|
By General (ret.) Dr. Klaus Naumann, KBE Former Chief of the Defence Staff Germany Former Chairman Military Committee NATO General (ret.) John Shalikashvili Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Field Marshal The Lord Inge, KG, GCB, PC Former Chief of the Defence Staff United Kingdom Admiral (ret.) Jacques Lanxade Former Chief of the Defence Staff France Former Ambassador General (ret.) Henk van den Breemen Former Chief of the Defence Staff the Netherlands With Benjamin Bilski and Douglas Murray
Executive summary
In every country, and at all times, we like to rely on certainty. But in a world of asymmetric threats and global challenges, our governments and peoples are uncertain about what the threats are and how they should face the complicated world before them.
After explaining the complexity of the threats, the authors assess current capabilities and analyse the deficiencies in existing institutions, concluding that no nation and no institution is capable of dealing with current and future problems on its own. The only way to deal with these threats and challenges is through an integrated and allied strategic approach, which includes both non-military and military capabilities.
Based on this, the authors propose a new grand strategy, which could be adopted by both organisations and nations, and then look for the options of how to implement such a strategy.
They then conclude, given the challenges the world faces, that this is not the time to start from scratch. Thus, existing institutions, rather than new ones, are our best hope for dealing with current threats. The authors further conclude that, of the present institutions, NATO is the most appropriate to serve as a core element of a future security architecture, providing it fully transforms and adapts to meet the present challenges. NATO needs more non-military capabilities, and this underpins the need for better cooperation with the European Union.
Following that approach, the authors propose a short-, a medium- and a long-term agenda for change. For the short term, they focus on the critical situation for NATO in Afghanistan, where NATO is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure. For this reason, they propose a series of steps that should be taken in order to achieve success. These include improved cost-sharing and transfer of operational command. Most importantly, the authors stress that, for NATO nations to succeed, they must resource operations properly, share the risks and possess the political will to sustain operations.
As a medium-term agenda the authors propose the development of a new strategic concept for NATO. They offer ideas on how to solve the problem of the rivalry with the EU, and how to give NATO access to other than military instruments.
They further propose bringing future enlargement and partnership into line with NATO’s strategic objectives and purpose.
In their long-term agenda the authors propose abandonment of the two-pillar concept of America and Europe cooperating, and they suggest aiming for the long-term vision of an alliance of democracies ranging from Finland to Alaska. To begin the process, they propose the establishment of a directorate consisting of the USA, the EU and NATO. Such a directorate should coordinate all cooperation in the common transatlantic sphere of interest.
The authors believe that the proposed agenda could be a first step towards a renewal of the transatlantic partnership, eventually leading to an alliance of democratic nations and an increase in certainty.
~~
Preface
In every country, and at all times, we like to rely on certainty. Certainty about the past, the present and even the future.
Yet certainty is based not on inevitability, but rather on social and intellectual needs. We seek to uphold a common and stable experience, shunning the arbitrary in favour of closure in debate. Certainty can promote strong society and social interdependence.
While 100 per cent certainty may be unattainable, it is clear that in periods of great – even overwhelming – uncertainty something serious is happening to our institutions and our societies.
Certainty in our world is today being eroded by a proliferation of information, knowledge and choice. The erosion of certainty is accelerated by rapid technological, social and cultural change.
On occasion, that change occurs too fast for some of our major institutions to cope with.
In certain important senses, we are today operating in a mist. Through that current mist a wide range of challenges are appearing. The challenges are acute, and no less so because our certainties are in retreat. If they were stronger, our resolve to address these problems might have stiffened. But the loss of familiar certainties reveals that we lack such resolve.
There are six principal challenges that the authors of this report identify as the prime challenges facing the global community today.
• The first is demography. Population growth and change across the globe will swiftly change the world we knew. The challenge this poses for welfare, good governance and energy security (among other things) is vast.
• Then there is climate change. This greatly threatens physical certainty, and is leading to a whole new type of politics – one predicated, perhaps more than ever, on our collective future.
• Energy security continues to absorb us. The supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever.
• There is also the more philosophic problem of the rise of the irrational – the discounting of the rational. Though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. There are soft examples, such as the cult of celebrity, which demonstrate the decline of reason. And then there are the harder examples, such as the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, a drift away from science in a civilisation that is deeply technological.
The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself as the only source of certainty.
• Another challenge is the weakening of the nation state. This coincides with the weakening of world institutions, including the United Nations and regional organisations such as the European Union, NATO and others.
• Finally, there is what one might refer to as – despite all its benefits – the dark side of globalisation.
Interconnectedness has its drawbacks.
These include internationalised terrorism, organised crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but also asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of financial and energy leverage. Migration continues to provide challenges across the world. And dramatic diseases such as HIV/AIDS and SARS have the potential to spread around the world faster than ever before. Taken together, globalised threats are wide in scale and unprecedented in complexity.
But identifying these problems is only the start.
We must attempt to understand what might be next.
In considering issues likely to arise, we are mocked by predictions from the past that have failed to come true. But in themselves, these can offer a lesson. One widely made prediction, which can now be dismissed, was the issue of loss of identity through convergence. Against the backdrop of the troubles in the Middle East, and also the micro-national squabbles in the West, we can see that globalisation has not entirely eroded national identities. This re-emergence of identity politics might be held up as a warning to all potential seers.
Though there will be issues that stable states and properly functioning international organisations might be able to deal with, deeply challenging problems like those in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan, where Western credibility is at stake, may tempt us into either intervention or isolation. Either way, these problems will confront us. Isolationism is back as a political problem. Its previous expressions may appal, even as the desire to intervene appeals.
State failures, if they are allowed to happen, could yet combine with other factors such as urbanisation and the rise of fundamentalisms to usher in a new, illiberal age. That age would be not just uncertain but deeply perilous. It is a future that we must avoid; but in order to avoid it, we must first admit the uncomfortable fact that it is possible.
The present authors approach the challenges of today from a Western perspective. We also do so as military men – though military men who have worked happily across national lines over many years. It is a pleasure to be able to demonstrate that we can still do so.
In writing this paper, we do not aim, and would not presume, to offer a prescription for today’s world. Rather, we simply hope to share some thoughts on today’s world that have been gathered from experience – experience acquired over many years, marked by great movements of history, which happily never brought the ultimate challenge. We recognise this with deep gratitude – not least gratitude for the resolve of our joint nations and their prevailing will to stand together during the Cold War. If it is not presumptuous to do so, we hope that in this paper we offer something that might be helpful to those who now carry a heavy responsibility in demanding times, and hope, in gratitude, that we can pay a little back.
Introduction
Certainty is a rare luxury. In trying to understand the trends behind rapid change, we often struggle to understand specific dangers and challenges. Demographic change, climate change, economic growth and the rising demand for resources have all led to increased competition between global players.
Though the threat of terrorist violence now exists everywhere, the immediate threat of terrorism is not the only danger. More subtle techniques abound: states can deploy their capabilities anonymously, through proxy wars or cyber attacks; leverage in energy and financial resources can be used by states that wish to deter others using non-military means. Set against a background of global trends that point towards increasing instability, the conflicts of the 21st century display unprecedented complexity.
One of the most important pillars of certainty in the Western world has been the transatlantic alliance; but this pillar has been weakened by a lack of consensus among its members, by outdated mechanisms and by a lack of will. This has diminished the alliance’s credibility, leaving its citizens vulnerable. In part, this is caused by the pace of globalisation, which has brought great benefits, but has also exposed societies to greater risk.
What are these changes brought about by globalisation?
Globalisation of movement, trade, capital flows and information have brought tremendous economic, social, political, educational and health benefits. But as a by-product, dangers have also globalised, with a complexity beyond predictability. The question we have to ask is: how do we confront challenges in a world full of uncertainties – challenges that we may not be able to predict? What capabilities and strategies do we currently possess to address an increasingly uncertain world?
In this pamphlet, we seek to understand trends, challenges and specific threats in a global context.
By examining the effectiveness of national and international institutions and their strategies, we will consider ways in which present organisations can be adapted and improved to meet new needs. We will offer some ideas about what kind of strategy will be required, and then suggest how such a strategy might be implemented.
Before addressing the nature of the capabilities and strategies we have, it is essential to consider the consequences of globalisation.
The globalised exchange of information, movement and capital has led to many benefits, including a great increase in economic prosperity and positive political change, as well as many social advances and improvements in health.
The division of tasks and production processes, spread over many areas, generates enormous efficiency and economic growth. Other areas, concerning political, social and health issues, will likewise benefit from the global movement and exchange of capital and expertise.
This exchange of information greatly enhances the possibilities for education and human rights, not least the education and rights of women.
This improves the standard of living of whole nations. Globalised cooperation in medicine contributes to disease prevention in large parts of the world – as demonstrated in forums like the Pacific Health Summit. Despite many risks, globalisation is one of the best instruments for improving the lives of people across the world, benefiting both the developed and the developing worlds. Even when economic discrepancies widen, and dramatic changes in the economy and social systems of the developed world occur, this should not obscure the considerable improvements in the quality of life.
At the same time, this globalised world has introduced a strategic environment that is unprecedented in its complexity. The threat of the Cold War, with a rational opponent, was monodimensional and largely dominated by military affairs. This made the strategic military threats and risks more predictable than they are today.
Previous eras – such as the period during which the British Empire was at its height – also ‘globalised’ much of the world. But the novelty of globalisation today is that it allows for local risks and threats to become global dangers.
When specific threats and risks are further amplified by larger trends, it becomes necessary to appreciate connections between areas that are commonly assessed separately. We no longer have the comparative luxury of considering threats only in their military dimension, since they cannot be understood in isolation from a wider context.
For the globalisation of information, the internet and the mobile phone are primary instruments.
But because users determine what they view, these instruments more often ‘narrowcast’, rather than broadcast information, and the social and political consequences vary across different types of regime.
Within free societies, the openness of the internet gives citizens free access to materials of incitement, education in the preparation of explosives, and the ability to attain instant global recognition if they succeed in inflicting harm. On the other hand, the internet is censored in many non-democratic countries, restricting the free exchange of information and ideas. Such liberties are perceived to be a political threat, but the success of these regimes in censoring the internet will only be temporary.
