Shaping NATO’s reform agenda

June 29, 2011 Cercle Royal Gaulois, Brussels The views expressed in this report are personal opinions of the speakers and not necessarily those of the organisations they represent, nor of the Security & Defence Agenda, its members or partners.

Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted, providing that full attribution is made to the Security & Defence Agenda and to the source(s) in question, and provided that any such reproduction, whether in full or in part, is not sold unless incorporated in other works.

Publisher: Geert Cami Rapporteur: Jonathan Dowdall Photos: Philippe Molitor Design & Production: Kramik Print: Kramik

4 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Table of contents

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda p. 0 6

Introduction p. 0 9

Keynote address p. 1 1 a Dutch view of the defence crisis facing Europe

Defence cuts: Reducing the fat while sparing the muscle p. 1 5

Missile defence: The factors reshaping NATO-Russia relations p. 2 3

Strategic capabilities: Equipping NATO for different threats and new tasks p. 3 3

List of participants p. 4 3

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 5 Shaping NATO’s reform agenda 29 June 2011 Cercle Gaulois, Brussels

Chair: , Co-president of the SDA and former Secretary General of NATO Moderator: Giles Merritt, Director of the Security & Defence Agenda Introductory remarks: Stefan Gehrold, Director of the Brussels Office, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung

09:30-10:00 Keynote Speech: Hans Hillen, Dutch Defence Minister

10:00-11:30 Defence cuts: Reducing the fat while sparing the muscle Budgetary restraints on both sides of the Atlantic are cutting deeply into defence spending. Yet there is also an awareness that administrative costs in many NATO countries have ballooned, and that Cold War era structures and equipment are overdue for scrapping. With NATO governments increasingly conscious of the need to complement each other’s defence capabilities and reduce unnecessary duplications, how much scope is there for both coordinating their defence cutbacks and finding news means to fund modernisation? Have NATO’s planners and their national counterparts begun to draw-up a streamlining strategy that will make the new financial stringency a catalyst for modernisation?

Speakers: Jean-François Bureau, Contrôleur Général des Armées, French Ministry of Defence General Knud Bartels, Chief of Defence, Danish Ministry of Defence Huseyin Diriöz, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy & Planning, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Scott A. Harris, President for Continental Europe, Lockheed Martin Inc.

11:30-12:00 Coffee Break 11:30-12:00

12:00-13:30

It Missile has not been defence: easy for The either factors the NATO reshaping countries or NATO-Russia the Russian Federation relations to abandon their Cold It has not been easy for either the NATO countries or the Russian Federation to abandon their Cold War mindsets, especially in the area of ballistic missiles. War mindsets, especially in the area of

6 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 ballistic missiles. But a shared awareness of the changed nature of threat has made missile defence a priority for both parties. Do such policies herald a new era in NATO-Russia relations? Have the initial frictions over the siting and ranges of these defences been resolved, and is the NATO-Russia Council likely to get a new lease of life? What geopolitical effects on the Ukraine and Georgia as well as China, North Korea and Iran could result from a closer NATO-Russia relationship based on shared missile defence capabilities?

Speakers: Karl-Heinz Kamp, Research Director, NATO Defence College Barry Pavel, Director of the International Security Program, Atlantic Council, former Special Assistant to the President of the United States and Senior Director for Defense Policy and Strategy on the National Security Council Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Ambassador to NATO and Special Envoy of the President for Interaction with NATO in Missile Defence Gen. Emmanuel de Romémont, Deputy Director for Strategic Affairs, French Ministry of Defence

13:30-14:30 Lunch SIPRI yearbook presentation, Daniel Nord, Deputy Director, SIPRI

14:30-16:00 Strategic capabilities: Equipping NATO for different threats and new tasks

The Libya crisis is showing even more that ISAF’s Afghanistan operations how rapidly NATO’s challenges are changing. What sort of flexibility is being built into the new generations of equipment, ranging from naval and air support to surveillance and ground operations, and what capabilities must NATO develop in the maritime and cyber domains? Are the long-standing procurement and competitive bidding methods of defence ministries still best suited to developing advanced weapons systems and technologies? How can mounting US concerns over the defence shortcomings of the European allies be reconciled with America’s resistance to collaborating on key technologies and working towards a transatlantic defence equipment market?

Speakers: Giampaolo Di Paola, Chairman of the Military Committee, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Jason Healey, Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Atlantic Council of the United States, former White House Director for Cyber Infrastructure Protection Gerald Howarth, Minister for International Security Strategy, UK Ministry of Defence Leendert van Bochoven, NATO and European Defence Leader, Office of the Chairman, EMEA, IBM

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 7

Introduction

The SDA’s annual NATO conference every aspect of the day’s discussion, offers an opportunity for stakeholders was the urgent drive for fiscal austerity. from across the spectrum of European Talk of budget cuts, to both military defence and security to offer their establishments and security services, was views of the biggest challenges facing never far from centre-stage throughout the alliance. As both SDA Director the debate. Clearly, the limitation of Giles Merritt and former NATO available resources for meeting current Secretary General and SDA co-President reform goals will be the inevitable Jaap de Hoop Scheffer outlined as backdrop of the coming decade. they welcomed participants, NATO has since its 2010 Lisbon Summit, been The second and equally important pursuing an ambitious reform agenda. theme was the increasingly obvious disparity of military power between Praising the SDA’s “valuable forum of European members and the United discussion on current NATO topics”, States within NATO. Whilst the outspoken Stefan Gehrold, Director of the Konrad- commentary of outgoing U.S Defense Adenauer-Stiftung’s Brussels office Secretary Robert Gates at the SDA was highlighted how Lisbon provides “a more the most easily accessible touchstone, solid foundation to guide NATO through discussion of this topic was not limited the next decade”, during which it must to criticism of operational conduct deal with contentious topics such as in Afghanistan and Libya. Issues of missile defence, cyber-security and force industrial base and political will were transformation. also key elements, highlighting the far- reaching implications of a continued Yet underpinning these discussions were lack of equitable burden-sharing within two larger, possibly existential threats to NATO. the vitality of NATO and the transatlantic relationship. The first, pervading into

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 9 Hans Hillen

10 I NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 Keynote address a Dutch view of the defence crisis facing Europe

These two themes were outlined in detail Yet the spending realities facing during the conference’s keynote address, Europe are stark, not only in relation provided by Hans Hillen, Defence to the financial crisis but also to rising Minister of The . Likening healthcare costs. “Europe’s population is NATO’s defence guarantees in Europe to ageing; living standards are rising, as are his homeland’s system the technological of flood defences, he possibilities. The began by asserting “Burdens should be OECD has predicted that the transatlantic shared equally, and that public health alliance “requires not Europe must be careful expenditure will only respect, but also almost double by with economising on careful maintenance 2050”, he warned. by all of us.” The security.” Given this context, challenge, he declared, Hans Hillen Europe’s growing was to re-assert the defence spending basic principle that “burdens should be deficit is less “a deliberate European policy shared equally, and that Europe must be to give up on its defences or to let the careful with economising on security.” Atlantic ally down, but far more […]

