The Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association has the
honour to present its report on the fourth Strategic Concept
Seminar that took place on February 23, 2010 in Washington, D.C. Canada was
represented by Senator Pierre Claude Nolin.
Participants debated NATO’s further
political and military transformation priorities including, structures, forces,
and capabilities. The seminar and associated events were the capstone of the
“reflection period” for the Group of Experts.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State of the United States, addressed participants the evening
before the seminar. Dr. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence of the United
States, Gen (Ret) James L. Jones, Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, and His Excellency Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General
of NATO, gave keynote addresses. Vice Admiral Ann Rondeau, President of the
NDU, and General Stéphane Abrial, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation
(ACT), offered welcoming and closing remarks. The Honorable Madeleine K.
Albright, chair of the Group of Experts and Mr. Jeroen van der Veer, the Vice
Chair, presided over the seminar and Secretary Albright made closing remarks.
The seminar was co hosted by NDU and ACT, in partnership with the Atlantic Council
of the United States, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the
German Marshall Fund, and the Johns Hopkins University SAIS Center for
Transatlantic Relations.
Participants in various panel
discussions and breakout groups considered a wide range of ideas on the future
military requirements of alliance strategy, possible changes in NATO
decision-making and business practices, and how best to achieve military reform
and effectiveness in a period of scarce resources.
The highlights below, prepared by NDU
and ACT rapporteurs, are derived from the comments of seminar speakers or
participants in the discussion sessions expressing their own opinions. They do
not reflect the views of the Experts, Governments, or NATO’s official views.
The Group of Experts will continue to discuss and explore these and other
issues over the next two months as they complete their final report and will
present a set of recommendations to Secretary General Rasmussen in early May.
KEEPING ARTICLE 5 CREDIBLE
Seminar speakers and participants
offered their views on the future requirements of the collective defence
commitments under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. On this vital topic, a
variety of opinions were expressed.
·The future of NATO should be guided by four
goals: 1) reassurance on Article 5 protections; 2) resilience for near article
5 threats; 3) shared responsibility for missions; and 4) re-engagement with
partners.
·NATO defence must begin with defence of its
territory. The founding concept on which NATO is built is that burden and risk
are mutually shared. For this reason, honoring the Article 5 commitment is as
critical today as it was 60 years ago. NATO must be more flexible so it can
address new threats with multi-layered missile defence, nuclear deterrence, cyber
and energy security and defence of sea-lanes.
For NATO to continue to be credible
with the citizens of its member nations, it must be seen as having the capacity
to protect them against such threats.
·Article 5 and non-Article 5 missions are
synergistic and NATO’s command structures must be flexible enough to fully
support a full range of missions. While the specifics will not be the same for
every operation, many aspects of deploying forces either in or out of Europe
are the same. Forces will need to move—in some cases long distance, including
outside of Europe—to defend the territory of a fellow ally. Strategic lift
transport enhances NATO’s overall ability for such missions.
·The alliance needs enhanced crisis response
capabilities to deal with lower end contingencies.
·NATO needs to also focus more on strategic
communications in the conduct of future operations to maintain support for its
activities among member governments, partners, and the wider international
community. While making clear that it remains an alliance committed to defence
of its citizens and peaceful resolution of disputes, NATO needs to retain the
core military capabilities required to convince any actor that an attack on
member states has no chance of succeeding.
·There will not be enough common funding to
address every need of the Alliance. Focusing on crucial life-saving
capabilities that are fully interoperable and essential for operating in the
information age would make NATO a far more flexible and capable Alliance.
Flexibility and shared assets may be the best alternative to shrinking defence
budgets and diminished capacity.
·The Alliance should look into the possibility of
making more use of multinational forces, as a way to enable all willing nations
to contribute to and access costly capabilities. The more nations insist on
their own, often unnecessary, programs, the more the costs will balloon.
Rather, NATO needs to promote common program/capability development.
·Developing better C4ISR (Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is
one of the keys to a strong and mobile force. It is the backbone of the
military alliance, a force enabler, and a multiplier. By improving situational
awareness and connecting decision makers, C4ISR makes forces lighter and more
flexible. Some ways to improve C4ISR are through more timely intelligence
sharing, modernization of control platforms, and better interoperability. C4ISR
should be a top priority for funding because it provides one of the greatest
returns for the investment.
