Memorandum from the Romanian Embassy
A ROMANIAN PERSPECTIVE
The end of the Cold War determined NATO to fundamentally
revise its mission and structure. The disappearance of the common
enemy—the Soviet threat—raised the voices questioning
the continuing NATO legitimacy. The Alliance managed to contradict
these voices, keeping its relevance through a process of constant
adaptation to the changes that have occurred in the international
security environment.
Conceived as a collective defense organization,
the Alliance has progressively extended its field of action, becoming
a complex institution, with a strong voice at global level, both
militarily and politically. Besides continuing to stay the alliance
based on collective defense against an attack on the territory
of the member states, NATO gradually acquired a new mission, that
of a security organization tailored to deal, through crisis management,
with a multitude of threats, from any direction.
The membership of NATO, obtained in 2004 (after
receiving the invitation to join the Alliance at the NATO Prague
Summit in 2002), represents the cornerstone of the Romanian security
policy. Romania is fully supporting the modernisation process
of the Alliance, in order to give NATO the adapted instruments
to respond to new security challenges as well as to take advantage
of the new opportunities.
1. THE PRESENT
STAGE OF
NATO REFORM
Since the end of the Cold War and more intensively
after the 9/11 attacks against the US, NATO has extended progressively,
but firmly, its area of action, both functionally and geographically.
There were changes at doctrinal and conceptual level and new capabilities
have been created or are being developed. The Alliance that in
1949 defended the territory of 12 member states conducts today
six operations and missions on three different continents and
is an important actor in areas such as security sector reform
or military training.
The geographical extension of NATO's mission
makes clear that the Alliance is not anymore suited just for its
political and military tasks as they are phrased in the Treaty
of Washington, but that has also a special responsibility in projecting
stability far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area.
Politically, this has materialized in:
— Intensifying the relations with the
states from the ex-soviet space—creating a Joint Permanent
Council NATO—Russia (1997), followed by the creation of
the NATO -Russia Council (2002), as well as the setting up of
a Distinctive Partnership with Ukraine (NATO—Ukraine Commission,
1997), establishing an Intensified Dialogue with Ukraine and Georgia,
deepening the relations with the other states in the Caucasus
and Central Asia, including by developing Individual Action Plans
of the Partnership, diversifying progressively the Partnership
instruments and mechanisms, so that this program corresponds to
the needs of all partner states, according to the basic principles
of PfP—inclusiveness and self—differentiation.
— Developing the relations with states
in the Mediterranean Sea and the broader Middle East, by launching
the NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue (1994) and the Istanbul Cooperation
Initiative (2004).
— Initiating a profound reform of partnership
relations and expressing, at the Riga Summit, the availability
of developing the dialogue and cooperation with third states that
can contribute to fulfilling the allied objectives and missions,
independent of the geographical location of these states.
Strategically, it has materialized in:
— Enhancing the expeditionary character
of NATO forces and focusing the allied efforts on developing the
capability for missions and operations on the allied territory,
at its periphery and at strategic distance.
— Developing new initiatives and projects
helping to the enhancement of capabilities essentials for deploying,
sustaining and acting in remote theatres of operations with or
without host nation support—strategic airlift, special operations.
Operationally, it has materialized in:
— The taking over of ISAF in Afghanistan
(2003), at present the biggest and most complex operation of NATO,
complemented by establishing a cooperation partnership with Afghanistan,
in order to support the security sector reform.
— The involvement in Iraq (2004), through
a training and equip mission for the Iraqi security forces.
— The first NATO involvement in Africa,
through a mission of support for the African Union in Sudan (2005).
— The assistance provided to the US
for managing the consequences of Katrina and to Pakistan for managing
the consequences of the earthquake in 2006.
In parallel with the geographical expansion
of NATO a functional expansion can also be noticed and it can
be seen in:
— Promoting a broader approach to security,
already affirmed in the 1999 Strategic Concept and, as a consequence,
a broader interpretation of the means of collective defense at
NATO's disposal. This has led to an increase of NATO's involvement
in crisis management, stabilization operations and missions, outside
art. V of the Washington Treaty.