The impact of the globalisation of information will therefore likely contribute to the decline of authoritarianism and extremist ideology as political forces in the long term. In the short term, however, both cyberspace and mobile-space are part of the problem, amplifying and globalising current political and security threats.
Mobile-space also has unprecedented security implications, in that a mobile phone can act as an instrument of political dissent in non-democratic countries. While in democratic countries, this same mobile-space can be used to undermine open societies. The large-scale demonstrations that accompanied the state of emergency in the Philippines in early 2006 were called by mass text-messaging. But the Paris riots of 2005 and the Danish Cartoon riots of 2005–06 were largely incited in the same way.
Enemies of democracies – including Islamist terrorists – greatly rely on the internet and mobile- space created in free societies, and they use them against those societies. The instruments of globalisation have given these non-state actors a global reach. The globalisation of the terrorist threat would not have been possible without the information revolution. The globalisation of trade has given organised crime and the illegal arms trade a similar reach, blurring the distinction between global criminality and terrorism.
This should concern states that are a part of the globalising economy, as well as failing states that are not.
Although the globalising economy has led to general growth in the world, it has also widened economic discrepancies to some degree. In addition to this, the internet and mobile-space have drastically increased awareness of these differ24 ences in the developing world, and also in failing states. It may therefore be incentive, rather than any particular crisis, that causes migratory pressure, but the biggest global dangers can still emanate from failing states with acute crises.
State failure is a risk that, in its worst form (the failure of a nuclear armed state), could trigger a crisis on a global scale. The world has already experienced cases where failing states have been used as launching pads for global terrorism.
Other sources of instability, such as acute hunger, violent persecution and civil war, trigger refugee flows, which in turn harm economies elsewhere.
Local matters have global repercussions, but the effect is reciprocal. The local can be affected by global trends first, and the reason for that may lie not in any failure to be part of the global economy, but rather in being an active participant in it.
India, despite significant domestic problems and the risk of armed conflict with Pakistan, represents an example of a success story of globalisation.
With a large, educated and English-speaking population, it has become globally available for innumerable services. In European industry, a substantial part of software is written in India, representing a particular kind of dependency of which few Europeans are aware. Globalisation of services and manufacturing can make Western economies very vulnerable when stability cannot be taken for granted.
This Western vulnerability, born of a new dependency on Asian services and manufacturing, is as acute today as is the European dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Westerners are not unaccustomed to enduring a gradual appreciation in gasoline prices during Middle Eastern crises or wars, but they are completely unprepared for the more immediate and deep economic meltdown that would be caused by a major crisis affecting the Indian hi-tech industry – such as a war with Pakistan or large-scale civil unrest.
The most positive uses of the global economy, in other words, make the world as a whole vulnerable to local crises.
In the background of these developments of human activity, both beneficial and dangerous, the larger trends of demographic and climate change that are in motion will lead to new, and newly challenging, types of global strain.
In Chapter 1, we will consider the major trends, challenges and specific threats that are operating in the world today. We believe that, unlike in previous eras, we can no longer afford to consider challenges separately. Appreciating and addressing the wider context of each question in the present situation is a new and challenging phenomenon, and no nation state will be able to face the current sum of risks and dangers on its own.
In a world that is linked by economics and communications, but also socially and politically, we can no longer consider military, economic, en26 vironmental and social affairs in isolation. For instance, climate change can affect trade, water and food supplies, migration, urbanisation and national security. Hostile actors operate in wider regional and global contexts. What we need in our analysis is an appreciation of a new kind of complexity – one where we may not always have predictability. To be prepared for what cannot be predicted is going to be one of the foremost challenges in the years ahead.
There are currently inadequate national and international capabilities to deal with these problems – and, more importantly, there is a lack of coordination among allies. There is, additionally, little public awareness, and thus little political will to address them. Such a lack of resolve is itself a vulnerability that increases risk.
The main reason for this attitude, from both the general public and their political leaders, is a heavy focus on social and domestic matters, and an unwillingness to face up to complex realities.
Adequate institutional reform has only just begun in many Western countries, and it is still far from being accepted, let alone implemented.
With the short attention span of the public, and the focus of politicians on little beyond the next election, it will be no small challenge to muster the necessary will to seriously tackle long-term challenges.
This lack of awareness and political will has had strange results, not least in the flight towards the irrational, the condemnation of those who act, and praise of those who do nothing.
A hostile act need not be committed by a nation state, nor enacted by military means. In addition to the ongoing threats posed by international terrorism by non-state or proxy-state actors, acts of war can be committed by individual nation states or allied states by abusing the leverage that other resources bring. China and Russia today are economic powers that might be tempted to deter other nations with the weapons of finance and energy resources. This kind of deterrence by non-military means represents a new phenomenon and has never been a part of traditional military thinking. To appreciate such cases strategically will demand a much broader conception of strategy than we have hitherto employed, and any strategic responses will have to be consigned to more than military matters alone. But what are the strategies and capabilities that our institutions possess today to address the wide spectrum of present challenges?
In Chapter 2, we consider the international and national capabilities we currently possess to respond to trends and dangers. We identify several shortcomings of present instruments, institutions and their strategies. We will also underline the difficulties that arise in the attempt to produce a proper strategic concept and political–military mechanism. The interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan show that it is very difficult to come up with a good total concept, which contains a clear mis28 sion, a clear strategy, clear political guidance and a clear view of the command structures and a well-functioning political–military decisionmaking mechanism.
The intervention in Bosnia was flawed in many respects, because resolve was weak. The concept itself was flawed, with a combination of peacekeeping operations on the ground and fighting capabilities in the air – but we did not have the capabilities to match even this concept. It does not appear as though we learnt much from this experience in Kosovo. The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq lack a comprehensive strategy, because there is insufficient clarity about the aims and direction of the missions.
Will it be possible for our institutions to formulate a strategic concept to deal with the set of challenges described in Chapter 1? A broad range of capabilities and a new flexibility will be required to respond to unpredictable crises. Our present capabilities fall short in many respects.
When all the major challenges are compared with the best and most far-reaching current capabilities, we conclude, with regret, that there is a considerable mismatch between requirements and actual capabilities. Given that no nation state can deal with current dangers on its own, and given the limitations of international organisations and alliances, what is needed is a new kind of integrated and allied grand strategy that can guide both policy and institutional reform.
Alliances will be central to this grand strategy. We do not propose creating new institutions, but instead using existing international institutions as building blocks to implement a new kind of grand strategy – one that is integrated across various policy domains and across allies. In Chapter 3, we will further elaborate the meaning of these two elements – the integrated and the allied.
In the fourth and final chapter of this document, we will discuss how such a new strategy may be implemented, both within nations and, especially, in international organisations, such as NATO and the EU. The focus here will be on the transatlantic alliance, of which NATO is still the best formal expression. For this reason, despite certain shortcomings, NATO will be the principal, though not exclusive, instrument by means of which this strategy can be implemented.
At the heart of a Western strategic renewal is a renewal of the transatlantic partnership. Through that alliance, we hope that, despite huge challenges, we may move closer to certainty.
1Chapter Trends and Challenges
This chapter concerns the complexities and challenges that we currently face. We will consider several larger trends and challenges of global concern, and then turn to more specific regional considerations. Our aim is to highlight the complexity and interrelation between larger general trends and specific challenges and threats, and to recognise that in our age it is no longer possible to view any single problem in isolation from a wider relevant context.
Global Trends
Demographic Changes
By 2050, according to projections by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the world’s population will have increased from the current 6.7 billion to exceed 9 billion.1 The developed world is shrinking and ageing demographically, while parts of the developing world are growing.
The world population is also urbanising, with the global threshold of 50 per cent urbanisation recently passed. By 2050, the global urban population could exceed 5 billion, which will have major social consequences, including urban poverty and crime rates, and will underlie severe environmental problems. The number of elderly (60+) in the world will, for the first time, exceed the number of children (14 and younger) by 2045 (though this happened in Europe in 199 5).
These demographic changes will affect all parts of the world in growing, ageing or shrinking populations. Whereas a number of regions will be ageing – Europe, Japan and China – only one region in the world will be both ageing and shrinking:
Europe.
The population of Europe (including Russia) currently makes up around 11 per cent of the world’s total, and the median age of Europeans is 38.9. It is estimated that this figure will be 47.3 by 2050, when Europe will account for 7 per cent of the world’s population. The number of European elderly is expected to be more than double that of children by 2050, and to be significantly more than half the size of the working population. This will place a great burden on the welfare states of several European nations through the increased cost of the elderly – rising from around 15 per cent of GDP in 2000 to around 25–30 per cent in 2040. These figures suggest there is a danger that Europe may turn inwards, struggling economically to maintain its social systems and vulnerable on account of its weakened global position.
In the developed world, only the United States will retain the more healthy median age of 36 now and 41 by 2050; its population will grow from 300 million to 400 million in the same period.
Despite AIDS, genocide, starvation and war, the population of Africa will rise from over 920 million today to 1.3 billion by 2025. In 2050, Africa’s population will be around 2 billion.
Addressing HIV in sub-Saharan Africa is essential if the lives of Africans are to be improved – for social, educational and security reasons (with high HIV infection rates in the armed forces of several African nations).
In the Middle East, the employable population will grow by 50 per cent in the same period, and it remains questionable whether African and some Middle Eastern economies can absorb such large population growth. Unemployment can lead to despair, radicalisation, and terrorism and armed conflict.
Migration pressure to Europe is likely to increase.
In Russia, the population is shrinking on account of low birth rates, a high death rate and emigration. If its current population of 143 million drops to around 110 million by 2050, Russia will increasingly struggle to control its vast landmass.
