DOCSLIB.ORG

The EU's Strategic Compass for Security and Defence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The EU's Strategic Compass for Security and Defence The EU’s Strategic Compass for security and defence Squaring ambition with reality Dick Zandee Clingendael Report Adája Stoetman Bob Deen The EU’s Strategic Compass for security and defence Squaring ambition with reality Dick Zandee Adája Stoetman Bob Deen Clingendael Report May 2021 Disclaimer: The research for and production of this report has been conducted within the PROGRESS research framework agreement. Responsibility for the contents and for the opinions expressed, rests solely with the authors and does not constitute, nor should be construed as, an endorsement by the Netherlands Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence. May 2021 © Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’. Cover photo: EU Strategic Compass © The Clingendael Institute Unauthorized use of any materials violates copyright, trademark and / or other laws. Should a user download material from the website or any other source related to the Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, or the Clingendael Institute, for personal or non-commercial use, the user must retain all copyright, trademark or other similar notices contained in the original material or on any copies of this material. Material on the website of the Clingendael Institute may be reproduced or publicly displayed, distributed or used for any public and non-commercial purposes, but only by mentioning the Clingendael Institute as its source. Permission is required to use the logo of the Clingendael Institute. This can be obtained by contacting the Communication desk of the Clingendael Institute ([email protected]). The following web link activities are prohibited by the Clingendael Institute and may present trademark and copyright infringement issues: links that involve unauthorized use of our logo, framing, inline links, or metatags, as well as hyperlinks or a form of link disguising the URL. About the authors Dick Zandee is Head of the Security Unit at the Clingendael Institute. His research focuses on European security and defence issues, EU-NATO, military forces and capability development, defence industry and other security topics. Adája Stoetman is Junior Researcher at the Security Unit of the Clingendael Institute. Her work revolves both around security and defence as well as strategic foresight. Her area of expertise is international security, with a specific interest in Latin America and the Dutch Caribbean. Bob Deen is coordinator of the Clingendael Russia and Eastern Europe Centre (CREEC) and Senior Research Fellow in the Security Unit of the Clingendael Institute. His research centres on international security issues and multilateral cooperation, with a particular focus on Eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Clingendael Institute P.O. Box 93080 2509 AB The Hague The Netherlands Follow us on social media @clingendaelorg The Clingendael Institute The Clingendael Institute clingendael_institute Clingendael Institute Email: [email protected] Website: www.clingendael.org Contents Executive Summary 1 List of Acronyms 7 1 Introduction 9 2 The need for a Strategic Compass 11 3 What the EU should be able to do 16 4 What is needed to get there 29 5 How to better cooperate with NATO 45 6 Recommendations 52 Annex 1 Written contribution by Vice-Adm. (Ret.) Ben Bekkering 54 Annex 2 Written contribution by Michael Simm 60 Annex 3 Written contribution by Dr. (Hab) Renaud Bellais 66 Executive Summary The European Union (EU) is developing a Strategic Compass for security and defence, to be ready by March 2022. The first semester of 2021 is the phase of the ‘strategic dialogue’ with the member states and institutions of the EU, including the involvement of think tanks and other stakeholders. Commissioned by the Ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Clingendael Institute delivers its contribution to the strategic dialogue on the Strategic Compass by focussing on defining more precisely the military level of ambition of the EU and what it implies for capability development and the relationship with NATO. The EU faces a wider set of challenges and threats than ever before. In the global power rivalry between China, Russia and the United States, it is ‘Europe’ that runs the danger of becoming irrelevant and the object of great power actions rather than being a global actor. The arc of instability around Europe is unlikely to turn into an arc of stability. The challenges posed by state and non-state actors – the latter in particular in