— Developing the relations with third
countries, including a political dimension of dialogue and consultations,
regarding issues of common interest, as well as a practical cooperation
dimension, covering a wide range of subjects, such as interoperability,
security sector reform, civil emergency planning.
— Developing the soft component of
NATO's action, by increasing the involvement of the Alliance in
activities supporting the security sector reform, the restructuring
and training of security forces, as well as by developing the
classified information exchange, both among allies and with the
partner countries. In this context, at the Riga Summit a new Training
Cooperation Initiative was launched, aiming at training the security
forces of the countries in the Middle East, an initiative that
some allies believe could be applied to states in Africa as well.
— Increasing the complexity of NATO
operations by including not only stabilization activities, but
also reconstruction and development, relating with local authorities,
with governmental and non governmental organizations. One case
in point is Afghanistan, where the provincial reconstruction teams
constitute the support for the expansion of the NATO presence
on the entire Afghan territory. It could be also mentioned the
efforts to develop a comprehensive approach within NATO operations,
that would combine in efficient manner military instruments for
stabilization with reconstruction and development activities,
including by developing the cooperation with other international
organizations.
These evolutions show that NATO is an organization
that has evolved from being a defendant of the Euro-Atlantic security
to being an actor which provides stability at global level. This
does not mean that NATO became a kind of worldwide alliance or
a world policeman, but that the Alliance became one with worldwide
interests and partners. The partners' contribution to the fulfillment
of the security objectives of the Alliance is demonstrating the
wisdom of the considerable investment in the Partnership policies
and of looking at security both functionally and geographically.
At the same time, NATO is no longer only a military
actor, but a political—military one, having its own evaluations
and positions regarding the areas or the fields of activity in
which it gets involved operationally. While most of the initiatives
related to the transformation of NATO are technical in nature,
they also have profound political implications, being able to
affect the future of the organization, including its role and
place at international level (and in relation with other international
organizations, especially the UN and the EU).
2. CHALLENGES
NATO has obtained impressive successes, some
of them in difficult circumstances, proving the positive pace
of the transformation process of the Alliance. The ultimate success
of this process still cannot be taken for granted, especially
in times where in Afghanistan the Alliance is facing major difficulties.
A major source of difficulties is related to
the difference of interests and vision among the NATO member states
regarding the future of the organization. Because of this difference
of views, certain allies are sometimes hesitant in providing the
necessary resources—financial and military—in order
to ensure the success of NATO's missions.
Some allies promote the implementation of an
ambitious transformation of NATO, aimed at increasing its role
at global level. In this context, they support NATO taking over
new missions and responsibilities, a process that requires adequate
resources.
Other allies continue to see NATO mainly as
a military alliance and they are hesitant towards NATO getting
involved in what they perceive to be traditional civilian tasks,
towards developing relations with third states or other international
organizations, towards deploying NATO forces outside the Euro-Atlantic
space.
The biggest challenge for NATO future is therefore
the fact that there is not a clear enough common vision of its
member states regarding the role of this organization.
On a different level but related to the first
one, there is a second major challenge, which has to do with the
exploitation of these differences by third actors, having opposite
interests and objectives to those of NATO.
These differences of view, while not exaggerated,
should not be ignored. Some allies define NATO's role taking into
account the national evaluation regarding other existing international
organizations and their potential of ensuring the achievement
of the national interests and of promoting influence at international
level. This is particularly relevant while we talk about the views
of different allies on EU and NATO—EU relations.
That is why the allied states are likely to
and should continue to reflect upon the delimitation of NATO role
in the current international framework and the modalities of coordinating
with other international organizations, especially with the EU,
in order to avoid competition and unnecessary duplications.
3. PERSPECTIVES
Based on the current realities, could be assumed
that, on a medium term perspective:
— the Euro-Atlantic area would continue
to face different threats, both from inside (as the terrorist
threats on the territory of the member-states) and from exterior,
the latest having the potential to ask, in some cases, for military
interventions;
— NATO—whose area of operation
would inevitably enlarge— remains the best instrument that
could be used to deal with this kind of challenging situations;
— NATO alone would not be sufficient;
therefore the Alliance will need to closely coordinate with and
to benefit from an active support to its action of other international
organizations, especially EU and the UN;
— Transatlantic relations, even if
revisited, will remain cooperative in nature; and
— the allies will have to accept that
the new security challenges need the revival of their cohesion.