India’s population will keep growing, and will exceed 1.6 billion in 2050; and, though its population will also age, it will retain a healthier median age of 38 by 2050. The demographic growth of China will remain largely managed by its onechild policy (1.3 billion now, 1.45 billion in 2025 and 1.4 billion in 2050). But the rapid growth of the Chinese minority in Russia, the presence of several million illegal Chinese in Siberia (not inhibited by China’s one-child policy) and the imbalance in population density and economic prosperity across the Sino-Russian border all point to an increase in the Sinification of areas of Russia. These trends suggest that the centuries-long rivalry between Russia and China is unlikely to abate, although it would be unwise to rule out the potential risk of a ‘Greater East’ alliance against the West. In addition, China will have to cope with several consequences of its onechild policy – including ageing, urbanisation, crime and the social repercussions of gender imbalance caused by the selective abortion of girls – as well as with the economic gap between its 200 million citizens who are benefiting from the globalising economy and the billion that are not.
For these reasons, the Western world will face increasing pressure from all these demographic trends. As internal social balances weaken as a consequence of ageing, there is a great risk that the European continent especially will turn in on itself, while migratory pressure from without will affect national identities faster than populations can cope. These trends will affect the ability of European nations to act outside their own borders and will make them increasingly inward looking, which will reduce their commitment to take on global responsibilities.
Climate Change
Another major global trend – and one not easily controlled – is the global rise in temperature. Most debates are currently focused on the extent of human agency and on the nature of the causes of climate change. Should climate change have the effects popularly predicted – by no means a fait accompli – then geostrategy will return as an important factor in international politics. The strategic consequences of climate change include refugee problems, the commercial and military implications of new maritime lines of communication, and the danger that minor rivalries may develop into dangerous conflicts.
For example, ethnic tensions may be exacerbated if decreased rainfall leads to food shortages, or if diverse weather and geological developments lead to a rise in sea levels, flooding and desertification, which in turn lead to mass migration of ‘environmental refugees’. Nonetheless, the problems of ethnic strife, refugees and national security should not be blamed solely on the weather.
But there are some economic and geopolitical challenges that are already apparent as a consequence of climate change, and these will require international responses. Minor tensions between Norway and Russia over fishing rights around Spitsbergen already exist. The islands of Spitsbergen, however, have large deposits of gas and oil that are currently locked under a frozen continental shelf. If global warming were to allow this to become a viable source of energy, a serious conflict could emerge between Russia and Norway, because the delineation of the continental shelf is still disputed. Such a potential crisis will involve a much larger area of the Arctic Circle, and will see the USA, Russia, Canada and Denmark competing for large and viable energy sources and precious raw materials.
There will also be other geopolitical consequences if climate change allows the northern shore of Russia, currently in a permafrost condition, to be open to shipping. Similarly, what does it mean for shipping and trade with Asia if climate change allows the northern shore of Canada to be open to shipping all year round? What future military and naval requirements will be needed to protect such new and highly lucrative lines of maritime communication? What will the impact be on American–Canadian relations?
Of all global trends, it is climate change that will put renewed emphasis on geostrategy in the strategic and security considerations of the future. Climate change and the wider problems of environmental pollution as a disutility of economic growth will also have an increasing impact on China and India, and may produce reasons for conflict.
Decline of Sovereignty
Borderless environmental and demographic trends, threats from non-state actors and the globalisation of information and capital flow all have an impact on national sovereignty.
Nonetheless, the one trend that has affected national sovereignty most is the drift towards regionalisation. The European Union is an interesting example of integration, but internally it is divided about the way ahead, not least because it seems to lack the resolve to protect the liberties it enjoys.
The most important accomplishment of the European Union is that it made war among its members impossible. Their interconnected economies have led to unprecedented prosperity for the EU’s 495 million citizens and have created the most profitable consumer market in the world. Other regional organisations are studying the model of the EU, and may choose some elements – even if they are unlikely to adopt the same model, because no nation seeking to increase its economic power would be willing to see its national sovereignty diminished.
The regional integration of Europe has led to nations transferring some of their national sovereignty to the supranational organisation. This has been the source of some day-to-day stability, but the delegation of autonomy has made it difficult to summon political will on the regional level to respond effectively to crises.
The European religious wars were settled by the nation state and its corresponding definition of national sovereignty in the treaty of Westphalia (and Münster) of 1648. Since much of the suffering of the 20th century is perceived to have been rooted in nationalism, the post-1945 European integration moved Europe to a post-Westphalian order, where few citizens feel that they belong to the larger entity. There is no European army, and no one has ever fought or died for the European Union. If national identities are perceived to be threatened, or too much national sovereignty is delegated, it is not inconceivable that there may be a renaissance of the nation state – or worse, a backlash of micro-nationalism – as currently witnessed among the Flemish, the Scots, the Basques and others.
If stronger regional organisations imply a diminished place for national sovereignty, it may seem contradictory to maintain that the strategic environment that lies before us requires both strong nation states and strong international organisations.
Few, if any, nations, however, will be able to face many of the global challenges on their own, and the need will remain for a credible and responsive international organisation. The European Union, with its lack of political unity and its insufficient capabilities, is unable to meet these challenges. No new or reformed international institution will be credible without a strong resolve at the national level to address these challenges with allies, rather than seeking short-term political gain. This requires vision, political courage and determination.
The EU’s common purpose was principally economic and legal, but despite its economic strength, the EU is weak both as a political and as a military entity. People in the European Union take for granted personal, economic and social liberties, such as the freedom of movement. Attaining this level of individual liberty has been an incredible achievement. But very few EU citizens feel any responsibility to defend these liberties by military force, should the need arise. When citizens consider citizenship to be nothing more than a vehicle for the enjoyment of rights, with duties left to others, then the military is left on the fringes. This has consequences both for the quality of the armed forces and for the respect afforded to them.
NATO is a political and military alliance that has been a successful example of an international structure, able to demonstrate both national and institutional strength. Formed for the collective defence against a common enemy, NATO did not dissolve when the Warsaw Pact disappeared, although its political unity has begun to fade.
The vulnerability – particularly of European citizens – that arises from a weak EU, weak national resolve and a weakened NATO is enormous when a combination of hostile actors and larger impersonal trends converge against Europe.
In this, material elements such as wealth and military capabilities are, of course, just as important as such philosophical considerations as the meaning of identity, citizenship and core values. One part of a nation’s identity is the manner in which it extends citizenship to newcomers. The US has generally been better than Europe in incorporating new citizens into American society. Both Europe and America share the same core values, and – as in other Westernised parts of the world – enjoy open societies that face very similar cultural challenges.
Loss of the Rational
The trend of regionalisation and its active pursuit – especially in the case of the European Union – has not merely led to a decline of the nation state. It has, at times, led to a weakening of national identity, respect for the rule of law, language and the value of citizenship. When national identities are weakened and citizenship loses its meaning, other sources of collective identity – such as religious identity – become more prevalent. Religiosity, or religious orthodoxy as such, is not problematic and is quite often an important element in healthy citizenship. What is problematic is the sort of loss of the rational that increases uncertainty and allows political fanaticism – currently radical Islamism – to spread with ease. The consequences of this are twofold: it is principally a cultural and social problem that affects awareness, citizenship and security.
But when social irrationality leads to political irrationality, policy will become short-sighted and devoid of any strategy, and capable of being manipulated by those with hostile intent.
The loss of the rational in Western societies can be identified as part of a larger cultural trend that makes such societies more vulnerable, and it has many symptoms ranging from the innocuous to the fanatical. The cult of celebrity, focused on pop artists and athletes, is a more innocent symptom of this wider cultural phenomenon. In some Western societies, faith in purely irrational belief systems has overtaken belief in religions that have moral and rational substance, as well as cultural roots. But symptoms such as the decline of interest in science reflect an intellectual decline that might have more immediately palpable social consequences in areas such as journalism, law, and even public health. It reflects a more general loss of respect for the value of evidence and argument.
As a direct consequence of the globalisation of information flows, all kinds of irrational belief or political fanaticism circulate freely in the public domain. Traits of the open society, such as freedom of speech, can then be used against themselves and against other liberties.
Taken together, these symptoms enhance the political frivolity of large parts of the developed world’s populations, leaving people intellectually, culturally and politically vulnerable. The loss of the value of citizenship and the increase in irrationality together create the space in which public opinion is shaped emotionally, making sound strategy and policy harder to accomplish. It also creates the space for demagoguery to thrive.
The loss of the rational, in other words, is a loss of a particularly valuable part of intellectual and moral certainty, and it can lead people to seek certainty elsewhere, in anything from common cults to extreme cases of fanaticism.
To trust in one’s rational faculty means to question and to endure doubt. Sometimes the fear of doubt can be stronger than the fear of death, when extreme doubt leads someone to be receptive to the extreme certainty of a violent ideology – the most fashionable of which (though by no means the only one) is currently radical Islamism.
The attraction of radical Islamism is similar to the psychological appeal of other secular totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, in that it dispels all doubt. In the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, ideology often took the place of religion and, in some cases, replaced the divine with the tyrant himself – a bizarre idolatry still to be witnessed in the personality cult of North Korea. But where National Socialism appealed to racial identity, and Communism appealed to underclass and egalitarian sentiment – radical Islamism appeals to a religious identity and places political violence into a narrative of religious duty.
The varieties of radical Islamism are principally political. But because they appeal to religious identity, members of Muslim communities in the West who have an uncertain mix of national identities and a weak sense of citizenship may be inordinately attracted to the certainty that fanaticism can offer.
It is important to stress that these Western cultural weaknesses are not the cause of Islamist terror. They merely represent the vulnerability that makes societies receptive to its ideological and violent onslaughts by believing that they themselves are to blame. The active sources of radical Islamism are many, from the state sponsorship of radicalism by Saudi Arabia and Iran, to non-state organisations like Hezbollah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots Al- Qaeda and Hamas, as well as the propaganda freely available on the internet.
These different sources of propaganda and/or violence vary in their intellectual underpinnings, sectarian and political aims, and in their internationalist or nationalist orientations. But what they have in common is an assault on the values of the West – on its democratic processes and its freedom of religion – and an exultation over the murder of Jews, Americans, Hindus, ‘unbelievers’, ‘infidels’, ‘apostates’ and various ‘inferior’ others. Notwithstanding the common perception in the West, the origin of Islamist terrorism is not victimhood, nor an inferiority complex, but a well-financed superiority complex grounded in a violent political ideology.