the southern neighbourhood – require the EU to respond to external conflicts and crises, to support partners to provide security for their own population and to protect the Union and its citizens – the three strategic priorities for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) as defined five years ago in the Implementation Plan on Security and Defence. While the EU has made progress in many areas – trade policies, partnerships, civilian crisis management – its military tools have remained weak as a result of a lack of political will and the absence of adequate military means. The Strategic Compass offers the opportunity to close the gap between ‘too much rhetoric’ and ‘too little action’ that have characterised the EU’s security and defence efforts so far. In recent years, new instruments have been created to improve European defence cooperation – such as the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) – but these are what they are: without strategic direction instruments tend to become bureaucratic tools rather than the rails on which the train travels to its destination. In the Strategic Compass the EU has to define more precisely its military level of ambition and what it implies for capability development and partnerships. In short, the report tries to answer two questions: (1) what should the EU be able to do, and (2) what is needed to get there? The relationship with NATO has to be taken into account in answering these key questions. 1 The EU’s Strategic Compass for security and defence | Clingendael Report, May 2021 What should the EU be able to do? Parallel to the EU’s Strategic Compass, the Alliance is developing its new Strategic Concept. It offers a unique opportunity to ensure complementarity and to end the useless discussion on ‘either the EU or NATO’ – mainly fuelled by political agendas instead of practical arguments. Both organisations are much needed and, thus, the question is how the EU-NATO strategic partnership should be further developed. As the member states deliver the military capabilities, there is only one conclusion to be made: capability development in the EU also serves NATO as 21 European countries are members of both organisations. The US will continue to demand that Europe takes more responsibility for its own security and delivers a larger part of the NATO burden. Thus, the Strategic Compass should state what Europe is able and willing to do, while at the same time indicating that, in terms of military capabilities, this will contribute to a fairer NATO burden-sharing with the US. For the EU’s military level of ambition, the reality of available capabilities has to be factored in. Serious shortfalls continue to exist and limit the scope of the EU’s level of ambition with regard to the spectrum of operations – with shortcomings at the high end – as well as with regard to sustained deployment and geographical reach due to personnel and equipment shortages. Therefore, ambition has to be squared with realism. As capability development takes considerable time, the EU should make a distinction between the military level of ambition in the short term, from now to 2030, and the long term, that is beyond that year. Short term The Helsinki Headline Goal is outdated and is not related to the new 360-degree threat environment that the EU is facing in the 2020s and beyond. The broad range of crisis management operations as defined in the Implementation Plan for Security and Defence of 2016 is still valid as the basis for ‘what the EU should be able to do’ in the near term. Military operations for strengthening resilience have to be included for ensuring stable access to the global commons, including the protection of sea lanes of communication (SLOC), air reconnaissance and space. The EU should not establish a new quantitative Headline Goal as military operations will require tailor-made force packages. Instead, Strategic Operational Cases (SOCs) could be developed, describing the most likely geographical environment, the characteristics of the opponent and its way of operating and what EU forces or actions would be needed in response. The EU Battlegroups, but also new force packages, such as the proposed EU initial entry capability of around 5,000 military with all necessary enablers, have to be incorporated in these SOCs. For external operations the geographical focus should be on the southern neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean, with the possibility of demonstrating a 2 The EU’s Strategic Compass for security and defence | Clingendael Report, May 2021 maritime presence in the Pacific. Although there can be no formal division