''Active engagement, modern defence'': Sec General charts NATO’s future direction

[buglerbilly]

15:29 GMT, October 8, 2010

On 8 October, Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen laid out the direction NATO’s new Strategic Concept is taking in a public speech in Brussels, Belgium, hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF).

Due to the changing nature of today and tomorrow’s security threats, “a lot must change in the way NATO does business”, the Secretary General said. While the threat of military attack can never be ruled out, the more likely threats are harder to see – but “just as real and potentially just as deadly.” International terrorism, cyber attacks and energy security are some of the key issues for concern.

Changing how NATO does business

Mr Fogh Rasmussen outlined three areas where NATO needed to change. First, it needs to modernize its defence and deterrence capability, for example in cyberspace and missile defence.

Second it needs to update its crisis management through a comprehensive approach, “where political, civilian and military efforts are coordinated, and work towards common aims. Where (…) the military and civilian actors plan together, operate in complementary ways, and support each other.”

Third, NATO needs to “develop deeper, wider political and practical partnerships with countries around the globe” to build cooperative security.

Funding new capabilities

The new Strategic Concept will be “the blueprint for an Alliance even more actively engaged in building international security and upgraded for modern defence,” the Secretary General said. But to pay for these changes, especially in tough financial times, the Alliance needs to reform.

Because of the financial crisis, Allied nations have been forced to cut into defence budgets. He cautioned, however, against cuts that go too far. “We have to avoid cutting so deep that we won’t, in future, be able to defend the security on which our economic prosperity rests.”

Preserving NATO’s backbone

Before presenting the newer elements shaping the document, Mr Fogh Rasmussen outlined those that wouldn’t change because they remain vital to the security of Allied countries.

The most fundamental element, collective defence, would remain a binding commitment, he said. Military capability and political consultations would also continue as pillars of the Alliance.

“There is no place but NATO where Europe and North America sit together every day to assess the security issues that affect us, and figure out how to tackle them together,” he said. “The NATO Allies are a community of countries that share fundamental values.”

The Secretary General recently presented his first draft of the new Strategic Concept for discussion among Allied nations. The final draft will be adopted and made public at the upcoming NATO Summit in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Summit Script

Posted by Nicholas Fiorenza at 11/11/2010 11:16 AM CST

NATO summits tend to be highly scripted affairs, with pre-cooked decisions, and this appears to be largely the case of the meeting of allied leaders in Lisbon on 19-20 November. James Appathurai, for whom the summit will be his last as NATO spokesman, presented the summit script yesterday, although to anyone who follows NATO closely, it contains no surprises.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen hopes the summit will decide that the alliance develop a capability to defend European territory and populations against ballistic missiles. This decision is expected to be accompanied by an invitation to Russia to cooperate with NATO on missile defense.

In addition to cooperation on missile defense, the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) to be held with President Dmitri Medvedev in Lisbon will discuss broadening already-existing cooperation within the NRC. This includes expanding the types of non-lethal equipment which can transit through Russia on its way to Afghanistan to include such items as mine-resistant armored vehicles and to allow reverse transit and adding a second Russian counternarcotics training center to train not only Afghan officials, but also Pakistanis. NATO is also seeking Russian support of the Afghan national security forces (ANSF) in the form of 20 Mi-17 helicopters, spare parts, pilot training, and a funding mechanism.

NATO leaders themselves are expected to approve a new strategic concept and discuss the reform of the allied command structure, reducing the number of agencies, and reorganizing the political headquarters in Brussels. This will involve cutting the number of military headquarters and their staffs from 13,000 to 9,000 and the number of agencies from 14 to three. Which headquarters and agencies are involved will be decided at a later stage. The reform of NATO headquarters in Brussels will involve the sensible step of moving military and civilian staff working on the same issues closer together.

Allied leaders will also agree to a list of 10 capability priorities for defense investment, including helicopter transport, strategic air transport, technologies and training in countering improvised explosive devices, and medical support. The new strategic concept is expected to address cyberdefense.

