NATO's new goals are the security and stability of the world to assure security and stabiloity in the Euroatlantic area. Thus, the experts report does not address some of the important issues that could endanger the Alliance and the world, such as: the growth of Third and Fourth World countries, whose impoverishment causes huge migration of poor people and instability; the shortening of water that could give rise to wars, support investments in new technologies that lead to less dipendence on oil........

Hello Iliana,

Thank you for your considered and thought-provoking response, and for being one of our most reliable commentators!

Your views are valuable and we hope that you will continue to share them as the process moves forward.

Best regards,
The Moderating Team

Hello John,

Thank you for your comment.

Keep in mind that the Report was intended to frame the very broadest strategy for the Alliance over the next ten years.

We hope that you continue to share your views.

Best regards,
The Moderating Team

The report on NATO's future strategy doesn't mention the unsustainable financing arrangements of the existing military alliance, let alone a grander alliance. At present the largest member of the alliance - the United States - seems to have its military actions temporarily funded by big exporters in Asia; an implicit agreement that they will take their trade surplus and flow it back into US debt instruments.

However the expert group is more concerned that NATO might go rogue. The most important partnership the group says is with its overlord, the United Nations. In this connection Britain's Chilcot inquiry is coming to the US to question the background to the invasion of Iraq.

I've finally had time to have a look at the whole thing and following are my notes on it. First off, though, I'm glad to see that the new strategic vision of NATO is bold and dares to enlarge its' focus in an increasingly unclear world. NATO has its' place and is needed to create security in increasingly different ways than all out war. This document, if followed, will certainly take steps to ensuring a more open, mobile and credible NATO in the future.

I do however have some bones to pick with it - here comes the criticism, meant constructively!

In the introduction it says:
"To this end, the Alliance should demonstrate
its commitment to the NRC (and invite Russia to do the same) by focusing on
opportunities for pragmatic collaboration in pursuit of such shared interests as nuclear non-proliferation, arms control, counter-terrorism, missile defence, effective crisis management, peace operations, maritime security, and the fight against trafficking in illegal drugs."

What about human rights violations, slave trafficking, disaster relief, etc, etc? The fight against drug trafficking?! Seriously, how did that get in there? I don't think you can call an article 5 on that one! It's very very out of place here.

Regional Trends:
----------------
pg.15: "On the positive side, Russia has shown an increased willingness to support the air and land transport of supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan, has engaged in productive strategic arms control negotiations with the United States, and has expressed strong opposition to terrorism, piracy, and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons states."

Very nice to know that Russia has helped NATO so much. What has NATO done for Russia though? If you're going to make a point of how important the NATO / Russian partnership is, why not also stress how NATO reciprociates?

pg. 16: "Thus, political reform and improved governance could be major contributors to a healthier security climate throughout Central Asia."

How do we drive political reform and improved governance? Imposing a free market capitalist nightmare like the tried in Iraq? Democracy sure, but what kind? coalition government? 2 / 3 tier structure? Who says our system is the only one that works, how about trying to get tribal democracy working? Who decides what type of democracies we'll be setting up?

Core tasks:
-----------
The security NATO provides seems defined in a very geographic way in this document, even though in order to protect the Euro-Atlantic region there is recognition that NATO may be forced to act in a expeditionary manner. There is no mention of the task of protection of individuals, groups, economic interests, etc, that belong to NATO partner nations but are stationed outside of these nations. It looks like a system by governments for governments and not one for individuals. In this internet connected age, the reason it is necessary to increase popular support is because the democratic citizen is more informed. In order to get individualistic support, the people have to know that NATO is there for *them* and not just to protect some general geographic regions or governments they feel disconnected from (as can be seen by the %ages of people voting in elections nowadays).

Partnerships:
-------------
The EU should be encouraged to grow as a single military unity and contribute troops and involvement as a single entity, much like US involvement. This will simplify the structure of NATO as well as ease the burden of EU countries in double contributions.

Also, there is no mention of ASEAN, China, Brasil, India. As they grow in economic power, their presence on the international scene will be harder to ignore. They have a valid voice they are going to use. They need to know what NATO stands for, what to expect from them and hopefully to be able to hopefully cooperate with NATO if and when needed.