of labour, the comparative advantage of the EU – the ability to use the whole civilian and military toolbox – argues for the Union as the primary responsible organisation in crisis management, in particular in the southern neighbourhood, while NATO remains responsible for collective defence. Resilience has both an internal as well as an external dimension. Hence, the EU military level of ambition can no longer be limited to external operations that contribute to the resilience of neighbouring and partner countries. In contrast, the EU needs to actively engage in enhancing resilience among its member states. The Strategic Compass should define what the EU and its member states mean by resilience and its various elements. Article 42.7 (mutual defence clause) could be activated by an EU member state in case of armed attack, be it most likely consisting of cyberattacks or of other hybrid intrusion in member states’ domestic situation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'European Defence Matters' Magazine
    2019 I ISSUE #17 EUROPEAN DEFENCE MATTERS years supporting 15 European defence CONTENTS LOOKING BACK AT 15 YEARS > Foreword by Federica Mogherini – Head of the Agency 3 > The Birth of an Agency – How it all began 4 > Flashback by Javier Solana – The first Head of the Agency looks back and ahead 6 > Cooperation pioneers, innovators, facilitators – Joint interview with EDA’s former & current Chief Executives 8 MEMBER STATES’ VIEW > Why EDA is the right intergovernmental platform for joint capability prioritisation, planning & development – by Finnish Defence Minister Antti Kaikkonen 14 EDA’S KEY ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PAST 15 YEARS > Main architect of EU defence capability priorities 17 > Manager of European Defence Research 20 04 © European Council > The European hub for multinational capability development 23 > The military voice and interface for EU policies 26 > Europe’s training pitch for enhanced interoperability 29 > Guardian of coherence among EU defence cooperation tools 32 INDUSTRY TALK > MBDA’s new CEO Eric Béranger shares his views and analyses 35 NATO VIEW > By former NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy & Planning, Heinrich Brauss 38 PARTNER MESSAGES > Close partners, strong cooperation – Anniversary reflections by some of EDA’s main partners 40 08 OUTLOOK > Quo Vadis, EDA? – An outlook by Dick Zandee 44 Editor-in-Chief CONTACTS Helmut Brüls Elisabeth Schoeffmann Design Head of Media & Communication Simon Smith Associates Helmut Brüls Printing Media & Communication Officer Drukkerij Hendrix NV European Defence Agency Kiezel Kleine-Brogel 55, B-3990 Peer Rue des Drapiers 17-23 Belgium B-1050 Brussels This document is published by EDA in www.eda.europa.eu the interests of exchange of information Contact: [email protected] Front cover image; ©.
    [Show full text]
  • European Defence and PESCO: Don't Waste the Chance
    EU Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability Policy Papers No. 1 5 May 2020 European Defence and PESCO: Don’t Waste the Chance Sven Biscop This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 822622 European Defence and PESCO: Don’t Waste the Chance Sven Biscop Abstract Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is a major initiative in diffe- rentiated integration within the EU in the field of defence. This paper as- sesses whether the legal framework (the 20 binding commitments), and the way the 25 participating member states have organised to imple- ment it, are sufficient to achieve the purpose of PESCO. Moreover, it asks the question whether there is a clear sense of purpose at all. Analysing the ongoing debates between the member states about the future of the Common Security and Defence Policy as a whole, the paper then pro- poses recommendations to make PESCO work: by focusing on a more concrete objective, by prioritising strategically relevant projects and by enhancing compliance. Sven Biscop, an honorary fellow of the European Security and Defence College (ESDC), is a professor at Ghent University, and the director of the Europe in the World programme at the Egmont – Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels. The author warmly acknowledges the many officers, diplomats and officials, from various EU member states and EU institutions, with whom he is in permanent informal contact in Brussels; without this ongoing dialogue, this paper could not have been written. Thanks are also due to his partners in the EU IDEA pro- ject – Juha Jokela, Alessandro Marrone and Ester Sabatino – and to his colleague at Egmont, Brigadier-General (Ret.) Jo Coelmont.