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 11 a need to set new priorities to public are grassroots priorities.” In short, “we have expenditure.” to build a stronger case” for NATO in our cash-strapped era. Such a priority setting raises a central question: “Do we merely focus on high Operations are the first area where this standards of healthcare or on our future could occur. As both the Alliance’s “most security needs as well?” The Defence visible output” and greatest contribution Minister expressed his fear that, for the to security outside of the European area, moment, public opinion is more in favour public perceptions of operations are all- of the former than the latter. important. However, despite great sacrifices “financially, militarily and – ultimately – in This, he continued, is not inevitable: what the lives of our soldiers”, operations in is needed is a call to action. “As Minister Afghanistan have soured the public mood. of Defence, I have declared it to be my “Despite its evident added value in the mission to call attention to the importance fight against terrorism, we are finding it of adequate defence spending. Especially difficult to maintain support for military in Europe, we have to make our defence interventions like ISAF”, the Minister agendas more of a grassroots priority in the lamented. midst of all the other issues that already

12 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 To counter this in future, a “selective need muscle to defend and protect your approach” would probably serve the interests and the interests of your allies”. alliance better, he continued. To intervene, “we need to have a clear sense of urgency. Expressing optimism that the leading Our security interests role of European must be at stake. We members in must be the only “In international relations Libya points to “a ones up for the job. you cannot rely willingness to pull And we must bring on soft power alone. our weight” in this in others to fulfil regard, the Minister the comprehensive You also need muscle concluded by approach.” Only then to defend and protect outlining his priorities can the corrosive loss your interests and the for restructuring of public support be interests of your allies” European defence. reversed. These include “getting Hans Hillen our economies and The other way to reclaim public support public finances back into shape” and of defence in times of austerity is to make “reforming our armed forces and boldly it more cost-effective. “We have to be smart strengthening defence cooperation in about defence, an initiative that Secretary Europe”. General Rasmussen has taken on very adequately”, he said. “It means pooling If combined with justifying future and sharing. It means cooperating and operations with much stricter criteria for integrating”, and above all, “we have to public scrutiny, he believed that Europe realise that this also implies accepting stood a good chance of balancing both mutual dependencies, and giving up a its budgets and its burden-sharing within certain degree of national sovereignty.” NATO.

This may prove politically contentious, he admitted, but it is also necessary. Only if Europe can pool its resources for deployment can it continue to have a say in global security affairs. “Unfortunately enough – in international relations you cannot rely on soft power alone. You also

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 13 General Knud Bartels

14 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Defence cuts: Reducing the fat while sparing the muscle

During the first panel discussion of the to talk about the political will for multi- day, the debate focused on the practical nationality - for handing over sovereignty challenges of declining national budgets to others, and vice versa”. for military, policy and industry actors. By focusing on this contentious issue, A small nation’s experience member states will treat the matter seriously, and guarantee that chosen General Knud Bartels, Danish Chief initiatives are “pragmatic, and imply of Defence, began by outlining the substantial cost savings”. Above all else, perspective of a small nation nonetheless multinational cooperation must deliver “at the forefront” of “faster, cheaper and more operations currently effective solutions to real taking place in Libya and “Multinational military priorities - not Afghanistan. For nations cooperation must industrial interests”, he with limited financial deliver “faster, said. means such as Denmark cheaper and more “good sentences and This combination of words” such as “pooling & effective solutions to operational urgency, sharing” or “smart defence” real military priorities financial austerity and a are not enough – real, - not industrial pragmatic realism about cost-effective reform interests” sovereignty concerns led at every level of the the General to a single General Knud Bartels military system is urgently principle: something required. he called “military off-the-shelf”. Citing multinational projects such as the F16, For the General, this has to start with non- Leopard battle tanks or Sea Sparrow combat functions. “We need to look at our Missiles as “good examples of what can bureaucratic dimension - there is always be bought, maintained and used by small something to be found”, he declared. nations”, he advocated small cooperative Yet more fundamentally, “we also need groups of like-minded states foregoing

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 15 worst of the financial crisis has become clear - he still felt the French reform programme was based on sound cost- saving principles.

The central element of this programme was that “all the money saved from the Ministry of Defence would come back to the Ministry”, meaning in effect that “all money saved would finance more equipment”. Whilst not without pain - in this case, a 54,000 strong personnel reduction will account for most of the savings - the French official maintained

Jean-Francois Bureau that this had significantly increased available funds for his defence investment individual national programmes to buy accounts. pre-developed “off- the-shelf” solutions. Looking forward, “There are lessons “What is the end state Bureau warned that to be learnt” for over- we want to have regarding a short-term focus stretched militaries, the military capabilities on cuts must not he concluded, “even escalate into the of our continent?” if a little painful”. “trap of a long- Jean-Francois Bureau term disarmament A large process”. To nation’s experience avoid this fate, “we might have to talk about a converged strategy for defence Coming from a significantly larger investment” at European level. In this nation, Jean-Francois Bureau, French regard, the recent Lancaster House Contrôleur Général des Armées, Treaty between Britain and France sent nonetheless felt that recent French the correct message: “that we need to experiences of military reform could help mutualise our military capabilities and other European militaries. Whilst admitting our future defence investments”. However, his office had been “lucky” in passing its this programme “will not be meaningful last defence review in 2008 - before the if it remains a bilateral agreement alone”,

16 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 and the expansion of such arrangements must also make sure that any reduction to include numerous partners was a of capabilities does not result in a prerequisite to wider success. reduction of security”.

As a closing remark, the French official In Diriöz’s opinion, NATO’s defence policy asked participants to consider a key and planning functions offers allies “a question: “what unique mechanism is the end state for promoting we want to have “We must make sure that the coherence of regarding the any reduction of capabilities national defence military capabilities does not result in a plans with the of our continent?” overall objectives reduction of security” It is important, he of the Alliance […] reminded the panel, Hüseyin Diriöz but experience to have a clear has taught us that vision of what kind of military force you we need to further develop the ability wish to create through military reform - of this mechanism to better harmonise and to carefully prioritise your assets to unavoidable cuts in national defence achieve this objective.