The question of how global can NATO become is
a very topical one and extremely relevant for the future of the
North Atlantic Alliance. The transformation of NATO into a true
global actor, both political and military, is likely to remain
top on the organization's agenda, even if the allies' views regarding
the rhythm and the dimensions of this process will continue to
differ.
At political level, this transformation might
include the continuation of the enlargement process, possibly
with new invitations being launched at Bucharest Summit, in 2008.
The relations with Georgia and Ukraine are also considered, at
least by certain allies, within the larger package of "extending
the NATO family". If the accession to NATO of the three current
candidates (Croatia, Albania and Macedonia) is likely to follow,
in general, the basic principles that have guided the previous
rounds of enlargement (taking into consideration both the individual
performances of the candidates and the political interests of
NATO), a potential enlargement to the East will be different and
more complex, given the Russia position regarding this space.
Finding a win—win solution with Russia
regarding the relation with the countries in the former Soviet
space interested in developing the cooperation with NATO will
be very difficult, but is essential for ensuring security and
stability in this area and for ensuring that those countries can
make their own strategic and political choices in term of foreign
policy.
The continuation of the NATO reform process
and of the enlargement, the repositioning of the US military forces
in Europe or the location of some components of the US missile
defense system on the territory of Czech Republic and Poland are
just some of the developments that Russia has criticized sharply,
considering them as directed against its own interests.
The NATO—Russia Council has a tremendous
potential that still needs to be explored and in which a new Kremlin
administration should be engaged at the earliest possible stage.
Another important subject is the reform of the
NATO partnerships. This includes both the re-balancing of the
current partnership format, once some of the current partners
become NATO members, as well as the development of relations with
countries that share NATO values and contribute to fulfilling
NATO objectives, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia or New
Zeeland. A profound reconfiguration of NATO partnerships and an
extension of the partnership mechanisms and instruments for the
so called "contact countries" will impose the development
of a comprehensive vision of NATO regarding the strategic and
operational cooperation with partner countries and other international
organizations.
Developing NATO's role in civilian fields exceeding
the "traditional" missions of the Alliance—energy
security, training and security sector reform—will remain
high on the allied agenda, as part of the process of adapting
NATO to the new realities, to a new strategic and security framework
in which it needs to operate.
A new strategic concept should present a common
vision of the NATO member states regarding the future of NATO,
its role and place in international arena. It is likely that the
debates concerning the possibility of adopting such a document
will intensify. Currently, some allies are concerned about launching
formally the process of reviewing the current strategic concept,
while other allies argue that the current document no longer corresponds
to reality and needs to be updated (the document was written before
9/11, before NATO's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, before
the biggest enlargement round of NATO, at the Prague Summit in
2002).
Still, some NATO members fear that launching
a review of the strategic concept will re-open controversial debates
and will be contrary to the spirit of trans-Atlantic reconciliation
that characterized NATO after Iraq. The debates surrounding the
Iraqi crisis in 2003 have shown a series of divergences among
NATO members, that were later confirmed by the debates on other
issues on NATO's agenda, and these divergences are linked to the
way in which the Alliance should answer to the new threats, including
terrorism, as well as to the question if NATO should include among
its missions promoting democracy. Could be questioned even the
NATO relevance in the new security framework, given the fact that
some allied states are tempted to appeal more and more to coalitions
of the willing for solving different crisis, while others support
the development of a security and defense dimension of the EU.
In spite of all these difficulties, at the 43rd
edition of the Munich security conference, in February 2007, talking
about the priorities and the future of NATO, the Secretary General
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer mentioned 2009 as a possible time horizon
for adopting a new NATO strategic concept. It is likely that,
even if the deadline of the Secretary General could hardly be
met, the debates surrounding this issue will intensify in the
near future. The final result is difficult to anticipate and will
depend to a certain extent on the way in which the NATO transformation
process develops, in general, but also on the way the operation
in Afghanistan evolves.
