Nato has just marked the 65th anniversary since its founding. This anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the past of the alliance and to try to understand its present and future challenges.
The milieu within which Nato operates has changed radically since its foundation in April 1949. Europe was still recovering from the aftermath of World War II. A resurgent and re-armed Germany was seen as a threat to stability and security. Political and economic collaboration among European states had not yet become a concrete long-term reality and the United States and its European allies felt threatened by the Soviet Union.
The Cold War provided a complex security dilemma. The threat was military, industrial, economic and ideological. Each of these factors impinged on each other.
Nato, originally an alliance between the United States, Canada and 10 countries in the North Atlantic basin, provided a collective defence system designed to respond to possible aggression against members of the alliance. It is governed by the North Atlantic Treaty.
Nato’s current command structure needs to reflect the new challenges
In article 5 of the treaty, the alliance members agreed that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.
The Soviet Union expressed an interest to join the alliance in 1954; the alliance feared its intentions were to weaken it and, thus, refused admission. The greatest turning point was Germany’s admission to the alliance in 1955. The former enemy whose military power was previously feared now became an essential lynchpin in the alliance’s strategic considerations.
In 1956, the Soviet Union sought to counter Nato’s military capabilities through the Warsaw Pact. This cemented the divide between the two blocs and exacerbated tensions and fears. Throughout the Cold War, the alliance provided a strong military backing which protected a number of economic, ideological and industrial interests.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of its former satellite republics radically altered Nato’s orientation. Many former non-aligned countries or Warsaw Pact members joined the alliance. Others sought to collaborate with the alliance.
In 2001, following the September 11 attacks, Nato members invoked article 5. The terrorist attacks were seen as an attack on all Nato members. In response, the alliance is now wholeheartedly engaged in the fight against terrorism.
This shift reflected the radical changes in security policy concerns. Terrorism is now a daunting reality that threatens human and State security. Rogue and failed states present additional security challenges. The possibility of potential weak links where terrorism could flourish requires new collaborative initiatives and capabilities.
Today, Nato is re-orienting its future within this post-Cold War scenario. In a policy environment were budgetary concerns are forcing widespread defence cuts, the alliance must now work to develop methods to counter the rising security challenges in a cost-effective manner.
Cybercrime, human trafficking and organised crime provide a constant challenge. Individuals, particularly those engaged in terrorism, adopt stealth tactics and operate from a myriad of remote and isolated locations. Home-grown terrorism is also a growing reality.
Environmental degradation and climate change are slowly but steadily becoming acute security concerns. They threaten the way we live and put our future livelihood in jeopardy. The need for long-term mechanisms to safeguard energy security and resolve resource conflict is acutely felt. The future of the alliance hinges on its ability to foster institutional change, harness collective capabilities and engage with its neighbourhood.
Nato’s current command structure needs to reflect the new challenges. The Emerging Security Challenges Division, launched in 2010, provides an analytic capability to decipher these new threats. However the new security challenges radically alter all traditional approaches of defence policy. This must be reflected in the entire command structure and in the focus of the organisation.
As the alliance celebrates its 65th year, we should recognise the enduring relevance of its founding principles, that of providing a collaborative space to ensure security and stability. The current security dilemma is perhaps more complex than it has ever been.
It calls for a stronger multilateral approach and a capacity to develop innovative policies to address such issues. Failure to meet such challenges could dent its effectiveness and credibility in responding to crises.
andre.deb@gmail.com