NATO in the 21st century

The 60th Anniversary Summit in Strasbourg/Kehl
2009 will be an important year for NATO. This great Alliance is celebrating its 60th birthday. It is still going strong, and there is no sign of an imminent retirement. In the aftermath of the Cold War, NATO has shown a remarkable ability to adapt its missions and tasks to stay relevant.

In 2009 the major event will be the Anniversary Summit that symbolically will take place in Strasbourg and Kehl in early April, on both sides of the French-German border. This will provide Allies with an opportunity to come together and to demonstrate cohesion.

The Summit will be President Obama’s first meeting in the Alliance, and will be an opportunity to reaffirm the strong bonds between Europe and North America – the so called Transatlantic link. This is especially important having in mind the - at times - strained relationship that of many European Allies with the Bush-administration over issues ranging from the war in Iraq to Guantanamo and the treatment of so-called “unlawful combatants”.

Life was not always easy for those of us who tried to adhere to fundamental international norms while simultaneously maintaining close transatlantic ties. Different European allies choose different solutions to this dilemma; which in turn meant that tensions did not only go across the Atlantic but among European allies themselves.

It is therefore with great relief that we see that president Obama has been moving impressively fast to re-establish the pre-eminence of key universal values and norms as the basis of America’s foreign policy. As staunch Atlanticist, I am convinced that this will make it far easier to confront common challenges in the future. It is my firm conviction that our collective power to change the world is much stronger when our economic, political and military instruments are used in ways fully consistent with the values and principles that we seek to strengthen. If we allow for double standards, on the other hand, our credibility is undermined in ways that “hard power” cannot mend. We also welcome the Obama administration’s stated willingness to engage in dialogue also with one’s adversaries, including with Iran and the parties in the Middle East conflict. This is fully in line with Norway’s approach to international problem solving. 

The United States, however, is not the only major NATO power that is adapting its policies. Even though France yet has formally to signal its return to full participation in the integrated military structures of NATO, it is expected that this will be publicly announced in time before the Summit in April. Politically this is very important, and will in my view further strengthen the cohesion of the Alliance.

Also, militarily the increased French participation in the integrated structures of NATO will be a great advantage for the Alliance.

In light of these significant events I do not think this Summit will be remembered for the number of policy-decisions being made. Rather, the Summit will be a time for setting the future course of the Alliance.

At the Summit the Declaration on Alliance Security will be presented. It will be a short document that will reaffirm the general political principles on which NATO is founded. In a general manner it will provide direction for the further work on a new Strategic Concept.

Before I look closer at the role of NATO in the 21st Century I will briefly address the security challenges facing the Alliance. The strategic context within which the Alliance will operate politically and militarily will of course be influential in defining future policies, operations and capability development in NATO.

The Strategic Context
The 1990s were dominated by intra–national, ethnic and religious conflicts, resulting in grave violations of human rights and regional instability in Europe. These challenges led NATO to engage militarily, for the first time in its history, in real operations. This happened in the framework of the conflicts in the Balkans. where NATO were closely cooperating with the United Nations and the European Union. In 1999, in light of a growing conflict over Kosovo, it also led to NATO's first war and the succeeding debate of it’s role in future “humanitarian interventions”.

Simultaneously, NATO was able to embark on one of the most important successes of the Alliance’s history: the enlargement eastwards, a process that transformed former adversaries not only into friends, but into members of a larger transatlantic “us”.

In parallel we witnessed in the 90s the increasing speed of globalization, and its security consequences, in the form of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The events of “nine-eleven” brought these challenges to the forefront as the new dominant threat, and much of this decade was shaped by these events – as well as the responses they triggered.

These so called asymmetrical challenges have since broadened to also include cyber attacks and organized crime. In addition environmental challenges with potential security implications, poverty and increased competition over strategically important resources are becoming more apparent. All these challenges pose a risk to our societies.

But history does not stop here. Once again, we are witnessing important changes in the geopolitical landscape. China is emerging as a global player, and the primary candidate to become the second superpower. A more self-assertive Russia is now an important player in global politics. This trend has been further underlined by the steady rise of regional powers like India and Brazil. In a long-term perspective, the “West” is declining in relative influence in both economical and political terms.
The current global financial crisis is likely to further strengthen this trend. In my view, this makes Western unity more important that ever. 

In sum, NATO faces a more complex security environment than ever. All these trends will have consequences for the global order, and the western security system.

