collective defense alliance in the most peaceful continent in the world? Do its members feel equally threatened by some common enemy that they would shed blood on behalf of their neighbors? Or have security challenges become so transnational and irregular that NATO forces are most likely employed thousands of miles away? Will they be engaged in traditional military activities? Should these questions concern the drafters of the next NATO Strategic Concept, perhaps they might think the unthinkable and question the fundamentals of the alliance, to include the abolition of Article V territorial security guarantee, thereby enabling truly global, non-miliary activity with partners of a like mind.
"Global terror threat" will be the main challenge against world's security. NATO's main concept seems to prevent terrorism attacks, meanwhile to struggle with terrorism.
Energy security, non- proliferation of WMD, fundamentalism and non state actors headlines are one within the other. Assymetric war concept is the main base to perceive the new century.
From Center Asia to Middle East field is so significant to found stabilization. In this context "out of area" about NATO missions would become more intensive. Beside security stabilization, economic prosperity and substantial democracies are part of NATO's approach in the world.
Currently NATO zone include a geography from Pacific Ocean to Black Sea.
NATO's challenges and new missions would emphasize to strength "deterrence" for democracies. It means to enlarge democratic structures on the earth.
opinion:
how to stop serious abuses committed by totalitarian Russia and communist China against the whole planet? and Russian biological weapons from Vector NSC, tested in Mexico and Germany, directly on the civilian population, which affects the whole planet, then funded false flag attacks of corrupt powers, mentioned as 'terror', Soviet strategic bombers/nuclear submarines, and the use of geophysical weapons Unconventional thermal missiles (like Bulava, produced at totalitarian thermal institute) that streaked the sky in Norway with shaded cyclotron radiation release, of blue and violet, which occurs naturally in green shade, red and pink in the magnetic convection zone of the planet Earth, and how to answer journalists so arrogant enough to consider ensuring safety and peace of people as an invasion of NATO forces against the terrorist regime in Russia, where human rights are fairy-tales, as some Soviet agents undercover spying on NATO and issued as planned Soviet totalitarian 'active measures' and political assassinations?! Let them be ashamed, socialist criminals, they defied and fooled quite an entire planet; Let freedom reign! and never give up at their swindler techniques, and environmental modification techniques also... thank you very much
Fight until we die!
We know that,after the September 11 attacks everthing is changed and during the NATO conference which one organised on 3 June 2003,mission of NATO declared that NATO turned into Global Security Power for peace and security.After this decision,while our world was going on globalization,what can we say and what can we for new members of NATO.For 20 years Baltic States are living under Russian threat.Could we do anything for them like,If NATO is established for Peace and Security around the alliance and after around the world,Why they are not sending or establish any security force for that countries ?
In my opinion,NATO can change own organization understanding and when NATO create some Task Force for some areas like Baltic Region,Afghanistan Region and others,after created this force organisation NATO will be succeeded about Peace and Security.Maybe it will be cause for tension with Russia and other states but we need strong NATO more than more.
Eventually,Just I would like to say:I'm glad about NATO organisations and NATO's accomplishment on missions.
Thank you very much !
Best Regards,
Sertaç Canalp KORKMAZ,TURKEY
I believe the first step in drafting the new strategy will be precisely reviewing the previous strategy(1999), and considering the results to understand the causes of shortcomings.Relying on new data and getting a good view of present security situation will help to make modifications toward wellbeing of all members and nations.
Bonjour,
L'OTAN en dépit de sa transformation reste encore pour de nombreuses personnes, cette (ré)incarnation du bicéphalisme idéologique du temps de la guerre froide. Pourtant, même si les incercetitudes du futur ne nous autorisent pas à exclure totalement une telle conception du monde, il est logique d'envisager des clivages entre "ceux qui aspirent à vivre en paix" et "les extrêmistes et autres belliqueux". L'ONU qui est investie universellement du maintien de la paix a montré des limites qui sont en général liées aux rapports d'intérêts qui mettent aux prises les parties et dont le rapprochement s'avère pratiquement impossible du fait de l'origine de l'antagonisme. Une telle situation conduit à des confrontations que notre honorable institution internationale a du mal à gérer car de certains points de vue "chaque partie a raison" même si souvent, par rapport à la majorité (dont une bonne partie ne peut pas se faire entendre), "chaque partie a tort" ou tout au plus "c'est l'une des parties qui a raison". Dans ce cas, lorsque les hostilités sont déclenchées, difficile pour l'ONU d'intervenir car la mobilisation des moyens poserait des problèmes liés justement aux prises de parti trop subjectives.
Ce tableau qui rythme la marche de notre monde requiert la présence sur l'échiquier sécuritaire planétaire d'autres forces dont la neutralité ou tout le moins le caractère objectif du positionnement est reconnu par les esprits lucides. C'est sous cet angle que je juge ABSOLUMENT nécessaire la présence de l'OTAN RENOVEE contrairement d'autres personnes qui supposent que compte tenu des raisons qui l'ont vu naître, cette organisation doit purement et simplement disparaître. En outre, indépendammment des dysfonctionnements relevés sur le terrain des opérations et des biais dans le management de l'organisation, l'OTAN s'est illustrée en restant résolument proactive dans la gestion de bien de problématiques de ce monde: lutte contre le terrorisme, lutte contre la cyber-criminalité, le trafic de drogue, l'intolérance religieuse... Evidemment, les sceptiques diraient qu'il y a en toile de fond d'autant d'actions, des intérêts des pays qui composent cette alliance. Là dessus le débat n'est pas facile car une réalité est là: toute structure voire toute organisation ne saurait se démarquer des intérêts bien compris de ses membres à commencer par les Nations elles-mêmes. En avançant sur ce terrain, l'on relèvera que l'OTAN n'est pas totalement fermée car dans sa configuration actuelle, elle est en partenariat non seulement avec des pays (ou des espaces ou rgroupements de pays) aux réalités qui semblent jurer d'avec les "valeurs occidentales" mais aussi avec les "ennemis" d'hier.
Après un tel apperçu je me pose les questions de savoir:
1)Sur quelles nouvelles valeurs entend fonctionner l'OTAN des décennies à venir afin que ces actions soient jugées moins partisanes et réellement plus défenseuses des droits humains?
2) Le dialogue des cultures prôné doit-il se traduire par un rapport de force qui consiste à montrer la supériorité des unes par rapport aux autres ou bien la complémentarité des unes et des autres?
3) Quels rapports la "nouvelle OTAN" entend entrenir avec l'ONU afin que l'on sente toujours cette synergie dans les actions de ces deux institutions et non une espèce de rivalité qui ne dit pas son nom?
4) L'OTAN ne doit-elle pas s'engager dans des programmes de lutte contre la pauvreté (sous quelque formule que ce soit) compte tenu du fait que cette pauvreté est quelque part une cause sous-jacente des maux contre lesquels l'OTAN mobilise des moyens collossaux?
Merci.
Dear NATO,
Three questions are contained below:
Increasingly NATO forces are required to go beyond purely "military"' objectives and carry out humanitarian assistance activities, longer term "development" activities, and respond to non "violent" threats such as trade in drugs, illict weapons, people. Why? In an increasing number of places, security is so poor that "Normal" development aid workers are not able to function or deliver. Though debates have gone on for many years about the need to "separate" development from military, practically speaking events have taken over from this wish. Realistically speaking, NATO forces should receive proper training on how to carry out humanitarian assistance and development aid successfully. They would go a long way to winning hearts and minds if they delivered schools bridges etc. This is already happening, with success. But the quality of what is delivered would be far higher if proper training and DAC development guidelines were used. How far can NATO expand its remit to include humaintarian and development actions?
In relation to non-violent threats such as drug-trade, illict tradein goods, highjacking of ships etc, NATO's capacity to act pre-emptively would render it far more effective than it is today. With no effective international army from the UN, NATO has the potential to become the free-world's international army. This could have fantastically beneficial outcomes for the world across the board. But only if the rules and regulations governing NATO are updated, reformed, adjusted to the job it needs to do today, and tomorrow. Can NATO adjust its rules of engagement, and its terrains of engagement so that it can respond to the crucial defence gaps the world is experiencing today? How can NATO and UN peacekeeping forces re-work their relationship and communications for a more effective partnership?
Canada's withdrawal of its forces from 'fighting' in Afghanistan because of the continuing failure of many of NATO's European memebers to provide robust military forces with the necessary rules of engagement and military capabilities to fight the Taliban should have been a wakeup call.
NATO would be better employed in discussing and ensuring that burden sharing of the death and destruction element of military capability was better and more equitably shared particulary in Afghanistan.
If NATO doesn't improve its Burden sharing of military capabailites then it won't need a new Strategic Concept, more Unusable military forces or a revised structure as it will deservedly fall by the wayside - as indeed it is already in many people's minds post Georgia v Russia.
Thank you for your comments, Mitra!
Thanks for your questions, Francesca! The format requires that the questions be fairly brief. May we paraphrase your questions as follows:
1) How can NATO extend its remit to include humanitarian and development issues?
2) Is NATO changing its rules of engagement to respond to new security challenges?
3) How can NATO forces and UN peacekeeping forces have a more effective partnership?
Does this re-phrasing accurately reflect your questions?
Thanks again.
Merci pour vos questions, Salissou!
Who will not aggre of change, reason if nato will not transform we will not able to change our pathway in near future in wiuv of the future, mil sharing with alies/+china ,russia wi will not adeqate to response future threat.So we mast change to survive future shok which will came to us.
Ivan
Security has a Social Dimension
Governments and society have a 'duty of care' towards military personnel, i.e. a duty to ensure that all who serve, where there is significant risk of physical, mental or emotional harm, receive appropriate care. Soldiers are called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the nation and the international community in UN, NATO and EU missions. By putting the needs of the nation and the Armed Forces before their own, soldiers must always be able to expect in return fair treatment, to be valued and respected, and that they and their families will be sustained, rewarded and provided for by the Nation.
Financial limitations on defence budgets cannot be used as an excuse to circumvent the duty of care owed to soldiers when sending them into harm’s way.
The success of modern military missions depends on motivated, adequately trained, equipped and provided for soldiers who can rely on solid welfare schemes which also include their dependants. The policies that define the support available must state in clear terms what can be expected, as it is clear that inadequate care before, during and after deployment of soldiers will result in higher attrition rates and lesser numbers in recruitment. Either of these two eventualities affects future force generation capabilities. Conscious emphasis on operational welfare has in the Netherlands resulted in increased re-enlistment among experienced soldiers. This should encourage the political and military leadership of other nations as well, especially in the current circumstances with recruitment faltering and mission overstretch, to focus more than before on the soldiers’ welfare, the “human factor” in international military missions.
Therefore, EUROMIL offers 10 Recommendations for Armed Forces in times of Multinational crisis-management and peace-keeping missions
1. That political mandates best reflect the reality of the theatre and the mission, that the number and effect of national caveats are minimised, and forces operate according to common rules of engagement.
2. That adequate pre-deployment training – including the use of identical types of combat gear, equipment and systems as in the mission area - is provided to enhance the skills, effectiveness and safety of the individual soldier and the unit.
3. That appropriate instruction is provided on international law, language skills and cultural awareness during pre-mission training.
4. That combined pre-deployment training of multinational troops occurs in order to optimise the co-operation and interaction of different national contingents in theatre.
5. That priority is given to the provision of appropriate personal combat equipment and to ensuring that the standard of armour protection of vehicles is commensurate with the mission, and that logistic supply structures are effective and appropriate.
6. That the families of soldiers are automatically involved in all support and adaptation programmes in each deployment stage.
7. That appropriate physical and psychological medical care is ensured during military operations.
8. That long-term medical surveillance and treatment of returning soldiers and veterans is guaranteed through military medical facilities and/or the civilian health care system. PTSD should be recognised as an occupational sickness of peace-keeping veterans.
9. That vocational and retraining schemes are established which facilitate the employment of veterans in the public administration or civilian labour market.
10. That employment and training schemes are established which permit seriously injured military personnel to be employed by the public/military administration or civilian labour market.
The European Organisation of Military Associations is an umbrella organisation of 35 national military associations that promots the social and professional interests of military personnel of all rank in Europe. Stretching across 25 countries, EUROMIL is the main Europe-wide forum for co-operation and the exchange of experience among professional military associations on issues of common concern.
Military associations entirely respect and abide by the chain of command, and neither condone or support insubordination and mutiny.
Associations do not comment on strategic or operational matters.
I believe that the Strategic Concept should include something substantive on missile defence for (continental) Europe. Can the panel at the 4th live video session please address this issue, and suggest a position that NATO should take?
yes, that is perfect summarz of my questions.thank you.
My question -
How are the financial responsibilities decided/allocated when there is a decision to proceed on military intervention/involvement?
I have 1 more question-
Regarding Africa - What is NATO's position on the ongoing security struggles in Africa? Some of the countries are democtratic in nature but have security issues. What is happening in Africa can affect North America and Europe.
1) Is NATO's focus on expeditionary forces sacrificing its collective defense capabilities?
2) What are the challenges of defending the Baltic states and what are NATO's plans to overcome these challenges?
Thank you,
Rich (University of Oklahoma)
Canada decision to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan happened not because of NATO European members egotism. Canada is a typical victim of postbipolar system and Bush foreign policy. Canada as a developed country of "second echelon" lost their positive international potential which the country created in the era of cold war. This potential was eaten by Afghan strategy of the USA. It is impossible for Canada to change the strategy of the so called Afghan reconstruction. So Canada choosed the right way in the present situation.
The general strategy of international attempts to solve the Afghan problems reminds me the strategy which Lev Tolstoi in his "War and Peace" expressed in the well known words: "Die erste Kolonne marshiert... Die zweite Kolonne..." In English it means (free translation): we plans and afghan people will follow our plans. It is evident that the previous NATO General Secretary was right when he said, tha we use the old methods to solve absolutely new collisions (something like that).
The withdrawal of the NATO military forces from Afghanistan is the right decision because of in this case there isn't military solution. Thinking in categories such as 'burden sharing of the death' wouldn't be the best and hight-level solution in current era of globalisation, especial for smart European-Atlantic community. Russia had had this experience, we said - stop increasing the number of soldiers death in Afghanistan! Anybody don't need it! The best way to fight against the rebel troops is to provide the education for indigenous forces and supply aid for development. Now Afghanistan is the 'black hole' for NATO budget and allies budgets. NATO has had more important aim - missle defence systems, which are very-very expensive. Let think about Euro-Atlantic stability, unemployed, health care, economic capability, innovation, demographic situation. Turn on the 'remote control' for Afghanistan.
Olga Kolesnichenko
Russian jurnalist from Moscow
21st century brought "new threats" to world's security. First of all, beside regular armies and headquarters system, NATO's structure must also include flexible and rapid troops. I mean more and smaller bases, forward stations from the Middle East to Center Asia.
Currently, fighting with terrorism is not an exception. Like Al Queda there are new types of terroristic organisations. NATO countries' internal infrastructures have to develop intra network against terrorism. Military operations and criminal network must have a regular interaction.
Non state actors have to be described clearly in NATO's concepts. And the infrastructure can be evaulated for new types of counter terror activities.
Not only non state actors but also some countries can threat world's stability. Non proliferation of WMD is one of the essential mission of NATO. Afghanistan's stability is so important why Taliban is also active in Pakistan and could capture nuclear weapons in Pakistan. North Korea's situation and Iran's position is so important.
North Korea can destabilize Pacific's situation. On the other hand, Iran has a regional periphery from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Iran can activate Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Islamic Republic has connections with Shia militants in Yemen and has a tangible influence in Southern Iraq. If Iran would have nuclear weapon(s), regional balances will be broken against Western axis.