Defence planning and NATO reform

Speaking about NATO’s internal reform efforts, Hüseyin Diriöz, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, felt that while “few parts of society are immune to austerity measures”, our “armed forces are particularly exposed”. Realistically, he said, “We should acknowledge that in the foreseeable future, there will not be sufficient means available to develop and maintain all the defence capabilities the Alliance needs unless we develop new, Hüseyin Diriöz innovative ways of doing business. We

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 17 capabilities”. He also noted that NATO free – all allies need to contribute within was reforming its structures to “combine their means”. efficiency with increased affordability”. To achieve this, NATO has outlined Manufacturing “muscle” an extensive internal reform package, in defence including a reduction of the number of HQs, staff and agencies. In addition to Finally, speaking from the perspective manpower savings on national budgets of “the sector that provides the muscle”, the new structure will eventually realise Scott Harris, President for Continental savings of 20 million Euro per annum to Europe of Lockheed Martin, focused on NATO’s military budget, with a potential what some have called Europe’s “pool for additional savings in the future. it or lose it” moment. He asserted that European militaries would need “more This new and leaner NATO will continue capable and efficient partners to cooperate to push its primary model for defence in defence reform”, with today’s levels reform: Smart Defence. This “identifies of underinvestment putting this military- and gives priority to genuinely critical industrial partnership at risk. “This is not a requirements… especially for operations”. new issue - but we are in a new phase of Moreover, it seeks to urgency”, he warned. “more fully exploit the opportunities He went on to outline for multinational “This is not a new issue - the primary causes cooperation” across but we are in a new phase of overrun or cost the board, whether of urgency” inflation in European in acquisition, procurement

operation and Scott Harris programmes. The maintenance of most obvious issue capabilities, or the preparation and training is that at “the higher-end of our search of forces, and especially in identifying for military capabilities, we are pushing assets that “could be aggregated to increase technology to the edge of what’s been tried availability and cost-effectiveness”. “NATO before”. This entails a certain risk of failure has an essential part to play”, he concluded. during development, with inevitable added And, alluding to the “intolerably wide” costs. imbalance between the defence spending of the United States and other allies, “it is More frustratingly for industry, “once a obvious that security does not come for programme is started, it is not uncommon

18 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 for governments to change their minds simple - member states need to be clearer about what they want”, a trend which about what capabilities they want, and increases delays and costs. The industry what they will pay for it. “Let’s decide on representative also pointed out that, due the requirements now, pool and share to a scarcity of business, “the pressures our resources, and produce the desired of competition sometimes lead to a outcomes”, Harris concluded. misestimate of costs” during bidding, which only becomes apparent once work Points from the floor queried how exactly has begun on a contract. greater savings could be found when buying military equipment - could a focus However, not all of the problems that face on pre-commercial procurement be the the defence industry are the result of answer, asked several participants? poor member state practices or under- investment. “We all have to do a better Diriöz said he thought there was value in job of creating effective management “setting up the right requirements early, so strategies” when running projects, he that industry meet member states needs”. confessed. Yet ultimately, the message was Scott Harris also agreed. “I think if we can

Scott Harris

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 19 20 I NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 develop ways to shorten competition, so Finally, the UK’s Deputy Permanent that industry doesn’t stay engaged forever, Representative to NATO, Paul Flaherty, that would help”. suggested the need to “define our muscles”. “Isn’t it more important to try to Bartels however cautioned that pre- define what we need in terms of military commercial procurement was only force, rather then merely aiming to “save worthwhile if it implied a lower overall muscle and cut fat?””, he asked. General price for buyers. “It’s exceedingly difficult Bartels responded by arguing that “the for a small nation to invest in advanced Libya crisis is emphasizing once again military equipment”, he said, reminding that we need basic fighting capacities”. participants of his “military off-the-shelf” He advocated going “back to basics” by focus. “Multinationally-funded and focusing on core military functions, rather developed systems have not been very than force specialization or the “tone” of cost-effective in Europe”, and it is more Europe’s military muscles. important to address this issue than competitiveness in industrial bids, he De Hoop Scheffer finally stepped in asserted. to reconcile these views, by returning to the issue of coordination. Whether Brooks Tigner from Jane’s Defence cutting or reforming, “maintaining our Weekly queried whether defence cuts military muscle means much more co- should not be targeted against the ordination then we actually see today”, “wasteful duplication of test facilities and he summarized. “We need to see muscle bases” within Europe. Diriöz certainly across the board”, and this will only agreed that savings were to be made occur if European militaries pay careful in terms of test facilities. “Many NATO attention. For example, he explained, multinational schemes fall under various “when the Dutch Minister decides to agencies”, which is inefficient. “We are do away with his battle tanks, I do hope reforming the agency structure, and that not many other allies will do the making the procurement agency better” to same”. Otherwise, uncoordinated reform rectify this, he added. Bureau agreed that will merely exacerbate an already un- it was important to “keep it simple” when it resourced European situation. came to cooperating on reform. “There is a need to work on processes to get better results”, to overcome the inefficiencies of past efforts.

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 21 Gen. Emmanuel de Romémont

22 I NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 Missile defence: The factors reshaping NATO-Russia relations The second panel tackled the What is causing these problems? The controversial topic of missile defence French representative laid the blame at cooperation between Russia and Russia’s door, saying Moscow’s demand NATO, with both technical and political of a completely shared missile defence disagreements. architecture, at a level of operational cooperation deeper then NATO officials A fresh start for NATO and will accept, has left “no other choice but Russia? to promote a two-part system”. As long as Russia will not compromise on these Gen. Emmanuel de Romémont, Deputy operational questions, political missile Director for Strategic Affairs in the French defence agreements are unlikely, he said. MoD was clear from the outset that he did not think current NATO-Russia There are however still areas where NATO discussions on missile defence would and Russia can find common ground. herald a “new era” of cooperation. “They “The French perspective is that we need have the potential to adopt a pragmatic to do so; but it is not and step-by-step the case today – it approach”, he “We should have lies with Russia to continued, based make it work”, he the courage on “reasonable and said. Whilst arguing to admit that [...] realistic ambitions”. that Russia and we are currently Such realistic NATO “tend to agree” facing difficulties.” options include early on many aspects warning data-sharing, of missile defence, General Emmanuel de Romémont where Russia’s “we should have the land-based radars courage to admit that regarding the level “can bring a valuable contribution”, and of cooperation, we are currently facing joint missile defence exercises. If these less difficulties.” controversial ties can be strengthened,

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 23 the General concluded, “we can progress viewpoints and expectations between realistically”. NATO and Russia, rather than fundamental policy divergence. A context of misunderstanding One important reason for this is that each Research Director at the NATO Defence side often accuses the other of displaying College, Karl-Heinz Kamp, agreed that “cold war attitudes”. Yet in reality, “both missile defence cooperation faced a sides are not always honest with each “bumpy” path. However, “despite all the other, and both sides have their own quarrels, the NATO- hidden agendas Russia relationship – this means for is better than in all instance that NATO “Despite all the quarrels, the of its history”, he does not define countered. “This does NATO-Russia relationship is Russia as a “threat” not preclude sharp better than in all of its history” – but some NATO disagreements on members do”. This Karl-Heinz Kamp certain issues, but mismatch, “leads to it at least takes place on a fairly stable frustration on both sides”, as each party relationship.” In Kamp’s view, the tensions views the other as having broken their that do exist are the product of differing word.