    [Show full text]
  • Ituri:Stakes, Actors, Dynamics
    ITURI STAKES, ACTORS, DYNAMICS FEWER/AIP/APFO/CSVR would like to stress that this report is based on the situation observed and information collected between March and August 2003, mainly in Ituri and Kinshasa. The 'current' situation therefore refers to the circumstances that prevailed as of August 2003, when the mission last visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the Swedish International Development Agency. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Swedish Government and its agencies. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the Department for Development Policy, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Finnish Government and its agencies. Copyright 2003 © Africa Initiative Program (AIP) Africa Peace Forum (APFO) Centre for Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER) The views expressed by participants in the workshop are not necessarily those held by the workshop organisers and can in no way be take to reflect the views of AIP, APFO, CSVR and FEWER as organisations. 2 List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EN Council Conclusions on EU Relations with EFTA Countries
    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EN Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries 3060th GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 14 December 2010 The Council adopted the following conclusions: "1. The Council has assessed the development of relations between the EU and the four Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) since the adoption of its last conclusions on the subject in December 2008. Generally, EU relations with the EFTA countries, which were already considered to be very good and close in 2008, have further intensified in the past two years (details on developments are set out below in country- specific paragraphs). The Council is looking forward to continue the positive relationship with the EFTA countries and to deepen it in the future. It will reassess the state of relations between the EU and the EFTA countries in two years. 2. The Council appreciates the financial contributions of the EFTA countries to the economic and social cohesion in the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland (the "EEA EFTA States") recently committed themselves to a substantial increase of their continued contributions. The EU is looking forward to a constructive dialogue with Switzerland on the review of the current mechanism, expiring in June 2012. The Council hopes that a mutually acceptable solution will be found with the aim of reducing economic and social disparities in the EU. 3. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are integrated in the internal market through the EEA Agreement of 1994. This Agreement functions properly so long as all Contracting Parties incorporate the full body of the relevant EU acquis relating to the internal market into their national law.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process
    STUDY Requested by the SEDE Subcommittee EU Defence: The White Book implementation process Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.871 - December 2018 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY EU Defence: The White Book implementation process ABSTRACT The question of a defence White Book at European level has been under discussion for some time. Many voices, particularly in the European Parliament, are pushing for such an initiative, while others consider that it is not only unnecessary, but could even dangerously divide Europeans. Concretely, the question cannot be tackled separately from that of defence planning and processes which underpin the development of military capabilities, as White Books are often the starting point for these. Within the European Union, however, there is not just one, but three types defence planning: the national planning of each of the Member States; planning within the framework of NATO (the NATO Defence Planning Process) and, finally, the European Union’s planning, which has developed in stages since the Helsinki summit of 1999 and comprises many elements. Its best-known component - but by no means not the only one - is the capability development plan established by the European Defence Agency. How do all these different planning systems coexist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Answering these preliminary questions is essential in mapping the path to a White Book. This is what this study sets out to do. EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/23 EN December 2018 - PE 603.871 © European Union, 2018 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 7 July 2018 Manuscript was completed on 12 December 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Mobility
    AT A GLANCE Military mobility Military logistics was defined by Baron Henri de Jomini as 'the practical art of moving armies'. In the event of an unpredictable crisis at any border of the European Union (EU), military personnel and equipment must be able to move rapidly across the territory. Currently, training and the movement of military assets across the continent is severely hampered by the lack of appropriate infrastructure and cumbersome customs procedures. This strategic weakness in European defence cooperation is being addressed by means of action on military mobility: an action plan by the European Commission, a project and commitment under permanent structured cooperation, and a key action for EU-NATO cooperation. Military mobility is meant to ensure the seamless movement of military equipment across the EU by reducing physical, legal and regulatory obstacles. Background The debate surrounding the EU as a global player has gathered new political momentum since the release of the EU Global Strategy (EUGS) in 2016. Seeing the world as being more connected, contested and complex, the EUGS 'starts at home'. In 2016 and 2017, given the increasingly unpredictable threat environment, EU Member States took major steps to cooperate more on defence issues. Such steps include formally activating the permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) mechanism with 25 participating Member States, establishing the European Defence Fund, creating a Coordinated annual review on defence and setting up an EU command for non-executive military common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions, the Military Planning and Conduct Capability. EU-NATO cooperation has also been formalised in 2016 and 2018 through two joint declarations.
