RSS

June 30, 2009

Ian Davis

For NATO to live up the reason for which it was created—to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949)—it must be open, transparent and accountable to the public – young and old. Yet NATO is the only major intergovernmental body not to have even a basic information disclosure policy and the Alliance continues to be a closed and secretive organisation distant from the general public. As the article suggests, most of the Alliance’s work takes place away from the glare of publicity in an assortment of projects involving over 400 specialised agencies, centres, committees, groups and panels. However, mechanisms for parliamentary and public accountability and oversight are inadequate or non-existent.

While it is clear that NATO holds a lot of sensitive information, other information such as that relating to procurement contracts should be made public just as it is by the ministries of defence of many NATO member countries. For example, according to a recent NATO press release, Defence Ministers "adopted a report on the NATO Defence Review for 2008/9, which includes a set of recommendations for individual Allies and NATO as a whole". Is this report publicly available (I doubt it) and what were the recommendations? This is precisely the sort of information that ought to be in the public domain since it has important implications for national defence capabilities and spending priorities.

Rather than flashy PR videos on YouTube, NATO needs to adopt an information openness policy consistent with the access to information laws already in place in the Alliance’s 28 member countries, including:
q guidelines for proactive publication of core information;
q a mechanism by which the public can file requests for information; and
q an independent review body for hearing appeals against refusals or failures to make information public within a short time-frame.

The political debate (that NATO claims to be committed to) in framing a new Strategic Concept provides an ideal opportunity to engage the 890 million citizens in the Alliance. A public consultation exercise appropriate to 21st century expectations could be part of the process with open access to the information needed to inform the debate and discussion of drafts within member state parliaments or parliamentary committees. But instead of using this review of NATO’s core mission statement as an opportunity to reconnect with citizens and to deepen and extend the shared values-base within the Alliance, what we are being offered is a retread of the Harmel model from the late 1960s. The review is likely to be entrusted to a group of eminent persons with some window dressing provided by “a series of intensive dialogues with a wide range of experts from the strategic community”. The first of these dialogues takes place in Brussels next week.

And as for public disclosure of key documents – forget it. For example, I have already requested and been refused access to a recent document produced by NATO’s Military Committee, ‘Defining the Military Dimension of the New Strategic Concept’. And a colleague in the United States has just received a letter from the US Defense Department asking if he was still expecting a decision on an internal appeal that he filed in April 2003, relating to a Freedom of Information request on US participation in the NATO working group that overhauled its security of information policy from 1998-2002. He replied in the affirmative and confidently expects to provide me with an update in about 2015.

So, while there may be a problem in people of all ages in NATO member nations “taking peace and security for granted” – although the millions of protestors on the streets of NATO capitals in 2003 demonstrating against the illegal war in Iraq suggests otherwise – the greater problem lies with ministerial and elite decision-makers within NATO and member governments. They take the support of the public for granted and proclaim new security frameworks and ideologies without subjecting them to prior independent scrutiny and debate.

Dr Ian Davis
Director, NATO Watch
email: info@iandavisconsultancy.com
http://www.natowatch.org

June 30, 2009

Lawrence Efana

Ian Davis draws attention to many relatively useful insights on what could be considered as parts of the likely reform steps to make NATO win more trust from citizens - especially of the member countries. Clearly by emphasizing on liberalization of the access to the information available, appeal is made hopefully intended to engage its planners more on the need for a continuous openness to the democratization - democratic form] of culture as defense organ. That is important particularly if the reborn craves for change would have to mean anything in the changing world we are seeing. Relevance and or future of NATO might depend also on the latter, with the interests growing on the needs for it to reappraise its original definition of missions. On its relevance, however, it appears that as the world changes and as Russia finds herself increasingly in the European family, especially economically, socially and also politically - coupled to increasing gradual adjustment of China to Western "styles", matched by the will of the US to review its global leadership and diplomacy, arguments as going to grow stronger to reform the UN that it can take over its security functions - a future scenario!