The cultural problem of the loss of the rational is broader than we can describe here, but it creates room for the spread of fanatical political movements contrary to rational values, and weakens the awareness without which political and strategic resolve is not possible.
If the irrational and fanatical get out of hand, there is a risk that, in the long term, the instability of uncertainties, the rise of fundamentalisms and despotisms will usher in a new, illiberal age, in which the liberties that Western societies enjoy – but will not defend – are seriously jeopardised.
Scale and Complexity
The defence and security challenges the world faces today are very serious, but are very different from the challenges we have previously known – such as those posed by Fascism or Communism. In its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon called the post-9/11 global conflict the ‘Long War’ against ‘dispersed non-state networks’. This definition of the conflict reflects the scale of the threat, but not its complexity, and it does not address the means of coping with the threat.
The novelty of this ‘global age’ is the way in which threats and security challenges are interlinked, e.g. energy security, climate change, information technology, financial capital flows, armed conflict, radical and Islamist terrorism, organised crime, proliferation, scarce resources, and refugee issues.
All are interconnected in an unprecedented fashion. In addition, other trends act as a multiplier for specific threats.
Demographic trends affect urbanisation, crime and terrorism.
Climate change affects refugee issues and economic interests.
Ideological trends and nationalism affect terrorism, crime and social instability. Technological change, ease of movement and interconnected economies all help to amplify local problems into regional and even global crises.
We are not merely in a ‘long war’ against networks of terrorist or non-state actors; the West faces a complex, mutable, unstable combination of specific threats against a background of larger trends. The complexity and the interrelated character of these changing threats and trends place much of the risk beyond the scope of predictability. Given that many challenges are a part of general trends, and that specific threats can be carried out by means that are both non-military and irregular – such as cyber attack – it does not make sense to speak of a ‘war’, because to cope with the situation we need much more than military instruments alone.
What the Western allies face is a long, sustained and proactive defence of their societies and way of life. To that end, they must keep risks at a distance, while at the same time protecting their homelands.
This sustained defence concerns the physical safety of citizens, territory and interests, legal culture and liberty. It will be played out in many theatres, and will cover many policy domains that have traditionally been kept separate from each other. Understanding how different matters are interrelated is a very important first step in beginning to be able to address them effectively.
It will require great patience, nerve and tenacity; it will demand both a willingness to strike hard with military force when necessary, and a determination not to succumb to the temptation to compromise one’s own values – a principle aim of terrorism and insurgencies.
Appreciating the complexity of interrelated problems and regional dimensions is a first step towards assessing what capabilities are required. The challenges facing Afghanistan represent a combination of terrorism and organised crime, involving drug trafficking and illegal arms trading, in a wider regional dimension, where radicalisation is rife. Terrorism and sectarian instability are actively advanced by both nonstate actors and regional players.
The ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the current force structures of most Western nations are not fully capable of meeting today’s military challenges. While NATO members are investing in new capabilities, most of these are designed for the defence of the NATO Treaty Area.
In the main, NATO members are not willing to invest in the new capabilities that are required today, and defence budgets still do not reflect new priorities. This is partly because of European nations’ unwillingness to face up to the current threats and challenges. The most recent example of this is the lack of will to fund what was to be the flagship of NATO’s transformation – the NATO Response Force. Western nations need to rethink their security posture and recognise the gaps in the military and other capabilities.
The West, as we noted in the Introduction, relies heavily on the Indian software industry, and thus on Indian stability; China is capable of damaging the American and world economies by cashing in its huge dollar reserves; Russia is able to stop a very large part of the gas supply to Europe. In 2007 we witnessed a cyber attack on Estonia, launched either using the capabilities of a state or by individuals acting anonymously.
While NATO lawyers tried to figure out whether this last example constituted an attack according to Article 5, the EU and NATO failed to rally to Estonia’s defence. This attack made NATO think about cyber security, and the alliance is currently exploring ways of improving strategic defences in cyberspace – and it may consider other uses of cyber technology as well.
These examples illustrate a new form of warfare that abuses leverage in finance, energy and information technology. War could be waged without a single bullet being fired, and the implications of this need to become part of strategic and operational thinking. The threats that the West and its partners face today are a combination of violent terrorism against civilians and institutions, wars fought by proxy by states that sponsor terrorism, the behaviour of rogue states, the actions of organised international crime, and the coordination of hostile action through abuse of non-military means.
The nature of these dangerous and complex challenges cannot be dealt with by military means alone. The Western world and its allies need to agree a new concerted strategy that would include the use of all available instruments, and to prepare its capabilities for those global and regional challenges that we can predict, as well as those we cannot.
Global Challenges
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Proliferation
The ever growing demand for energy will inevitably lead to a significant increase in nuclear power for non-military use. This is desirable for economic and environmental reasons – but it will lead to major security risks. The temptation to enrich uranium beyond civilian use, and to divert the byproduct plutonium, is certain to grow and undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Therefore, a rigid control and verification regime by international organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), other voluntary ad hoc cooperation initiatives and enforcement mechanisms (the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Zangger Committee and others) and, above all, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) will remain essential.
Should the world fail to find a solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the NPT could be damaged beyond repair and nuclear weapons proliferation could spread. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a major strategic threat – not only to Israel, which it has threatened to destroy, but also to the region as a whole, to Europe and to the United States.
Secondly, it could be the beginning of a new multi-polar nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.
The nuclear weapons of India and Pakistan have produced some regional stability, but also a new set of risks and uncertainties.
The ‘private’ proliferation network of A. Q. Khan, which played a key role in developing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, also sold centrifuge designs to Iran, North Korea and Libya, and had offered them to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In 2003, the dismantling of the A. Q. Khan network and Libya’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes was a major achievement, but several significant risks still remain.
Given that many alumni of the A. Q. Khan network remain free, the threat of a very dangerous black market in nuclear weapons technology will remain.
In particular, the greatest risk is that, if Pakistan were to become a failing state, it would be a failing state with nuclear weapons.
Although nuclear proliferation is currently in the foreground, the dangers of proliferation in chemical weapons, biological weapons, radiological weapons and missile technology have not abated. At present, 25 countries possess WMD. Of these, 17 possess active offensive chemical weapons capabilities and 12 possess offensive biological weapons. Around 70 countries possess missiles with a range of over 1,500 km, and around 12 nations export such weapons. Counteracting these threats will require the use of all available instruments.
At the moment, this is done through a combination of treaties and ad hoc arrangements. In addition to the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 199 3, there are ad hoc arrangements, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime. At present, the most important ad hoc arrangement to counter all of these threats is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which seeks to enforce counter-proliferation by air and naval interdiction, where other control regimes fail or leave gaps. The PSI is hugely important and has had several important successes; but it currently has no formal institutional basis, and nor does it have a clear strategic direction. Proliferation of all kinds of WMD, their related dual-use technologies and the means to deliver them, will remain one of the most acute security challenges in the coming decades. Addressing these threats effectively will require deeper and wider cooperation and a more comprehensive approach.
The Struggle for Scarce Resources
There will be an increase in global competition for scarce resources, and this will certainly be the case for fossil fuel, which will swell the possibility of suppliers abusing their position and their leverage. The investment and research into alternative sources of energy, from an increase in nuclear power to experiments with hydrogen technology and varieties of biofuel, are expected to grow and to be encouraged. Scarce resources, such as rare and essential minerals that are mined in remote parts of the world risk becoming a source of political instability, rather than a benefit to the local populations.
With global demographic and economic growth will come a rising global demand for oil – the annual average increase is expected to be 2 per cent over the next 20 years. The increased use of nuclear energy this century will lead to a rise in the demand for uranium. Given that China and India will play a significant part in this growth in demand, they will become increasingly influential and competitive nations.
Other alternative sources of energy, such as biofuels, liquefied coal, hydrogen technology and wind power are to be encouraged.
Switching an entire economy to hydrogen, however, would be extremely expensive and, though it may become more economically viable in the future, the practicability of this remains uncertain. In addition, biofuel from palm oil, sugarcane and other sources is still more expensive than fossil fuel. American research into these areas, however, is making real progress, and the USA may become less dependent on the import of fossil materials. The risks of energy security are, therefore, likely to remain more acute for Europe and Asia than for America.
Energy security is linked to political alignments, environmental and economic issues and political liberty. Dependency on oil and gas is a vulnerability that some governments will seek to exploit – the Gazprom crisis demonstrated how easily demand can be manipulated. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is – and is likely to remain – a mechanism for keeping the price of oil artificially high, and recently Russia and the United Arab Emirates have been exploring the idea of setting up a ‘Gas OPEC’.
At present, energy security and energy policy are the responsibility of each sovereign nation. The European Union is currently developing a common energy policy, which concentrates on reduced emissions, on efficiency targets and on subsidising biofuel and securing diversification of energy sources by trade arrangements. There is no discussion about the protection of energy sources and of their means of transportation. The European Union is using soft instruments, and this is unlikely to protect energy security, which will require deeper transatlantic cooperation and coordination. For this reason, it might well be worth considering using NATO as an instrument of energy security.
In some cases, valuable natural resources are in countries that are plagued by civil war and so do not benefit the ordinary citizens. Rare but essential minerals also offer organised criminals great opportunities and leverage. For instance, coltan (the ore for the rare metal tantalum, which is essential for cellular phones and laptop computers) is mined illegally in northern Congo and smuggled out by militias. In Nigeria and Sierra Leone, rare natural resources are controlled by gangs and rebels; this, of course, means that these groups have a potentially global impact.