Karl-Heinz Kamp

24 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 In this context, missile defence “seems to Atlantic Council of the United States’ encapsulate all of these contradictions Centre on International Security, began and disagreements in the relationship”. Yet by highlighting “the growing and rather Kamp did eventually agree that Russian immediate regional ballistic missile threat fears of NATO missile defence may be from Iran”. Noting that “I can say the inflated. For instance, he called Russian country, even if some can’t”, he dismissed fears that NATO intended to neutralize entirely the accusation that European its nuclear deterrent “ridiculous given the missile defence was targeted at Russian strategic capacities of the Russian side”. missiles. Citing intelligence reports Indeed, the Russian demand that has reviewed by the Obama administration completely derailed negotiations is the in 2008, he called the renewed push idea of “commonly pushing the button”. for missile defence “appropriate for the This, Kamp reminded participants, is a projected and current regional threat” “red-line” can not be side-stepped. from Iran.

Kamp finished by moving away from a Indeed, referencing the recent test NATO-Russia focus, and examining the of 14 Iranian ballistic missiles as “a US-European agreements that underlie timely demonstration of Iran’s rapidly missile defence. “What shall the allies growing capabilities”, he explained how contribute? Where is the incentive for the proposed missile defence system European allies to contribute when they “physically cannot threaten Russia’s get a system for free?” he asked. “Before nuclear deterrent”. In Pavel’s view, this is we think too much about implementing true “neither in the quality and capabilities NATO-Russia cooperation, I would of individual interceptor missiles…. nor appreciate it if the European allies could in the quantity of missiles, which cannot specify what they will contribute with affect something as massive as the Russian the Americans… It seems a little bit like deterrent stockpile”. the Emperor is naked” when it comes to European spending, he warned. With this in mind, he also agreed that missile defence cooperation offers The missile threat to Europe “vast potential for benefits to all parties concerned”. Not only could joint threat To better explain the capabilities and assessment cooperation “help all parties strategic necessity of European missile involved get warned of current and future defence, Barry Pavel, Director of the ballistic missiles threats in this area”, but

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 25 26 I NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 I 27 Dmitry Rogozin

28 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 “connecting radar systems to enhance the created to unify the alliance, that does not common picture for all involved is also a correlate the real assessments of threats very useful activity“. Beyond the “red line” emanating from the South?” Furthermore, of operational control already outlined, “if we are talking about intercepting short Pavel added the additional caveat that “it or medium-range missiles, why should might be difficult to share certain sensitive this system have the capacity to intercept technologies”. Otherwise, “a vast playing strategic, inter-continental missiles?”, he field for cooperation” remains. continued.

Some Russian questions The Ambassador repeatedly asserted that “no country in the Middle East has the In response to the conciliatory tone of necessary geographical circumstances his fellow panellists, Dmitry Rogozin, to test inter-continental missiles”, calling Russian Ambassador to NATO and Special US claims about the Iranian threat Envoy of the President on missile issues, unsubstantiated. Instead, he claimed posed a series of challenging questions NATO-US efforts were an attempt to about NATO’s plans. He began by noting “infringe on Russia’s strategic nuclear that two previous Cold War-era projects capability”, by threatening to neutralize its had proposed a European missile defence deployable nuclear arsenal. architecture that was explicitly anti- Russian. “The big question is, how do you The Ambassador then questioned the convince us this supposed value of 3rd system is not cooperating with targeted against “Just as with NATO on missile Russia, like its defence. “What is predecessors?” he conventional forces, the added value for asked. missile defence Russia to exchange must not go beyond information on Indeed, the Russian the borders of missile risks?” he official displayed asked. “Russia has NATO members” no confidence in an efficient and official US claims, operational early questioning every Dmitry Rogozin warning system aspect of the intelligence backing the overlooking its territories to the south”, he Obama administration’s plan. Is the threat continued. So why should Russia share from Iran real, or merely “a political idea with NATO? “We are ready to provide

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 29 information, but this must be reciprocated As a final word, he hinted at the possibility by some exchanges as well”, he added. of one final option. “If Iran is just a joke, and you actually target our strategic forces, The Ambassador concluded by outlining then there is in fact a third option, but that two potential scenarios for the future. In is too sad for me to even mention.” the first, the creation of a “NATO-Russia Council missile defence system” would These divergent opinions sparked a lively see complete information fusion and a debate, with participants keen to respond division of labour in interception. ‘The to Ambassador Rogozin’s concerns. Both system would decide whether it is for David Hobbs, Secretary General of the NATO or Russia to shoot down adversarial NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and Kamp missiles […] we would be fine with that”, were quick to question Russia’s claim that he said. In the second scenario, Russia middle-eastern countries could “never” would settle for two separate systems, develop long range missiles. “We’ve had with the understanding that “NATO only so many “nevers’” and “always’” that have defends its own territory: that of its allies”, been proven wrong in the last decade – I and that “just as you do with conventional would not use the word never again”, forces, missile defence must not go Kamp warned. Pavel also pointed out that beyond the borders of NATO members”. recent space launches by Iran and other

30 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 regimes belied a growing ballistic missile is about this grey zone below the nuclear capacity which should not be easily threshold” he claimed. disregarded. Pavel was nonetheless sympathetic De Romémont went on to counter the to the Russian viewpoint, saying opinion that Europe has nothing to “I can understand why this might cause contribute to missile defence. “France perception problems”. Yet he also has proposed an early warning system”, reminded participants that the Obama he explained, “Europe does have administration had specifically set out to something - many countries have offered “reset” fraught relations with Moscow in contributions”. 2008. “That was the first He went on to policy priority coming explain that out of the Obama NATO’s missile “Missile defence administration”, he said. defence plans is about this grey zone “This [missile defence] is will have no below the nuclear an important capability”, effect on Russia’s and Washington will not threshold” nuclear deterrent. simply abandon it, he “We are speaking cautioned. General de Romémont about a limited strike scenario”, in which one or two Despite such arguments, by the end of “stray” missiles are inbound for Europe, the discussion, Ambassador Rogozin the General continued. “Missile defence remained sceptical.