·A key question that the new Strategic Concept
will need to address is the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance deterrence
strategy. Most speakers noted that U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe,
together with U.S. conventional forces stationed there, have contributed to
trans-Atlantic stability and security for decades. They contend that nuclear
weapons remain one of the strongest manifestations of reassurance and shared
risks and responsibilities within the Alliance. These speakers argued that
removal of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe could have unintended and
far-reaching consequences, particularly given that current Russian
Military doctrine is even more reliant
on nuclear weapons than in the past. Several speakers asserted that ballistic
missile defences are a necessary but insufficient part of defending NATO and
deterring potential nuclear attacks against the alliance.
·There were also strong views expressed by
several seminar participants that decisions on nuclear basing should be taken
by the Alliance as a whole, rather than as a result of disjointed national
actions. They add that the relevant nuclear sections of the existing Strategic
Concept have stood the test of time—the fundamental purpose of the nuclear
forces of the Allies is political: to preserve peace, prevent intimidation, and
ensure that no adversary ever sees aggression as a rational option. Widespread
participation of European allies in aspects of the nuclear mission, they argue,
will ensure a more effective common defence.
·Others argued the opposite case. They contend
that concepts of deterrence and nuclear weapons deployments conceived during
the Cold War are no longer effective and even dangerous. They believe that the
remaining U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe should be consolidated to reduce
the risk of theft and that the Alliance should commit to create conditions to
remove all U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. These speakers urged Allied
governments to take additional steps to enhance the security of existing
nuclear weapons and to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in declaratory
policy.
·Some speakers and participants argued that there
may be more room for cuts in existing numbers of deployed nuclear weapons.
Others disagreed and asserted that unilateral cuts have been and will continue
to be an ineffective way to get Russia to reduce its thousands of mobile
short-range nuclear systems. Several speakers urged Allies to consider entering
into negotiations with Moscow that could lead to further reductions in NATO
nuclear weapons and substantial cuts in Russia’s much larger arsenal.
ADAPTING CAPABILITIES FOR A NEW ERA
Speakers and participants offered their
ideas for consideration about what military capabilities NATO will need to deal
with emerging threats.
·The face of future conflict will likely be: more
urban; on or close to a coastline; intrastate as opposed to war between states;
driven by conflicts over resources; and/or overlapping with development and
foreign assistance. These will be hybrid operations, with both military and
civilian components. This does not mean that conflict between states will
disappear, though the methods for responding to those threats may be less
traditional. The Alliance needs to consider lessons-learned with respect to
irregular and urban warfare from ISAF, and to evaluate whether to retain and
institutionalize them in future NATO force structures and concepts of
operation.
·NATO needs to play a larger role in defence of
the global commons. It is already undertaking anti-piracy missions such as
Ocean Shield. The opening up of Arctic sea lanes may create new demands for
allies to ensure safety and security of transit and deal with crisis management
in that region. Allies also need to develop early warning networks and effective
defence of cyber and space assets. NATO needs to think about how it would
respond to attacks on space assets. Would it trigger an Article 5 response?
Allies should also give more attention to defence and deterrence of cyber
attacks. NATO’s role in energy security is limited, but it can be an energy
security enabler by training the security forces of key energy supplier states.
·Although each operation will have unique
characteristics, an iterative lesson learned process should be an integral part
of NATO’s operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. These efforts should focus
on a range of issues including command and control, equipment, tactics and
practices. They should also institutionalize those ad hoc decision-making
processes and solutions that will likely be constants in any future NATO
operation. What should flow from this process is a common understanding among
all NATO nations of how to conduct complex operations, stability operations and
counterinsurgency.
·Stability operations have become a new and
significant NATO mission and have a unique set of criteria: training indigenous
forces; security sector reforms; and coordination and cooperation with the
civilian sector. The more effective NATO can be in the development and training
of indigenous forces, for example, the less likely it is that NATO will have to
expend even greater resources at some future time.
·There will never be enough NATO civilians to
fill every void in a stability operation, but NATO does not necessarily need
all of these capabilities filled at the same levels. NATO should recruit and
have available more civilians with specific skills and backgrounds, but these
should be seen as advisors or a complement to the military; and as partners to
what other international and non-governmental organizations bring to the
operation. Developing the comprehensive approach for working with partners will
ensure effective unity of action in the conduct of these complex missions.
CHANGING THE WAY NATO DOES BUSINESS
Seminar speakers and participants
advanced a number of their proposals for enhancing Alliance business practices,
decision-making processes, and structures.