    [Show full text]
  • Preisträgerinnen | Preisträger 2014 Preisträgerinnen Und Preisträger Des 12
    Preisträgerinnen | Preisträger 2014 Preisträgerinnen und Preisträger des 12. Kunstwettbewerbs der Bundeswehr 2014 Seit 1997 wird der Kunstwettbewerb der Bundeswehr vom Streitkräfteamt ausgeschrieben. Organisiert wird der Wettbewerb im Wechsel von der Evangelischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Soldatenbetreuung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. (EAS) und der Katholischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Soldatenbetreuung e.V. (KAS). Schirmherrschaft Amtschef Streitkräfteamt Veranstalter Streitkräfteamt (SKA), Dezernat Betreuung und Fürsorge Pascalstraße 10s 53125 Bonn E-Mail: [email protected] Organisation des 12. Kunstwettbewerbs der Bundeswehr 2014 Katholische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Soldatenbetreuung e.V. Justus-von-Liebig-Str. 31 53121 Bonn Telefon: 0228 98862-0 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.kas-soldatenbetreuung.de Organisation des 13. Kunstwettbewerbs der Bundeswehr 2016 Evangelische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Soldatenbetreuung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e.V. Auguststraße 80 10117 Berlin Telefon: 030 28395-310 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.eas-berlin.de Projektleitung PrueferPR, Hildesheim E-Mail: [email protected] Webseite www.kunstbw.de – Die EAS / KAS Plattform für Kunst und Kultur in der Bundeswehr © November 2014, Katholische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Soldatenbetreuung e.V., Bonn Alle Rechte vorbehalten Gestaltung | Satz PrueferPR, Hildesheim Titelbild | Plakat Artvertisement, Reiferscheid Fotografie der Werke Streitkräfteamt, Bonn Grußworte Generalmajor Werner Weisenburger, Amtschef Streitkräfteamt Marcus Grübel
    [Show full text]
  • Armed Forces As an Element of National Power, and Compulsory Military Service
    Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Volume: 3 – Issue: 4 – October - 2013 Armed Forces as an Element of National Power, and Compulsory Military Service Suat Begeç, Turkey Abstract Whether military service should be done as a national duty or left to the professionals has been discussed for a long time both in Turkey and across the world. In order to answer this question and make relevant suggestions, this paper begins with the recruitment system in the Turkish Armed Forces during the history. Subsequently, armed forces of neighbor countries, their communication strategies and of those politically linked with Turkey as well as the world armies carrying weight for the scope of this study are all analyzed. Thirdly, current military service and its flawed aspects are explained. Finally come suggestions on how the military service should be. Keywords: Armed forces, compulsory military service, national army, recruitment © Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 179 Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies Volume: 3 – Issue: 4 – October - 2013 Introduction Neither numbers nor technology wins in a war… The winner is always the heart. There is no might that can stand against a unit banded together. Soldiers believe that if they lose their life in a war, they will die a martyr and be worthy of heaven; and that if they survive they will be a veteran and leave unforgettable memories to his children. This belief renders them fearless. This bestows on their commanders a power that few leaders have. Power is the ability to influence people and events. Power is the ability that leaders and managers gain and enjoy through their personalities, activities and situations within the organizational structure [Newstrom & Davis, 2002:272].