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 31 Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola

32 I NATO’s, European Dimension I June 21, 2010 Strategic capabilities: Equipping NATO for different threats and new tasks In the final session, the future threat Fixing this will be demanding. In the environment and subsequent strategic Admiral’s opinion, “investment in needs of NATO were discussed, with a deployable and usable forces” should particular focus on the threat to cyber- take precedence within the alliance. security. Future needs must also be considered, he continued. “We need to be effective, A political problem? to invest in the right capabilities now” and this must include capabilities for Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, addressing “pressing and prominent” new Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, threats such as cyber-security. began by discussing the speech delivered to the SDA by outgoing US Defense Yet in doing so, “we need to accept that Secretary Robert Gates. This was “a other areas will need to be less of a wake up call not only for the alliance priority as a result. We have to prioritise, but, let’s be honest here, for Europeans”, we cannot say we want everything – this he claimed. “There is a real risk of is not a situation we can afford”. this alliance becoming a The Admiral made two-tier alliance”, “There is a real risk it clear he thought in which NATO of this alliance this is predominantly is divided into becoming a two-tier “a political problem, those who can alliance” not a military issue”. deploy and fight, The US has issued a and those who Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola warning about Europe’s have “neither security that will affect the capability, nor the will to do the job”. every political and military institution. “That could have implications for the As such, “we have to take the time, and solidity of the transatlantic relationship”, show the will, to reflect on the profound he warned. ramifications of what Gates has said –

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 33 and we as military people need to think are other areas NATO could be good at, but of what are the implications for us”. Above that would have been an extension, a step all, “we have to have the courage to advise too far.” He affirmed that “there’s no need our politicians on this - if we can do that, for NATO to rush forward into new mission there is a future for us, and our alliance”, areas” involving cyber just yet. It should he concluded. remain focused on its own operational and headquarters networks. NATO’s future in cyber-defence This is because, when it comes to cyber- Moving on to cyber-security, defence, “we have continued to be much Jason Healey, Director of the Cyber more cautious in the cyber community Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council about what capabilities can actually be of the United States, praised the “very strong achieved than media headlines shouting start and good foundations” laid by NATO’s about cyber-war”. Healey strongly disagreed recent cyber-defence strategy. “I’ve been with this approach. “When people talk very impressed by what I’ve seen NATO about cyber, oftentimes they talk about doing so far on cyber”, he asserted. “It cyber-warfare and massive strikes – that’s tackled only the missions that NATO must possible, but that is also ignoring the cyber- perform”, which is important because “there fight we have right now”.

34 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 That fight, which already requires a “sustained and constant effort” by cyber- security personnel, must ward off myriad small-scale intrusions. This is the real threat that we should be concerned about, he claimed. Basic espionage, and sensitive data «walking out the door» of unsecured networks is more likely than cyber-war.

He continued to outline his priorities for the future of NATO cyber-defence. The key is to “focus on the basics”, and he thus urged national security officials “not to focus on cyber as a technical issue” alone. “I’ve seen too many policymakers and generals Jason Healey believe their vast security experience is not applicable to the realm of cyber”, he explained. Yet whilst “the principles are challenge which NATO will face in this different, they are realm. The fact that not overwhelmingly most of the cyber so”. For instance, “I’ve seen too many architecture is in the whilst the technical policymakers private sphere “leads skills required to and generals believe their to some problems pin-point the source for NATO, but also vast security experience of a cyber-attack some fantastic directly are indeed is not applicable to the opportunities”. If very demanding, the realm of cyber; whilst the alliance can political context may the principles are build effective be more traditional different, they are not partnerships with than first imagined. “We private actors, cyber- overwhelmingly so” don’t necessarily care defence could be who is pressing the Jason Healey significantly less enter key – we need to expensive than know which head of state the President can predicted by many today, he concluded call to put a stop to an attack”, he explained. optimistically. Finally, Healey outlined the public-private

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 35 Pooling and sharing in coordination of efforts”, he enthused. In cyber-defence this regard, “a call for smart defence is also a call for a smarter defence industry”, and The industry perspective was elaborated IBM is committed to providing value- by Leendert van Bochoven, NATO and added solutions to fulfil this goal. European Defence Leader at IBM. He began by discussing A key element of this is information- how NATO’s call management and for Smart Defence so-called “intelligent” resonates with “A call for smart defence systems. “Intelligence the private sectors must be infused is also a call for a smarter approach to into systems and cyber-technology. defence industry” processes” in defence “It is about nations as in other sectors, building greater Leendert van Bochoven he said. “Data is security not being captured today with more resources, but with greater as never before” thanks to technology advances, “but data itself is not useful – the most important aspect of smarter systems is the actionable insights data can reveal”. With these insights can come savings, and greater operational efficiency.

However, networking systems in this way does open up vulnerabilities to cyber threats. For instance, “malware (basic self-replicating computer viruses) have now evolved from somewhat humble beginnings to become a principle weapon of cyber-crime, espionage and warfare”, which “can be developed with very specific goals in mind”. To tackle this, “NATO’s approach to cyber- defence will require a pooling and sharing of capabilities”. This is not only Leendert van Bochoven

36 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 about technology, but must also involve competitive bidding process”. This is “a key “a pooling and sharing of insights and process to be fixed” if NATO is to adapt to experience of cyber actors” within the rapid changes in the cyber-domain. alliance. Concluding address - The UK’s Looking to the future, cyber issues “require priorities for NATO reform stronger embedded coordination within NATO, especially across headquarters, The final address was delivered by between strategic commands and within Gerald Howarth, Minister for divisions”. However, NATO may also International Security Strategy in the UK need to reform its acquisition processes Ministry of Defence. He began by outlining for cyber-security technology. “Currently, how the events of the Arab Spring, and technological progress far outpaces the the subsequent NATO enforcement of capability development processes”, he a UN resolution over Libya, “have once warned. “This will require a fundamental again shown the volatility of the world we look at the reform of the acquisition and live and the pace of change we need to

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 37 guarantee. ”I do not believe anyone can be certain that state on state conflict has been abolished, and nuclear proliferation remains a threat”, he cautioned. “As it has for over 60 years, NATO continues to be the bedrock of our security”.

Yet as highlighted throughout the day’s discussion, “questions are being raised again about funding, capabilities and political will” within Europe. “When the US, like many of us, faces formidable pressure to balance its budgets, it can no longer justify producing security for those that merely consume it”. Even more worryingly, “not all members can Gerald Howarth contribute meaningful capability, and not all who have such assets choose to do respond to”. When combined with ongoing so”. Clearly, increased base-level funding operations in is needed, with the Afghanistan, the last Minister declaring decade has provided it “unbelievably “proof, if ever it was “When the US, like many depressing that 23 out needed, that our of us, faces formidable of 28 allies currently collective security pressure to balance its fail to meet the cannot be confined budgets, it can no longer spending target they to the Euro-Atlantic agreed”. area”. justify producing security Yet despite the for those that merely Of course, the picture challenges of new consume it” is not entirely gloomy. out-of-area missions “Some European

and cyber-defence, Gerald Howarth countries have the Minister does punched well above not think NATO should move away from their weight, by focusing on deployability, its core vision as a collective security or on assets which are of greatest utility