The Transatlantic relationship
In spite of all these demanding challenges, there are reasons to be optimistic on behalf of the transatlantic relations. For the foreseeable future, the US will remain the most powerful country in the world. The key challenge will be how to convert this power into influence. The US has a fundamental interest in co-operation across the Atlantic, both because of increased dependence on the Allies, and because NATO gives legitimacy.

Europeans seem to have made a distinction between the US, and the Bush-administration. With the new administration we will likely see further improvements in US–European relations. This should also mean a larger European say within the transatlantic relationship.  

However, with increased influence come increased responsibilities. In the future I expect a new focus on our mutual commitment and burden-sharing. 

From the Norwegian Government’s perspective, it is important that NATO will remain the main multilateral forum for dialogue between the US and Europe, and the primary instrument for Europe to influence the US. I therefore believe that the Alliance should be regarded as more than just a “tool box”, only containing military capabilities. This is a responsibility both for the US and Europe in the future. NATO has however illustrated time and again that it also is a political organisation, and I believe this will continue to be the case in the 21st Century.

Strengthening the relevance of NATO
An important discussion that Norway has initiated in the Alliance is the need for renewed focus on relevant security challenges on our own territory and in our neighbourhood. We believe that by responding to these concerns this will increase support for operations outside NATO-territory.

The Article 5 debate goes to the heart of NATO’s future role and missions. Some will argue that NATO is faced with a choice of becoming a regional organisation for collective defence, or a crisis management organisation with global reach. The answer is not that simple, and we think that it is more a question of achieving the right balance. The Alliance has a mission “at home” as well as “away”. Over the last years, the “away” missions have, to a certain extent, dominated the agenda, not the least because they have been perceived as more urgent as the long-standing commitment to our collective defence. And we may have confused urgency with importance.   

The solution to the growing demands of globalization is not to develop NATO into a global organisation. It is rather a question of NATO having increasingly to think globally. This also means a willingness to discuss the whole spectrum of issues with potential security implications, such as energy security and climate change. The last years have shown that there are a number of issues where NATO can contribute to broader solutions, without for that reason becoming the primary instrument. In almost all future crisis management situations that NATO may become involved in, the Alliance is going to work with others – be it the UN, the EU, or the African Union. Hence, inter-institutional links should be further developed, so that every organization can do what it is best at without unnecessary duplication of effort.

We believe that the Alliance should be the primary organisation for dealing with the full range of security issues for its member states. Norway therefore sees a need for NATO to raise her profile in relation to the Alliance’s core functions, and to take steps to improve its capabilities in this respect.

For this purpose we presented a paper in the Alliance last autumn with a number of proposals to meet the security challenges we face in and around our own area. These proposals include reform of NATO’s command structure and headquarters, improving geographical expertise and situational awareness, increasing intelligence analysis and planning, strengthen the co-operation between NATO and national headquarters, greater NATO involvement in training and exercises, and an enlarged role for ACT.

These proposals should not be seen as a desire to return to the cold war, nor as competition with NATO’s priorities in Afghanistan. As I have already mentioned, they should be seen as a contribution to finding the proper balance between NATO’s core functions, and our priorities beyond the “horizon”. We believe that this will contribute to increased understanding and support for NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan.

In our view the implementation of these proposals will help to raise the awareness and credibility of NATO as the ultimate security guarantee for its members. If we are not successful in getting this message across we believe there is a real danger of a re-nationalisation of the security policy of Allies. This will in effect further undermine NATO’s ability to achieve its goals.

We believe that the ideas set out in our paper are relevant to the upcoming work on the Declaration on Alliance Security in preparation of the Strasbourg/Kehl Summit.

Afghanistan
NATO’s operation in Afghanistan will continue to dominate the agenda in the years to come. The political signals from the new American administration further underline this. Already the US has begun the deployment of fresh troops to Afghanistan.. Equally important, however, are the clear signals that the Obama administration is going to take a broad and comprehensive approach to the challenges in Afghanistan and beyond, by engaging in a far deeper regional dialogue with all Afghanistan’s neighbours and in an even more serious commitment to build an effective Afghan state. 

This year’s Summit will take place at a time of increasing worry related to this mission. The seriousness of the situation is underlined by the fact that ISAF is a defining mission for NATO's “out of area” concept. Failure in Afghanistan will have negative implications for the Alliance, both for the longer term strategy discussions, and for NATO’s willingness to engage in similar operations in the future. This would also have very negative implications for the region as a whole.

