NATO’s neo-isolationist threat
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s efforts in the Libya conflict has underlined the continued relevance and importance of the organisation, and demonstrated that NATO still has a critical role to play. At a time when countries are still suffering from the last economic crisis and sovereign debt is threatening to plunge the world into another one, finding resources to commit to NATO is inevitably difficult, and in some cases politically unpopular. But conceding too much ground to the neo-isolationist lobby and allowing investment in NATO to drop, both in terms of cash and resources in kind, could be more costly in the long run.
It is hardly surprising that the appetite for foreign intervention is waning among NATO countries. The questions over the legitimacy of the Iraq war followed by the interminable grind of the Afghan conflict have taken their toll, and many people are keen to see troops withdrawn. Accusations of mission creep in Libya have also been raised with some commentators pointing to the Balkans struggle as precedent.
Evolving military threat
The key point to recognise is the threats that NATO must meet are evolving which means the response, and the resources made available to conduct it, must change to keep pace. The cold-war threat of the USSR and its proxies no longer exists but global insecurity continues, albeit in a different form. The nature of threats has mutated over time, and has transformed into a broader spectrum of asymmetric challenges: the former Soviet nuclear threat has become one of horizontal nuclear proliferation; the strengthening of ballistic missile defence and offensive capability by rogue states is a growing danger; global terrorism is a constantly looming menace, although kneejerk reprisals after bin-Laden’s death are not as likely as some elements of the popular press have suggested; and cyber attacks are new phenomenon that must be tackled quickly.
A year ago (September 2010) NATO launched its New Strategic Concept, in which it pledged to maintain the full range of capabilities necessary to deter and defend against any threat. Among their collective commitments members agreed to provide the resources necessary to allow NATO to continue to have the ability to sustain concurrent major joint operations and several smaller operations for collective defence and crisis response, including at strategic distance. They also agreed to provide resources so that NATO can further develop and maintain robust, mobile and deployable conventional forces to carry out both Article V responsibilities and expeditionary operations, including through the use of the NATO Response Force.
Internal threats
Influence on the world stage is too important to NATO’s member nations for them to withdraw completely but an increase in isolationist thinking, boosted by the public’s discomfort with recent overseas conflicts, could lead to a reduction in the resources governments are willing to commit. This is not necessarily a problem in itself, but in the context of the current global financial situation it would be one of a number of contributing factors to the scaling down of NATO’s resources; the effect of any one of these factors on NATO’s capabilities can be compensated for, but cumulatively that may not be the case. Members’ internal political and economic dynamics impact on defence planning and, subsequently, on national contributions to NATO missions. Governments are under great pressure to reduce spending in all sectors, including defence, and it is inevitable that some assets will have to be withheld.
Resource dilemma
In the same way that it is important not to consider the threats to NATO in outmoded terms, it is equally important to not think about the necessary resources in equally antiquated ways. A change in the type of threat does not necessarily just require a rebalancing in the amount of resources available to NATO, rather the type of resources. Analysts have been able, to some degree, to quantify the threats NATO expects to face over the lifespan of its New Strategic Concept, but the details of the new capabilities required to tackle them are not yet clear. The danger of removing resources at this point is that it is still not obvious what some of the assets NATO will need for its ongoing mission are, and what can comfortably be done without. The organisation’s strategists can only work with what they are given, and hamstringing them too early could lead to strategies that do not meet the core challenges.
BOX: Potential threats
In drawing up the New Strategic Concept, NATO analysts used risk assessments from its member countries to identify the following potential threats to the security of the Alliance:
- The acquisition of substantial, modern military capabilities by many countries in the world, in particular the proliferation of ballistic missile technologies.
- The proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMD, and their means of delivery. Over the next decade the new Strategic Concept concludes that proliferation will be most acute in some of the world’s most volatile regions.
- Terrorism poses a direct threat both to the security of citizens of NATO countries, and to international stability more generally. Extremist groups continue to spread to, and in, areas of strategic importance to the Alliance; while modern technology increases the threat and potential impact of terrorist attacks, for example WMD-related terrorism.
- Instability or conflict beyond NATO borders which can directly threaten Alliance security through the fostering of extremism, terrorism and trans-national activities such as arms, drugs and people trafficking.
- Cyber attacks against government administrations, business, economies and potentially against critical infrastructure.
- Energy security and the increasing dependence of some NATO countries on foreign energy suppliers and energy supply and distribution networks.
- A number of significant technology-related trends, including the development of laser weapons, electronic warfare and technologies that impede access to space, have the potential to impact on NATO military planning and operations.
- Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs that are likely to shape the future security environment in areas of concern to NATO; while also having the potential to affect NATO planning and operations.
Source: NATO END BOX
Russia still exists
While the communist threat from the USSR is no longer present, it is important to remember that Russia has retained its position as a major player on the world stage. The Kremlin is still keen to counter the power of NATO, and would very much like to exert greater influence over Europe. A reduction in NATO capability may embolden Russia, and allow it to be more belligerent in its policies towards its western neighbours; its military is far from impotent.
Of greater immediate concern to some NATO member countries, especially in terms of internal security, is one of the key identified potential security threats, energy supplies (see box). Russia has already demonstrated in recent years that it can control the gas supply and, is not afraid to turn off the spigot – in January 2009 Russia stopped the flow of gas to Europe over a row with Ukraine.
The threat posed by Russia in the short term is clear for all to sea, but that is not the end of the story. Russia is on the brink of an internal catastrophe caused by rapid depopulation (see Russia’s population decline: more than just a national problem.
Preliminary results of the population census, conducted in October 2010, have been published which reveal that Russia has a current population of 142,905,200. Official data show that in 2009 Russia saw equilibrium between births and deaths, but despite this, since the last census in 2002, its population declined by more than two and a quarter million from 145,166,700.
Furthermore, Russia’s population is not just declining, it is also aging. The population is now decreasing by up to 800,000 per year, but the workforce is declining by approximately 1,000,000 per year – a state of affairs predicted to continue until at least 2017. The US Census Bureau forecasts that by 2050 Russia’s population will have dwindled to just 111,000,000, and 20 years from now there could be just one worker for every 20 pensioners.
Lev Gudkov, a demographer with the independent Russian Center for Public Opinion Research said “Whole regions of Siberia and the Russian far-east are already depopulated, and new deserts are appearing even in former ‘black earth’ regions of central Russia. We will not be able to maintain our industry, agriculture or our armed forces.”
The most dangerous aspect of this potential cataclysm is that the country will continue to slide towards it over time. Political attentions spans may be too short to pay proper attention to what is happening until it is too late. If NATO allows the reduction in its assets to impact capabilities to the point where it must concede parts of Europe to Russia, then Europe as a whole will feel the effects. If Russia’s control over its own internal security then begins to falter, which is a very real possibility, Europe may find its security at the lowest level since the worst days of the cold-war. The nature of the threat will have evolved to span organised crime and non-state extremism, and NATO will be running to keep up.
Pointer: Commentators often refer to Article V of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty. It is the element of the treaty that obliges members to enter armed conflict under certain condition. It reads:
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”