Non-State Actors and Asymmetric Warfare
In the globalised world, the non-state or proxy-state actor has added to world instability and, in some cases, is linked to organised crime. A globalised ‘asymmetry’ can pose a wide range of significant threats to governments and to a nation’s security forces. Asymmetric threats can range from direct military action at home or abroad to international terrorists seeking to cause mass casualties; in some instances, sources of asymmetric threats – such as insurgents – are linked to sophisticated international crime. It is important to recognise that the threat may well be a combination of the economic, military, terrorist and criminal. The challenges are all the greater because democratic nations observe international law and conventions, while the ‘other side’ has no such scruples, thus causing a discrepancy in jus in bello. Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah was an armed conflict between a proxy non-state actor and a nation state, where the nation state was at a great disadvantage.
Hezbollah did not shy away from war crimes: it positioned its militia in the midst of civilians and launched rockets from residential areas. And all the while it mounted a relentless and tightly controlled propaganda campaign.
Waging war ‘among the people’ is not new. Blurring the boundary between soldier and civilian was part of the Spanish guerrilla action against Napoleon and the IRA’s war against the British, and it remains a tactic of terrorist organisations today. But this tactic today, with very modern weapons, leads to far more casualties among innocent civilians. Examples of asymmetric war fought by proxy today include the very significant support Iran gives to Shiite militias in Iraq, and its supply of arms and training to Hezbollah. The support from Iran (and possibly Syria) and the presence of Al-Qaeda and former Ba’athist regime elements in Iraq, whether murdering civilians and military personnel or destroying institutions, illustrate very starkly the major challenge of fighting a coordinated campaign against an asymmetric threat.
We have to recognise that international terrorism and the threat of asymmetric war are likely to remain with us for a very long time. This is a very different challenge from the terrorism of the Baader-Meinhof group, the Basque-separatist ETA or the IRA. International terrorism today aims to disrupt and destroy our societies, our economies and our way of life. It was a surprising leap of imagination on the part of terrorists to use aeroplanes as missiles, to time bombings ahead of elections, and to use the global media to achieve maximum impact.
In addition, the distinction between international organised crime and terrorism is becoming increasingly blurred. There is a fundamental difference between the political aims of terrorists and international criminals’ pursuit of money, but their activities should not be viewed in isolation. Some terrorist organisations are involved in the drug and arms trade, and organised criminals may begin to pursue political power – as is demonstrated by the symbiosis between the drug trade, the arms trade and asymmetric warfare in and around Afghanistan.
The Cold War helped control the sale of weapons; but that weaponry is now readily available on the black market. Given that non-state and proxy-state actors deliberately violate all principles governing the conduct of war, blurring the distinction between soldiers and civilians both as actors and in their choice of targets, the response to these threats will inevitably change, depending on where the lines of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are drawn.
Abuse of Financial Leverage
A dangerous consequence of globalisation is that financial leverage may increase political instability. For example, China is again seeking access to the mineral resources of Africa, and pursues its resource security by buying political support from regimes, for example China outclassed the World Bank’s offer of $5 million to renovate Nigeria’s railway system with an $8.3 billion offer to rebuild the rail network from scratch.
This phenomenon has also been called ‘rogue aid’2, and it affects Africa’s relationship to the rest of the world. In addition to oil interests in Nigeria, Sudan and Angola, China has exploration agreements with Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Algeria, and a production stake in Tunisia. China is also pursuing minerals, including platinum, copper, iron ore, uranium and diamonds across the continent. Furthermore, it is investing in infrastructure projects, undercutting Western competitors and development banks, building hydropower dams in Sudan, Ethiopia, Zambia, Mozambique, Ghana, Nigeria and Congo-Brazzaville; railways in Angola, Zambia, Congo, Gabon and Sudan; and telephone networks in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, Angola and Zimbabwe.
At $99 .4 billion in 2006, America is still Africa’s largest trading partner, but China’s oil purchases from Africa have multiplied five times since 2000 to stand at $55.5 billion in 2006; this figure is expected to double in the next three years.
China is in a position to use the ‘finance weapon’ for geopolitical leverage in Africa, and is gaining the capability to use it more widely – if it chooses to do so.
There are less significant examples of ‘rogue aid’: from Venezuela’s foreign aid to the Cuban regime, to Russians buying up railway stations in Switzerland. Leverage and deterrence by non-military means can be a threat, and it is one that is growing. The danger is that it may empower despots and encourage corruption, rather than improving the lives of ordinary citizens.
The use of resources, and also of financial instruments gained from resource wealth, as a new instrument of political coercion will increase as a political problem in the coming century, and this adds a new, non-military dimension to threat and security analysis. To respond effectively, and with a proper strategy, will mean extending the meaning of strategy beyond the military domain.
Regional Challenges
The United Nations recognise approximately 500 nationalities, of which some 140 live on the territory of a state governed by a different nationality. This is the basic reason behind the continuing very large number of unresolved ethnic and territorial conflicts, both interstate and intra-state. They include Cyprus, the Arab–Israeli conflicts, Kosovo, Arab–African violence and genocide in Darfur and southern Sudan; the conflicts between Ethiopia and Eritrea; the Sunni and Shia conflicts; Syria and Lebanon; the Iranian–Arab tensions within Iran; Russian–Chinese rivalry; Turkish–Kurdish violence; Zimbabwe’s systematic starvation of political opposition; the Nigerian civil war; and many others. These conflicts (together with the associated refugee crises) swell the list of long-term challenges: a number are connected to the competition for resources, nuclear proliferation, economic competition, terrorism and the balance of power.
The role of the United States in Europe has changed in recent years, but it remains vital for European interests. In the volatile Middle East, the complexity of interrelated problems will require significant involvement for years to come. In Asia, the rise of China, India and Indonesia as regional powers is bringing new economic, financial and military challenges, and the Asia-Pacific region remains the only region where the balancing power of the US offsets these challenges in a traditional way. It is probably correct to say that the strategic centre of gravity has shifted from the Atlantic toward the Middle East and the Pacific, and this will have many consequences, not least for Europe’s role in the world.
In this section, we will focus on four major regional challenges:
the rise of Asia, the dangerous Middle East, Africa and state failure, and the reappearance of Russia.
Rise of Asia
The significant economic growth of China and India and the steady rise of Indonesia have already had profound economic global consequences, illustrated by major external investment and Western dependency on manufacturing and services, af54 fecting market and currency stability and access to scarce resources.
China and India are becoming dominant regional powers, investing heavily in military and nuclear capabilities and pumping vast amounts of money into Africa. It has been estimated that, if current economic growth rates are maintained over the next two decades, China will have the second largest economy by 2020, and the largest by 2027. It seems unlikely, however, that China can maintain these growth rates because of weaknesses concerning governance, environmental, demographic, geographic and maritime factors. India and China are both trying to maximise the political influence of their economic power, but in opposite ways: India in cooperation with the USA, and China in competition.
China has very greatly increased its defence expenditure ($103 billion in 2005, $122 billion in 2006), and has also significantly boosted its nuclear capabilities, naval forces and military use of outer space.
The country has realised that it needs to be a maritime power in order to protect its nuclear capabilities and its maritime lines of communication. To that end, it is seeking alternative options for maritime access, through collaboration with the propped-up regime of Myanmar (Burma) and with Pakistan, in order to circumvent the Malacca Straits, which could easily be blockaded.
This will complicate relations with the US and India, while the uncertain future of Taiwan has the potential to become an even more dangerous flashpoint.
The leadership of China almost certainly considers the US its principal opponent, but it is unlikely that a new Cold War is looming. The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that the Soviet Union was economically weak, whereas China is economically strong – and is dependent on the US to maintain this economic power.
China will aim to straddle the delicate balance between transforming this economic rise into military expansion, while cooperating with Asian nations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and avoiding a confrontation with the US.
One of the principal weaknesses of the Chinese expansion, as was noted above in the section on climate change, is the damage it is doing to its own environment. The scale of this damage, and its corresponding economic disutility, should not be underestimated. China is presently constructing around two coal-fired power stations a week. (And worldwide, approximately 3,000 such power stations are planned by 2030.) This may be good Chinese energy security, but it is a disaster in terms of the pollution of its own soil, the health of its citizens and the state of the world as a whole. The Chinese government will soon be confronted with a difficult choice – whether or not it is willing to reduce the country’s economic growth in the interests of a better environmental policy, before the environmental damage negatively affects that very growth directly.
It does seem that current high rates of growth will not be sustained indefinitely, especially when the demographics of the ageing population begin to have an economic impact.
In China, as elsewhere, there is a decline of Communism as an ideology. But whether economic liberalisation will lead to political liberalisation is not clear, because the country’s structure remains communist, while the economic elite is largely made up of children of the Party elite. Economic growth will not liberalise a country if this growth is largely controlled by the state, rather than being a part of civil society. There the internet is severely restricted in its liberalising potential, both on account of censorship and because it is treated by the state as an instrument of surveillance. In addition, an offensive cyber- force has recently been constituted that reports only to the Party, which may be an indication that there will be an increased emphasis on cyber operations in the future.
When asked about the role of the Chinese armed forces, Chinese military officials will say that China’s army is like that of any other nation – there to protect its borders and interests. But, when pressed in private, they will admit that, in addition to their many ambitions, the army principally serves to maintain order within the country.
India will not necessarily be as restrained as China in its regional dealings. The relationship between India and Pakistan is likely to remain difficult, and India’s relationship with Indonesia is not without tension. Muslim–Hindu violence or fanaticism, anywhere in the region, could further exacerbate unpleasant tensions between these states.
The case of Japan is very different from other countries in the region, because, since the end of the second World War, Japanese security has been fully integrated into the West, with a very strong link to the US, both on the military and political levels. This makes Japan a reliable ally against the danger from North Korea, but the attitude of India and China to Japanese security remains unclear.
The rise of Asia is shifting much of the strategic focus to the Pacific, which means that European nations need to think hard about their role in the world, as well as about the role that the transatlantic alliance has in the Pacific.
Dangerous Middle East
The Middle East is the region where most of the challenges described above converge simultaneously. Local ethnic clashes with a regional dimension, the threat of proliferation, the spread of radical Islamist terrorism and the instability surrounding access to oil and gas resources – all are intertwined.
The ebb and flow of the risk of a civil war in Iraq, Kurdish– Turkish violence, nuclear aspirations and active sectarian meddling by Iran all add to regional uncertainty. These factors have greatly affected US credibility, which remains the indispensable resource for regional stability.
