Dear colleagues,
It is very interesting how does the EU new diplomatic policy - European External Action Service - influence on NATO transformation process. What can NATO improve to own interest using a new approach like the 'parlamentary diplomacy', including relationship with Russian parlament. Is it crucial to shaping the similar military structures of the allies thorough enhancing parlamentary ties?
Thank you,
Olga Kolesnichenko
Russian journalist from Moscow

How will the New NATO Strategic Concept provide a base for the real implementation of the Comprehensive Approach to security and especially synergy between the efforts of NATO and EU?

How will the New NATO Strategic Concept address the technology gap, especially in command and control systems between allies in order to be effective in coalition operaitons?

How will the New Strategic Concept resolve the funding problem for operations, transformation and new member integration as well as achieving of interoperability with the partners?

Dear Panelists,

Assuming that the NPA will probably not have a direct role in the formulation of NATO’s new Strategic Concept, but does represent a wide spectrum of views on the future of the Alliance from the perspective of public opinion in NATO member states, I have the following three questions:

1. Is public support possible across the NATO member states for the notion that there is no longer a clear dividing line between external and internal security challenges and that a truly “comprehensive approach” would demand almost “integral” capabilities and require to establish very close structural links between the Alliance and the EU?

2. At the recent Munich Security Conference the sensitive issue of majority voting in NATO was raised (introducing majority voting on some aspects in the process of NATO’s decision-making while retaining the principle of consensus at Council level).
My question is: Would in such a discussion the next step not be unavoidable, which is to consider different voting weights for individual member states (like e.g. in the EU)?

3. Should the NPA not promote among its members that the new Strategic Concept - once eventually agreed by the NATO Council (at the level Heads of State and Government) - should be submitted to national Parliaments for their endorsement?
This would not only underpin the legitimacy of the NATO’s adaptation in on the basis of the unchanged Washington Treaty, but also reinvigorate public support for the Alliance in general and facilitate the implementation of the new Strategic Concept in view of its future mission and the required resources.

Looking forward to a stimulating discussion,

Horst

Hello Richard -- yes it is!

So you might have to get up a bit early in Oklahoma!

As the new NATO Strategic Concept will most likely confirm the collective defense as the core mission of the Alliance, I would like to stress upon the capacity of member nations not only to provide military assistance, but also on their potential to receive such kind of support if necessary.
The key to achieve the former is to have the right and sufficient expeditionary capabilities, ready to deploy abroad and to defend the allied territories in case of aggression against them.
The latter, on its turn, is dependent on the capacity of the host nation to effectively and timely receive military assistance from its NATO allies.
In this respect, I think that in order to achieve a credible national defense, there should be an Allied shared vision on the need to develop the necessary host nation defense infrastructure that could serve the purpose of collective defense.
Besides and most importantly, given the parameters of the present-day security environment, such kind of infrastructure investment could substantially improve the capacity of the Alliance to effectively project power outside the Euroatlantic area through NATO-led operations and missions.
Do you think that such a vision should take place in the new Strategic Concept?

To YN2 Gauthier:

This is a very good idea!
I would also recommend that the organizers provide a transcript of this session as well as of the previous ones. Or at least to have the possibility to download it later on in a easily downloadable video format.

With regard to your question about the Russian antagonism to NATO enlargement Eastwards, I think that the imperial tradition in the Moscow's geostrategic thinking would finally oppose any kind of NATO enlargement, even of partnership building, regardless of its geographical direction.

Concerning the Strategic Concept, I would turn your attention to the debates taking place within the Bulgarian civil society: http://www.gcmarshall.bg/security/issues/20/index.shtml
http://www.gcmarshall.bg/security/issues/19/index.shtml
Regards,

Mihail Naydenov
Sofia

May I suggest, after serving NATO for 29 years, first as a military then as a civilian, NATO to consider using their resources in a more cost-effective manner. We see economic and manpower resources being wasted.
A more professional approach, in utilizing allocated resources would improve the spirit of the NATO employees.
This, maybe, is due to lack of professionalism on behalf of persons occuping certain key positions. I remember what a Head-hunter once told me, when asked if he could help find a decent position for a high ranking officer, friend of mine:"Maurizio, I cannot reccomend a Company to hire former military in managerial positions, as they have not been used to plan cost-effectively".
Maybe, NATO should consider using a different approach when hiring persons in key positions. The same should apply for the military that are assigned to positions that, at times, have nothing in common to their background and/or education. Furthermore they occupy the position for a short term (an average of three years) thus not allowing them time to get acquainted to the roles and responsiblities of the post.
Let us not forget other important issues such as; a) the knowledge of the English language, b) cultural awareness.
Working in a multinational organization like NATO it is very important to have a very good knowledge of both.
It is evident, that the single countries cannot provide an optimum preparation to their candidates on both these topics, thus NATO should consider having means to bring their knowledge to the required standard.
Regards,
Maurizio De Odorico

