RSS

The question confronting NATO as it celebrates its 60th birthday, is whether this transatlantic collective security institution can continue to make itself politically and militarily relevant in the face of these and other threats that directly impact on the security of its member states.

Central to that challenge will not be the Obama administration's commitment to security through multilateralism - that was never in doubt. It will be European commitment to the hard task of resourcing its fair share of the security burden if it wants a fair stake in the NATO of the future.

This is the Alliance's opportunity to re-affirm our commitment to Article 5 - through actions as well as words. All Allies have the responsibility to share the burden and the risks that come with them. It is not right to take the benefit of the insurance cover on offer, if you aren't prepared to pay the premium that goes with it.

The campaign in Afghanistan - every bit as important to European member states' security as it is to the security of United States - has exposed three things. A legacy of underinvestment by some European member states in their armed forces, significant variance in political commitment to the campaign and underneath it all a continued over-reliance on the US to do the heavy lifting. A hangover from the Cold War that is increasingly out of place.

The capability and capacity gap between two sides of the Atlantic has always been large. But today, the difference in absolute levels of spending between the US and European member states in NATO has never been larger. And it is European member states that lose from this. Contributing less doesn't reduce the risks we face. It only brings less influence.

The campaign in Afghanistan is evidence of the limited appetite amongst some European member states for supporting the most important active operation NATO has ever been tasked with. It isn't good enough to always look to the US for political, financial and military cover. And this imbalance will not be addressed by parcelling up NATO tasks - the ‘hard' military ones for the US and a few notable exceptions and the ‘soft' diplomatic ones to the majority of Europeans. Freeloading on the back of US military security is not an option if we wish to be equal partners in this transatlantic alliance. Anyone who wants to benefit from collective security must be prepared to share the ultimate price.

That NATO cannot work effectively with the European Union - particularly in Kosovo and Afghanistan - is incomprehensible to me. I do not disregard national concerns about the lack of formal agreements for contact between EU and NATO missions. But I do not accept that our armed forces should suffer the consequences. Nor that we should be hampered in addressing shared security concerns.

If we share a commitment to success on operations, Allies must address this issue now. I welcomed France's efforts to address this issue during their EU Presidency. Whilst 21 Allies share membership of these organisations, I hope that all Allies will contribute fully to finding practical ways to make them work better together.

We need to restate NATO's openness to relationships with countries and organisations, where this can benefit the security aims of the Alliance. A clearer vision of the relationship between the EU and NATO, and their relative roles in this relationship should be a priority.

This text provides extracts from Defence Minister John Hutton's speech at the "NATO At 60: Towards a New Strategic Concept," made in the UK on January 15. For the full speech transcript, please visit this website.

Photo © Crown Copyright/MOD 2009

Dear members of Atlantic Community...

Are Hutton's criticisms of Europeans' limited committments in Afghanistan justified?

Is an increase in troop commitment what's needed in Afghanistan?

Is the "Cold War hangover" a relevant issue in international relations?

Will Barack Obama take up Hutton's call and how are the EU member states likely to respond?

We encourage you to comment on this timely issue and share your evaluations.

January 19, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Secretary Hutton is right in identyfying NATO's main problem as lack of cohesion - that of the armed forces and that of political leaders - as to what and how the Alliance should do. And he is right that the 60th anniversary is a good occassion to stage a serious debate on that. But when we look backwards, such a debate was sparked 10 years ago, whend NATO was at 50 and expanding, then it was followed by a debate after 9/11, when NATO was for the first time using the Article 5 of Washington Treaty. Every time NATO promised to deliver on enhancing its capabilities, bridging the gap between Europe and the US in military spending and work on new strategic concepts that would keep the Alliance relevant in face of new challenges. We well remember the "Prague committments", for instance, that were to bring NATO capabilities into the XXIst century warfare. Have they been ever met? In ground surveillance and strategic airlift, has NATO made any progress in 10 years? Is the percentage of troops quickly deployable and self-sustaining on the agreed level? I am afraid not. On the other hand, who is to take care of building NATO's cohesion if not the members themselves? First, it was the US that rejected the offer on September the 12th 2001, the offer that was a unique opportunity to act together for the NATO members. Then Iraq war followed, which showed how difficult it is to manage a multi-national force - even in medium and low intensity operation.The Brits weren't too eager to co-operate with anyone in Iraq (except of the US of course and an Italian brigade), they chose to go alone with Basra privince. Only the Poles took on the burden of running a multi-national force in Iraq and they ultimately failed - or the force failed in fact after a leading European Ally withdrew early in his panic and many other followed. Now we've got ISAF and there it so happens that those who are mostly accused of cowardice are those who take care most about the co-operation within the Alliance and try to re-define the mission into military-civilian one rather than purely combat one. The point that I was making here many times is that the concept of ISAF mission has been ill-designed, NATO wasn't made for such missions and it hasn't been transformed yet to take on such missions. If that's what secretary Hutton has in mind, then fair enough.

Tags: | NATO | ISAF | Iraq | Afghanistan |

January 19, 2009

Anna de Brux / HILLBLOGGER3, NAIAG affiliate, Bronze Contributor (13)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

- Are Hutton's criticisms of Europeans' limited committments in Afghanistan justified?

Yes. ISAF was a NATO committment. All nations signed-up. There is no doubt that some nations are spending more on defence and sending more people on operations in Afghanistan and using much stronger rules of engagement than others. The effect is that some nations bear the burden in terms of military operations and loss of life more than others. This is not just in the NATO alliance where burdens are meant to be shared equally. It is this inequality that is causing some to question the validity of the NATO alliance today.

That said there is division on what NATO signed-up to do. Germany has a different vision from the US, the UK, the Netherlands and Canada. Some nations have signed up to ISAF, but then their parliament has not ratified the whole operation. These add to the complexity and to the questions about the relevance of NATO.

- Is an increase in troop commitment what's needed in Afghanistan?

An increase in troops will help. 60,000 troops to cover an area the size of France is not realistic. That said the role needs to change. ISAF cannot impose an ISAF solution. It can only back-up the Afghanistan Police and Army and supporting and Afghan solution.

- Is the "Cold War hangover" a relevant issue in international relations?

The Cold War issue is about the structure and size of armed forces. Newer NATO nations were there solely to defend their own country. There was never any intention of moving outside the country. This has completely changed and it takes time for training, concepts of operation and equipment procurement to catch-up. Aircraft and tanks are bought for use over 40 odd years. One cannot change everything in a day. In fact all NATO nations have made remarkable changes in the last 20 years. There is still a hangover, but nations are doing their best to address the issue. If electorates would allow the militarty to spend what it needs then this would not be an issue.

- Will Barack Obama take up Hutton's call and how are the EU member states likely to respond?

The actual statement is:
Central to that challenge will not be the Obama administration's commitment to security through multilateralism - that was never in doubt. It will be European commitment to the hard task of resourcing its fair share of the security burden if it wants a fair stake in the NATO of the future.

Hence Hutton answers his question himself. The real question is will the EU commit to the hard task of resourcing its fair share of the security burden if it wants a fair share in the NATO of the furure?

There are two answers to this:

1. No, the EU will not commit to the hard task of resourcing. It has no record of doing this. Member Staes do not have a huge pot of extra money - quite the reverse with the biggest recession for decades looming. Dop not expect any change in defence funding, unless there is a dramatic change in the threat.

2. I am not at all sure the Europeans want a "fair" stake in the NATO of the future. I am not at all sure that all European nations agree with much of what NATO is doing today. Many want a defensive alliance that protects their borders - especially the Eastern borders. They do not want to operate out of area.

Hutton's comments reflect a peculiarly British perspective on this debate. The problem with the British is that they live on an island offshore from the mainland. They do not have an understanding of the hopes and fears of the vast majority of Europeans. It is time the UK put more emphasis on what is happening on their own continenet. They spend too much time looking across the Atlantic and are ignoring their own backyard.