In addition, all the efforts to solve the Israeli–Palestinian conflicts have been unsuccessful. One of the most dramatic changes since 9/11 and the war in Iraq has been that this conflict is no longer considered to be the pivot around which all Middle Eastern problems revolve. Solving this conflict is very important, and President Bush is the first American head of state openly to call for the creation of a Palestinian state.
But when it comes to the more fundamental question of whether the Palestinian problem would be solved by creating a state, there is more consensus in the West than in the region itself.
The dramatic difference with the recent past is that the most currently volatile conflict in the Middle East is between the Sunni and the Shia. Iraq and Lebanon are two theatres of this conflict, and it also encompasses the regional rivalry between pro-American Sunni allies and Shiite Iran.
The willingness of the USA and its coalition partners to rid the world of the two terrible regimes of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban has left a vacuum that Iran is stepping into, with the world unable to contain Iran’s growing influ58 ence in the region. The savage sectarian violence, the deliberate destabilisation of Iraq by its neighbours, plus a significant Al-Qaeda presence all pose a very great challenge to the government of Iraq and the coalition. This instability has allowed Iran to step in, even as it launches a uranium enrichment process and is strongly suspected of engaging in a military nuclear programme. Iran has long wanted to become a very significant regional power, and as such it would undoubtedly threaten the geopolitical balance in the Gulf and be keen to fan the flames between the Sunni and Shia throughout the Muslim world.
As a nuclear power, Iran could become immune to international sanctions. Furthermore, it would dominate the region, which possesses the world’s largest oil and gas reserves.
Moreover, an Iranian nuclear weapon could mean the end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus transform the regional conflict into a global crisis.
Achieving regional stability – which includes finding a solution to the Israeli–Arab conflicts – can only be accomplished at a higher strategic level. Solutions will lie in newer regional balances, which will have to include key strategic interests, such as questions of proliferation and access to raw materials.
Africa and State Failure
We have discussed Africa in the context of civil war, ethnic violence and demographic challenges, climate change, hunger, disease, corruption, resources and ‘rogue aid’. Africa is a region where many of these challenges are interconnected; but, speaking very broadly, we might say that the continent is a theatre in the early stages of a global competition between Western nations, China and the Islamic world3 – a much more complex predicament for Africa than during the Cold War.
Africa remains the poorest continent, although in the past three years African economic growth has averaged around 5 per cent annually. This is, in part, due to the economic boost received from China, the benefits of debt cancellation, aid from the G8 and increased aid from the European Union.
Nonetheless, this rate of economic growth is still insufficient to deal with the big increase in population from 900 million now to 2 billion by 2050. Generally speaking, the African continent is not in good shape, and the lack of good governance is the main reason for this situation, which has led to several problems. First, there is internal instability in many countries, and quite often also state failure, causing the troubles to spread. The consequences of civil war and genocide in the 199 0s in the Great Lakes area are still felt, and this is an area where a Western presence to oversee stability and the conduct of elections will remain for some time to come. In addition, there are many problems related to AIDS and other diseases; trafficking in arms, drugs and people; and in some countries, the threat of Islamist radicalism.
Zimbabwe is gradually being destroyed by a tyrannical regime that is using dispossession and systematic starvation – akin to North Korea’s tactics in the 199 0s – to eliminate its political opposition (this is also considered a form of genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention of 1948, Art. II c).
Unfortunately, Zimbabwe’s misconduct is enabled by the support it receives from South Africa, and there is a grave risk that similar developments might occur in Namibia.
The violence and ethnic cleansing in Darfur – with over 200,000 killed, 2.5 million displaced and more than 1,600 villages destroyed4 – is genocide, largely carried out by proxies of the Sudanese regime, supported by Sudanese air cover, to rid Sudan of its black population and replace them with ethnic Arabs. The economic prosperity of the oil-rich Sudanese regime has been as destabilising to the country and the region as economic and political failure has been in Somalia, where it has coincided with radicalised Islamism. The state where the greatest risk exists of a failing state turning into a launching pad for terrorism and WMD is Somalia.
There is, furthermore, a real danger that radical Islamist movements spread among Africa’s 400 million Muslims. This is currently a concern in Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria, but has so far not been a problem in the moderate Islamic regions of West and Central Africa.
There are some important exceptions to these worrying trends.
First, those countries that are oil and gas producers, such as Gabon and Angola, can take advantage of their political and economic relationship with North America. Liberia, though not an energy producer, is benefiting from a turn towards good governance and its good relationship with the United States. Second, the African countries on the Mediterranean coast are in a better situation, because they are part of the EUROMED partnership, established in 199 5 in Barcelona.
These countries derive benefits, even if they are insufficient, from cooperation with the European Union, but they are confronted by the threats of Islamist movements.
Western activities in Africa are currently a combination of European soft power and American hard power. France remains the largest trading partner of the continent, but the US is not far behind. As was mentioned earlier, China is currently flooding Africa both with investment and with Chinese products. While Europe and America make their aid and support conditional upon improving governance standards, China (as has already been mentioned) makes no such demands, and its financial leverage over the continent is already proving to be detrimental to good governance, in its disregard for democracy and human rights.
The United States has, in recent years, shifted its dependency on gas and oil imports from the Middle East to Africa. As a consequence of this increased interest in Africa, the US is in the process of establishing the US African Command (AFRICOM), to protect its strategic interests. It is increasing energy investment and is seeking to counteract radicalisation among Africa’s Muslims. Although AFRICOM will not be fully operational until September 2008, its activities will principally focus on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, cooperation with the African Union and strengthening military–military relationships. Its establishment reveals an increased strategic interest in Africa on the part of the US.
In addition, in the realm of security, the African Union and some sub-regional organisations like ECOWAS5 are trying to increase their role in maintaining stability. The EU countries, especially France and the UK, can provide the technical and logistical support in order to increase the efficiency of the interventions carried out by African organisations.
American and European challenges and interests in Africa are not entirely similar. The USA is principally interested in access to oil and raw materials, and in this regard it is competing with China. Europe also deals with these questions, but it is mainly concerned with migration and stability in Northern Africa and the Sahel region. The main challenge for the Europeans is to agree on a comprehensive policy that could change the situation in this part of Africa through security cooperation, economic growth and good governance.
The United States and Europe, although their strategic interests in Africa are not identical, could still cooperate more on common aims, such as achieving stability in Africa and offsetting the influence of China and radical Islamism.
The Reappearance of Russia
One of the interesting features of the 21st century is the reappearance of Russia, something that has economic, nationalist and authoritarian aspects. Low birth rates, high death rates, combined with multi-ethnicity and the threat of Central Asian Islamist radicalism, all put a greater strain on its national identity, fuelling a backlash of Russian nationalism, which has consequences that are anti-democratic domestically and globally anti-liberal. The rise of China is both an economic and a demographic problem for Russia, which will contract demographically.
Russia is offsetting these developments with its restored economic standing, and is using this economic power and energy leverage to advance its aspirations to be the second global superpower once again. With strong exports in energy and armaments, the economic rise has been accompanied by renewal in the Russian military. On closer examination, however, there is a mismatch between Russian rhetoric and actual capabilities; it is Russia’s weakness that is a cause for concern in the West, no longer its strength.
Historically, Russia has been dangerous as a great power – but it has also been dangerous whenever it has felt that it is not being treated as a great power. Many Russians cannot believe that the West has anything other than hostile intent, and they believe the West wants to sweep their country aside from its ‘deserved’ position as second global superpower (something it is not and never will be again). Russia generally feels disappointed by its cooperation with the West, and especially by the NATO–Russia partnership, which it interpreted as a guarantee that Russia could influence all NATO decisions. A more assertive, and at times hostile, foreign policy posture has emerged in recent years as a result of this, but also as a result of the alumni of the former KGB controlling the government and all other instruments of coercion. There may be uncertainty about the successor to President Putin, but, whoever it may be, the West’s interest in striving for partnership with Russia will remain important.
In contrast to the United States, Europe depends on Russian gas and oil imports, and is, in addition, vulnerable to the renewed Russian development of authoritarianism. The country’s leverage and financial standing are principally based on its export of raw materials and armaments – both industries that are controlled by the state. Unlike India and China, it does not have much else to offer the world in terms of services or manufacturing. It is not Russia’s strength that its economic growth is almost entirely at the state level rather than as a part of civil society.
Russia has used its economic growth to improve the condition of its military capabilities. Russia has approximately 1.134 million military personnel. It is envisaged that by 2008 two thirds will be regulars, and conscription will then be reduced to 12 months. Russia spends 2.6 to 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence (approximately $24 billion); by 2011, some 50 per cent of that should be spent on running costs, and the other half on modernisation and equipment. From 2010 to 2015, further reorganisation is planned, with abolition of the current Military Districts. The new organisation will correspond to the three operational directions Russia believes it needs: the Far East, Central Asia and Western Europe.
Russia possesses a capable industrial base, and it exports $7 billion worth of military technology to 82 countries (planning figure 2007). Looking at today’s military capabilities, there seems to be a mismatch between President Putin’s political statements and the realities. A few examples: according to Russian force planning, all intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are supposed to be Topol-M missiles by 2015, but the annual production rate is seven missiles. In the air force, just half of the aircraft are operational, 55 per cent are older than 15 years, and new aircraft procurement is very low.
Looking at air defence, Russia would need some 650 S-300 missiles, but only around 100 are operational. Overall, not much more than 20 per cent of the Russian military equipment can be called modern, and 15 to 20 per cent of all materiel can be classified as not operational.
When it comes to personnel, the Russian Armed Forces are definitely not in good shape. They are still top heavy in their personnel structure, and they are increasingly struggling to maintain military discipline and sufficient morale to enable them to fight and sustain combat operations.