Militarily and operationally, the main priorities
will remain those related to the military transformation of NATO
and to providing the necessary capabilities in order to ensure
the success of NATO operations and missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo
and Iraq. The adoption of the Comprehensive Political Guidance
sets the premises for continuing the efforts for the development
of modern high readiness military capabilities, adapted to the
missions that the Alliance is likely to launch in the next 10-15
years. The efforts need to be sustained through an effective management
that will ensure the coherence of the planning and capabilities
within NATO. The discussion on the structural reform of NATO as
well as on the review of the planning mechanism of the Alliance
will thus continue to be high on the Alliance's agenda.
In the next period, special attention is expected
to be paid to:
— strengthening the NATO Response Force;
— increasing the expeditionary character
of the military forces;
— developing the strategic airlift
capabilities;
— developing a missile defence system
and ground surveillance systems;
— improving the intelligence cooperation;
and
— transforming the Special Forces.
Afghanistan will remain NATO number one operational
priority. The focus will be increasingly on the training of the
Afghan security forces and extending the authority of the Afghan
government, while reducing the influence of the Taliban.
In Kosovo NATO will continue to have an important
role to play in maintaining stability.
In Iraq the efforts to train and equip the Iraqi
security forces will continue, both within the country and outside,
through programs hosted by the allied states.
4. IMPLICATIONS
FOR ROMANIA
In the current international security framework,
the historical experience and its geographical position make Romania
directly interested in NATO remaining a strong, relevant and credible
organization. The main interests of Romania in NATO remain:
— the guarantee provided by art. V
of the Washington Treaty;
— the possibility to promote its national
security interests and to express its own views in the most important
forum for the Euro-Atlantic defense and security; and
— the direct participation in the process
of military transformation of NATO and extending the modernization
effects at national level, by assuming new concepts, making use
of the experience acquired in NATO operations and connecting to
major reform trends promoted by NATO, as an organization.
Politically, Romania's main priorities are naturally
linked to its own and, at the same time, NATO's neighborhood—the
Western Balkans and the larger Black Sea Region.
While recognizing the fact that the tendency
of NATO to become a global actor is perfectly justified by the
new type of threats the Alliance is facing today, Romania will
continue to argue that a coherent allied policy regarding its
Eastern neighborhood remains extremely important and the complex
issue raised by the relation with Russia should not inhibit the
development of such a policy. While in the current security framework
NATO can no longer choose its partners strictly on geographical
criteria, the countries situated in the immediate neighborhood
of the Alliance still need and deserve political attention and
practical assistance. NATO, as an organization, and its member
states have a direct stake in developing the relations with these
countries.
Militarily, Romania will remain connected to
the profound transformation process launched within NATO, contributing
to advancing new concepts and fulfilling its national obligations
related to the military requirements.
Romania started the national implementation
of the Comprehensive Political Guidance and of the new initiatives
adopted by NATO, including in the strategic planning documents.
These will provide the basis for defining a coherent framework
that will allow continuing the internal reforms with a focus on
those fields identified as important by NATO.
In this spirit, Romania pays special attention
to its participation to the NATO Response Force and to the conceptual
development of this force, representing an engine for the military
transformation of the Alliance. The national contribution to NRF
is integrated in a broader process of developing the national
response capabilities to the new threats. The main objectives
of this process are:
— creating joint expeditionary forces
and increasing the ability to deploy and sustain those forces;
— providing forces with bigger level
of usability;
— increasing the ability to face asymmetrical
threats; and
— ensuring the information superiority.
Romania will also continue to support the development
of a NATO missile defense system, complementary and integrated
to the American one and fully respecting the principle of the
indivisibility of the security of the allied states.
At the same time, Romania will continue to act
for developing the role of its armed forces, so that they are
able to participate to complex stabilization and reconstruction
missions.
NATO will continue to be a pillar of Romania's
foreign and security policy and, at the same time, an instrument
of consolidating this policy and of promoting the national interests,
in correlation with the interests of NATO allies. In a time when
NATO assumes an ambitious agenda for transformation, Romania is
prepared to contribute to this process and is extremely honored
to host the next NATO Summit in 2008.
Romania's belonging to the European Union, as
well as its status as NATO member are two sides of the same coin,
which mutually support and reinforce. These complementarities
of objectives and instruments strengthen the confidence in the
perspective of a wide cooperation between NATO and EU, process
that Romania wants to contribute to in the future.
10 December 2007
|