Dear NATO,
From another time zone, please always give an indication of GMT (or CET) with your announcement. Until I read the previous message, I was thinking the noon announcement was corrected for my time (EST) - obviously not. I would have awoken earlier, as I view these discussions as significant for anyone with an interest in the Alliance.
Two quick questions, if it is not too late:
1. When reviewing releases from NATO, they either originate from the political side of the house, or the military. It would seem to me that a collaboration, giving the political consequences of military action, and the military consequences of political action, would be essential to insuring the perspective that this is not just a military alliance. This also may be the case as in the Social Media and Press offices of NATO and SHAPE - do they collaborate?
2. As NATO seeks to expand its coverage and deliver its message, will the Strategic Plan have an outreach element that will include such organizations as the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers? With members and associates covering the NATO landscape (both pillars), and an observer from Russia, they can definitely be a force multiplier in public diplomacy. The Youth Atlantic Treaty Association would also be an outreach asset, too.
Thank you for your attention.
Henry E. Plimack

I've got a question about NATO's role in the modern international security system.
Is there any coincidence and/or intersection of authority in NATO's sphere of actions if to remember about UN, the only global organization with 192 members which has the right to fight with today's challenges using quite different legal methods?

I want to ask something connected with the Strategic Concept. Is the BMD ( Ballistic Missile Defence) officialy approved by NATO`s New Strategic Concept?
If not Is there another multilateral institution which will force the development and building of Anti-missile facilities in the Black Sea area or the decisions for building such in Romania, Czhec Republic and Bulgaria are completely made on a bilateral basis?

Dear Michail,

You can find all previous video sessions in the webmodule on NATO's New Strategic Concept under "Video". Or just click here.

The Moderating Team

les missiles balistiques de défense ou d'attaque se sont des missiles destructeurs de la race humaine car, à têtes nucléaires existent chez tous les pays détenteurs du nucléaire militaire .Le rôle de l'OTAN est donc et,reste à définir par rapport ,surtout,à l'Europe. Car l'OTAN à l'extérieur des frontières européenne est une grosse question qui n' a toujours pas de réponse .Le citoyen européen est en mesure de demander le pourquoi du comment dans 27 Etats dits promouvoir la démocratie ,à l'européenne ,aux parlements nationaux et parlement européen et aux différents exécutifs élus démocratiquement,afin de respecter les règles de la démocratie .Par voie de conséquence ,l'OTAN doit la transparence au 500millions d'européens. l'OTAN doit amortir le choc par des négociations diplomatiques et donc et du militaire et du politique,en ce qui concerne les armes nucléaires dans l'État juif en particulier ou doit attaquer militairement les récalcitrants avant d'entamer des négociations avec d'autres pays musulmans. l'OTAN doit être différente dans ces résolutions de l'ONU :quelque soit le poids ,toujours la même mesure. plus d'armes nucléaire et le projet d'Obama sur la dénucléarisation doit aboutir et vite,car cela va de la préservation de la vie ,de la race humaine,animale...l'OTAN doit jouer sur ce registre.RE11HGMT48

February, 2010

Brief for Submission by World Federalist Movement – Canada

To the NATO Group of Experts on
the Alliance’s New Strategic Concept

Introduction

The World Federalist Movement – Canada (WFM – Canada) is a national non-governmental organization that addresses a range of global governance issues. WFM – Canada’s 1,100 members support measures to progressively reinforce the rule of law in international affairs and develop a more democratically accountable framework of global governance. The WFM – Canada National President is Hon. Warren Allmand. WFM – Canada is a national member organization of an international NGO, the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy. The WFM-IGP International President is Hon. Lloyd Axworthy.

WFM – Canada welcomes the inclusive and participatory character of the current process for development of the new NATO Strategic Concept. This brief will include recommendations on:
A) NATO’s evolving role within the multilateral system
B) Strengthening the Alliance’s political role
C) A NATO comprehensive approach to security
D) NATO policy regarding nuclear weapons

A) NATO’s evolving role within the multilateral system

The North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 clearly sets out the Alliance’s mission and frames it within the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter provides for “regional arrangements” and the North Atlantic Treaty unites members in collective efforts toward security and stability in the North Atlantic area.

In 1999, when NATO last renewed its strategic concept the Alliance was composed of 19 members, compared to the 28 it has today. In 1999 NATO’s focus was very much on challenges within Europe or on Europe’s periphery. Today NATO’s largest operation is in Afghanistan, and other “out of area” operations include combating piracy threats off the coast of Somalia and terrorist threats that, by definition, emanate from a multiplicity of geographic sources.