Therefore, it is important for the Alliance to stay the course and not loose focus. However, I disagree strongly with the notion of connecting the future survival of NATO to the perceived success of its operation in Afghanistan. In our view the Alliance is about much more than one single operation – and we must remember that neither failure nor success in Afghanistan will be the work of NATO alone.
A successful state-building effort in Afghanistan can only be achieved through close co-operation between different international actors and with Afghan authorities. The whole spectre of instruments must be brought to bear, including, political, economic, humanitarian and military.

I will not go into a detailed analysis of the situation in Afghanistan, but limit myself to the following observation; NATOs presence is crucial important. But we will not succeed if the Afghan population ends up viewing the western military presence as the enemy. History has thought us that anyone that ends up in that unfortunate position tends to fail. We have a strong, shared, and long-term commitment to Afghanistan, but at the same time; it must be clear that we cannot stay in that country forever. We need to have a steady focus on the parameters that can enable a transition from today’s model that is heavily dependent on NATO's direct military engagement, into one in which we can have a more supportive role under Afghan leadership. 

One key factor to bring about success is therefore to ensure improved living conditions and material progress to the average Afghan. This in turn requires better coordination between the military, political, developmental and humanitarian efforts. The PRT concept, which at the outset was intended to be a temporal solution while waiting for a broader and more coherent international effort, should be revisited. As it works today, we need to recognize that it adds international fragmentation to an already very fractioned Afghan state. Norway is engaged in a constructive dialogue with key partners both in NATO and in the UN in order to contribute to that crucially important discussion.

This touches upon a broader point, namely NATO’s role in a more comprehensive approach for the use of military and civilian instruments. The need for a comprehensive approach also underscores the need for increased cooperation between NATO and organisations like the UN and the EU.   

We need to actively support the process of Afghanisation. The Afghans themselves need to increasingly take control of their own country if we are to achieve lasting results. This will take time, but we are seeing some promising developments, especially regarding the increased capability of the Afghan army. Regarding the Afghan police and other instruments of governance in Afghanistan, the situation is much more mixed and it will be very important to achieve improvements also here. A well-functioning state must find a good balance and clear delineation between the different instruments of power; if not, we can see an unhelpful militarization also of the domestic maintenance of law and order in Afghanistan.

NATO is currently discussing a potentially expanded ISAF role in the field of combating the production and distribution of narcotics in Afghanistan. Let me therefore underline, once again, Norway’s position: everything we do in this area must be done in support of Afghanistan’s own law enforcement structures, and, it should be needless to say, fully within the confines of international legal standards.

Transformation - A continuous process of adapting the Alliance
What has made the Alliance so unique is its ability to achieve and maintain political cohesion, the integrated military structure, and the very effective capabilities of its members. This is what gives NATO credibility! However for this to remain the case, the Alliance is dependent on the continuous development and adaptation of the structures and capabilities at its disposal.

The so called transformation process will continue, both in the integrated structures and in the individual nations. Using Norway as an example, the acquirement of new frigates, the Skjold-class coastal corvettes, new transport aircraft, participation as partner in the multinational strategic airlift C-17 co-operation, and the recent decision on new fighter aircraft, are all part of this process. It is important, however, that transformation is not unidirectional, but that it prepares the Alliance for “multiple futures”, as the ACT calls it.

We need to maintain capabilities across the whole spectrum, from light and deployable forces for Afghanistan-type missions to “high end” platforms like frigates, submarines and modern combat aircraft for use in more “symmetric” scenarios. Again, at times, the Alliance has had a tendency to build visions of the future on what we experience here and now. History shows that this is not always the best approach.

Multi- or bilateral cooperation will increasingly be necessary if the European allies – and particularly the smaller ones – are to require strategic assets needed for the most demanding operations. Such cooperation can happen within NATO, as well as with key NATO partners. In this vein, I very much look forward to the presentation next week of Thorvald Stoltenberg's report on enhanced Nordic cooperation in the security field.

We also need to have a closer look on how the Alliance conducts its business. I believe there is great room for improvement, and a number of initiatives are currently ongoing.

I hope that as part of the work on the new strategic concept, special focus will be given to a more fundamental review of how the NATO headquarters is organized and working. Also, the NATO command structure, which is sub–optimal in relation to our operational needs, should be examined to achieve more fundamental changes.