38 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 to the alliance”, he continued. Such said it was important to reduce “wasteful, specialization should be encouraged. self-serving working practices” that emerge “We need to identify and reduce areas of from the duplication of functions within duplication amongst allies, and NATO ACT the organisation - including inflated has an important role wage bills and a to play here”. lack of flexibility in managing staff “Media and public The recent Anglo- numbers. French pooling and opposition to our sharing agreement interventions today has The final challenges is important in this increasingly tested the which face the regard. “We hope resolve of all European alliance are twofold. that our example Firstly, NATO “means governments” will encourage other far less to younger partners to seek generations than value for money and Gerald Howarth ours”, and the increased capability subsequent “media through cooperation”. “However, such and public opposition to our interventions arrangements must be pragmatic, and have today has increasingly tested the resolve real military utility at their core - otherwise, of all European governments”. This is a it is merely political symbolism”, he problem of political message, and “we warned. must be more adept at communicating the relevance of threats to the lives of the Indeed ultimately, even spending more people we represent”. wisely is “not a panacea”. Some reforms must cut to heart of sovereignty concerns Secondly, “Europe needs to reflect on the if efficiency is to be gained. “It’s no good fact that it is in large part the US taxpayer complaining about multiple shipyards that has provided the shield for us to and armoured vehicle manufacturers in regain our pre-war prosperity”. So whilst Europe if you are not prepared to outline “in these austere times it is tempting to what you will give up, or collaborate on”. defer the cost, pass on the burden and Reducing duplication at the European recoil from change”, a real evaluation of level is key, and the Minister particularly how Europe intends to re-balance the welcomed “the decision to streamline the trans-Atlantic defence spending imbalance command structure of NATO”. He also is needed.

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 39 public, when faced with the painful choices Ultimately, citing the controversies of of budgetary priorities, “to a large extent NATO’s move towards out-of-area collective have difficulty understanding our debates security in the 1990’s, the Minister declared and our discussions on these issues”. The that “NATO has matched up to the public, to be blunt, do not value defence challenges foreseen years ago”. With the spending. right levels of collaboration and political will, it can do so again. The day’s discussion continuously advocated that this needs to change, and De Conclusion Hoop Scheffer proclaimed that think-tanks like the SDA can help. De Hoop Scheffer “It is our responsibility ended the “If we want to keep up the to engage with that conference with very important things we, very critical public one clear message: opinion… with the “As we sit in this at both NATO and EU level, younger generation. room, we are all do in security and defence If we want to keep up “usual suspects””, he – we have to convince the very important claimed. By “usual public opinion that what things we, at both suspects”, he meant NATO and EU level, we do is necessary” the usual defence do in security and

and security experts Jaap De Hoop Scheffer defence – we have who attend high-level to convince public conferences in Brussels on a regular basis. opinion that what we do is necessary”. As Yet outside of such circles, ministers in members of the Brussels defence circle, he national capitals “have to confront a public reminded participants that “this is the uphill opinion on defence and foreign affairs that struggle we are facing – so I hope you, as is extremely critical”. Moreover, this general “usual suspects”, can help”.

40 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 41 42 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 List of participants

Nawal Abdullah Mira Banacka Political Analyst Second Secretary Embassy of Qatar to Belgium Delegation of Slovakia to NATO

Lt. Gen. Mehmet Yeysi Agar Martin Banks Military Representative Journalist Delegation of Turkey to NATO The Parliament Magazine, DODS EU

Gerhard Ahlbrecht Mohamed-Raja’l Barakat Secretary General Independent Economic Expert European Organisation of Military Associations (EUROMIL) Anna Barath Assistant Tommy Åkesson North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Defence Advisor Mission of Sweden to NATO Gen. Knud Bartels Chief of Defence Ciprian Alionescu Defence Command Denmark Former European Commission Official Giuseppe Belardetti Lt. Col. Bernd Allert Programme Director Expert, WMD/CBRN Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Katrien Berbers Brig. Gen. Johan Andries Deputy Head of Unit, Document Management, Military Representative Security, Data Protection Permanent Representation of Belgium to the EU European Commission DG Agriculture and Rural Development Muhammad Aslam Counsellor Piotr Blachowski Mission of to the EU First Counsellor, Justice & Home Affairs Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU Azamat Ayap Counsellor Stephanie Blenckner Embassy of Kazakhstan to Belgium Communications Director Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Eda Aygen (SIPRI) Project Assistant Security & Defence Agenda (SDA) Jos Boonstra Senior Researcher Maj. Gen. Jean-Pierre Badet Fundacion para las Relaciones Internacionales y Military Representative el Dialogo Exterior (FRIDE) Mission of Switzerland to NATO Maj. Gen. Jochen Both Paul Baes Commander Former Official, Council of the European Union European Air Transport Command (EATC)

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 43 Antoine Bourgoignie Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Senior Manager Former Secretary General of NATO and Deloitte Consulting Co-President of the SDA

Annelies Breedveld-Smit Petra de Koning Speechwriter for the Minister EU, NATO Correspondent Ministry of Defence, The Netherlands NRC Handelsblad

David Brunnstrom Charles de Marcilly EU & NATO Correspondent Director of the Brussels Office Thomson Reuters Fondation Robert Schuman

Jean-François Bureau Gen. Emmanuel de Romemont Contrôleur Général des Armées Deputy Director, Delegation for Strategic Affairs Ministry of Defence, France Ministry of Defence, France

Geert Cami Pauline Delleur Co-Founder & Director Assistant Security & Defence Agenda (SDA) DCNS Brussels Office

Philippe Claeys Polydoros Demetriades European Government Sector Advisor Principal Administrator PwC European Commission DG Education and Culture

Zlatimira Colova Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola Assistant, EU satellite navigation programmes Chairman of the Military Committee European Commission DG Enterprise and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Industry Huseyin Dirioz Claire Craanen Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy Political and Planning North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

Dario Cristiani Jonathan Dowdall Senior Analyst, Global Governance Institute Policy Analyst & Market Development King’s College London Security Europe

Benoît d’Aboville Dumitru Sorin Ducaru Foreign Policy Counsellor Ambassador Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, France Delegation of Romania to NATO

Niels Dahlmann Ludivine Dupont Honorary Consul Assistant Producer Consulate of the Republic of Latvia to Belgium NTV Turkey

Kirsten de Haan Radmila Edererova Research Assistant First Secretary (security issues) Fleishman-Hillard Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the EU Carlo de Hennin Associate Maria Elena Efthymiou NATO Watch Administrator European Parliament

44 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Elina Eloranta Stefan Gehrold Executive Secretary Director Church and Society Commission of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Conference of European Churches Andrea Ghianda Lt. Cdr res. Kurt Engelen Project Manager Member of the board, Director Security & Defence Agenda (SDA) communications Euro-Atlantic Association of Belgium Pierluigi Massimo Giansanti Vice President, EU NATO Sales Lt. Col. Zvi Eyal Finmeccanica Official on sabbatical Ministry of Defence, Israel Miguel Gilquin King’s College London Capt. Sandro Fabiani Latini Chief, NATO Permanent Liaison Team to the EU Annette Godart-van der Kroon Military Staff President North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Ludwig von Mises Institute Europe