NATO is an alliance at war, so Afghanistan will be an important part of the summit agenda. Allied leaders will launch the process of transition of security responsibility to the ANSF starting in the first half of 2011 and to be completed by the end of 2014. NATO leaders will also approve a “long-term partnership” between NATO and Afghanistan following the end of the combat mission to support training, development, capacity building and political dialogue.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Is Europe Headed For Security Irrelevance?

Posted by Robert Wall at 2/6/2011 12:44 PM CST

There is a whole dialogue that goes with this involving "Horde" which I presume is a Horde of Bunnys or Raving Hoons..........utterly trite in his nah-nah responses to Solomon................

The growing imbalance between the European and U.S. contribution to NATO is once again in the cross hairs.

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made the issue his central theme during the speech he gave at the annual Munich security forum.

While the NATO boss has expressed misgivings about the situation before, this time around he is particularly sharp in warning Europe it is risking its relevance in the future global security context.


The whole speech (below) is well worth reading, but here are a few bullet points for those that don’t want to read it it all right away:

- European members have cut $45 billion from defense spending in the last two years.

- The U.S. defense budget represents about 75% of defense spending in NATO.

- The U.K. and France spend about 12% of what the U.S. spends on R&D.

Here’s the full text:


Ambassador Ischinger,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

For many years, the Munich Security Conference has occupied a central place on the international calendar. Let me start by saying how pleased and honoured I am with the opportunity to kick off this 2011 edition.

Far too often, the conference has been dominated by apparent divisions between NATO Allies and Russia. This year, I am delighted that it is no longer the case. And I welcome the presence here at this conference of both US Secretary of State Clinton and Russian foreign minister Lavrov. The ratification of the New START treaty by the US and Russia wilal, I am sure, give fresh momentum to cooperation between all NATO Allies and Russia. And it will pave the way for a better security climate in the Euro-Atlantic Area. This is good news.

What is less good news is that we continue to face the effects of the financial crisis. And this years’ conference focuses on dealing with a major challenge – how to build security in an age of austerity. Despite signs of a recovery, not least here in Germany, the effects of the financial crisis will be felt for some time in all our nations. And governments face tough decisions to bring their economies back into balance.

As a former Prime Minister, I fully understand this – and I also understand that defence cannot be exempt. But when deciding what to cut, governments need to choose wisely – because if the cuts are too deep we won’t be able to defend the security on which our democratic societies and prosperous economies depend.

In my remarks this afternoon I wish to focus on two areas. First, I wish to emphasise how the crisis confronts Europe with some stark choices if it is to remain a credible security actor, and preserve the ability of the transatlantic community to act as one. And second, I want to highlight the importance of what I call Smart Defence – how NATO can help nations to build greater security with fewer resources but more coordination and coherence, so that together we can avoid the financial crisis from becoming a security crisis.

Over the past two years, defence spending by NATO’s European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion dollars – that is the equivalent of Germany’s entire annual defence budget. Indeed, NATO Allies are starting the new decade further apart than ever before in terms of defence investment. Ten years ago, the United States accounted for just under half of NATO members’ total defence spending. Today the American share is closer to 75 percent – and it will continue to grow, even with the new cuts in the Pentagon’s spending that Secretary Gates announced last month.

Some here in Europe are not so worried. They maintain that Europe is consolidating its place as one of the world’s top providers of humanitarian and development aid. And they suggest a division of labour within NATO – with the United States providing hard power, while its European Allies increasingly turn to soft power assignments like training and institution-building.

As a committed European – and a staunch Atlanticist -- I find this suggestion at best naïve, and, at worst, dangerous. It is completely out of touch with today’s increasingly complex security environment. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China has tripled its defence expenditure over the past decade. And India has increased its defence spending by almost 60 per cent in the same period.

As I speak, fast-moving events are unfolding in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. The outcome of this turmoil remains unclear, its long-term consequences unpredictable. But one thing we know: old certainties no longer hold, tectonic plates are shifting.

At stake today is not just the world economy, but the world order. So why, now of all times, should Europe conclude that it no longer needs to invest in defence?

This trend has long-term consequences – and they are not hard to imagine.