On liberalization of information even though there is consensus, the basic problems of most security organizations - of which NATO is], include how secrecy laws or acts are formed and put into use. Organizations in this class are so soaked on the question of "the right to know". In other words 'the black box' of information is more of a working tool for them than anything else, which might mean that seeing the public as having the authority to access information turns nightmarish! How is democratization or democracy preached in this typical situation? Above question: "Is Freedom for Free? Join the Debate!", is quite ironical here, but you must really think deep to see that irony, using particularly the lenses of the era we live in and menaces of terrorism and conflicts. Peace or security can neither be taken for granted nor oversimplified, but we do need very convincing "systems of trust".

July 1, 2009

Ira Straus

The entire denial of NATO's relevance is based on a misunderstanding -- one that is shared by almost all the defenders of NATO's relevance, which is the reason why NATO public diplomacy is unable to convince people on this point, not even the Alliance's supporters.

The Atlantic Alliance did not begin in 1949; that is the misunerstanding in a nutshell. It began in 1917, and its diplomatic foundations were lain from 1890 to 1910. NATO was the institutionalization of the long duree Atlantic alliance, not (or only secondarily) the institutionalization of the Western side of the Cold War.

When NATO is understood in this more complete -- and more accurate -- perspective, it can be seen that the question of its continued relevance does not arise at all. Nor does any question arise of whether it has loss of raison d'etre with the loss of the Soviet enemy. Its original big enemy was not Soviet Russia but Germany, and it lost that enemy a long time ago. The original small enemy against which it half-congealed in the Anglo-American rapprochement of the 1890s was Spain; it was made a temporary enemy for sentimental reasons, a reminder of the original enemy of the North Atlantic society in colonial times.

Atlanticism's original raison d'etre was based not only any particular enemy but on a positive concept of the role of the Atlantic democracies in the world order. It was a concept elaborated from John Fiske in the 1880s to Clarence Streit in the 1930s. The concept has proved accurate, and it remains accurate. It continues to mandate a central role for the complex of trans-Atlantic institutions, NATO-OECD-G8.

July 1, 2009

Lawrence Efana

For a modern time public isn't the interpretable history of NATO by Ira Straus one of preserving the status-quo, defined partly or fully by the emphasis on its raison d'etre? With due respect for your idea of it as a concept, don't you see it too unflinching: static or closed in a world with newer dynamics? A new interpretation of its relevance might be subject of interest for publics "in" and "out" - dependent on what newer dynamics might mean in each or both senses]. This response intimates concerns now and then for flexibilities of one kind or the other: one which, also could make a case for review of the raison d'etre hence a new concept] - a function of our changing world, now very global with [newer] unprecedented challenges!

July 1, 2009

Muhammad Islam Shah Yousufzai

You kindly change your name instead of North Atlantic Treaty Organization because Now it is involves in Afghanistan and Iraq too, other choice is to confine itself till North Atlantic only, it has crossed central Europe and bordering Russian now which is not North Atlantic. As far as peace is concern, NATO is badly failed to maintain peace in Iraq and Afghanistan but they destroyed the peace and stability of the both countries. NATO under the stick of US is doing on the same lines of USSR in Afghanistan and I as an Afghan challange that NATO under the US umbrella and its specific goals will never wins Pathans (Afghans), without winning their hearts and minds.

Sir Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, a famous English military historian who greatly influenced the 20th-century development of armoured warfare and strategic theory, said “Whereas strategy is only concerned with the problem of winning military victory, grand
strategy must take the longer view – for its problem is the winning of the peace. Such an
order of thought is not a matter of ‘putting the cart before the horse,’ but of being clear
where the horse and the cart are going”.