Guidelines for missions outside alliance borders:
-------------------------------------------------
factors such as:
- is there a clearly defined end state or
- what exactly defines succes
are omitted. We need to be able to decide if we're going in and out, or what our sustained commitment will be after the initial fighting is done.

Decision-making procedures:
---------------------------
National limitations on the use of troops should be either specified beforehand (as much as possible) so that NATO commanders can train allready taking into account the multinational limitations, or a framework of possible actions should be hammered out that national troops committed to NATO can't deviate from.

Alliance forces and capabilities:
---------------------------------
conventional defence capabilities: no mention of policing, local aid and jointness (within the arms of the forces and within a multinational context).

Reforms and efficiencies: efficiencies and economies are sought within the C3 complex but not at the operational level, where there is also much to be gained.

comprehensive approach: what about increasing outsourcing to civilian partnerships, especially in logistics

ballistic missle defence: BMD has not managed to work in practice. Why deploy it then? Start deployment after we have a system that is proven, at least in test, to be able to down flying missles. At the moment, the only working system is the Boeing ATL, which is prototype. Don't throw away money on systems of dubious quality, which only increases the threatening posture they have to countries bordering the emplacements.

Cyber attacks: how about creating a command? policy? does NATO want a offensive capability in this, how is it going to train / implement this? As it isn't considered a warlike act, are we going to practice it ourselves and what are the parameters within which we may act? Not only communications, but also national infrastructure such as power, utilities, traffic systems, bridge signalling, etc etc etc are targets.

Climate change: as a large user of energy consuming and eco-unfriendly items, NATO research could for a certain %age be diverted to R&D projects that aim to a) consume less energy, thus creating savings and b) decrease the environmentally unfriendly footprint. Due to the size of NATO, a policy that encourages buying 'green' will force manufacturers to implement internal green R&D policies.

Finally two points: there is far too much emphasis on Iran throughout the document. This is a new strategic vision, not a direct threat to a single nation. There are other platforms for doing that.

Kosovo and Afghanistan are taken continually as the model upon which to reform NATO and if there's anything the Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan have taught us, is that each of these post cold war conflicts is unique and brings its own lessons. The point should not be to be ready for the last war / conflict, but to be flexible, mobile and generic enough to be able to fight the next one. This should specifically be NATO's strategic vision as outlined in bold in the first chapter: New Perils, New Resolve.

I'm writing now about the report, it is very interesting especially concerning co-operation with the eu. the recommendations cleary show a shift of paradigm due to the complex security environment. capacities and know how developed by all democratic countries (many of them are non aligned) are a vital sign of diversity. I'm from austria, a country with military neutrality in its constitution (article 9 states that defense capacity and army should protect territorial integrity and the democratic rights of all citizens from attacks of other countries; the democratic rights are defined f.e. in the european convention of human rights). from time to time some journalists, experts and other player try to promote a discussion about giving up neutrality and apply for nato membership.
unfortunately they don't seem to be familiar with existing co-operation with nato (the deputy supreme allied commander general john mccoll recently visited our defense minister norbert darabos and expressed his appreciation for the austrian engagement in the balkans in the pfp-framework). conferences, debate meetings in the defense academy, articles in military publication also show close relations and the will to learn from each other.
in the past it was a sometimes perhaps a bit hard to realize that small countries could develop vital capacities that could help others (but if they can't make their own experiences their contribution would be far less useful). the report luckily emphasizes diversity and is therefore an important sign for small independent countries who are willing to help others when their know how is demanded or the intelligence findings they make own their own with their own tools are important.

Dear moderators:
Has I have stated befeore, I am truly/deeply interested in following the conceptual development of the NATO's new Stategic Concept. I have already download the executive report.
I am a Chilean analyst. I live in far country that do not pertain to the NATO area. However, I strongly believe that the future of NATO can have a strong influence on the Western security trends and all over that we call the West. I expect to be more enagaged in this issue as I find more time to work on it. Please, check your records. I have participated before.
Please, acknowledge.
Hernan.