NATO cannot be everywhere and do everything. As an alliance of North Atlantic, developed states, it is perceived by others as representing the interests of those states. Meanwhile, the United Nations, the world’s universal membership organization with a mandate to maintain international peace and security enjoys an international legitimacy that NATO does not.

Recommendations:
1) The new NATO Strategic Concept should reaffirm that NATO’s area of operations is limited to the North Atlantic area.

2) The new NATO Strategic Concept should affirm the primary responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

B) Strengthening the Alliance’s political role

In our view NATO’s greatest contribution to international order and stability in recent years has been through the integration of states that were formerly members of the Soviet Union into the broader architecture of democratic Europe. Together with the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), NATO has provided a framework of democratic norms and state practice that has helped guide and anchor Europe’s transformations.

We recall that the founders of the North Atlantic Alliance created a treaty framework that includes numerous possibilities not only for military cooperation but also for building political and economic partnerships. Article II of the North Atlantic Treaty states that:
“The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.”

Working with other organizations, like the EU, the Council of Europe and the OSCE, represents one of NATO’s most important challenges in the years ahead. On Dec. 1, 2009 the EU Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and the European Union's foreign policy has taken the next steps toward an institutional restructuring. The Lisbon Treaty introduced a permanent President of the European Council as well as the post of High Representative for foreign affairs, and established a European foreign service corps.

To be sure, these institutional advances are proceeding in an incremental, step-by-step manner. NATO’s institutions are challenged to adapt to these changes in a manner that complements and supports the deepening of these complementary European political processes.

Recommendations:
1) NATO should support the development of capacities for an EU foreign and military policy.

2) The new NATO Strategic Concept should emphasize the need for stronger roles for NATO’s political organizations, the NATO Council and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

C) A NATO comprehensive approach to security

In the years since the end of the Cold War, NATO has adapted to a world where security threats have become more numerous and diverse. The growing prominence of terrorist threats and the impacts of conflict within, not between states have been among the prominent changes to the international security landscape in the last two decades.

We are inclined to support conceptual frameworks that adopt comprehensive, multi-faceted and holistic approaches to identifying, understanding and responding to security threats. For example, we feel that NATO has much to gain by better integrating the “human security” model that has served well the foreign policy and planning machinery of many of its members.

However, a “comprehensive approach to security” is not synonymous with “everything but the kitchen sink.” There are real limits to the kinds of security challenges for which an organization like NATO is well placed to respond. We are concerned that the new Strategic Concept not set forth a menu of security challenges that is simply too ambitious and leads the organization astray, dealing with issues that are best left to others.

Recommendation:
1) The new NATO Strategic Concept should employ a comprehensive approach to security. But such a comprehensive analytical framework should also lead to a clearly delimited, clearly understood mandate. Conflict impacts of climate change, anti-piracy, organized crime, cyber-terrorism, energy security are examples of topics that are, quite simply, beyond NATO’s remit.

D) NATO policy regarding nuclear weapon

A review of NATO’s Strategic Concept is timely, in part because there is a movement towards the progressive reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, a goal that has been recently endorsed by the President of the United States. It is also timely in that dangerous increases of late in nuclear proliferation challenge all nations to sort out their nuclear weapons policies so that these policies are consistent with progress in halting nuclear proliferation and, most importantly, with obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

NATO’s reliance on nuclear weapons is nothing but excessive and bizarre. If we step back to the days of the Cold War, NATO historically reserved for itself the right to initiate nuclear weapons into a conflict in order to offset the conventional weapons superiority of the Warsaw Pact. Many then argued that such a policy lacked credibility in that it was predicated on the supposed practicality and morality of a so-called “limited nuclear war” and consequently was either a gigantic bluff or a dangerous suicide pact.

Today the conventional weapons picture in Europe has been reversed. Now Russia, outgunned in the European conventional weapons sweepstakes, has also adopted a nuclear first use option. That development has no more justification than NATO’s earlier rationale for a similar policy. While Russia should, of course, be strongly challenged on this policy, its existence should in no justify NATO maintaining its own nuclear first use option. It is bad enough that one party has a misguided and dangerous policy. Having another party preserving a similarly ill-advised posture does not in any way neutralize the other; it only makes a bad situation worse.

NATO adoption of a no nuclear first use policy should in no way be contingent on Russia necessarily doing likewise. And from a practical point of view it should be understood that any chance in the near future of Russia reversing its nuclear first use policy will depend on a similar reversal from NATO.

In April 2009 President Obama stated that, “To put an end to Cold War thinking we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same.” If however NATO persists in believing that nuclear weapons have a military or political usefulness beyond simply deterring their use by others, then it can surely be expected that some non-nuclear nations may see that as legitimating their own nuclear aspirations. No good surely can come of that.

To continue to state – as NATO did at it’s Washington 1999 Summit – that “nuclear forces are vital to the security of Europe” is indicative of precisely the attitude that will prevent NATO from realizing progress in moving towards a world without nuclear weapons.