Muhammad Islam Shah Yousufzai
Area Study Centre for Europe,
University of Karachio - Pakistan

July 1, 2009

Dr. Gesine Palmer

While the article is interesting, Stefanie Bapst's hinted at 5 rules of public diplomacy very inspiring, I did not understand the connection between the article and the video.
So that's the challenge, maybe. And I think it is about "changing perspectives." If you want zo change someone else's perspective, you think, he is stubborn and you are not. Why would one think so? Wouldn't this very idea deserve to undergo a change of perspective? Maybe we are stubborn and the othes are not? Changing of perspective is not a value in itself, neither is it a means to heal anything in any conflict.

But indeed, diplomacy is about listening, and clarity and frankness are indespensable. Only in clarity and frankness can we focus on the things at stake (and not on the struggle who has to change perspectives and who has not).

I am German. I have always been happy about the US-Army and the other armies clearing these grounds here from our homemade fanatics. It was liberty and democracy and the promise of sharing the world's welfare that won "our" hearts.
I experience it all over again: Someone who is very eager to use the proper means and methods to win my heart won't have an easy job with me. But someone who offers a good thing and demands something as a price in a fair and reasonable way and measure (meaning: something I CAN give in return, not something impossible or humiliating), is always welcome. As everybody I'd tend to think: others might feel in a similar way.


Now, I'd like to ask the Afghan collegue, what would win - in your opinion - the hearts of the Afghan people for the NATO efforts to support democratic and constructive forces and to fight the Taliban? I think, there is one difficult question that we didn't have here in such a harsh way: the question of individual and even of female autonomy was - in principle - established in German thought. To deny these values and to claim this denial as a cultural property - inspite of the cries of little humans who always want freedom and autonomy together with being cared for - seems to be a big problem. Is it bigger than the material ans economic problem, or smaller, what would you say?

July 1, 2009

Nikolina-Romana Milunovic, Zeppelin University, Silver Contributor (50)

NATO’s current identity crisis is not an isolated case. The lowest voter turnout of all EU parliament elections this June is a kindred phenomenon. Why is the population of the member states so detached? Why does nobody care about freedom and peace and security anymore?

I believe the complexity of the institutions to be one of the core reasons, which has already been brought up by previous contributors.
According to Niklas Luhmann, Helmut Willke and other system theorists the functional differentiation of societies led to an ever-increasing degree of complexity of societal subsystems. More precisely, this means for instance that the systems “politics” or “economy” have become more and more complex over the time and have composed a momentum of their own. Luhmann explained this with the need to “absorb uncertainty”. On the whole this leads to the fact that people not involved in the system don’t understand its goals and agenda.
In order to overcome this situation, a different institution has to be developed. One, that is capable of “speaking all languages”.
In NATO’s case, this is the department for public diplomacy. However, the quoted polls proved that it has not succeeded in its task to “de-complexify” the Alliance’s operations accordingly. Publishing very emotional promotion videos will not do the trick, as it patronizes the audience, assuming that people will only get NATO’s core values, if the organization uses promising Hollywood tools.
The Alliance has to find a way to communicate its actual operation goals and visions in an easy, yet correct way. In spite of being aware of the fact that numerous military operations of NATO or national governments in general are not for the public’s eyes, I believe that the post-cold-war-alliance is committed to share more of its agenda with the citizens of its member states. If they fail to do so public disapproval will increase to a point where national governments can no longer legitimate their involvement in the military alliance.

July 1, 2009

Ioannis Papapantelis

I'd like to make something clear: there is no NATO crisis.
NATO is expanding with countries from the former Soviet Union and other as well (e.g. France consider to become member again). There are three important issues that NATO-members are facing: terrorism, authoritarian regimes (e.g. North Korea, Iran), and the 'new great powers' such as India, Russia and China. In a multipolar world every power tries to enlarge its sphere of influence in political, economic and military terms (by making regional alliances).
Therefore, a task for NATO is not only to protect its members from a military attack but also to maintain the balance of power in a global level.
Of course, the vast majority of the people do not have the capacity to analyze problems of international conflict in order to see the necessity of an organization for collective action such as NATO. I do not believe that video spots or other 'bits and bobs' can make these complex problems transparent to the people.
Instead I propose that the governments should make 'advertisement' by emphasizing the advantages and the good work of the NATO.

