Michael de Laine

By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice, 10 May 2009

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, celebrated its 60^th anniversary in early April. It is not excess baggage left over from the cold war, but it must adapt to geopolitical changes and its new Secretary General must redefine the alliance’s role when defining its new strategies and visions during the next 18 months.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, celebrated its 60^th anniversary in early April. It is not excess baggage left over from the cold war, but it must adapt to geopolitical changes and its new Secretary-General must redefine the alliance’s role when defining its new strategies and visions during the next 18 months, a conference assessing NATO’s current and future roles heard last week.

The conference, arranged by the Atlantic Treaty Association, was held at the Naval Officer College in Copenhagen. Here, a large painting of Danish and Swedish warships battling it out in Køge Bay on 1 July 1677 reminded delegates that while most – but not all – of Europe has been at peace since the Second World War, there are still armed disputes around the world and an organisation like NATO is still required for peace-keeping operations.

In the words of Troels Frølin, Secretary General of the Atlantic Treaty Association, who introduced the conference, “NATO is not excess baggage left over from the cold war, but it must adapt to geopolitical changes that are taking place.”

This view was seconded by many of the speakers, including Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen of the Danish Institute for Military Studies (DIMS). “NATO must move with the times,” he said, “this is NATO’s major challenge today.”

The military role of both the United States and the European Union must be considered when NATO’s new Secretary General, Denmark’s former Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, over the next 18 months must define new strategies and visions for the organisation.

“European security is no longer about Europe,” said Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen. There are few conflicts in Europe, but Europe is involved in conflicts elsewhere because of colonial, trade or political ties, and conflicts are changing shape, with greater civilian involvement in military conflicts.

At the same time, the rise of countries in the east, especially China and India, as economic powers, must be taken into consideration while defence budgets in many western countries are stagnating or falling.

According to Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics, “NATO is in a bit of a mess.” He felt NATO lacks strategic visions and that short-term tactical planning has been the dominant trend, illustrated in particular by NATO’s “uncritical enlargement” to now 28 members.

Following a number of years when Russia was economically weak, that country is now back in the equation, Coker said, and now it wants a say in security policy issues. These include the proposed NATO enlargement eastwards to include Georgia and Ukraine, which riles Russia.

“NATO hasn’t known where its going for the past ten years,” Coker said. “It’s a military alliance without political clout.”

In answering his own question, “What is NATO for?”, Coker said: “Managing the consequences of globalisation (whatever globalisation is…).”

He added, “NATO must define what its business is if it is to have a future – and allot the necessary resources for it to function.”

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said he saw three major tasks facing the alliance in the future: getting the Afghanistan campaign right; sorting out the situation with Russian and the Caucasus; and bringing NATO’s theory in line with its practice.

With the prospect that NATO forces will be in Afghanistan for 10-15 years, Appathurai said the Afghan campaign cannot be successful without progress. There must be a definition of milestones – what must be achieved and when – to measure progress, and which will include reconstruction, development and elections.

“This needs a more co-ordinated approach,” the NATO spokesman said. Military and civilian solutions both necessary.

Because Pakistan is involved, the strategy for Afghanistan must include a strategy for Pakistan, and Russia must be involved for geopolitical reasons.

Russia is a party to the discussions about European security, and Europe must also be involved in Russian security policies, he added. “Georgia has become a flashpoint because of the dispute between Russia and the west over Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”

Appathurai sees the coming months as a good opportunity for NATO to get its theory into line with its practice. The existing strategies are a decade old – and must be changed so they are “post 9/11, post Afghanistan and post cyber war”, he said.

The new strategies must take account of new geopolitical focus – such as the Arctic – and ensure that a larger NATO does not run into problems with internal co-ordination. And people in other countries should be heard when the new strategies and visions are being prepared.

The process must discuss NATO’s problems and the ideas that may arise to make a better security organisation.

In the end, he said, “Not using NATO for what it can do is stupid.”

During a panel debate with Danish politicians, Helge Adam Møller, defence and security affairs spokesman of the Conservatives, said NATO must remain a security forum for its 28 members and must continue participating in international operations. But its members must place the troops and expertise at NATO’s disposal for the alliance to carry out these operations.

“NATO has proved its right to exist over the past 60 years,” Møller said.

“The USA is and will continue to be the world’s dominant military power, but it will be challenged in the future,” said Holger K Nielsen, defence and security affairs spokesman of the Socialist People’s Party. “The EU is finding it difficult to develop its own security policy.”

Nielsen said the conflicts of tomorrow will be resolved by military force – but the use of military force will be the last option, not the first, in resolving conflicts.

He also wanted a closer relationship between NATO and the United Nations - “This is of vital importance in solving conflicts,” Nielsen said.

The Copenhagen Voice interviewed Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen (DIMS), Per Poulsen-Hansen, Denmark’s ambassador to NATO, NATO spokesman James Appathurai and a group of political science students on their views of NATO’s role today and in the future.

For the Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen interview go to: http://qik.com/video/1b3886674c6b449aa51fd9197b73ac2b

For the Per Poulsen-Hansen interview go to: http://qik.com/video/1618907

For the James Appathurai interview go to: http://qik.com/video/1618040

For the interview with the political science students go to: http://qik.com/video/1618933

For the Copenhagen Voice story, ‘NATO’s continued relationship with Russia ‘important’ – Secretary-General Scheffer‘ go to: http://cphvoice.ning.com/profiles/blogs/natos-continued-relationship