Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NATO Today and Its Global Engagement Presentation at the European Summer Academy, Gumpoldskirchen Austrian Institute for European Security Policy.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NATO Today and Its Global Engagement Presentation at the European Summer Academy, Gumpoldskirchen Austrian Institute for European Security Policy."— Presentation transcript:

1 NATO Today and Its Global Engagement Presentation at the European Summer Academy, Gumpoldskirchen Austrian Institute for European Security Policy (ÖIES) 14 July 2006 (REV 2.5) Alexander Siedschlag Full Professor of European Security Policy Director of the Endowed Centre for European Security Policy University of Innsbruck

2 Disclaimer This presentation to some extent draws on publicly available material from NATO‘s official website ( It makes no claim to scientific originality but serves teaching-related documentational purposes. For this reason, the presentation is restrictive in terms of academic references, which does not mean that the presented content is generally under the Endowed Centre for European Security Studies’ copyright.

3 Overview NATO’s current self-proclaimed image
Afghanistan as an example NATO’s global responsibility? North Atlantic Council vs. UN Security Council? What is among NATO’s founding principles? Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991 NATO’s partnership industry - The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council today - Today’s political frame for NATO’s partnerships - Example: Partnership for Peace (PfP) - Example: Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) - Example: Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) - Contact Countries Problems and perspectives

4 NATO’s current self-proclaimed image
„NATO is not a global alliance but an alliance with global partners“ NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer at NATO Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Sofia/Bulgaria, April 2006

5 Afghanistan as an example
“Our Afghanistan mission has brought NATO not only out-of-area, but out-of-continent. In my view, this mission marked the final victory of a functional approach to security over a geographical one. And, what is equally important, the players in the region – from Uzbekistan to China – have accepted NATO’s presence as well. Just last week, I visited several of our Partner countries in Central Asia. Given their unique geographical position, these countries provide most valuable support to our Afghanistan mission. NATO, in turn, helps these Partners in coping with their specific security challenges, from terrorism to border control to the setting up of modern armed forces. These emerging relationships between NATO and Central Asia are mutually beneficial. They demonstrate the wisdom of our considerable investment of time and energy in our Partnership policies -- and of looking at security functionally rather than geographically.” (NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer,

6 NATO’s global responsibility?
NATO North Atlantic Council Statement on North Korea (emphases added) On July 5, the North Atlantic Council met in Brussels to express the Alliance’s grave concern over North Korea ’s (DPRK’s) launch of a Taepodong-2 and other missiles. North Korea’s development, deployment and proliferation of ballistic missiles, missile-related materials, equipment, and technology pose a serious threat to the region and the international community at large. We regret and condemn this launch. […] North Korea ’s missile programs and provocative actions necessitate a firm response from the international community, and we will support the international community’s efforts to address this matter broadly, including at the UN Security Council which will meet later today. We call on the DPRK to cease immediately the development of long-range missiles, to reconfirm its moratorium on all long-range missile launches, to abide by the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime, and to subscribe to the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. […]

7 North Atlantic Council vs. UN Security Council?
Article 24, para. 1 UN Charter In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

8 What is among NATO’s founding principles?
… in order to discern old from new and appreciate NATO´s political-military dual structure… match the Articles with the respective security institutions! (UNO, NATO, WEU, EU – incl. Constitutional Treaty, OSCE)

9 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
The Alliance’s new strategic concept (Rome, December 1991) 36. Alliance strategy will continue to reflect a number of fundamental principles. The Alliance is purely defensive in purpose: none of its weapons will ever be used except in self-defence, and it does not consider itself to be anyone's adversary. The Allies will maintain military strength adequate to convince any potential aggressor that the use of force against the territory of one of the Allies would meet collective and effective action by all of them and that the risks involved in initiating conflict would outweigh any foreseeable gains. The forces of the Allies must therefore be able to defend Alliance frontiers, to stop an aggressor's advance as far forward as possible, to maintain or restore the territorial integrity of Allied nations and to terminate war rapidly by making an aggressor reconsider his decision, cease his attack and withdraw. The role of the Alliance's military forces is to assure the territorial integrity and political independence of its member states, and thus contribute to peace and stability in Europe.