July 2, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVP, Diamond Contributor (1090)

There is no such thing as free lunch - and there is no such thing as free peace. Romans used to say "If You Want Peace, Prepare for War".
In today's world it is defence spending, developing state of the art military technology and maintaing decent readiness of the armed forces that mean "preparing for war". NATO may help in these "preparations", but let's be clear, it is not the crucial factor.
The world prides itself that it avoided a major transcontinental confrontation or an all-out war for more than 60 years now but it consumed the peace dividend rather than invest it. One of results is terrorism and what we have now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and other places.
NATO is a political, not military structure - especially now when its core role: common nuclear survelliance, deterrence and defence turned less relevant - and it has not yet embraced its new role. One could argue that NATO hasn't yet figured out what that new role should be. And security issues will not wait until NATO re-defines itself and re-emerges or collapses.
As if it was an orphan of the cold war, NATO was left alone after the key enlargement and failed to communicate its new relevance. Some member states didn't care, some put too much trust in it, others used it as a tool - but it's still unclear whether that tool can fix anything. To NATO's unfortune, the EU has ambitions to cover security and defence area, making the alliance even more irrelevant.
The more obvious it gets that NATO can not "win" in Afghanistan, the more urgent it is to seriously re-design the alliance's mission and goals, but above all, to remind the member states that they should again care about their own security. In which NATO may be helpful, but it will not do the job instead.

July 2, 2009

Andrey Chubyk, Centre for Global Studies “Strategy XXI”, Silver Contributor (58)

I would like to see in the near future changed and fixed policy of NATO. It is highly important, because many countries are on the crossroad and are waiting, what it will be. In that context it is to understand and inform all the world about relations between NATO and Russia, as one of the major player in the Europe, that in the same time marks the Alliance as the possible enemy, especially for its own citizens and neighboring countries.
I would like to wish, USA and Russia will clear their controversial issues and began to form common policy against challenges such as terrorism and global crime, they are suffering very much.

July 2, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

" There is no such thing as free lunch - and there is no such thing as free peace. Romans used to say "If You Want Peace, Prepare for War"."

Perhaps the Romans did say that, Marek, In fact I'm sure I've read that. But they also called it the Pax Romanum, and they did so for a reason.

Both the US and the EU are modern forms of the Pax Romanum, as are China and potentially India. Huge entities which enforce peace within their borders, and also by dint of their size tend to enforce peace on their neighbors - not least because they are too powerful to be challenged locally, and also because they tend to get nosy about wars conducted in their vicinity. The more military and diplomatic power the local 'superpower' has the less likely wars will start in their vicinity.

Mexico isn't about to go on any territorial adventures to it's south because they know the Yanquis will intervene. For other reasons as well, I am sure; Mexicans aren't known as warmongers.

On the other had we DO see wars on the borders of the EU - becuase the EU don't have the military power to squash them flat the way the US and China do. The EU uses diplomacy, which works much of the time. The US and China use diplomacy and military persuasion, which tend to work ALL of the time!

Most wars tend to happen in areas remote from the superpower(s) or in areas with a lot of oil wealth relatively less far. Africa, Middle East, the periphery of Europe (Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia), or within the former USSR (Chechnya, Georgia).

So I guess I can't agree with you completey. Force is not the sole determinant o0f peace. But it is significant.

July 3, 2009

Laurelle

How is NATO progressing the systemic geo-political infrastructure required for causal defence and resource management in the Middle East, when it's primarily concerned with conflating the war with the Taliban?
Does that not increase the need for fighting forces rather than political rationale? I thought in Afghanistan especially, warfare was as old as methusela whilst political progression, such as the mulitlateral calibration of the state's
policy-making framework to embody systemic measures on state security viz-a-viz resource management and defence industry, was something relatively recent. Something that is, the Taliban are not so skilled in.
So why is NATO training age old fighters with a time honoured heritage of fighting to fight, instead of advancing the political infrastructure of systemic accord?