For the next 10 to 15 years, the Russian military will continue to struggle with reform, and not many of the objectives set out by President Putin in his May 2006 speech will be achieved. For all of these reasons, it is fair to say that today it is not the strength of Russia’s military that is a cause for concern, but rather its weakness. It is in the interests of both the West and Russia, therefore, to increase cooperation at the political and the military levels. The trends within Russia that are pushing hard in the opposite direction are a cause for great concern.
In the region, Georgia and Ukraine remain unresolved issues, and their potential NATO or EU membership will remain controversial and highly contentious. Relations with Russia are also bound up with the status of Kosovo: the West’s unilateral recognition of Kosovo – against the will of Serbia, Russia and China – could further strain relations between the West and Russia, and between the West and China. Setting a precedent for part of a country to secede against the will of that country could encourage separatism in other territorial disputes and thus increase the risk of further conflicts.
It will be important for the West to maintain a partnership with Russia, if an escalation of future tensions is to be averted.
Cooperation with Russia must be based on strict reciprocity, and Russia should never be given a unilateral veto over Western decisions; but Western nations should take account of legitimate Russian interests in their security arrangements.
In this context, it is important to maintain the existing arms control agreements, such as the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) and the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF), and to explore options with Russia for the future of arms control.
Conclusion
As we have indicated, trends, risks, dangers and specific threats cannot be seen in isolation from each other.
Because there are fewer geographical limitations to a problem, a viable risk assessment must be global. It is necessary to appreciate the interlinking complexity of the present challenges and their potentially huge scale. It is a hallmark of the globalised world that threats are multi-faceted and multi-directional.
We have to formulate a strategic response that matches the complexities we face.
War never was the application of military force alone. But today, non-military means have a more prominent role to play than ever before. In addition to conventional military and nuclear balances of power, asymmetric threats will be used more frequently. States or non-state actors may well start conflicts by proxy, by abusing their leverage in energy resources, or through the financial ‘weapon’. There exists a great – and unprecedented – danger that multiple players could wage war on the West by deploying these various instruments simultaneously.
Therefore, there is a strategic risk that we could see warfare that does not involve the use of a single bullet.
These threats are a new phenomenon, and we must be prepared to develop a set of responses that go beyond military capabilities and that can be applied at the strategic level, thus providing the capability to deal with the unexpected. What is needed is an approach to strategy that integrates all the instruments available to a given nation. But because no nation can handle these challenges on its own, we need to tackle them through alliances as well. The integrated and the allied approaches are central to our proposals.
But what about our international institutions? Do they have the capability and the political will to cope with the problems discussed above? In the next chapter we will consider the capabilities our nations possess today.
Chapter 2 Present Capabilities
In Chapter 1 we considered possible challenges and threats.
The question immediately arises whether we are able to deal with these in an adequate way. Are UN institutions, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), NATO, the EU and nation states capable of dealing with these demands? Do their present capabilities meet the new challenges and threats?
If we look at recent conflicts, like Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, it appears that those institutions and the coalition nations have great difficulty in coming up with a proper integrated and allied approach. This leads to inadequate strategic concepts and an inability to establish an efficient political– military decision-making and execution mechanism.
It is these that are crucially needed to cope with complex challenges and threats, as we discussed in Chapter 1. This need is reinforced by the nature of those challenges and threats, because they lead to much longer involvements.
There was strong common resolve within NATO during the Cold War – a resolve that dissipated all too quickly after that war unravelled. Experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo have revealed problems for the UN and NATO that should have taught us lessons. These lessons – if learnt – seem not to have been followed up by full, appropriate, corrective measures.
The structural problems that we experienced in the political resolve and in the political–military decision-making mechanisms during the Bosnian intervention still haunt NATO today.
The biggest problems that the interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have had in common have been the absence of a properly defined political objective, the absence of an integrated and allied strategy to achieve that objective, and the absence of capabilities to implement the strategy. In addition, nations have commonly imposed too many national caveats on use of their forces. There exists an unwillingness on the part of nations to transfer authority to the operational commander once in the theatre of operations. Finally, there is a tendency for nations not to resource operations effectively – in terms of both personnel and materiel – which serves to undermine the one factor that preoccupies the military circles of NATO nations today: sustainability.
These examples underline the need not only for a careful and integrated decision-making process, but also for specific capabilities; especially the ability to carry operations through for longer periods of time, across a wide spectrum of activities.
There were many problems in past operations and very few lessons were heeded, so that structural and political problems remain unresolved to this day.
Below, we will consider the lessons of recent experience and what this means for national and shared capabilities, for sustainability, and for the role of intelligence. But we will first consider the capabilities of the most important international organisations.
International Capabilities
United Nations
The United Nations (UN) should play a decisive role, but it is not capable of doing so. It has a broad range of capabilities, but it also has important limitations. When looking at the UN, we must distinguish three main roles.
First, the UN is the only institution that bestows the legitimacy of international law on international action that breaches national sovereignty. But political disunity, mainly between the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, is a major issue, while the General Assembly remains heavily influenced by non-democratic states.
Second, the UN has the capability of carrying out interventions, and it has been successful in several peacekeeping operations, such as in Cambodia, as well as in preventive action in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But other UN interventions, such as in Bosnia or Somalia, have been a failure and have shown clearly that the UN is not capable of dealing with more complex military operations.
Third, specialised UN agencies, such as the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), function very well, and will continue to play an important and useful role.
The UN is an organisation with many capabilities, especially in non-military areas. However, the limitations in its political and political–military structure mean that it lacks an effective strategy, as well as the ability to live up to its stated purpose:
to preserve global security and prevent genocide.
It is also regrettable that the UN lacks order. A combination of insurmountable political disunities and executive incapacity precludes the organisation from possessing an effective strategy and political–military decision-making system. If the UN is seeking to be successful in operations that require a greater strategic and military dimension in the growing complexity of our modern world, then it will have to be assisted by other organisations.
Regional Organisations
In addition to the UN agencies, there are a number of regional organisations, some of them declared as such under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. Outside Europe there exist the African Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Organization of American States (OAS), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and others. These organisations intend to play a much greater role in the future.
They might play a part in preventive crisis management, postintervention stabilisation and nation building. Yet we see severe limitations in terms of the unity, will, capabilities and executive power of these organisations.
The one regional organisation that matters in terms of transatlantic security is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and it is useful in many respects.
For example, the OSCE has a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes among its members. It is also suited to providing early warning of human rights abuses and ethnic strife, and also to post-intervention stabilisation and to monitoring elections. The OSCE does not, however, possess the capabilities to do anything in between, such as enforcing security in crises when it is needed most. It also lacks a broad vision and a common strategy. Nevertheless, as one of the few organisations that can boast the membership of both Russia and the United States, it will play a valuable role in the future.
European Union
The European Union (EU) is a unique international organisation, partly supranational and partly a confederation. It has brought much economic prosperity to its citizens and, most importantly, has succeeded in maintaining peace and eliminating war among its members. The European Union also has quite a few political weaknesses, and it lacks unity, as well as important capabilities.
In areas of security and geopolitics, there are many internal differences concerning the status of the transatlantic alliance, the relationship with Russia, issues surrounding the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The EU Constitution, or the set of treaties recently accepted at Lisbon, may help facilitate cooperation in the security field and common policy.
In Chapter 4, we will discuss how a reformed EU, with future executive institutions such as the EU presidency, might help in strengthening transatlantic bonds.
The European Union has important institutional capabilities, especially in terms of financial and economic resources, aid in the development of legal systems, protection of the environment and other instruments referred to as ‘soft power’, which require long-term development and planning. However, in time of crisis, when quick decisions are needed, it is hard to act with 27 nations. Both the procedures of the EU and the capabilities of its members are inadequate for present and future security challenges.
They are almost exclusively focused on soft power. There is no mature common security policy, and there is a surprising reluctance to address the issue of ‘hard power’, although a step in the right direction was taken in 2002 with the agreement of the European Security Strategy (ESS).
The threat assessment of the ESS focuses on terrorism, WMD, organised crime and failed states. One major oversight is that it leaves out the Cold War and the transatlantic alliance in its interpretation of recent history and contemporary politics.6 On the whole, the ESS makes an assessment about the nature of threats that is very similar to the American National Security Strategy (NSS); but the ESS differs markedly in the capabilities required to meet the threat. It also fails to mention the issue of pre-emption. It remains too loose a framework, the prerogative on decision making stays with the member states (which prevents a solid political–military decision- making and command structure in times of crisis) and it remains too focused on the application of soft power.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been the most successful political organisation and military alliance in recent history, having managed to settle the Cold War peacefully and on its own terms. After the Cold War, it achieved remarkable success in the transition from confrontation to cooperation in Europe, and it has the potential to continue to be a successful political–military alliance. These are no small accomplishments. Although NATO does not constitute the only legal transatlantic link, the North Atlantic Treaty specifies the only legally binding link between Europe and America on security – an obligation in Article 5 to undertake collective defence; in itself, that obligation has a particular deterrent effect.
However, despite this success, NATO faces serious challenges in Afghanistan and has lost the momentum required for transformation of its forces. NATO is, therefore, in danger of losing its credibility. In addition, the organisation seems to need an adequate vision for the future, including an effective strategic concept, that will lead to clear direction. It lacks capabilities, and its constituent nations are showing a marked lack of will for it to prevail. A NATO without profound reform will not be the instrument we need at this time or in the future.
Unlike the UN, the OSCE and the EU, NATO is a political– military alliance. This is both its strength and its weakness:
it concentrates solely on military instruments, despite the fact that NATO members face threats that may be of a very unmilitary nature. NATO’s effectiveness is further constrained by the differences of opinion between the US and Europe, as well as by differences within Europe about the role and use of war, about hard and soft power, and about the legality of armed intervention.
European NATO members are also divided among themselves about the size, role and scope of NATO. One important difference among Europeans concerns the range of NATO involvement:
one view holds that NATO should be focused on Western security and should not extend its competence or its membership worldwide. In this vein, certain members are also opposed to extending NATO membership to non-North Atlantic nations, such as some of the democracies of the Pacific.
We believe that NATO should always remain open for future enlargement. But here some important lessons can be learnt from the expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War.