There are currently U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Turkey). All of these countries are non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT. The future of these deployments is under review, particularly in light f the German government’s call for removal of nuclear weapons from German territory.

The NPT requires that “each nuclear weapon State Party undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever (and non-nuclear weapon states undertake not to receive) nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” Without the removal of nuclear weapons from the territories of non-nuclear weapon states, those states (and the U.S. as the supplier state) cannot claim full compliance with the NPT.

It is high time that NATO took actions to fortify the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Recommendations:
1) The new NATO Strategic Concept should state that the elimination of nuclear weapons, not their retention, is essential to security.

2) The new NATO Strategic Concept should phase out the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Turkey.

3) The new NATO Strategic Concept should adopt a no first use policy for NATO’s nuclear weapons.

We encourage the development of a NATO Strategic Concept that reflects an understanding of the limits of a military alliance in an interdependent world; that reinforces solidarity and democratic practice among member states; and that contributes to the goal of a more secure world without nuclear weapons.

Hello Julietta,

Unfortunately we did not have time to address this question during the live video session.

Your question appears to assume that the United Nations and NATO are competing organizations. It should be noted that the drafters of the original North Atlantic Treaty keenly desired that the new organization operate within the United Nations security framework, and Article 5 of the Treaty makes explicit reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter asserting the right of the Allies to take, individually or collectively, such action as they deem necessary for their self-defence.

Find out more from our Topic Page on NATO-UN relations:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50321.htm

Best regards
The Moderating Team

Dear Fergus,

Thank you for your recommendations. We have passed them on to the Group of Experts.

Best regards
The Moderating Team

Dear Henry,

Thank you for your observations. We apologize if we did not include the time zone with the announcement -- we'll be sure to do so in the future. Unfortunately we were not able to include your question in the online session, but we provide our own responses below.

In response to your first question, there is in fact a great deal of collaboration between NATO’s political and military sides. The Military Committee, for example, is the highest advisory body to the North Atlantic Council, and communication between the International Staff and the International Military Staff within NATO Headquarters occurs on a daily basis. All the same, recently NATO has placed renewed emphasis upon strategic communications. The Strasbourg / Kehl Summit Declaration specifically affirmed that strategic communications “are an integral part of our efforts to achieve the Alliance’s political and military objectives.” So work remains to be done.

You can find the full text of the Declaration here:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_52837.htm

Regarding your second question, while we cannot speculate upon what exactly the new Strategic Concept will include, we can say with certainty that NATO’s “Comprehensive Approach” entails a level of engagement between NATO and non-government organizations. (Find out more about the Comprehensive Approach via this link: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51633.htm). We can also be sure that the Group of Experts is well aware of the potential offered by groups such as the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers and the Youth Atlantic Treaty Organization. Indeed, some cooperation in the realm of public diplomacy already occurs in this regard.

Thanks again for your comments!

Best regards,
The Moderating Team

Special guest response:

"Russia does find it irritating that many countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact have exercised their sovereign right to choose Alliance membership. However, as noted in my answer to the question from Mr van Waning, this process should be seen as the expansion of a zone of stability and not as a threat to anyone. Furthermore, it isn’t NATO that is out looking for new members. Enlargement is the result of democratic nations making the decision to join the Alliance and then implementing reforms in order to qualify for membership.

As for expansion beyond Europe, this is ruled out by Article 10 of the Washington Treaty which specifies that membership is open to European states. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, incidentally, has called for Article 10 to be reaffirmed to end speculation about admitting non-European nations.

Sincerely,
David Hobbs
Secretary General of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly”

Special guest response:

"Someone from NATO should answer the first part of your question about the coordination of NATO’s media strategy.

The second part of your question on the outreach element of the Strategic Concept is also one for NATO but I’m happy to add a comment. NATO is reaching out very vigorously to the policy community as it prepares a new Strategic Concept. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has devoted a lot of time and energy in developing its recommendations, and I would advise any other interested organization to submit their ideas and views as rapidly as possible.

I also agree with you that organizations such as those you mention are important public diplomacy “force multipliers”.

Sincerely,
David Hobbs
Secretary General of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly"

Hello Victor, thanks for your questions.

We believe that both of your descriptions are mostly accurate -- NATO is simultaneously an Alliance composed of individual actors, and a space where members discuss their points of view. We disagree, however, with your use of the verb "impose".

NATO Allies do not impose their views upon each other. Rather, Allies discuss an issue or a course of action until a consensus is reached.

You may enjoying perusing our Topic Page on consensus decision-making at NATO, if you have not done so already:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49178.htm

That page includes links (on the margin) to other pages that may also be useful.

Best regards,
The Moderating Team

Thanks for your thoughts, Gouri!