Little wonder North Korea is firing off more nuclear tests, Iran is sinking back into a military dictatorship, and Australia is spending mega sums of tax payers hard earned money on fighter jets in an economic crunch. More jobs is the justification. More likely a big failing of political evolution, as far as I can tell. Same as Afghanistan, skilled to the teeth to fight instead of reason.

Little wonder values of the next generation are aggressive rather than attuned to the global framework of general sustanability and planetary concern. Are not such deeper values subject to the state's political infrastructure, geared as it is to either systemic progression or the framework of war?

July 3, 2009

Natalie Catherine Chwalisz, Atlantic Community, Bronze Contributor (22)

I very much like the emphasis on the transparency of NATO- something that without a doubt would connect it more with the population in whose name it acts.

I also like Dr. Palmer’s reminder that in the end NATO is fighting for an estimable cause in Pakistan- something that often gets belittled in public discussions here in Germany.

If Afghanistan represents the new conflicts, for which NATO should be prepared in order to ensure our security and international stability, then I am disappointed with NATO, or maybe with NATO member states for there half-hearted effort in Afghanistan : for example, their lack of coordination between the different militaries, and their approach, negatively impacts NATO’s effectiveness and confuses Afghans.

Furthermore, if NATO member states are risking the lives of our young men and women— a serious sacrifice, also not recognized enough in Europe— they should move everything in their power to ensure their safety, which means ensuring a successful mission.

However, I don’t see that happening: monetary investment in terms of reconstruction aid remains woefully low. I don’t even want to compare it to the monetary investment in post WW II Germany, but even in modern history, successful conflict resolution—such as the one in Northern Ireland— has been paved by major investment and economic development and cooperation.

Also in security terms, I question if the NATO member states are seriously trying everything in their power to improve the situation in Afghanistan. The German effort in police training is famously under resourced, understaffed and ineffective, for example.

Finally, if currently Afghanistan is NATO’s most important conflict, it and their member states owe the public a forceful explanation of why it is there, what its strategy is and how it intends to bring peace, stability and development to Afghanistan.

If NATO only asks for more soldiers, but lacks these three points above, is it really surprising that the majority of Europe’s population feels ambivalent at best, negative at worst about NATO?

Such a confusing video hardly answer the questions that will drive support for NATO.

July 3, 2009

Ria Voorhaar, Atlantic Community, Bronze Contributor (17)

I think that young people have different attitudes to peace and security depending on their own experience. Naturally those with limited contact and memory of conflict will, generally speaking be more likely to take peace and security for granted. I think that it is wise of NATO to acknowledge that they need to justify their existence to this younger generation. More and more, people are questioning the amount of money their governments spend on defence when cuts are being made to services such as education and health. I think NATO needs to make a case for its existence, which is what it is trying to do with this video. However, I think that the argument it makes is glib and doesn't adequately demonstrate what NATO has done to protect member states. Why should people accept that the military industrial complex as we know it should not be challenged, especially when it seems that very system seems to have caused so many of the current problems, from the global financial crisis to climate change.

With the unrest in Iran and Pakistan, its all too easy to accept the need to boost military funding. But we should perhaps be asking whether these "hard power" approaches have been working... With the rapid pace of change in both Europe and the US, is it time to ask - not whether young people should be made to "get" NATO - but whether Is NATO the right organization to be taking the front seat on defense and the transatlantic alliance at this time? That would make an interesting video.