10 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
Brussels Summit declaration (January 1994) 7. In pursuit of our common transatlantic security requirements, NATO increasingly will be called upon to undertake missions in addition to the traditional and fundamental task of collective defence of its members, which remains a core function. We reaffirm our offer to support, on a case by case basis in accordance with our own procedures, peacekeeping and other operations under the authority of the UN Security Council or the responsibility of the CSCE, including by making available Alliance resources and expertise. Participation in any such operation or mission will remain subject to decisions of member states in accordance with national constitutions.

11 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
The Alliance’s new strategic concept (Washington, DC, April 1999) 10. [...] the Alliance performs the following fundamental security tasks: Security: To provide one of the indispensable foundations for a stable Euro-Atlantic security environment, based on the growth of democratic institutions and commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force. Consultation: To serve, as provided for in Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, as an essential transatlantic forum for Allied consultations on any issues that affect their vital interests, including possible developments posing risks for members' security, and for appropriate co-ordination of their efforts in fields of common concern. Deterrence and Defence: To deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state as provided for in Articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty. And in order to enhance the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area: Crisis Management: To stand ready, case-by-case and by consensus, inconformity with Article 7 of the Washington Treaty, to contribute toeffective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations. Partnership: To promote wide-ranging partnership, cooperation, and dialogue with other countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, with the aim of increasing transparency, mutual confidence and the capacity for joint action with the Alliance.

12 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
Prague Summit Declaration (November 2002, para. 4, excerpts) We underscore that our efforts to transform and adapt NATO should not be perceived as a threat by any country or organisation, but rather as a demonstration of our determination to protect our populations, territory and forces from any armed attack, including terrorist attack, directed from abroad. We are determined to deter, disrupt, defend and protect against any attacks on us, in accordance with the Washington Treaty and the Charter of the United Nations. In order to carry out the full range of its missions, NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, upon decision by the North Atlantic Council, to sustain operations over distance and time, including in an environment where they might be faced with nuclear, biological and chemical threats, and to achieve their objectives. Effective military forces, an essential part of our overall political strategy, are vital to safeguard the freedom and security of our populations and to contribute to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region. We have therefore decided to:

13 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
Prague Summit Declaration (November 2002, para. 4, excerpts, continued) a. Create a NATO Response Force (NRF) consisting of a technologically advanced, flexible, deployable, interoperable and sustainable force including land, sea, and air elements ready to move quickly to wherever needed, as decided by the Council [see following slide] […]. b. Streamline NATO’s military command arrangements. […] c. Approve the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) as part of the continuing Alliance effort to improve and develop new military capabilities for modern warfare in a high threat environment. […] d. Endorse the agreed military concept for defence against terrorism. […] e. Endorse the implementation of five nuclear, biological and chemical weapons defence initiatives, which will enhance the Alliance's defence capabilities against weapons of mass destruction […]. f. Examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to Alliance territory, forces and population centres in an effective and efficient way through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts, along with deterrence […].

14 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
NATO Response Force (Prague Summit 2002) NRF combines land, air, sea and special forces into one package. It gives NATO the means to respond swiftly to various types of crises anywhere in the world. It is also a driving engine of NATO’s military transformation. This is because the Response Force is based on a system of six-month period. As the different forces rotating through the NRF meet these high standards, new concepts, technologies and the transformation of military capabilities spread throughout the forces of all member countries. The NATO Response Force, which is driven by the underlying principle: "first force in, first force out", is designed to be capable of carrying out a range of different missions, anywhere in the world: deploy as a stand-alone force for Article 5 (collective defence) or non-Article 5 crisis response operations such as evacuation operations, support disaster consequence management (including chemical biological, radiological and nuclear events), humanitarian crisis situations and counter terrorism operations; deploy as an initial entry force facilitating the arrival of larger follow-up forces; deploy as a demonstrative force to show NATO’s determination and solidarity to deter crises.