·Several speakers argued that NATO must transform
the way it makes decisions, organizes missions and training, generates funding
from members, allocates and spends those funds, and establishes and implements
partnerships with other nations or institutions. It was noted that NATO has
hundreds of committees that have developed over the years. Some urged that
Allies reassess the contemporary utility of many these committees.
·The well-known coordination difficulties between
NATO and the EU have negative consequences for operations when both
organizations are involved. New forums are not needed, but scheduling meetings
and summits “back-to-back,” so that key players can attend and discuss these
critical matters could alleviate many of the organizational problems—problems
which need to be resolved before deployment. A number of speakers urged that
the U.S. must take the lead in achieving new
Trans-atlantic cooperation.
·There is no adequate substitute for consensus,
but how consensus is implemented is “fair game” for reform. All too often
consensus from some members is agreeing to an operation without any intention
of participating. It also gets used inappropriately by members who are not
participating in an operation, but still try to block the ability of those
nations that are engaged in accomplishing their mission. There is a big
difference between a consensus decision and implementation of that decision.
Unfortunately, the latter has been used to undermine the former.
·There is no need to re-legislate consensus at
every level in the Alliance. One decision should be enough to permit the
International Staff and International Military Staff to do what is necessary to
carry out operations. Quick fixes could include moving decision making to those
responsible for implementation, abandoning fixed speaking order lists in favor
of real discussion, and granting the Secretary General the authority to move
people and resources within the Alliance to address needs as they arise without
a vote on every single move.
·The Alliance has earned the unfortunate
distinction of making decisions but not implementing them. Instead of
re-thinking consensus, NATO should make fewer little decisions, save consensus
for the really big and important issues, and let the professionals do their job
of implementing those decisions.
·Improving Alliance crisis response capabilities
and the ability to deal with emerging threats will require some changes in
decision-making processes. Allies should consider: placing a time limit—for
example, a few hours or 24 hours—on breaking silence on certain urgent crisis
decisions, thereby giving the Secretary General predelegated authorities to be able
to provide an initial Alliance response to certain emergencies. To have
effective missile defences, there may be a need to give predesignated authority
to NATO civil or military authorities to take action to block missile strikes.
BREAKOUT GROUPS
Participants in four breakout groups
offered their ideas about how Allies could best cope with projected resource
constraints, including through command restructuring, organizational reforms,
and enhanced relations with industry.
Group 1 on Aligning Resources and
Strategy
·It is unlikely that the free-fall in defence
spending can be reversed, and the existing Alliance goal of member nations
allocating two percent of GDP to defence is probably unrealistic. There may be
wide agreement about traditional and emerging threats, but publics in many
European countries do not believe these are imminent or existential dangers.
Some NATO governments assume that other Allies will fill the gap, referred to
as “free riding.”
·Possible solutions are public outreach to
convince NATO publics that money is being spent for “their” security and
reducing duplications by having individual Allies take on responsibility for
doing what they do best.
Group 2 on Military Efficiencies
·The current NATO budget process is ad hoc;
driven by political views rather than military advice; has no standard method
to set requirements priorities; and does not reflect the reality of current or
future operations.
·Assuming flat or even decreased defence
spending, draconian cuts will have to be made in the command structure, which
is no longer suited for current or future missions and infrastructure which has
no practical use. If a subordinate command is not being used, it should be cut,
as should infrastructure. These tradeoffs offer a practical way to free up
funding for essential capabilities.
Group 3 on Military/Command
Structure Reform
·Today’s NATO is too big, too static, and
basically unfit for the 21st century operating environment. Reform of the
command structure could improve this situation by: 1) reducing the headquarters
footprint, 2) making headquarters deployable, and 3) improving the relationship
between command structure and force structure.
·A number of recommendations were discussed about
reducing duplication in military headquarters structures at the command,
component, and joint forces levels. An important step could include the
creation of an independent commission to advise the command structure as
recommended by U.S. Secretary of Defence Gates.
Group 4 on Collaboration with
Industry
·The principles of efficiency, interoperability,
and sustainability should guide NATO defence development and acquisition
programs, much of which can be accomplished through information sharing:
exchanging information regarding ongoing research and development; making
future NATO requirements clear to industry (using less expensive commercially
available technologies); identifying shortfalls and interoperability gaps; and
eliminating duplication of effort (increased cooperation with the EU and other
partners).
·Competition in the defence industry is healthy if it does not
serve solely to protect national industries. Guiding principles for
collaboration with industry should be maintaining coherence, embracing success,
and challenging bureaucracy.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Leon Benoit, M.P.
Chair
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association (NATO PA)