The 2021 NATO Summit for Better Or Worse?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JUNE 2021 The 2021 NATO Summit Alert Clingendael For better or worse? Dick Zandee © Shutterstock NATO officials must have opened bottles too risky. The NATO Summit on 14 June of champagne when Joe Biden’s election 2021 will launch this work. What can be as the next President of the United States expected? No doubt, there will be friendly was announced in December last year. handshaking, smiling faces and positive A painful period of four years, in which statements on 14 June to underline that the White House undermined, instead of ‘NATO is back in business’. But the day after strengthened the Alliance, came to an end. the Summit, the cumbersome and painful NATO would return to sailing in calmer process will start to turn political-diplomatic waters. Better conditions for discussing expressions of goodwill into a new NATO the adaptation of the Alliance were to be strategy. As usual, this will prove to be more expected. As long as Donald Trump was difficult, in particular as diverging interests in the White House, an update to the 2010 and opposing views of the Allies will come NATO Strategic Concept was deemed to the fore. Clingendael Alert A more political NATO? liberty and the rule of law”. However, the implementation lies elsewhere, such as in When NATO Secretary General Jens the United Nations, the European Union Stoltenberg appointed an independent group and the Council of Europe. Article 2 refers of experts to advise him on ‘NATO 2030’, one to strengthening economic cooperation of his questions was ‘how to strengthen the between the Allies and in their international Alliance’s political role?’. Since the Russian economic policies, in order to strengthen annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Moscow’s stability and wellbeing. Global organisations, interference in Eastern Ukraine the Alliance such as the World Trade Organisation, the has focused on modernising its armed International Monetary Fund, as well as forces. A great deal remains to be done regional institutions have been created to but new security challenges have arisen in deal with those issues. The EU may still be the meantime. The Alliance’s nuclear and weak as a security and defence actor, but conventional forces are needed to deter is nevertheless a powerful global player military threats to the territorial integrity of in terms of finance and trade. The toolbox its member states, but Russia and China are for responding to the wider set of security trying to weaken Western cohesion from the challenges itself has expanded and many inside by other means. Russia continues to instruments belong to other actors. The modernise its own forces, but is refraining recent case of Belarus may serve as an from direct military confrontation. Instead, example. Except for issuing a statement Moscow is conducting hybrid operations condemning the forced diversion to Minsk by using the internet and social media of the Ryanair flight from Athens to Vilnius to destabilise Western democracies, by in order to arrest Raman Pratasevich, there encouraging disagreement among NATO was no NATO action. The focus was on the Allies, and, last but not least, by conducting EU and its decision to sanction Belarus. cyberattacks on public and private When it comes to diminishing dependencies infrastructure. Meanwhile, China is extending on Chinese digital technology, rare earth its geopolitical influence first and foremost minerals or medical supplies – the latter through economic power: buying political clearly shown at the start of the Covid-19 support through its investments, such as pandemic – once more the European Union in the Balkans; and creating dependencies and its member states have to act, not NATO. by exporting raw materials, products and technology. The growing complexity of these There is a risk that enhancing NATO’s threats and challenges is the reason why political role will weaken instead of the Secretary General wants to explore the strengthen the organisation. Differences potential for renewing NATO’s political role. of opinion between the United States and European countries, in particular on the But what can NATO do to counter these relationship with China, may have a negative hybrid threats? Certainly, in the cyber realm impact on the Alliance’s transatlantic the Alliance has to ensure that its own fire cohesion. Equally, it can split countries in walls are kept up to date. NATO can be Europe. Of course, China, Iran or any other better prepared for countering cyberattacks. country or region generating security issues NATO’s strategic communications should for North America and Europe should be unravel disinformation, fake news and discussed in NATO. Article 4 of the Treaty espionage. More proactive use of social specifically offers the opportunity for media should be encouraged, in particular member states to demand consultations on to reach out to the younger generation in any subject related to their security interests. NATO countries. However, when it comes In such consultations Allies even have to to protecting civil society an enhanced consider what the consequences of the role for NATO is less obvious. Yes, the situation at hand could be for the Alliance’s preamble to the NATO Treaty of 1949 three core tasks of collective defence, crisis refers to the member states’ determination management and partnerships – as defined “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage in the 2010 NATO Strategic Concept. But and civilisation of their peoples, founded enhancing NATO’s political role would be on the principles of democracy, individual wrong. The old proverb of “Let the cobbler 2 Clingendael Alert stick to his last” still offers the best guidance and control networks and winning the in order to maintain NATO’s internal cohesion information war. Firepower will be replaced and to reinforce its essential role in ensuring by cyber power. A technology race instead the security of its member states. There is a of an armaments race. All of this is nothing need to discuss China in the NATO Council, new: technology has always been at the but the Alliance should not take a political forefront of military modernisation, from the position on ‘China issues’. rifle to the machine gun, from the cavalry on horseback to driving tanks, and from bullets to missiles. Yes, information-based Adapting the military posture warfare has become even more important as 21st century technology reduces time- If not a ‘political’ NATO, then what should schedules for delivering devastating effect the alliance do? Since the 2014 Wales from days and hours to minutes and Summit the Alliance has embarked on seconds. The cyber realm can be used to adapting its defence and deterrence posture. disrupt the actions of an opponent or to Up until now, rebuilding conventional send a signal that continued aggression will military capabilities – neglected during the lead to escalation. But ultimately, armed two decades of Allied out-of-area crisis forces will have to be able to do exactly management operations – has received that: deter the enemy from deploying most attention: strengthening the NATO its military capabilities and, if ultimately Response Force (NRF) as well as the heavy needed, to destroy the opponent’s key follow-on forces. The Alliance removed assets before your own systems are hit. the dust from the military concepts and It implies that you need both: the ability to doctrines for collective defence, which also disrupt and the capabilities to destroy. became the focus of training and exercise programmes. The recently held Exercise NATO countries have to invest in Emerging Steadfast Defender 2021 is a good example. and Disruptive Technologies – the new This has sent the right message to an buzzword or acronym, EDTs, for what is in assertive Russia and has underlined the essence the perpetuum mobile of military solidarity of the Alliance with the countries modernisation. Military applications of in Eastern Europe that are most exposed to artificial intelligence, unmanned systems the threats from Moscow. There is no room and robotics are unavoidable and for complacency. In particular with regard to investment in these new technologies land forces, most European NATO members – by civil as well as the military actors – is are still lacking the capabilities which are urgently needed. At the same time, two essential. So say the defence planners of other related items should not be forgotten. the Alliance. The Netherlands is prominently First, new technologies increase the on that list. In NATO’s capability reviews risk of uncontrolled escalation in times the country is consistently seen as falling of crisis. At some point in time, artificial short on delivering to Allied land forces for intelligence and unmanned weapons collective defence. They lack the necessary systems without human control pose a new firepower in order to participate in collective and unprecedented danger in this respect. defence operations at the high end of the Thus, it is of the utmost importance that spectrum. Even more shocking, NATO international negotiations are launched on concludes that the Dutch are not planning regimes prohibiting the production and to close the gap. Will The Hague invest use of weapons without human control. in heavy firepower in order to be able to Secondly, NATO countries cannot only rely participate in land warfare at the highest end on EDTs to ensure the territorial integrity of the spectrum? of the Treaty area. Investment in the ‘bang’ will still be needed, naturally taking There is a school of thought that labels into account changing conditions and such a requirement as ‘outdated thinking’. technologies – such as the shift from short Future warfare is about winning the digital to longer distances to deliver firepower and battle, disrupting the opponent’s command shorter decision-cycles. 3 Clingendael Alert NATO’s future The history of the Alliance can be characterised as a rocky road.