Theresa Fallon Cremonini Lt. Gen. Jo Godderij Independent Energy Analyst Former Director of the IMS, NATO

Nicholas Fang Vugar Gurbanov Director Second Secretary Singapore Institute of International Affairs Mission of Azerbaijan to NATO

Patsy Faynsztein Seda Gürkan Manager, EU Business Development Office of the Assistant Secretary General for Raytheon International, Europe Defence Investment North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Paul Flaherty Deputy Permanent Representative Julian Hale Joint Delegation of the United Kingdom to NATO Correspondent Defense News Peter Flory Consultant Edward Hanlon PwC President Raytheon International, Europe Christian Forstner Director Scott A. Harris Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung President, Continental Europe Lockheed Martin Global, Inc Jean Fournet Former Assistant Secretary General, NATO Jason Healey Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative Octávia Frota Atlantic Council of the United States Senior Advisor Conrad International Jessica Henderson Senior Account Manager François Gautier Fleishman-Hillard Auditor North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 45 Ernest J. Herold Lt. Col. Dilmurod Isakulov Account Manager, NATO Military Representative IBM Belgium Mission of Uzbekistan to NATO

Maarten Hilbrandie Jabin T Jacob Spokesperson Senior Research Fellow Ministry of Defence, The Netherlands Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies

Hans Hillen Bessarion Jghenti Minister of Defence First Counsellor The Netherlands Mission of Georgia to NATO

David Hobbs Jalil Abbas Jilani Secretary General Ambassador NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Mission of Pakistan to the EU

Wilhelm Hofmeister Karl-Heinz Kamp Director, Regional Programme Political Dialogue Director of Research Asia NATO Defense College (NDC) Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Silva Kantareva Henna Hopia Research Fellow Brussels Correspondent NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Nykypäivä Ashish Katkar Frederick Hotchner Diplomat (on sabbatical) First Secretary, Political Officer United States Department of State (DOS) Embassy of the United States of America to Belgium Kirsten Kaufman Research Assistant Paul Houot Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) EU Affairs Assistant Thales Group Huub Keizers Department Manager High Performance Gerald Howarth Energetics Minister for International Security Strategy TNO, Defence, Security and Safety Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom Adrian Kendry Liviu Mihail Iancu Senior Defence Economist and Head Defence Counsellor and Security Economics Permanent Representation of Romania to the EU North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

Aziz Idrissi Yazami Nawab Khan Liaison Officer to Nato and EU Correspondent Mission of Morocco to the EU Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)

Gianfranco Incarnato Ibrahim Khazar Deputy Permanent Representative Ambassador, Head of Mission Delegation of to NATO Mission of Azerbaijan to NATO

Nihan Ince Radek Khol Assistant Senior Administrator Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSIAD) European External Action Service (EEAS)

46 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 David Kiefer Sadid Lailuma Deputy Programme Manager, ALTBMD Second Secretary North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Embassy of Afghanistan to Belgium

Albert W. Klein Jr. Timo Marcus Lange Attorney Advisor Communications & PR Officer United States Mission to NATO European Organisation of Military Associations (EUROMIL) Denis Kolokoltsev First Secretary Thomas Lazzeri Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation Policy Officer to NATO Africa-Europe Faith and Justice Network (AEFJN)

Jan Kordys IGA Jean-René Le Goff Journalist Armament Counsellor Agence Europe Permanent Representation of France to the EU

Rem Korteweg Soong Hee Lee Policy Analyst Korea National Defence University Centre for Strategic Studies Didier Leroy Timo Koster Researcher Defence Counsellor Royal Military Academy, Belgium Delegation of the Netherlands to NATO Bruno Lete Grigorios Koutsogiannis Program Associate Business Development Manager, NATO & The German Marshall Fund of the United States European Defence Lockheed Martin Corporation Christian Levaux Thomson Reuters Bogumiła Krakowska Attaché Boris Litwin Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU Assistant, Office of Resources North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Marek Kuberski Minister Counsellor Florian Loire Embassy of Poland to Belgium European Affairs Assistant European Aeronautic Defence and Space Leonoor Kuijk Company (EADS) Brussels Correspondent Trouw Lt. Vincenza Chiaccherini Personal assistant to Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola Kadri Kukk NATO - Military Committee Brussels correspondent Estonian Public Broadcasting Lt. Cmdr. Simon E. Hagel-Larsen Aide de Camp to Danish Chief of Defence Oleksii Kuropiatnyk Ministry of Defence, Denmark Counsellor Mission of Ukraine to the EU Bohuslava Lukacˇovicˇová Defence Counsellor Raquel Lages Delegation of Slovakia to NATO EU Affairs Officer European Friends of Israel

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 47 Kathleen Machet Col. Michael McLaughlin Boston University Air Attaché Embassy of the United States of America Isabelle Maelcamp d’Opstaele to Belgium Commercial Specialist Mission of the United States of America Natalia Melnyk to the EU Second Secretary Mission of Ukraine to NATO Maj. Gen. Huseyn Mahmudov Military Representative Julian Memetaj Mission of Azerbaijan to NATO Political Analyst

Capt. Tapio Maijala Giles Merritt Deputy Military Representative Director Delegation of Finland to NATO Security & Defence Agenda (SDA)

Frank Majoor Lt. Gen. F.H. Meulman Ambassador Head of the Military Representation Delegation of the Netherlands to NATO Delegation of the Netherlands to NATO

Farrukh Mammadov Ivana Micic President Researcher Institute NATO Cooperation Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Natalia Marczewska Research Assistant Jana Mieresova EastWest Institute EPP Group Secretariat Committee of the Regions Silvia Maretti Staff Officer, Crisis Response Systems, Plans &Exer. Branislav Milinkovic Section Ambassador North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Mission of Serbia to NATO

Ricardo Martinez De Rituerto Thomas Modly Defence, Foreign Affairs Correspondent US Global Defense Leader El País PwC

Giacomo Martinotti Annalisa Monaco Head of European Affairs Director EU and NATO Relations Avio The Boeing Company

Zoltán Martinusz Tom Monballiu Principal Advisor to the President on External Public Affairs Officer Relations North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) European Council Jenny Monnin Pauline Massart Consultant Senior Manager European Company for Strategic Intelligence Security & Defence Agenda (SDA) (CEIS)

Alexander Mattelaer James Moseman Researcher Director, Europe and NATO Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Northrop Grumman International

48 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Denis Moskalenko Andreas Öffner Second Secretary Key Account Manager, NATO/EU Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation Cassidian to NATO Andrey Ognev Maged Mosleh Diplomat Counsellor Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation Embassy of Egypt to Belgium to NATO

Michel A.E. Mulders Andrew O’Neil Director Professor PwC Griffith University Asia Institute