NATO as an actor on the international stage
Increasingly NATO experiences the importance of co-operating with other international actors when conducting operations. For the Alliance to achieve its goals it is necessary to take into account all aspects influencing the outcome of operations; civilian as well as military, political as well as operational. With this in mind we especially need to establish a good working relationship between NATO and the UN as well as with the EU.

NATO– and EU–nations are nearly identical, and draw on the same resources. We have to make the relationship work, or risk competition and duplication. This issue will need our full attention in the future to ensure full interoperability between the two organisations.

Russia – A key challenge for the Alliance
Russia will be one of NATO’s key challenges in the years ahead. The Russian leadership has declared that Russia’s strategic interests lie in cooperation with the West. On the other hand, recent Russian actions complicate this picture. A more self-assertive Russia has emerged. I do believe, however, that the financial crisis – which is hitting Russias energy- and raw material- intensive economy particularly hard – is a reminder that no country is an island in today’s interconnected word. 

I have already stated that the geopolitical landscape is changing. Russia is an important part of this landscape. It is in the interest of both NATO and Russia to find a new balancing point, based on dialogue and cooperation.  

After the crisis in Georgia the Alliance, as opposed to the EU and the OSCE, NATO has effectively become marginalized as a forum for dialogue with Russia.

The High North
In our own vicinity, the High North, important changes are taking place with clear implications also for security. The melting of the ice cap will lead to increased sea traffic in the high north. This has the potential of key trading routes between an Asia and Western Europe that will reduce the distance with up to 40% compared to today’s pattern. The existence of large oil- and gas resources in Arctic areas, combined with increased accessibility, will lead to increased activity in the energy field, and all of this will be taking place in areas rich in fish and other marine resources. Together with those of our allies with a particular Arctic focus, Norway has been arguing for increased NATO attention to the geostrategic changes taking place in the Arctic. Last week a highly successful NATO Conference on the High North was conducted in Reykjavik, Iceland.

The participants included the top civilian and military leadership of NATO as well as leading representatives of most of our allies. The outcome of this conference clearly suggest that there is indeed a NATO role in this development, related to increased surveillance, presence, training and exercises as well as better contingency planning and regional responsibilities in the command structure. And just as in Afghanistan; NATO needs to take a “comprehensive approach” to the Arctic challenges. Since many of the key issues involved should be solved in other organizations, like the Arctic Council, the UN through its Convention on the Law of the Seas, and the International Maritime Organizations, what NATO needs to do is to define its “niche” in this broader setting.   

Enlargement and Partnerships – A flexible approach
At the Summit Croatia and Albania will become members of the Alliance. Who would have thought at the end of the Cold War that the total number of allies would increase from 16 to 28 by 2009? Even for NATO this is a lot to swallow!

Becoming a member of NATO entails responsibilities for the nations invited. But it also requires that the Alliance has the ability to stand by its obligations stated in the Washington Treaty.

We stand by the decisions regarding Ukraine and Georgia taken by our Heads of State and Government in Bucharest.  Both countries have made progress, yet both have significant work left to do.  Therefore, NATO has decided to provide further assistance to necessary reforms in both countries as they progress towards NATO-membership.

In the future I believe that NATO should have a flexible approach regarding partnerships. Focus should not only be on potential membership aspirations. Extending a variety of different partnerships could be equally important as an end in itself.

Establishing partnerships with nations in a particular region, like the Mediterranean Dialogue, serve an important political purpose.

A more flexible strategy can also include more individual approaches like the establishment of the NATO-Georgia Commission. Here focus should be on security sector reform and on improving the capabilities of the nations involved.

Concluding remarks
To sum up, I believe NATO will remain the primary multilateral security forum for dialogue between the US and Europe. The Alliance is continuously adapting and in so doing will remain the primary organisation for dealing with the full range of security issues of its member states.

However, It is important that NATO focuses both on the challenges facing us at strategic distances and at those confronting us closer to home. We regard this as a prerequisite to maintain the necessary political and public support for the Alliance in its member states.
As an actor on the international stage NATO will still play an important role, both politically and militarily.

However, to be able to respond effectively to future challenges the Alliance will have to continuously adapt and transform the way it works and the capabilities at its disposal.

In the future it will be increasingly important to establish a constructive relationship to other international organisations like the UN and the EU. Not only to avoid competition and duplication of effort, but also to enable the comprehensive use of military, political, developmental and humanitarian instruments in an integrated manner. Only then can the international society be truly effective in handling and solving upcoming crisis.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention!