RSS

NATO has confirmed that it will rewrite its strategic concept. With this in mind, former Belgian Ambassador to NATO, Prosper Thuysbaert, has kindly sent us a reponse to Karsten Voigt's article The Next Steps for NATO setting out his vision for NATO's next strategic concept. The full text of Ambassador's Thuysbaert's article can be found here.

Ambassador Thuysbaert made a number of recommendations in reponse to Mr Voigt's article, a selection of which can be found below.

1. The future of NATO and the project of a new strategic concept
The biggest problem is the incapacity, at world level, to take action in dangerous situations that only will get worse if nothing is done. Solutions for problems of this kind can only be found through a reform of the UN Security Council. The two essential measures that are needed are well known: making the Council more representative of the world community and making it impossible for a big individual country to paralyse international security decisions for reasons of national interest.

There is a real need for regional security organisations, alongside NATO, in the other continents, possibly beginning with Africa where there are a number of failed states. NATO could help with its expertise, financial support, training and advice.

2. Improving NATO's cooperation
The establishment of a lasting and balanced relationship between the EU and the USA and Canada is crucial for the survival of the Alliance. The idea of a two-pillar construction within NATO that was often talked about in the past seems still premature. Priority should be given to build a strong bridge rather than to the pillars that will have to support it.

There is at present also a "window of opportunity" for a more structured cooperation between the EU and NATO, but rather by a step-by-step approach than by trying to make big jumps forward. There will have to be more precise guidelines and indications so as to give credibility to the engagements that are subscribed.

3. Prioritizing the Russia agenda
Relations between the West and Russia had moved closer, but have recently become more strained. There is the view that, because Russia is still an essential partner for the West, priority should still be given to dialogue and cooperation. A large range of international security problems cannot be solved without Russia's involvement, either because of its veto-right in the Security Council or of its geographic situation.

Russia uses energy as a leverage to increase its income and to regain political influence. Furthermore, for many observers, Russia is slowly turning its back on democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance, and there is a feeling within the West that the country cannot be treated as a decent partner any more.

These three policy lines are difficult to reconcile and there is no agreement among NATO members about their level of priority. The right balance has to be to found between them. It is crucial to reach consensus to make sure that Moscow cannot go on playing the policy of dividing the West.

4. Learning from Afghanistan
The new strategy should provide responses to the problems that present themselves both for the operation in Afghanistan and for other possible interventions in the future.

The strategic concept will have to encompass the lessons that have been learned in Afghanistan, such as insisting on the responsibilities of the local authorities to concentrate on the training and the equipping of local military and police forces to provide stability and security once the NATO and the other allied forces have left. The specific Pakistani dimension of the Afghan security problem deserves an increased attention.

5. Overall security threats
The new strategic concept is not going to become a "grand project" aimed at solving the world security problems of tomorrow. These are too large and to numerous for only one security organisation, even NATO. It is unrealistic to expect that emerging powers such as China, India and Brazil will accept that NATO should become the main instrument to provide for a more peaceful and secure world.

Prosper Thuysbaert is the former Belgian Ambassador to NATO

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Karsten Voigt: The Next Steps for NATO
• Ian Davis: Public Must Help Shape a Better, More Open NATO
• Olaf Theiler: Cohesion Vital for NATO's Future

May 22, 2009

Member deleted

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Very respectable, noble and responsible thoughts indeed.

(1) Reform of UNSC is possible in the future, but relinquish of veto rights of the permanent five maybe difficult in reality.

(2) Structured EU and NATO cooperation in a stepwise manner maybe a better strategy.

(3) "Export Development" as Russia's promoting may not be a policy that will divide the west.

(4) Noble thoughts and act.

(5) "The goals of the TransPacific Alliance should be set as an economic and security/mil cooperative organization for collective prosperity and security."

For reference :
http://americhina.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/transpacific-alliance/

May 25, 2009

Vadim Vikunin

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

NATO's nearsighted policies are the main reason for Russia's distrustful behavior. And that's very unfortunate, because Russia was quite different just a few years ago. Western Europe had a historic chance to re-unite with Russia; however NATO’s inability to build bridges and inexorable desire to control has changed my country to worse… All because this silly military alliance wanted to stay alive… That’s a terrible legacy…

May 28, 2009

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (207)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Sometimes one set of disruptive actions constitutes a lingering situation over which nobody has control but that, if left unattended, will not resolve by itself. If the costs of not dealing with the situation are high, and the costs of trying but failing are also high, what is a desirable course of action?

First, one ought to attempt to diagnose any similar situations growing elsewhere so that remediation can be attempted while the problem is yet small.

Second, even if the situation at hand has become so intractable that governments may feel the only course of action is to let the fire burn itself out, the presence of such a disaster ought to spur concerned parties everywhere to seek the best practices in remediation. In the future even though dangers are perceived and means are marginal, walking away from the problem may not be a viable option. Furthermore, without objective research and accumulated knowledge it is difficult to judge the severity of a situation and measure its dangers against one's own competencies.

Mutually agreed and objectively determined measures of hazards could go far toward encouraging all parties with a stake in what happens to Afghanistan to mitigate those hazards. The same knowledge could motivate armies to change. If the leadership of a country and of its military does not accurately assess the full spectrum of future challenges, some sectors may not receive adequate development.

It has long been my suspicion that the NATO nations, and the US in particular, regarded Russia after the fall of the USSR as "not a security threat," and therefore assumed that it could be ignored, and the could afford to do little to foster the emergence of a responsive government and do whatever possible to head off power grabs.

Universal problems such as global warming, population surges and imbalances, environmental degradation, etc. will have their impacts on all NATO nations, so a NATO grand strategy must give these driving factors high priority.

Not only ideology but also wisdom can help groups like NATO to coordinate well in response to problems like those faced in Afghanistan.

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