So NATO is in a critical examination. Non-proliferation is related with diplomatic activites but if the countries can not be persuaded with political attempts, NATO's structure provides "persuasion" with deterrence. It means "hard power".
I will summarize my approach with these outlines:
* NATO will keep her regular forces
* NATO will produce smaller and rapid forces in the "out of area". It provides more bases and forward stations.
* NATO's new threats: Terrorism, proliferation of WMD, dictatorships
* NATO's operations currently deploys from Balkans to Center Asia.
* NATO's enlargement will reach Japan and Australia. It means transatlanic relations will enrich Pacific depth.
changes to NATO's structure, forces and capabilities.
Thank you for this opportunity.
I would like to know which is the NATO vision over the concept of Human Security and if is there any intent to exploit this term within the new Strategic Concept.
Thank you!
NATO's news Strategic Concept : fourth live video session on 03 Feb.
To whom it my concern:
As you all may agree, NATO operations will take place on larger geographical scales than today with a major demand of civil-military interagency coordination and more complex military-civil objectives.
Having said that, I am deeply concerned about the "lack" of willingness of (some) NATO members to get engaged in large deployments and long-term conflicts.
How NATO expects to match those strategic demands - that can be envisioned for the near future - with the current "lack" of engagement?
What would be the role to be played by easy-to-deploy armoured units in such larger geographical scales?
On which key points the current Bundeswehr - an army designed on defensive capabilities - should be transformed as a way to improve/increase its large scales deployments?
Hopefully, my remarks/questions can be useful for your purposes.
Hernan L. Villagran
Physicist (MSc)
Analyst/Consultant - Science, Technology and Public Policy (Chile)
END OF MESSAGE
Given the current economic recession, which has already caused significant pressure on the national defense budgets of some NATO allies, especially the smaller members, do you think that the coming to the fore of the idea of “niche capabilities” (role specialisation) could prove to be the adequate answer to guarantee the maximum possible contribution of every ally?
Mihail Naydenov,
Sofia
Thank you, Hernan!
We appreciate your comments, Deniz!
We appreciate your question, Mihail!
Please visit the link bellow: NATO’s outreach & communication strategy
(2010 - 2030) by Dr. Solomon Passy.A Sketch for Brainstorming NATO’s New Strategic Concept, Presented at the Prague PSSI Conference on NATO’s Strategic Concept, January 12, 2010 (Addressed to: Secretary Madeleine K. Albright, Chair, NATO’s Group of Experts)
http://www.atlantic-club.org/content/pdf/publications_NATOs_Future.pdf
How NATO is to evolve in the coming years in terms of defense strategy, military policies and security forces reflects the complexity of the new environment. The efforts made toward forging a New Strategic Concept should be backed up by debates on adequate Intelligence capabilities – as a prerequisite for mission accomplishment. Early Warning, situation assessment and strategic planning cannot be carried out appropriately without timely and comprehensive Intelligence.
I'd like to know how do you envision the possible impact of the New Strategic Concept on NATO's Intelligence Capabilities (HUMINT, SIGINT, IMINT, MASINT, OSINT).
Is there a strategy for reconsidering, reshaping, reinforcing or creating different or new intelligence capabilities?
Which are best suited for the new missions? Is R&D prepared to face new challenges?
What should we expect regarding possible changes in doctrine?
What specific structures will be involved?
I think this is very important as knowledge and resources must shape the entire intelligence culture to promote the convergence needed for integrated products of actionable intelligence.
I'm looking forward to receiving a competent and comprehensive response.
Best regards
Thank you Roxanna! We will ask the question, provided time allows!
Thank you, Mihail!
Dear Panel members,
My two questions go in the same direction as addressed earlier by Francesca Cook.
In theory, in view of the multidimensional security challenges the Alliance members (and its Partners) are commonly facing, NATO is already committed to a "comprehensive approach" and aims at promoting transformation of its structures, forces and capabilities according a "Comprehensive Political Guidance".
First question, however, would a more visionary approach not require to basically rethink NATO's decision-making structures in order to adequately reflect the involvement of national Ministries beyond the MFAs and MoDs? I am thinking about those national ministries/agencies that deal with specific security-relevant capabilities such as Police, Gendarmerie, Civil Defence/disaster relief, humanitarian aid)?
This would be justified since it is common sense now in most countries that there is no clear distinction anymore between "external" and "internal" security - and since NATO sees itself as not just as a "military alliance".
Second question: Would such a shift not be facilitated if in the new Strategic Concept the term "security" would explicitly used instead of "defence", where ever possible?
Following such a truly "comprehensive" approach, NATO would not only ensure its relevance for the most likely security challenges of the future, but would also become a conduit for its individual member states (and Partner countries) for day-to-day inter-agency interaction and harmonisation in all aspects of security-related policy development, planning and capability development.
Looking forward to today's discussion,
Horst
Hello, Richard!
Is the video session coming through?
Bonjour,
Je voudrais bien savoir si, dans le cadre de sa stratégie de défense, l’OTAN a déjà envisagé de prendre des mesures préventives pour faire face, à moyen et long terme, à l’accroissement de la puissance militaire de pays émergents tels que la Chine.
Avec tous mes remerciements
outreach & communication strategy ?
Add this one to the multidimensional security challange.
It was written that a
government-ruling party meeting held at the National Assembly, senior Defense Ministry officials briefed lawmakers the communist country has designated an additional four-day "naval firing period" for the two zones -- east of the islands of Baengnyeong and Daecheong.-- effective from Feb. 5, according to sources privy to the meeting.
updates included
below -
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2010/02/03/81/0401000000AEN20...
Can you confirm or deny that:
1) NATO is considering having a seperate, permanent standing military with member countries donating troops and equipment?
2) NATO will be officially requesting Missile Shield coverage from the USA and supporting this with costs and installation of required components on memeber states territory.
“Dear Horst,
NATO decision-making is carried out via the North Atlantic Council (NAC), which meets in various "geometries," and where, of course, each ally gets one vote and consensus (unanimity) is required for all decisions. Normally, the NAC meets at the level of Permanent Representatives (Perm Reps), but it can also be convened at the level of Defense or Foreign Ministers, or, occasionally, Heads of State and Government (HoS/G), normally called Summits. This does not mean, however, that the NAC is only constituted by representatives of MFAs and MoDs. For almost a decade, the NAC has occasionally met in a "geometry" called a "Reinforced NAC", which is short-hand for "Perm Reps reinforced by experts from national capitals." Depending on the subject matter of the "R-NAC", those experts can come from other security-related departments or agencies, including Intelligence or any of the specialities you mention (Police, Gendarmerie, Civil Defense/Disaster Relief, Humanitarian Aid). As NATO progressively implements the Comprehenisive Approach, such meetings could well become more frequent. It is also the case that, as you note, to the extent that as a result of the new Strategic Concept, NATO's security mandate is defined more broadly in the years ahead, rather than narrowly as "defense", such non_MFA, non-MoD expertise will increasingly need to be drawn upon.”
Mr Robert Bell, Chairman of NATO’s Industrial Advisory Group
Dear Hicham,
Thank you for your interesting question. As you know, the new Strategic Concept will aim at building a common perception throughout the Alliance by discussing the new strategic environment and the various threats, risks and challenges to NATO. There are a lot of drivers for this change, and the military potential of emerging powers is one of them. The Allied Command Transformation carried out a very interesting study called “The Multiple Futures Project” and if you haven’t already had the chance to familiarize yourself with it, I’m sure you will be fascinated by visiting http://www.act.nato.int/multiple futures.
Of course, at this stage, we don’t know what will be in the Concept and what will not, but I’m fairly confident that collective defense of the member states will be a central point, no matter where the threat is coming from. How such defensive actions will be manifested, will depend of the discussions between the NATO members. Obviously, there will always be pre-crisis consultations and discussions, but it’s hard to tell if the Strategic Concept will embrace a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Personally, I would be surprised if that would take place.
Admiral J. Berggrav, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation’s Representative in Europe
Dear Panel members,
I have a question about the future of the NATO and its concept.
