Globalaffairs

Issue 20/April-June 2010
By Niruban Balachandran

The Transformed International Security Environment

“With the Soviet Union receding in memory, it is a wonder that NATO still exists,” wrote former National Security Council Director Mark Medish on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 60th anniversary celebrations last year. “After the fall of the Soviet bloc many voices called for disbanding NATO. That was not an outrageous idea.”

Founded in 1949 to counter expansionism by the Soviet Union, NATO is the world’s most powerful military alliance. Under the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5, the security of all current 28 European and North American NATO member states (known as “Allies”) is regarded as “indivisible”: an attack on one is an attack on all. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, pithily stated the Alliance’s purpose was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

This goal has been achieved with enormous success, among other victories such as its military interventions in the Balkans. However, since then, NATO’s purpose has been called into question by leaders and policymakers as in Medish’s concerns above: What is the Alliance’s function in the 21st century?

That question has now been answered, with vigor, in a new report released this May by a panel of experts chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Commissioned by current NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark, the comprehensive 58-page proposal, titled “NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement”, is a bold manifesto which makes a variety of policy recommendations for the future of NATO’s strategy. The report addresses strategic issues such as terrorism, cyber defense, Afghanistan, Russia and nuclear nonproliferation. The report is the preview of a final proposal, which is slated to be green-lighted this November at NATO’s New Strategic Concept Summit in Lisbon, Portugal.

The NATO 2020 report acknowledges that the international security environment has changed drastically since NATO’s original inception in 1949, pointing out that the greatest threats to the alliance’s member states will probably come from non-state actors: “With the Cold War long since ended, NATO must find its place within a less centralized and more complicated international order. Its new role will be influenced by the emergence of specific threats from a diverse spectrum of possibilities.”

Global trends such as nuclear proliferation, the rise of international terrorism, piracy off the coast of Africa, ethnopolitical conflict and security challenges that will inevitably arise from the world’s increased reliance on a threatened ecosystem, diminishing natural resources, the Internet and potentially vulnerable information systems are all candidates according to the proposal.

More specifically, the report mentions that the Middle East harbors the triple threat of ongoing extremist violence, Arab-Israeli tensions and the policies of the government of Iran (specifically its nuclear ambitions). In the Asia-Pacific region, the report points out rising India-Pakistan tensions and the policies of the government of the People’s Republic of North Korea.

Of note, the Group concludes that “the most probable threats to Allies in the coming decade are unconventional. Three in particular stand out: 1) an attack by ballistic missile (whether or not nuclear-armed); 2) strikes by international terrorist groups; and 3) cyber assaults of varying degrees of severity.”

In light of the aforementioned global and regional trends, the report concludes that NATO’s new tasks and grand strategy will flow logically from the emergence of these aforementioned unconventional threats. As a consequence, the report declares that NATO must be willing to fight outside the treaty area in order to defend its members in a new world of unconventional threats and non-state actors: “Often, an effective defense against these unconventional security threats must begin well beyond the territory of the Alliance.”

NATO Enlargement: Regional or Global?

In a recent radio interview on NPR, Albright stated that the Group of Experts eventually concluded that collective defense was core to NATO’s purpose. “We made very clear that Article 5 was the core of the Alliance; that protecting the members of the Alliance was the number one job and that NATO needed to be prepared to do that.” Traditionally, NATO member states are democracies that have shown commitment to freedom, human rights and good governance. By extension, the Alliance is the key multilateral institution that unites North America and Europe. Still, the desire for further enlargement is a dream that many NATO leaders share.

As a result, NATO, which recently picked up Croatia and Albania as member states in 2006, will most likely eventually grant membership to additional former Soviet satellite states such as the Ukraine, Macedonia and Georgia in the future. Acquiring these states practically on Russia’s doorstep will inevitably amplify tensions between Moscow and the Alliance.

Lastly, although the current proposal makes very little reference to enlargement beyond the North Atlantic area, many NATO leaders envision a true global Alliance in the future, bristling with states like India, Singapore, Japan and Israel united in the spirit of collective defense.

A New Relationship with Moscow

Updated for the post-Cold War status quo, the new report calls for “pragmatic collaboration” with Russia on shared interests and common areas of concern such as nuclear nonproliferation, arms control, counterterrorism, maritime security (esp. anti-piracy defense) and drug trafficking. It points to the formation of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) and that venue’s track record of attempts to engage with Russia, including previous diplomatic efforts, joint projects and even consultations with Russian civilian and military leaders during the creation of the NATO 2020 report itself.

Although it acknowledges the diverse range of perceptions with which NATO personnel view Moscow, the proposal repeatedly stresses that “the Alliance neither poses a military threat to Russia, nor considers Russia a military threat to the Alliance.” Still, NATO’s activities (esp. enlargement) are often perceived by Moscow as a continuation of Cold War efforts to surround and isolate it. In fact, Albright expressed some frustration after recently delivering a speech on the NATO 2020 report at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, saying, “I don’t know how many times we have to repeat that, but [NATO] is not a threat to Russia. It is not against Russia.” It remains to be seen to what extent the NATO-Russia relationship ebbs and flows over the next decade.

The Four Most Likely Threats to NATO Allies This Decade

Of special importance is the proposal’s highlighting of what the Group of Experts conclude are the four most likely threat to NATO member states in the coming decade: nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile attacks, terrorism and cyber attacks on NATO’s critical information and communication systems.

• Nuclear Proliferation

Recognizing Russia’s concerns about NATO nuclear weapon capabilities, the new proposal recommends that NATO should “invite an ongoing dialogue with Russia on nuclear perceptions, concepts, doctrines, and transparency,” in the hopes that these and other engagement efforts will “help set the stage for the further reduction and possible eventual elimination of the entire class of sub-strategic nuclear weapons.”

The report also alludes to nuclear arms control initiatives (especially with regards to Iran and North Korea), and securing stockpiles of nuclear materials to prevent the worst-case scenario of nuclear terrorism. In this vein, NATO’s vision of a nuclear-free world is consistent with President Obama’s, which the latter has expressed many times over the courses of both his candidacy and presidency.

• Ballistic Missile Attacks

On ballistic missile defense, the NATO 2020 proposal acknowledges the Obama Administration’s “gradual roll-out” approach to missile defense, which was changed last year to allay Russian concerns about arms control and to win Medvedev’s support on President Obama’s signature nuclear arms reduction proposal. It also recommends that the Alliance expand its Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defense System further to provide its core command and control functions.

• Terrorism

The report also recommends that NATO’s Defense Against Terrorism Program — established in 2004 to protect against weapons of terrorism such as IEDs, suicide bombs and anti-aircraft rockets — should expand from its current focus to include, among other subjects, collaborative research on investigative techniques, deterrence, and social networking.

• Cyber Attacks on Information and Communication Systems

A major cyber attack on the public and private infrastructure of Estonia (a NATO member state) in 2007 by Russian hackers prompted NATO to allocate greater attention and resources to its cyber defenses. The mass digital invasion shut down the nation’s largest bank, Hansabank, and disrupted commerce and communications across Estonia. Similarly, when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Georgians were denied online access to news, cash and air tickets for days.

Since then, NATO has created three entities that specialize and work together in dealing with cyber attacks: A Cyber Defense Management Authority (an administrative center), a Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (a training center), and a Computer Incident Response Capability Center (a command center).

This May, NATO held its 13th war games exercise, the Cyber Defense Workshop, to discuss current issues in cyber security and practice responding to digital attacks from foreign hackers. The NATO 2020 report recommends that the Center of Excellence deliver more training in cyber defense to NATO personnel, expand early warning capabilities of electronic threats, and build up its defenses to protect the Alliance’s information and communication systems.

The Afghanistan Question

In the wake of the September 11th attacks, NATO Allies agreed to invoke Article 5 for the first time since the signing of the treaty: an attack on one member state shall be considered as an attack on all. Since August 2003, NATO’s number of military personnel in Afghanistan (”The International Security Assistance Force,” or ISAF) has grown significantly.

Probably its most contentious issue, NATO’s presence in Afghanistan has achieved mixed results in terms of stabilizing and rebuilding the country thus far. The report acknowledges both the accomplishments and failures of the ISAF, and also enumerates a list of “lessons learned.” The list goes on to make recommendations in policy arenas such as operating under a unified chain of command, clearly communicating NATO’s intentions to the local population, the protection and shielding of civilians in the field, the treatment of prisoners and finally, counterinsurgency techniques that can better enable NATO to earn the trust and loyalty of the Afghan people.

NATO’S Enduring Ideals and Purpose

NATO’s 28 member states have a combined GDP of US$31 trillion, over 2 million men and women under arms, and 130,000 military personnel on missions in three different continents. The combined military spending of all NATO Alliance constitutes over 70% of the world’s defense spending. The new Strategic Concept, if approved this November, will empower this powerful organization to adapt to a new world of unconventional security threats and also provide an answer to the policymakers who have questioned NATO’s raison d’être.

NATO is not only a military organization, but also a political one. Since 1949, it has traditionally stated its central purpose as being to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization” of its members by promoting “stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.” Despite numerous setbacks, disagreements among Allies, geopolitical obstacles and errors, the Alliance embodies the enduring ideals of a stable and secure world where liberty, the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights - and therefore, peace — are held paramount.

In a world of layered complexity and fast-paced geopolitics, it remains to be seen whether the new Strategic Concept’s recommitment to Article 5 (”Assured Security”) and its proposed operations beyond the treaty area (”Dynamic Engagement”) will help the Alliance address the new security challenges in the coming decade ahead. Stay tuned.

Niruban Balachandran
Executive Director of TeamBuilders International Ltd

The views and opinions of contributors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Global Affairs