First, we risk a divided Europe. Just a few big European nations would become the continent’s main security providers while other countries would lag further and further behind. Taken to its logical conclusion, that division could eventually undermine the very principles of collective defence and allied solidarity that underpin the North-Atlantic Alliance.

Second, we risk a weaker Europe. Without the hardware to back up its soft power, Europe’s potential to prevent and manage crises would be seriously diminished. And so would its credibility in upholding the principles and values that we hold dear: individual liberty, democracy, free trade, and the rule of law. These principles and values underpin our open societies and form the foundation of the global order.

And third, we risk a Europe increasingly adrift from the United States. If Europe becomes unable to make an appropriate contribution to global security, then the United States might look elsewhere for reliable defence partners.

This may sound like a very gloomy scenario. Indeed, I am concerned. If current trends in Europe continue, the gap between defence capabilities across the Atlantic will continue to widen. We risk a weak and divided Europe – more than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. And a weak and divided Europe would be a loss not just for the United States, but for the world as a whole.

Let me stress that I perfectly understand nations’ concerns: for them budget deficits come first, defence second. And indeed, a strong economy is an essential part of security. However, the choice between dealing with deficits and bolstering defence is a false choice. Because security is also about military capabilities that allow governments to defend their populations against new threats, and possibly to engage in crisis management.

Let me be very clear: Europe simply cannot afford to get out of the security business. It has to re-vitalise its role as the United States’ prime security partner and adjust to the new global security environment.

If we want to avoid the scenario that I have just set out, then the time to act is now. However, we cannot ensure our security just by spending more money – because the money simply isn’t there. We need a new approach: Smart Defence – ensuring greater security, for less money, by working together with more flexibility.

I know that Allies don’t always find multinational cooperation the most attractive option. There are lingering concerns about delayed delivery schedules, inflated overhead costs, and slow decision-making. And of course, defence is tightly bound with national sovereignty, industry and jobs.

Yet, the crisis makes cooperation between nations no longer a choice. It is a necessity. Today, no European Ally on its own is able to develop the full range of responses to meet all security challenges. Recently, France and the UK, despite their competitive relations over centuries, made a fundamental shift towards closer cooperation to develop and share critical defence capabilities . This new agreement is a real turning point. And I believe it could show the way forward for other Allies too..

The era of one-size-fits-all defence cooperation is over. What matters is to deliver capabilities that allow us to operate successfully at 28. Smart Defence can do just that. It can help nations meet two challenges they face today: how to get more security for the limited resources they devote to defence, and how to invest enough to prepare for the future.

So first, how to get more security for our resources? I see three ways: to pool and share capabilities, to set the right priorities, and to better coordinate our efforts.

Pooling and sharing are vital if we want to develop our military know-how and capabilities. And NATO is best placed to identify and connect nations that have similar needs but not enough money to build a capability on their own.

There are many different ways to achieve this. It can be the common use of capabilities, such as the former Soviet- type helicopters that we are upgrading to NATO standards. It can be pooling through acquisition, such as the C-17 Strategic Airlift Capability based in Hungary. And it can be role sharing, such as several nations taking turns to patrol the airspace of the Baltic region, which in turn allows our three Baltic states to invest in deployable armed forces.

I can mention other examples. French and Belgian jet pilots use joint training infrastructure , so nations together can maintain important capacity for less money. Specialised training infrastructures can also be developed by one nation for the use of all Allies, as the Czech Republic has done for defence against Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons.

And what is true for training is also true for logistics. Nations that are acquiring new types of helicopters like the NH90 or the Tiger should already think about multinational maintenance and logistics in operations.

Moreover, developing a common interface also helps to provide new responses to new threats, as our approach to missile defence demonstrates: nations developing their own capabilities but closely connected to a NATO-wide system.

But pooling is not enough, if we don’t put our money where the real priorities are. At the NATO Summit in Lisbon last November, we identified several of these priorities, including cyber defence, and the fight against terrorism and piracy. We also agreed on ten critical capabilities for our forces – such as helicopter transport, medical support, and countering road-side bombs.