When will NATO transform itself into a truly global alliance by inviting counties like Australia, India, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and perhaps even Israel, Egypt and Jordan, if Middle East peace plan comes to life? I live in Croatia and I understand how important global security is, specially when unfortunately UN does not have a serious potential to guarantee peace on international level.
Darko Krcum
As Russia begins to reemerge as a strong regional power, how will NATO balance its tenuous political relationship with the Russian Federation with its goal of regional stability, and potential NATO expansion, in Eastern Europe?
Looking forward to the discussion.
Qu'en est t-il de la coopération de l'OTAN avec les structures militaires de l'Union Européenne?
La redéfinition d'un concept stratégique ne devrait-elle pas prendre en compte les rapports de coordination et de partenariat avec d'autres organisations de défense et de sécurité ?
Après Berlin +, ne peux t-on pas réfléchir à une sorte de Bruxelles + dans lequel les moyens civils de la PESD/PESD seraient mis à disposition de l'Alliance ?
Cela permettrait à l'OTAN d'adopter une comprehensive approach, de gagner en légitimité au près des populations et de sortir de cette vision d'outillage militariste géré par Washington (vision peut-être erronée mais malheureusement majoritaire).
Enfin, quid d'un pilier européen fort au sein de l'OTAN ? Peux t-on imaginer la constitution de plusieurs noyaux au sein même de l'Alliance ? Je pense par exemple à la rationalisation et à l'incorporation d'unités multinationales européennes, comme l'Eurocorps ou la brigade franco-allemande au sein de l'OTAN.
Merci d'avance pour les précisions que vous apporterez à ces interrogations.
Gentlemen
With the cold war over and the new powers rising, United states of America and Europe must to reposition the key of Institutions and mechanisms through priority strategies, economic structures, full range of international security and reinvigorate transatlantic efforts conducent to stabilization a free and peaceful in Europe. By the other hand, NATO needs a new priority strategy to Afghanistan and Pakistan and better relations with Russia. Also, NATO must to analyse new missions at home and away, through a public debate, better synergies and cooperation between civil society and Military Authorities.
My question: What NATO think to do about Deterrance, Defense and Transatlantic Resilience priorities?
Thnak you.
My Respects and Best Regards
Luis
Dear All,
What is NATO position about Iran’s nuclear program? Couldn’t we avoid this situation if preventive measures were taken on time and there was better communication, cohesion and coordination between the countries? Do you think that the New Strategic Concept will include such mechanism for acting instead of re-acting?
Thank you!
Best regards,
Iliana Panayotova, Bulgaria
It would seem that the current NATO/OTAN operations environment would present the need to not just insert forces along a spectrum of future conflict, but posture military capability to respond to the high and low ends of the legacy spectrum, a complex hybrid situation, or an irregular conflict.
This would require NATO/OTAN declared military forces postured to produce desired effects with precision and a degree of flexibility that would tax the present military and political planning framework. It would also require planning capabilities that can work with member nations to integrate forces not on call as needed to produce the needed effects. Some environments may require a degree of civic and private integration, beyond the present capability to coordinate with governments and NGOs.
Would NATO/OTAN strategic concept require a more enduring full-time bureaucracy and operations capability?
How should this function be postured and based to present a NATO/OTAN solution to the policy and military operations elements?
It would seem that decision makers would need not just member options, but options which are NATO/OTAN options. (This would also include developing and sustaining the required alliance infrastructure.) What can be done to create and sustain a more alliance-centric vantage point?
Dear Members of the Board
In regard to the NATO New strategic concept i have this question.
The security issues for each member country of NATO are interconnected. In the globalization times that have for some time now, develops with the great speed: the variables and the challenges of the global environment in terms of communication and reaction in front of a crisis internal or external are reduced or are going to be reduced. The dimensions of the strategy have gained many layers that overlap and extend in many directions and they are going to be more complex to deal with.
Being that the threats have increased because the dimensions have changed. Are part of the new strategy an increase in contributions and effort from each NATO country in term of military,political and economic engagement in regard to the protection and the expansion of the security?