RSS

October 10, 2011

Thomas Hartmann, FU Berlin

I have two basic questions:
1. How many people work for this new division?
2. What is your budget?
Thank you

October 11, 2011

Ed Atkins, University of Kent , Bronze Contributor (22)

It is known that Hezbollah possesses approximately 100 long-range missiles, some of which have the capacity to carry warheads. How could NATO deal with the difficulties that would surround the potential problem of WMD's in the possession of non-state-actors, such as Hezbollah?

Do you perceive a danger that the defensive missile system to protect Europe, currently being constructed, could result in the political alienation of Russian?

And, totally unrelated:
Do you feel that NATO interventions in Kosovo and, now, Libya, have set a precedent in customary international law for the use of force in future humanitarian interventions?

October 12, 2011

Sayed Niamatullah Sayer

Thank you very much for providing the opportunity.
I have a number of questions related to these issues. the first would be about Afghanistan and the role of NATO after 2014.
1. What will NATO do when they leave Afghanistan in 2014 and the Taliban emerges?
2. Why it is hard for USA to accept a two nations (Israel and Palestine) in the Middle East? and why do they want to veto the tow nations proposal?
3. What if Pakistan support terrorism in the region, would be the consequences of it?

Thank you very much

October 12, 2011

Niamatullah Sayer Sharifi, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, Bronze Contributor (15)

What will be the role of NATO after 2014 in Afghanistan?

October 12, 2011

Peter Dow

Enforcing Germany's non-nuclear weapons capability after UK forces withdrawal from Germany.

Dear Dr Shea,

I note that the UK defence minister has plans to withdraw all British forces from Germany.

http://bfbs.com/news/germany/wait-continues-concrete-plans-germany-...

What is to stop Germany becoming a nuclear weapons super-power if NATO forces such as the UK withdraw their forces from Germany? German engineering is second to none and if a political will arose in Germany to become a military super-power in its own right, then what is to stop Germany arming itself with its own independent nuclear weapons capability?

Does the UK replace the implied threat of action by UK conventional forces to insist that Germany remain non-nuclear by an implied threat of a UK nuclear weapons strike against Germany to prevent a German independent nuclear weapons capability?

Or is the UK by withdrawing land forces from Germany shirking all responsibility for enforcing Germany's non-nuclear weapons capability status, leaving the matter to other NATO members, notably the USA?

I believe that the Soviets and the Russians agreed to withdraw their forces from East Germany with the understanding that Germany in NATO would remain a non-nuclear power. Have any concerns been expressed by the Russians or other former Warsaw Pact countries to NATO that the UK by withdrawing its forces from Germany could undermine the basis of their withdrawal from East Germany?

Do you advise that NATO members can trust German intentions for all time in the future, that there is no danger from the rise of new-age Hitler-type figure and is the UK and NATO presently as soft in the head as those who trusted Germany not to re-arm after World War 1?

Are we heading towards the danger of a German 4th Reich and the threat of World War 3 under the leadership of the UK and NATO at the present time?

October 12, 2011

Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community, Editor

Thank you for your submissions.

Peter,
Questions must be related to NATO's Emerging Security Challenges Division, which deals with important topics like cyber defence, terrorism, the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and energy security.

October 13, 2011

Robin Tim Weis

Dear Dr. Shea,

The Süddeutsche Zeitung back in 2010 reported on an an internal memo sent out by NATO’s secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen in, which the possibility is highlighted that NATO would evoke the use of article V in the case of an cyber attack. How viable do you think this option is, especially considering the contemporary possibilities of "laundering" a cyber attack?

Kind regards,

Robin Tim Weis

----

Name: Robin Tim Weis
Country of residence: Germany
Academic affiliation: M.A American Studies student at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies (University of Heidelberg)

October 13, 2011

Jerzy S Deren, strategic analyst, DSW University of Lower Silesia Wroclaw visiting professor, Silver Contributor (43)

Dear Dr Shea,

Since I'm former (SHAPE) strategic planner (1998-2002), (HRF NRDC-TU 2002-2005) (2007 SME advisory team to Min A.R. Wardak), thus relation amid NATO's political will - its level of ambition - threat assessment - relevant requirements and capabilities sought to achieve overall mission are for me more less explicit, however may you elaborate on

a) NATO's Emerging Security Challenges in regards of existing huge gap between US and Europe - NATO members, in their contribution to build up required capabilities (R Kagan 2003, R Gates 2011), and

b) in you view is any foreseeable future for freedom of movement (forgotten UN mission statement) in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

Thank you very much

Sincerely

Jerzy Deren Col(R) PL A Dr eng
University of Lower Silesia IBiSM, Wroclaw, Poland
visiting professor

October 14, 2011

Libor Benes

Deputy Assistant Secretary General Shea,

Thank you for the opportunity to think about emerging security threats. My ideas are not new and I do not have complete answers but I would like to use this opportunity to summarize this area of my research and thinking. I would appreciate if you find a moment to describe how you, as somebody who has gathered a broad knowledge about the topic, see this matter.