15 Key concepts in NATO’s evolution since 1991
Revised operational plan for NATO ’s expanding mission in Afghanistan (December 2005) ISAF's key military tasks will include: Assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority across the country; Conducting stability and security operations in co-ordination with the Afghan national security forces; Assisting the Afghan government with the security sector reform process; Mentoring and supporting the Afghan national army; Supporting Afghan government programmes to disarm illegally armed groups. ISAF's key supporting tasks will include: Supporting Afghan government and internationally-sanctioned counter-narcotics efforts on request; Providing support to humanitarian assistance operations co-ordinated by Afghan government organisations; Supporting the Afghan national police, within means and capabilities.

16 NATO’s partnership industry
Speech by NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer at the joint meeting between the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the North Atlantic Council, 30 May 2006 „Next, there are NATO’s relations with its partners and other interested countries. We need to decide how we can best preserve those elements of our partnership frameworks that work well, and at the same time make them even more valuable – both for our partners, and for the Alliance. In addition to reinforcing cooperation with our current partners, we should look to enhance our relations with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. […] As we continue to deepen our Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, education and training appear to be areas where our partners have expressed interest and where NATO possesses a unique ability to add value. The idea of a NATO training initiative has received widespread support at recent Ministerial meetings, and we are now looking more closely at how such an initiative could be implemented. Its initial focus would be the broader Middle East, but I do believe we should not exclude the possibility of extending the initiative to other regions at some stage.”

17 The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council today
Partnership Action Plan against Terrorism (Prague 2002) (excerpts) EAPC States will make all efforts within their power to prevent and suppress terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, in accordance with the universally recognised norms and principles of international law, the United Nations Charter, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution They “emphasise the need to enhance co-ordination of efforts on national, sub-regional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security.” EAPC States co-operate across a spectrum of areas in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and Partnership for Peace that have relevance to the fight against terrorism. These include inter alia political consultations; operations; issues of military interoperability; defence and force planning and defence reform; consequence management, including civil emergency planning; air defence and airspace management; armaments co-operation; border control; suppression of financing of terrorism; prevention of arms and explosives smuggling; science; and arms control and non-proliferation. EAPC States stress that arms control and non-proliferation make an essential contribution to the global combat against terrorism, in particular by helping prevent the use of WMD. […] Through the Partnership Action Plan, EAPC States will identify, organize, systematize ongoing and new EAPC/PfP activities, which are of particular relevance to the international fight against terrorism.

18 Today’s political frame for NATO’s partnerships
Final Communiqué, Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council held at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, on 8 December 2005, para.10 Strengthening relations with partners remains an important goal for NATO. We welcome the interest by contact countries in NATO’s activities. We are determined to make the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and Partnership for Peace more effective value-based frameworks for enhancing international stability, extending interoperability and cooperation between Allies and partners, and promoting democratic values and reforms. We welcome the response by many countries to the new opportunities for closer cooperation with NATO through our Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, and underline the importance of their ongoing activities. We intend to ensure that our various partnership instruments continue to help us to pursue the objectives of partnership and are pleased that partners are increasingly using these tools. We welcome the contributions to our operations by our partner and contact countries as well as by other nations.

