In early August 2010, a new Division started its work in NATO's International
Staff. In itself, this may not appear particularly noteworthy. Large
bureaucracies re-shuffling their outfit from time to time is not exactly
headline-grabbing stuff.
But this time, things are different.
The creation of an "Emerging Security Challenges Division" (ESCD) by
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is not just an internal exercise, but
also a strong political message. For the first time, NATO is systematically
bringing together work on the areas that will increasingly affect the security
of the Allies on both sides of the Atlantic: terrorism, cyber attacks, threats
to energy supply, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
At first glance it may appear as if these challenges have little in common.
However, a closer look reveals why they belong together conceptually. These
challenges not only share certain common characteristics, but addressing them
also requires NATO to change the way it thinks about Alliance solidarity and how
it interacts with the broader international community, notably with civilian
actors and the private sector.
The first common characteristic of these challenges is that they do not
necessarily affect all Allies in the same way. A terrorist attack on a single
Ally may generate collective concern, yet it may not automatically be regarded
as an attack against the Alliance as a whole. The same holds true for a cyber
attack on the banking system or an attack on the energy supply of an individual
Ally. The decision about if and how to respond lies first and foremost with the
country that has been hit.
In contrast to the Cold War, when a Warsaw Pact attack on one NATO Ally would
have triggered a collective response by the other Allies, today's challenges do
not necessarily lend themselves to such a quasi-automatic response.
Consequently, NATO Allies need to re-define the way in which Alliance solidarity
will be expressed in a range of entirely new scenarios.
A second common characteristic of the new challenges is the fact that they do
not necessarily require a military response. A well-orchestrated cyber attack
can paralyse a country in ways that in the past could only have been achieved by
a foreign invasion; yet if the attackers were an NGO, for example, NATO would
hardly be able to threaten military retaliation.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in turn, may well require
new military means of protection, such as missile defences. However, dampening
proliferation incentives by resolving regional security problems and applying
diplomatic and economic "sticks" and "carrots" will remain the preferred
approach. In short, while transatlantic cooperation remains indispensable to
cope with the new security challenges, NATO's military "toolbox" no longer
suffices.
This leads to the third common characteristic of the new challenges: since
they are both foreign and domestic, as well as military and economic, they
require a holistic approach. In concrete terms, they require NATO to build
structured relations with a range of civilian actors.
This applies not only to the other major international organisations, such as
the United Nations and the European Union, but also to non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) as well as the private sector, for example the energy and
information technology sectors. All these actors become partners in the attempt
to cope with the security challenges that are thrown up by globalisation. Given
the vast differences in their goals, mandates and working methods, building
trusting and effective relationships between them will be an arduous process.
Yet NATO must not shy away from this challenge.
If the Alliance wants to remain an effective security provider for its
members, it must become a team player. NATO has only just begun to embark on
this journey - and it is going to be a difficult one.
Some Allies may hesitate to grant NATO a stronger role in areas such as
energy security or addressing nuclear proliferation, arguing against unduly
militarising a range of issues that for good reasons should remain political.
Others might be concerned that dealing with these new security challenges will
divert NATO's attention away from its core task of collective defence. Such
concerns can only be addressed - and, hopefully, dispelled - if Allies devote
more time to discussing emerging challenges. Over the past years, managing
NATO's operations, such as those in Afghanistan and Kosovo, has taken up most of
the Allies' time and focus, at the expense of discussing future challenges.
What is therefore needed is a new balance between the present and the future:
NATO must develop a culture of political discussion which is not confined to
issues that directly involve NATO militarily, but which also includes issues
that may have "only" political relevance. As long as every debate in NATO is
viewed as preparing military operations, a forward-looking, enlightened debate
about emerging 21st century challenges will remain elusive. The
Emerging Security Challenges Division will play its part in contributing to such
a new culture of debate. Its Strategic Analysis Capability will scan the
strategic horizon for challenges that may affect Allied security. This will help
stimulate the debate among Allies and reinforce NATO's unique value as a key
forum for security consultation between Europe and North America, the world's
strongest community of like-minded nations.
A new Division in NATO's International Staff, stronger ties with other
actors, and a more forward-looking debate among Allies: these are the elements
that will shape NATO's approach towards emerging security challenges. To make
this approach truly effective requires profound changes in NATO's structure and
policy.
But NATO is ready to embrace these changes. Because Allies have understood
that only by embracing change will the Atlantic Alliance be able to live up to
its role as an anchor of security in a globalised world.
Ambassador Gábor Iklódy is NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges. This article was written for NATO Review.
 |
|
Atlantic-community.org's new web module "NATO's Agenda" is sponsored by the Public Diplomacy Division of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We encourage you to comment and submit op-ed articles with your analyses and policy recommendations for "NATO's Agenda." |
- 5
July 26, 2011
Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)
Sure threats in the new, globalized world are vastly different than those previously confronted. Their amorphous nature makes it tough to diagnose in advance what can or should be done.
That said, it seems increasingly likely (and probably desirable) for "security alliances" to become regional. The U.S. can and should remain a pivotal player in each, but this way, each region can, with laser like focus, zero in on the issues of most importance to them.
One thing to consider might be a new South East Asian Treaty Organization or SEATO. Admittedly, the old SEATO disbanded due to fractiousness of its members. However, with the rise of China and things like terrorism off the Somali coast, there could be some renewed interest in a security system for the region. Overlapping membership with the ASEAN and APEC would be guaranteed.
It could be a useful counter to the SCO, but not necessarily get hung up in all that "League of Democracy" talk that would exclude various members. It probably would need to exclude China, but a direct US-China backed group with possible membership of India and Japan (a "Quadrilateral Commission?") might be useful to balance overt Chinese fears.
Certainly, this is all very rough in conception, but the point is, we need to become focused on regions and keep the relative security architectures appropriately focused lest they become empty hulks that do little more than offer superficial comfort.