I recently participated in a press trip to Belgium and Holland, where a number of journalists from Nato and Partnership for Peace countries were briefed on Nato’s strategy for the future and updated on the war in Afghanistan.
A constant message that emerged from the press tour, organised by the US Mission to Nato, was that Nato is fully aware that it needs a new strategic concept to deal with a significantly changed world.
The international geo-political situation has changed dramatically not only since the end of the Cold War but also since 1999, when Nato’s strategic concept was last updated, and will no doubt continue to change over the next decade.
This changed scenario has also allowed Nato to engage with a whole range of non-Nato countries either through a formal structured partnership such as Partnership for Peace (22 countries, including Malta), or through co-operation programmes, such as the Mediterranean Dialogue (Maghreb states – except Libya, plus Jordan, Israel and Egypt) or the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates) or indeed through individual arrangements with the so-called ‘contact countries’ (Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand). Nato is keen on both strengthening these partnerships and expanding them outside the Euro-Atlantic region.
Nato’s fundamental purpose remains to safeguard the freedom and security of its members either through military or political means. However, in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, Nato has been able to expand its involvement and operations outside the territory of its member states and has played an active role in contributing to international security.
In reality, it remains the only military organisation which has the clout and political will to guarantee global security and stability, although it took some time to adapt itself to the new international realities, and it no doubt needs to change further to be able to face new challenges over the next decade.
Nato’s biggest challenge today remains making a success of its mission in Afghanistan, by far the largest military operation in the organisation’s history. The International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan is a Nato-led coalition consisting of 119,000 troops from both Nato and non-Nato countries. Australia, for example, which is not an alliance member, contributes more troops in Afghanistan (1,500) than half the Nato allies.
Nato knows that winning the war in Afghanistan will not be easy and has acknowledged it was late in developing a counter-insurgency strategy. The so-called ‘roadside bombs’, for example (or Improvised Explosive Devices), have proved to be a very cheap and effective weapon for the Taliban, and have caused 70 per cent of the casualties in this war. In 2009 alone, there were 8,000 roadside bomb attacks against military and civilian targets.
Nato also understands that only a long-term political solution can bring this war to an end and continuously stresses the importance of the Afghan police and army being properly trained and able to assume more responsibility for the country’s security.
Emphasis has been placed on education and improving the literacy rate among Afghan security forces. Initially, for example, illiterate Afghan police recruits were given no formal training or education; instead they were immediately given a uniform and expected to carry out their duties, with obvious consequences. This is now, apparently, changing.
Besides Afghanistan, Nato conducts other military operations around the globe, such as a training mission in Iraq, an anti-piracy operation off the Horn of Africa called ‘Ocean Shield’ and an anti-terrorism operation in the Mediterranean called ‘Active Endeavour’.
This latter operation was launched in October 2001 in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and is the only Nato operation conducted under Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty, which deals with collective self-defence. It aims to demonstrate Nato’s solidarity and resolve in the fight against terrorism and to help detect and deter terrorist activity in the Mediterranean.
The Balkans remain an important area for Nato and the alliance played an importance role in stabilising the region – although it did this after the war in former Yugoslavia was well underway.
Nato still has 10,000 troops in Kosovo and the admission of Croatia, Slovenia and Albania to the alliance has contributed to regional stability. Montenegro is said to be well prepared for membership, while Macedonia’s Nato application has been held up due to Greek objections to its name.
Bosnia’s army is chronically underfunded, so there are problems with its Nato entry bid, and Serbia “would be welcomed with open arms” if it decides to join Nato, but Kosovo obviously remains an obstacle to Serbian aspirations to enter the bloc.
Nato is now gearing up for its key summit in November, when secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen is to present the alliance with his proposed new strategic concept document. This would have been presented beforehand to all Nato members and possibly also to Partnership for Peace members.
This new policy will deal with challenges such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, missile defence, cyber attacks, energy security, piracy, climate change, relations with Russia, further expansion and strengthening its partnerships around the world. The key task will be to balance the need to defend Nato territory with collective global security.
US Ambassador to Nato Ivo Daalder summed up the summit’s priorities: “Day one: new challenges. Day two: Afghanistan”.
It should be a landmark summit, one that will hopefully enable Nato to adapt better to the changed global political state of affairs.