19 Example: Partnership for Peace (PfP)

20 Example: Partnership for Peace (PfP)
Principle: Common offer plus self-differentiation Political commitments (Framework Document) Each Partner country makes a number of far-reaching political commitments to preserve democratic societies; to maintain the principles of international law; to fulfil obligations under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and international disarmament and arms control agreements; to refrain from the threat or use of force against other states; to respect existing borders; and to settle disputes peacefully. Specific commitments are also made to promote transparency in national defence planning and budgeting to establish democratic control over armed forces, and to develop the capacity for joint action with NATO in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The Framework Document also enshrines a commitment by the Allies to consult with any Partner country that perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence or security. A menu of practical activities Partner countries choose individual activities based on their ambitions and abilities. An Individual Partnership Programme is then jointly developed and agreed. Cooperation focuses on defence reform but touches on virtually every field of NATO activity, including defence policy and planning, civil-military relations, education and training, air defence, communications and information systems, crisis management, and civil emergency planning. Objectives: Practical interoperability, linguistic interoperability, interoperability of minds

21 Example: Mediterranean Dialogue (MD)

22 Example: Mediterranean Dialogue (MD)
Initiated in 1994 by the North Atlantic Council. Currently involves seven non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. The aim is to contribute towards regional security and stability through stronger practical cooperation, including by enhancing the existing political dialogue, achieving interoperability, developing defence reform and contributing to the fight against terrorism. The Dialogue also intends to achieve better mutual understanding and dispel any misconceptions about NATO among Dialogue countries. Reflects the Alliance’s view that security in Europe is closely linked to security and stability in the Mediterranean. It is an integral part of NATO's adaptation to the post-Cold War security environment, as well as an important component of the Alliance’s policy of outreach and cooperation. The Dialogue is primarily bilateral in structure (NATO+1). Despite the predominantly bilateral character, the Dialogue nevertheless allows for multilateral meetings on a regular basis (NATO+7). All Mediterranean partners are offered the same basis for cooperation activities and discussion with NATO. This non-discrimination is an essential feature of the Dialogue. Dialogue countries are free to choose the extent and intensity of their participation (self-differentiation), including through the establishment of Individual Cooperation Programmes (ICP). Three Mediterranean Dialogue countries - Egypt, Jordan and Morocco - have cooperated militarily with the Alliance in IFOR/SFOR and KFOR.

23 Example: Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI)
Launched at the Alliance's Istanbul Summit in 2004, aiming to contribute to long-term global and regional security by offering countries of the broader Middle East region practical bilateral security cooperation with NATO. Practical cooperation in areas where NATO can add value, notably in the security field, starting with the individual members of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. To date, four of the six countries - Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates - have joined the Initiative. Based on the principle of inclusiveness, the Initiative is open to all interested countries of the broader Middle East region who subscribe to its aims and content, including the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. ICI is cooperative, based on joint ownership and the mutual interests of NATO and the countries of the region, taking into account their diversity and specific needs; ICI offers tailored advice on defence reform, budgeting, planning and civil-military relations; ICI contains military-to-military cooperation to contribute to interoperability through participation in selected military exercises and related education and training activities; and through participation in selected NATO and PfP exercises and in NATO-led operation on a case-by-case basis. ICI also concerns civil emergency planning and disaster assistance.

24 Contact Countries Boosted at the Istanbul Summit (2004).
With the need for greater solidarity in today’s security environment, especially in combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, NATO’s Partnership policies have been steadily extended with a view to building closer and more effective relationships with a wide variety of countries and international institutions. Countries that have indicated their wish to establish dialogue with the Alliance. Currently: China, India, Pakistan, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea. Some take part in NATO-led peace support operations (e.g. Australia in KFOR).

25 Problems and perspectives
What are the essential criteria for admission to NATO’s global Partnership? Is it the political proximity of the candidate? Is it the level of its military contribution? Is it the country’s strategic relevance (for whom)? How will “post-neutral” countries (Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Switzerland), engaged in NATO operations but located in Europe, be incorporated? What role should Russia, as a “special partner” of NATO, be assigned in the context of a global forum? Can/should NATO Partnerships be internally differentiated?

26 Thank you! Q&A

Download ppt "NATO Today and Its Global Engagement Presentation at the European Summer Academy, Gumpoldskirchen Austrian Institute for European Security Policy."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google