In considering future enlargement, NATO should take particular care not to fundamentally change the role and the nature of the alliance; not to dilute the fundamental principle of collective defence; and to conduct enlargement in such a manner that not only are objective criteria met, but that enlargement occurs as a part of wider strategic aims. We will return to this question in Chapter 4 and our vision for the future of NATO.
The Washington Summit of 199 agreed NATO’s present strategic concept, reaffirmed collective defence of the NATO Treaty Area and affirmed the importance of missions in the vicinity of the Balkans region. The Prague Summit Declaration of 2002 opened the door to using NATO for operations beyond the Treaty Area, calling for an ability to ‘sustain operations over distance and time’. Together, these two agreements have created ambiguity about the role of the alliance, and the question of whether NATO should have a global or principally regional sphere of action continues to divide its members.
Leaving aside the fact that NATO has already acted decisively in Kosovo, without Security Council approval or assent, one of the important problems of the current strategic concept remains that NATO’s actions are essentially reactive, rather than preventive, and are still limited to military means.
Overall, NATO will remain of central importance for the future of the transatlantic alliance, and will be the point of departure for the strategy we will describe in the next chapters.
But in its political and military structure, decision-making mechanisms and military capabilities, NATO still greatly 77 reflects the needs of the Cold War, a dangerous period but one of relative stability – a stability and a period of the rule of international law that, considering past centuries, may well have been a historical anomaly and cannot be taken for granted today. The present fragility of the international systems can be a very unnerving realisation, especially for European nations.
Capabilities and Political Will
Public Awareness
In Chapter 1 we discussed the dilemma between relinquishing national sovereignty to international organisations, and maintaining a strong nation state. This affects general questions, ranging from political will and the freedom of nations to choose and decide, to practical matters such as placing troops under the operational command of other nations or international organisations.
The globalising world and its globalised threats and challenges, as discussed in Chapter 1, first require awareness – itself an act of intellectual and political courage – and the will to accept challenges and act on them. Both public awareness and political resolve have been very weak, and so the translation of this overall picture into future security policies is precluded.
It is untenable that we are willing to pay more for security on flight tickets, and yet are unwilling to take care of security as a whole.
Western nations ought to take greater pride in their values of the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. In cases where these freedoms are abused in order to undermine them, there is a lack of will to defend them – and indeed a failure to appreciate what the West stands for. Ultimately, such will originates from within the nation state, rather than being imposed by any international organisation. If the West forgets what it stands for, then it becomes hard to discern what it is that Western nations have to offer the world.
Experiences and Observations
Having discussed the present state of various organisations, and having touched generally on issues concerning nations, it is worthwhile sharing some recent experiences and observations on their involvement in recent conflicts. What have been the problems at the strategic level, at the level of analysis and estimation of strength and weakness, and on the ground, where national command and multinational operational command both play their part?
Lacking a properly defined political objective, Western nations entered into operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq without having their clear end aims defined and without having any real integrated strategic and allied approach laid down in an integrated strategic framework. We believe that one of the reasons why it is so hard to come up with such a strategic concept is that there is too much ‘stove-piping’ in the decisionmaking processes. That is, each institution or each national department operates within its own narrow field of capabilities, without adequate communication or coordination with others. This also applies to domestic governance, when various ministries operate in parallel or in rivalry without proper coordination.
This is one of the reasons why developing a clear integrated strategic concept is very difficult today.
Such an overall concept should work on the basis of clearly decided aims and goals. It should integrate all the participating and needed entities and elements, including political will. It should also distinguish phases of conflict and post-conflict, and clearly define responsibilities in each of them. Such a proper concept should also address the whole spectrum of operations, both in the horizontal sense (different assets including military capabilities), and in the vertical sense, which concerns the ladder of all stages of escalation and de-escalation.
Concerning our capacities to assess and analyse threats and to predict behaviour or future events, another experience is that too much analysis is driven by our own Western logic – the problem of ‘mirroring’. That is, assuming rational behaviour on the basis of what we would do in a similar situation, rather than taking the opponent’s history, culture, behaviour and statements as a basis. Merely because we believe we are rational or well-intentioned does not make other actors so. In the Cold War, a rational opponent could be relied upon, to a large degree, to act in his own interests. Irrationality on a large scale, on the other hand, has become a feature of contemporary politics and geopolitics, and may include opponents acting suicidally against their own interests, because this would cause greater damage to the West.
There is also a tendency to overestimate our own strength, resulting in a flawed perception that we can decide the course of events in conflicts and their intensity. We need to remember the old experience that the best plan has to be reviewed after the first encounter with the opponent, and that our planning should, at all times, be based on worst-case scenarios.
There is a further tendency to underestimate the duration of conflicts, and the nature of the commitment required. A quick solution is a rare thing. We must be prepared for long commitments – much longer than we would like. Therefore, sustainability is a key issue, not only for the political will of a society, but also for the material assets needed, both military and non-military.
Finally, and probably most importantly, no military intervention will succeed without an effective political–military command structure. This must be based on a clear mandate, observing the principle of unity of command and purpose.
International organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) find this difficult to accept, raising structural problems to mandates that originate from international organisations and that require multinational force structures.
Nations have a tendency to impose national caveats on the use of their forces, which can prevent the operational commander from making adequate use of allocated forces. Nations are not willing – and this is still the case in Afghanistan today – to transfer authority to an operational commander at the moment when forces enter the theatre of operations.
Although there is disagreement within NATO about the division of labour between national command and operational command of the multinational force structure, it is our view that the operational commanders should be able to make use of the forces available to them, within the limits set by the politically approved mission.
Achieving this is not without difficulty. It is undeniable that multinationality becomes more and more problematic the lower down the command structure one goes, because of differences in discipline, training standards and weapons systems.
Much investment in time, resources and human capital is necessary to make a multinational force structure effective, even if the command level is properly chosen. Common exercises are very important, for example, because they create trust and calibrate standards, rendering operational command easier to achieve. In addition, common war-games, joint acquisitions and the pooling of capabilities and resources are all to be encouraged, because they can strengthen an alliance that today is lacking both unity and capabilities.
Capabilities
Most European nations have inadequate military capabilities, and NATO has no non-military capabilities. Two documents by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), European Defense Integration and European C4ISR Capabilities and Transatlantic Interoperability, make this abundantly clear.7 The latter study – on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (C4ISR) – concerns the gap between the US and European defence systems. Although European nations have come quite far in integrating command and control (C2) through the NATO framework, none is likely to have a networked military in the foreseeable future. The document further notes that this is not due to absence of technology, but to budgetary constraints.
C4ISR remains an area where further transatlantic cooperation is needed; and, to enhance both intra-European and transatlantic interoperability, European allies will have to show greater commitment to making this a policy priority.
The CSIS study on the integration of European defence points out that the gap between the intention, in both the European and NATO security strategies, and European military capabilities continues to widen. The fragmented nature of European defence, constrained budgets and lack of political will have rendered progress slow. To overcome this, the paper proposes defence integration – that is, coordinating the efforts of European countries – and using the EU and NATO to create a set of collective defence capabilities. To this end, greater cooperation between the EU and NATO will be necessary, as will the formulation of more compatible visions of European defence needs and military doctrines; more cooperative research, development and procurement; the pooling of national capabilities; and having several nations specialise in unique capabilities that might lead to high-value contributions.
These two studies provide a wealth of information on both the general capabilities and the shortcomings, right down to very technical details. We endorse their findings and conclusions about European and NATO capabilities, and in this paper we wish to draw particular attention to two aspects of capability: intelligence and sustainability.
Intelligence
Today’s military and security challenges have greatly increased the importance of the contribution to be made by intelligence and security services, in terms of both timely and also hard intelligence. In the Cold War, the secret world of intelligence and counter- intelligence had a major impact on strategy, force planning and defence policy. But in those days the threat was regionally focused and allowed the luxury of some warning time. With WMD proliferation and terrorism, nations are insufficiently prepared for far more widely spread and diffuse targets.
The acute requirement for progress against the threat of terrorism since 9/11 has given greater prominence to ‘intelligence’, but it is not always clear whether this implies secret operations or the collection of information and the work of analysts. It seems that improvement is needed on several fronts: principally on open source research analysis and on secret human intelligence operations.
There is one further area that weakens Western intelligence agencies, and that is the lack of cooperation and sharing of important information. On the whole, intelligence sharing continues to be a core question among Western allies, but it remains difficult to implement and requires continuous effort.
We note that considerable progress has been made since 9/11, but there is still an important lack of cooperation in intelligence sharing.
Sustaining military operations
The question of sustainability is a major issue, and it applies not only to military factors – like manpower, equipment and logistics – but also to political will and the support of society.
Sustainability means the long-term political resolve to stay committed. It also requires a sound industrial backup to support deployments. There is also a need for a fairer distribution of risks and costs, and for increased interoperability and standardisation between allies. Moreover, sustainability will never be achieved if nations continue to regard operations such as those in Afghanistan as a fringe activity, imposing caveats on their national contingents that prove a serious impediment to an efficient operation. The tendency of nations not to resource their operations effectively is aggravated by the intensity and tempo of operations, which leads to a greater need for replacement of equipment than was foreseen. We may say, therefore, that capabilities today are about sustaining a level of operational intensity that is much greater than it was during the Cold War.
If we consider involvements in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, then it is clear that they require long-term commitments.
Sustainability can only be achieved if the defence plans of nations and institutions like NATO take this seriously into account. For example, NATO possesses in total more than 2 million forces and close to a thousand helicopters.
Yet we see today that NATO is struggling to sustain manpower in Afghanistan, where 35,500 troops from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF– NATO) and 5,500 non-NATO troops operate, and have difficulty in finding small numbers of additional transport helicopters.
Common efforts to improve sustainability are important; and common will and political resolve are crucial.
Conclusion
On balance, there is a great mismatch between the interconnected list of dangers and the international and national capabilities to respond to them – capabilities that are weakened by their disunity. The scale and complexity of the trends, risks, challenges and threats creates an overall picture that extends far beyond military matters. This interlinkage of threats, however, should guide an integrated and allied gran |