Tags: | NATO | Britain | British Politics |

January 19, 2009

Eimear O'Casey, Atlantic Community, Platinum Contributor (156)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The above reference to the British island mentality as an explanation for the government’s foreign policy decisions is a tired one. If psychological insight is going to be attempted, a better explanation might be the fact that the UK has suffered terrorist attacks on their own territory and thus sees NATO operations as a direct effort to insure against a repeat of such attacks. But this is irrelevant to the point being made by Hutton here. The crux of his charge rests on the fact that the security interest at stake is a Europe-wide, if not global one: those who do not participate in the Afghan effort benefit from the efforts to quash terrorism in Afghanistan to the same extent as those who do not.

January 19, 2009

Anna de Brux / HILLBLOGGER3, NAIAG affiliate, Bronze Contributor (13)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Ms O'Casey,

I do not mean to imply some sort of psycho babble. But the truth is the UK has a very unique perspective on what goes on on the continent and it is not at all well understood by mainland member states. The humorous Czech cartoon in the Council, where the UK is represented by a blank, illustrates the point clearly. I also do not refer only to government foreign policy - it is true in a far wider sense than that and relates to home affairs where we are out of Schengen, financial affairs where we opt out of the Euro. I certainly do not say or mean that we are wrong, but certainly we are different.

The UK has suffered from terrorist attacks - especially from the IRA for many years. We understand better than most the threat and how it can undermine society and our way of life. But that does not make a NATO action in Afghanistan right. Your comment itself talks about quashing terrorism in Afghanistan, but that is NOT the aim - IT IS A subsidiary aim. The aim is to help Afghanistan achieve sort of democratic rule whereby it can police its own state and become a member of the world community. This implies much more than a military action by NATO.

Hutton's comments on defence spending and operational committment cannot only refer to Afghanistan. Defence in the NATO ccontext implies defence of the European and N American mainland; it implies security of the sea lanes, it imples security of energy supplies and critical infrastructure; it implies cyber-security. It can also imply out of area operations to prevent terrorist mounting attacks from unstable regions of the world, eg., Afghanistan but sadly, this is a point about which NOT ALL NATO nations agree. Hutton needs to address all these issues if he is to come up with some sort of acceptable view on defence spending. I fully agree that we are not investing enough in this area. If one sees defence as a sort of insurance permium then I believe we are underinsured and I agree with Hutton, but his remarks (as published herein) will achieve nothing as they are too limited in scope.

I would love to see an increase in defence spending, but I think this is unrealistic in the current political and economic climate. For me, the real way forward is to find a way whereby those nations who are less willing to engage in active military operations pay directly or in kind for those that do engage, where the cost of security operations and reconstruction operations are somehow included in the overall budget so that we have a better vision of the true cost of reconstruction (including military operations) in countries like Afghanistan, and whereby we actually convince the international community of our impartial interest in creating a free independent country. At the moment, our actions in Afghanistan betray our purpose. We are frequently seen as an occupying forcer that are there either to conquer the country or to mould it into a NATO satellite.

My belief is that we are presenting our message badly at this level and Hutton's comments reinforce the "bad message."

Tags: | NATO | Britain | British Politics | Afghanistan |

January 20, 2009

Markus Drake, atlantic-community.org, Gold Contributor (80)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In my home country, Finland, much is made of the way governments all over Europe are splitting over the Afghanistan issue. I guess this is to contextualize the way the Finnish government itself is split, with the (agrarian and "neutrality-minded") Center party is in conflict with their main coalition partner, the Conservatives. Finland and the Conservative minister of defense, along with Germany, were the only Europeans to respond to the previous call for stepping up involvement in Afghanistan. Now that line is coming under attack by a Center party that quickly is losing in popularity, and wants to prop it up by appealing to knee-jerk, back-woods-minded anti-NATO-feelings.

Quite a dilemma for the Conservatives, how to respond to this maneuver by their "senior" partner in government. In the end, Finland will go on not having any debate on joining NATO. In the end the success of the Finnish Conservatives bid for NATO will depend on the eventual success or failure of the whole Afghanistan operation. The Center party is already pouring over all the critical reports from the UK Ministry of Defense and putting them to use for internal politics. I guess similar operations are going on in most coalition governments across Europe at the moment. How this will play out in Strasbourg at the NATO 60th birthday bash in a few months will be interesting to see.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org