July 3, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVP, Diamond Contributor (1090)

@Natalie
With all respect, on what basis do you claim that "the majority of Europe’s population feels ambivalent at best, negative at worst about NATO"?
It was mentioned in the body of the A-C editorial article that according to the "German Marshall Fund’s 2008 Transatlantic Trends survey finds that 57% of Europeans believe NATO is still essential to their nation’s security".
It was also mentioned that an Euranet poll showed the same percentage of responders claiming that NATO was obsolete.
What is the GMF Transatlantic Trends (a well-established poll done by a rescpected transatlantic body) and what is an online poll by Euranet (a radio broadcasters network, not a polling institution) in terms of value? How can you compare these two and how can you take sides being the A-C editor???
If this is your private opnion that "the majority of Europe’s population feels ambivalent at best, negative at worst about NATO", you should mark it as such. If otherwise, you're obliged to quote a source, I'm afraid. Not patronising, just clarifying for our readers. Best regards.

July 7, 2009

Natalie Catherine Chwalisz, Atlantic Community, Bronze Contributor (22)

@ Marek

I recognize that I should have specified that I was referring to the NATO engagement in Afghanistan- which elicits much more mixed feelings from Europeans than the concept of NATO as a whole. Thank you for pointing it out!

To clarify your question, as editors we are encouraged to engage with the Atlantic Community members intellectually. As a rule, if articles or comments are published under our name, they will represent our personal opinions.

If they are published under editorial team, they will represent the views of Atlantic Community editorial team.

Best,

Natalie

July 8, 2009

Arthur Zielinski

I think it was Churchill who once said ..."democracy is a bad form of government, but the others are worse".... I believe the same assessment applies to NATO - should the organisation cease to exist overnight, at least in its European context, something very similar would need to be re-constituted in its place. True, there are niggles about its exact functions, its attitude to secrecy issues, its inability to communicate its relevance and functions to a wider European public, even its very name is questioned.

The reality in Central and Eastern Europe is that an American dominated alliance is the least bad security structure that is politically acceptable and is seen as a viable defence organisation, able to co-ordinate quite different societies in a Europe-wide context. Whatever historical baggage it has is at worst, benign, and at best, is accepted as having successfully faced up to Soviet totalitarianism over many decades.

A native of Iraq or Afghanistan will of course have a different perspective, and these conflicts have exposed the weaknesses and limitations of the alliance, specifically to address the question - what is it for? Cold War Soviet propaganda, and present-day Russian suspicions that NATO is an aggressive organisation under the guise of a defensive alliance, would, to a citizen of Baghdad or Kabul, appear to be, at least, partially justified, and this awareness has filtered through to European consciousness. This is a tragedy, and I believe has subverted the political position of the organisation.

A defensive alliance of peoples who share similar cultural values is one thing, but an assertive military force with a cultural and political agenda, and with global reach, is quite another. Clearly, to hamstring NATO to a purely defensive capacity, without offensive capability would weaken its effectiveness - modern technology and communications have resulted in all societies having an immediate effect on each other.

It is jejune, however, to assume that all peoples throughout the world have similar cultural values, aspirations, and weltanschauung, and events in Iraq and Afghanistan have borne this out. NATO has done its best, but an organisational mindset based on a general European war has been impressed into dealing with what are primarily cultural, social and political issues, albeit with a military and security component, and therefore with mixed results.

What is to be done? It is apparent that a common security stance, particularly in Europe, is a continuing necessity, and NATO has a vital role here which can remain unchanged. I believe that any offensive capability with global reach should be separate from this alliance, as it is largely irrelevent to it, and in fact is underminig its effectiveness within the European context. However we put it, what we have developing now is a global gendarmerie which effects to defend the interests of NATO members. I believe this fact should be acknowledged by a separate organisation which can focus on developing the skillsets necessary for its functions, but also be held accountable for its actions separately from NATO.

July 24, 2009

ilyas mohsin

Freedom should be like fresh air which can't be rationed by any titan.
Look at Afghanistan whose poor people have been, generally, defying 'occupation' despite all kinds of disadvantges for centuries. This is their Culture which makes it the 'graveyard of empires'. Ask the Russians if you have forgotten.