Col. Otto Naderer Grigory Orlov Counsellor, Military Affairs First Secretary Mission of Austria to NATO Mission of the Russian Federation to the EU

Eva Nagyfejeo Andrea Ostheimer de Sosa Assistant Director of the Multinational Development European Parliament Policy Dialogue Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Dang Nguyen Khoa Journalist Tuuli Parnsalu Vietnam News Agency Second Secretary Embassy of Estonia to Belgium Mário Nicolini Head of the Defence section Mário Parrot Delegation of Slovakia to NATO Assistant European Commission George Vlad Niculescu DG Agriculture and Rural Development Former NATO staff officer Giulia Pasquinelli Claudia Nocente Programme Assistant MA Student European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO) University of Kent Barry Pavel Daniel Nord Director of the International Security Program Deputy Director Atlantic Council of the United States Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Caroline Persson Associate Director Government Relations EMEA Magnus Nordenman Smiths Group Assistant Director, International Security Program Atlantic Council of the United States Vivien Pertusot Junior Research Fellow Laurence Nyirakamaniutsi Carnegie Europe Member Forum Interrégional des Femmes Congolaises Kim Anh Pham (FIREFEC) Minister Counsellor Embassy of Vietnam to Belgium James O’Dowd Adviser to Geoffrey Van Orden MEP European Parliament

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 49 Frans Picavet Dmitry Rogozin Global NCO Ambassador Ambassador, Head of Mission IBM Belgium Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO Mohammad Naeem Poyesh Counsellor Lt. Col. Fernand Rouvroi Mission of Afghanistan to the EU R&T Domain Manager Royal Higher Institute for Defence, Belgium Constantinos Prevelakis Chargé de Mission, Département de la Formation Fabio Rugge Institut des Hautes Etudes de Defense Nationale First Secretary Delegation of Italy to NATO Rebecca Pugh Desk Officer, USA, Canada Diego Ruiz Palmer European External Action Service (EEAS) Head of the Strategic Analysis Capability North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Detlef Puhl Senior Advisor, Strategic Communications Gert Runde North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Director, Defence & Security AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Fritz Rademacher Europe (ASD) Deputy Political Advisor NATO - Allied Command Transformation (ACT) Hatem Sakly Middle East News François Raffenne Associated Press Television Manager for European Defense & Security Affairs EADS Astrium Etienne Samii Information Management Giuseppe Rapese North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Plans and policy Delegation of Italy to NATO Elisabeth Sandfuchs Research Associate Theodore Reinert Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Research assistant NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Robertas Sapronas Director, International Relations Alain Reisenfeld Ministry of Defence, Lithuania Documentaliste Group for Research and Information on Peace Emily Savereux (GRIP) Assistant, Strategy Management NATO - Consultation, Command and Control Kyriakos Revelas Agency (NC3A) Senior Security Policy Analyst European External Action Service (EEAS) Bojan Savic Lecturer, PhD Candidate Leonid Riabikhin University of Kent Executive Secretary Committee of Scientists for Global Security and Donatella Scatamacchia Arms Control Journalist Greennews Lt. Gen. Gian Piero Ristori Military Representative Delegation of Italy to NATO

50 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 Helen Rebecca Schindler Kim Stonge Senior Analyst Producer Rand Europe - Brussels Thomson Reuters

Christian Schleippmann Rainer Sulzer Principal Officer Armaments Cooperation Special Advisor to SACEUR for International European Defence Agency (EDA) Affairs NATO - Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Henne Schuwer Europe (SHAPE) Ambassador Embassy of the Netherlands to Belgium Col. Janos Szonyegi Branch Head Gustavo Scotti di Uccio NATO - Allied Command Transformation (ACT) Senior Advisor NATO Finmeccanica Siew Mun Tang Director Syed Moazzam Hussain Shah Institute for Strategic and International Studies Counsellor Embassy of Pakistan to Belgium Nagayo Taniguchi Journalist Jamie Shea Sentaku/SEKAI Deputy Assistant Secretary General North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Irmtraud Taufer Head of Armaments Policy Departement Capt. Matthias Siegemund Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU Military Assistant to the Commander European Air Transport Command (EATC) Bryony Taylor Action Officer Sandra Silfvast North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Research Officer Embassy of Australia to Belgium Laurent Thomet Defence Correspondent Vladimir Silhan Agence France Presse (AFP) Defence Adviser Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic Alex Tiersky to the EU Director, Defence and Security Committee NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Mircea Simion Diplomatic Counsellor Brooks Tigner Embassy of Romania to Belgium EU/NATO Affairs Correspondent Jane’s Defence Weekly Paulina Sokolowska Assistant Maj. Gen. Klaus-Peter Treche Central Europe Energy Partners (CEEP) General Manager AFCEA Europe Mariusz Solis First Counsellor and Head of Political Section Maj. Gen. Vitalijus Vaiksnoras Delegation of Poland to NATO Military Representative to NATO Delegation of Lithuania to NATO Timothy Stokes Regional Affairs specialist Leendert Van Bochoven Embassy of the United States of America NATO and European Defence Leader to Belgium IBM

Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011 I 51 Luc van de Winckel Peiran Wang Senior Manager, Business Development Visiting Scholar Lockheed Martin Global, Inc Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

Maj. Timon van Dishoeck Yiwei Wang Aide-de-Camp to the Minister of Defence Executive Dean of Institute of International and Ministry of Defence, The Netherlands Public Affairs Director of China-EU Research and Academic Network (CERAN) Ann Van Hooydonck Tongji University Senior Manager International Communications Lockheed Martin Global, Inc Tsuneo Watanabe Director of Foreign and Security Policy Research, Yaroslav Vasilyev Senior Fellow First Secretary The Tokio Foundation Embassy of Belarus to Belgium Gregory Wells Jakob Veits Research Assistant Assistant Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) Mission of Austria to NATO Olaf Wientzek Paolo Venturoni Research Associate Vice President European and NATO Affairs Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Finmeccanica SpA James Wyllie Hans Verheggen Director of Strategic Studies, Reader in Director International Relations PwC University of Aberdeen

Michael von Gizycki Suk-joon Yoon Secretary General Adjunct Professor AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security Europe (ASD) (IFANS)

Jelena Von Helldorff Dick Zandee Vice President Former EDA Director of Policy & Planning Institute for International Assistance and Solidarity (IFIAS) Maj. Gen. Pan Zhenqiang Senior Advisor Wolf-Heinrich von Leipzig China Reform Forum Foreign News and Defence Editor Das Luxemburger Wort

Kostyantyn Voytovsky Counsellor Mission of Ukraine to NATO

Anna Vvedenskaia Correspondent Voice of America News

Veronika Wand-Danielsson Ambassador Mission of Sweden to NATO

52 I Shaping NATO’s reform agenda I June 29, 2011