The five areas of security challenges (cyber-defense, counter-terrorism, WMD proliferation, energy security, environmental security threats) represent some of the emerging security risks and threats NATO will increasingly face. But more and more, a much broader spectrum of issues, factors, and geographical and functional areas challenge Alliance's security, be it within or beyond the traditional NATO areas of work. I have been thinking about a few theses.

a) Challenges: Looking at the world's security environment, we can see (1) old security challenges, (2) new security challenges, (3) non-security challenges, (4) challenges to our economic foundations (to prosperity, economic security and freedom, trade etc.), (5) challenges to our way of life (to disrupt it and instill fear) and values (anti-U.S./Western extremist ideologies), (6) challenges to our unity, (7) challenges resulting from factual developments in the world (rapidly growing other influence centers, etc.), or (8) our own weaknesses (the economic health and drive of our societies, imbalances in contributions to common and shared defense and security). How will the new Division - working with other Alliance and non-Alliance institutions and countries - address the whole range of issues affecting the Alliance's security I mention (1 - 8)?

b) Cooperation: Seeing that NATO will more and more depend on the expertise of and work with other institutions: How will the new NATO Division incorporate the necessary expertise of other institutions into its work, how will it work with these players, and how will the results be implemented in policy, including by those other institutions and players? Will the new Division try to influence other players in international security to do more and better to prevent and face new security challenges?

c) Activity: Successful defense requires both observing and facing developing risks and threats and active preventive work and building efforts in various areas. At the same time, our own security is affected by character of other actors. What will NATO's active approach be to shaping environment, developments, and actors in and around the risk areas to prevent those security challenges from materializing? How to better promote development of friendly identities, economic modernisation, and societal change? Are there any new initiatives to develop cooperation with the Middle East, Western Pacific, or in other geographical or functional areas?

d) NAT: How would you describe NATO's activities as for Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty?

(e) Balance: Imbalances in contributions to our common and shared security contribute to difficulties in our defense and security. Are there any new ideas on how to improve the commitment of all members to the Alliance?

Thank you, I appreciate your time,

Libor Benes
Residence: Washington, D.C., United States
Graduated from the Institute of World Politics

October 15, 2011

Mathew Shearman, Europe & Me, Bronze Contributor (25)

Dear Dr. Shea,


1. To what extent does targeting 'traditional' terrorist groups require more advanced cyber means, often associated with the cyber security realm. In other words: how technologically advanced are these terror groups becoming?

2. How does the ESCD plan to co-ordinate cyber defence with its members states, considering that they (and the EU) already have established cyber defence programs?

3. Does the placement of cyber security in the same division as non-cyber security, such as nuclear proliferation, under the umbrella term 'emerging threat' not risk conflating two very different and unique security foci?

4. Which area of you competency do you see the greatest emerging threat to NATO countries coming from?


Matt Shearman, UK

October 16, 2011

Pamela Faber, London School of Economics and Political Science, Bronze Contributor (12)

Dr. Shea,

1. What are the common minimum standards of cyber protection that should be expected? How will NATO ensure that participating nations are at parity?

2. How will the ESCD tackle metamorphosizing, non-traditional security threats when it will likely be plagued by issues of bureaucratic inefficiency? Are there any safeguards in place against stagnation?

3. How will NATO balance issues of privacy and civil liberties against those of investigation and security?

4. Because cyber security entails involvement with intra-state actors such as state police and business elites, does this imply that certain parts of NATO may become more localized or substate rather than wholly international?

Thank you,
Pamela Faber

October 18, 2011

Lawrence Efana

This idea of a new unit is highly welcome. NATO is a special bureaucratic organ. If under the present conditions the new unit is to collate, filter and integrate best practices and so advance sustainable solutions to challenges of changing threats inviting improved organised efforts to stem, it is a preliminary well thought-out step and addition.

The assignment of the new unit is both broad and specific, for example, with emphasis on: Cyber threat and policy, Energy security, Counter terrorism, Diplomatic tools and Good and effective intelligence gathering, etc. Partly as a result, the new approach to security in NATO frame, rethinks the need to rest on RESILIENCE. That means emphsis is put also on the steps: prevention and the handling methods after attacks. For the latter, Norwagian example after the crisis is no less a best practice approach - singular though)! Contextually, there is a new need to define what we mean by KEY POINTS, against the background of sophisticated criminal cultures, technological advancement and the way it feeds and advances problems of weaponry systems and proliferated abilities to use them. My argument, to begin with here, is we now see, especially with cyber threat, how technology and education, relatively useful as they are, rather than help to advance us and make our systems more stable, tend instead to destabilize and render all vulnerable. Cyber and other crimes, unfortunately leave all in the Hobbian world. We have now grown more and more shy of philosophy, so work, resting on "pragmatic" steps - such that can help us hold and manage a balance in imperfection!

My two questions to Dr. Shea are: (i) Where can we find the best practices on the issues?; (2) What credence is given to a co-ordinated and integrated political will in devicing active measures to enable NATO combat and manage threats as they evolve?

Allow me elaborate further. Many including me believe that our world is very political and all that we tend to do - from economy to the military, is very political indeed. It will not help if we sweep the political and the issue of its will under the carpet. Each time we have done that, we have had the LAW OF REVERSE ACTION, knock on our hearts through politics! It does seem we have given up the power to discriminate between that which is right and that which is wrong - a part of the reason we seem to persist in a circle.

There have been many accompanying videos to the one of Dr. Shea. Some of them leave us with messages such as "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"; "It is a kind of fun to do the impossible"; and "Changing world means changing our ideas"; etc. That NATO is listening and inviting young people into its machinery is positive and democratic, but it must not mean remaining still "in the old wine bottle". For NATO youths, this is where "it is a kind of fun to do the impossible", is worth rethinking, alongside eagerness to be parts and parcels of the change, peace and love our lessons of life invite now and then to see.

IT IS THE LACK OF POLITICAL WILL, WELL CO-ORDINATED - THAT PROTRACTS AND MESSES-UP A LOT MORE FOR OUR REGIONS AND WORLD!