We need to reduce structures and slim down our bureaucracy. NATO’s own structures are not exempt – I am seeing to that. And we must help nations create financial headroom to fund real needs – forces that can be deployed quickly to respond to different kinds of missions.

And here in Munich, I particularly wish to commend Minister zu Guttenberg and the German Government for undertaking the reform of the Bundeswehr, to make it leaner and more agile. In taking this tough decision, the German Government has demonstrated strong political leadership and a willingness to embrace change. It is something we all need to do.

Of course, not all nations can afford or need all capabilities. After all, NATO's foundation is collective defence – an attack on one Ally is considered an attack against all. In times of need, we help each other. The reassurance of solidarity should encourage some nations to focus on certain capabilities – either alone or working together with a few other Allies. And NATO can help identify those options.

What we also need is overall coherence. Again, NATO can provide the bigger picture of what Allies need and want. This is the time to make better use of NATO as an adviser and an honest broker -- to ensure a degree of coherence in any cuts which nations may consider, and to minimise their impact on the overall effectiveness of the Alliance.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this is how we get greater security for the money we invest in defence: pool and share capabilities, prioritise and coordinate better.

Now, how can we better prepare for the future? Here, I see two priorities: investing in science and technology, and creating greater coherence within Europe.

Given that science and technology are the foundation for all our defence capabilities, our investment in Research and Development is incredibly small. Here in Europe, Britain and France are the biggest spenders on Research & Development. Yet put together, their share is no more than 12 per cent of what the United States spends.

So even big European nations have difficulty in keeping the edge, for example on drone technology. At a time when challenges are global, 80 per cent of European Research and Development continues to be spent on national programmes. We need to do better. If nations devote a greater share of their Research and Development spending to multinational projects, that will make a difference. For example, smaller nations who can’t necessarily develop their own responses to cyber threats could join together. NATO can help and advise them on how to protect their critical information infrastructures.

To prepare for the future, let us also build closer links with the private sector – and I am pleased to see several representatives from industry at our meeting today. In the past, military Research and Development put defence at the cutting edge of technology, with the civilian sector eventually taking advantage of those innovations. Now, in many areas, the situation has reversed. Industry has a wealth of expertise, including on cyber defence, fuel cell energy and light logistics. We must find better ways through public-private partnerships to explore the military potential of emerging technologies, and to involve industry sooner and more closely.

Finally, a strong, strategic NATO-EU partnership would deliver many benefits, in political and operational terms, as well as financially. It makes sense for us in Europe. It also makes sense for our North American Allies. And that is why I will continue to do all I can to make it happen. As we try to overcome the remaining political obstacles, I sincerely hope that NATO and the EU will intensify their practical cooperation. After all, NATO and the EU share 21 members – but each of those nations has only one set of armed forces and one set of capabilities. Let us get the most out of it.

Let me make one final point. Smart Defence is not about NATO imposing anything on nations. It is about enabling them to work better more effectively and efficiently together. NATO’s role is to set the strategic direction, to identify possible areas of cooperation, to act as a clearing house, and to share best practices.

Ultimately, it is all about making it easier for nations to develop and acquire capabilities – alone, together as Allies, or even involving non-NATO countries, in NATO or in the EU. And indeed, European efforts are particularly welcome, because they strengthen both the EU and NATO. All frameworks are good, as long as they deliver the capabilities that nations need to protect their population, and make Europe stronger and more secure.



Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have set out a number of ways in which NATO can help nations to build greater security with fewer resources. I see Smart Defence as a vital priority for the Alliance, and a key objective of my tenure as its Secretary General. By the time of NATO’s next summit in 2012, I shall be looking for concrete progress and clear evidence that we continue to invest in our defence.

For over 60 years, the North-Atlantic Alliance has provided greater security for its members than they could ever achieve on their own. I am confident that this age of austerity can bring us even closer together, in order to prevent the financial crisis from becoming a security crisis. That we cannot afford. NATO is determined to continue playing its vital role -- as an anchor of stability, solidarity and cooperation – to help keep our nations safe through the crisis.

Thank you.