    [Show full text]
  • HQ Eurocorps
    26th Feb. 2015 Brussels Subcommittee on Security and Defence Lieutenant-general BUCHSENSCHMIDT Commander Eurocorps EUROCORPS, a tool for the European Union, NATO and UN Use it or lose it ! 1 EUROCORPS is an Army Corps Headquarters: Similar to its sister HRF HQs but also Unique in its kind Has reached a turning point in its existence. 2 CENTRAL LOCATION WITHIN HRF COMMUNITY 3 RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE OPERATIONAL NRF 7 NRF 15 A UNIQUE STATUS 1992, La Rochelle : a political will Directly subordinated to CHODs and POL DIR 2009, Treaty of Strasbourg : Financial and legal autonomy A UNIQUE SUBORDINATION Common Committee (CoCo) Auditing Air Committee Eurocorps Committee Committee (AUDITCOM) (ECC) (ACEC) Naval Budget & Coordination Financial Info Info Board Committee (NCB) (BFC) ANs ANs Security Info Committee ANs Expert Groups (ECSC) HQ EC ECSAB Resources Board EC HQ Board A UNIQUE GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION European Parliament A European capital Council of Europe European Court of Human Rights Strasbourg Higher education center National School of Administration (ENA) University of Strasbourg Institute of Political Studies (IEP) Council of Europe 8 Force structure Total Eurocorps: Permanent XXX +/- 1100 HQ 400 X MN 700 MNCS MN II I I HQSPT Signal CIS MN DEU MN X DEU/FRA FGB Other TCN 5 000 Privileged Force generated Capabilities 9 A UNIQUE MULTINATIONAL STRUCTURE 5 6 Framework Nations Germany Belgium France Luxembourg Spain • Mastered multinationality • Responsibility and burden sharing • Lower cost for each nation 3 Associated Nations AN ENHANCED MULTINATIONALITY
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting Principles
    COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY EU BATTLEGROUPS Updated: January 2011 Battllegroups/07 Full operational capability in 2007 The European Union is a global actor, ready to undertake its share of responsibility for global security. With the introduction of the battlegroup concept, the Union formed a (further) military instrument at its disposal for early and rapid responses, when necessary. On 1 January 2007 the EU battlegroup concept reached full operational capability. Since that date, the EU is able to undertake, if so decided by the Council, two concurrent single-battlegroup-sized (about 1 500-strong) rapid response operations, including the ability to launch both operations nearly simultaneously. At the 1999 Helsinki European Council meeting, rapid response was identified as an important aspect of crisis management. As a result, the Helsinki Headline Goal 2003 assigned to member states the objective of being able to provide rapid response elements available and deployable at very high levels of readiness. Subsequently, an EU military rapid response concept was developed. In June 2003 the first autonomous EU-led military operation, Operation Artemis, was launched. It showed very successfully the EU's ability to operate with a rather small force at a significant distance from Brussels, in this case more than 6 000 km. Moreover, it also demonstrated the need for further development of rapid response capabilities. Subsequently, Operation Artemis became a reference model for the development of a battlegroup-sized rapid response capability. In 2004 the Headline Goal 2010 aimed for completion of the development of rapidly deployable battlegroups, including the identification of appropriate strategic lift, sustainability and disembarkation assets, by 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union Challenge As an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management
    AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL en Español 4th Trimester 2018 The European Union Challenge as an Actor in Crisis and Conflict Management MAJOR MANUEL LOPEZ-LAGO, SPANISH AIR FORCE fter an apparently easy victory in the Afghan war by American troops in October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) had reached a crossroad by the time Obama en- tered office. In his campaign for the presidency during 2008, he had claimed that Ame- rican Armed Forces were losing the war in Afghanistan. Regretfully, the International ASecurity Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) mission, led by NATO, had failed to fulfill the political goal of stabilizing the country, “the graveyard of the empires,” and the European Union (EU) itself did not actively fight. To make things worse, NATO troops had to work within a lot of caveats, which kept them from implementing many military operations. Consequently, nations less burdened with caveats like theUnited States, the United Kingdom and Australia, had to take most of the burden of the military operations. On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama announced in a national televised address at the Military Academy in West Point that he was ordering a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. Despite Obama’s decision, the process to approve the surge required a great deal of “pulling and hauling” by the major actors who had access to and influence on the president.1 Consequently, the plan for the surge included a date of withdrawal, which gave a clear message to military com- manders that the time to achieve political ends had a deadline.
    [Show full text]
  • Atti Rss 2010
    PREMESSA AGLI ATTI DELLO OTTAVO REGIONAL SEAPOWER SYMPOSIUM DI VENEZIA del Capo di Stato Maggiore della Marina Il Capo di Stato Maggiore della Marina Il Regional Seapower Symposium (RSS) di Venezia è l’evento che da ormai quattordici anni rappresenta uno dei principali strumenti utilizzati dalla Marina Militare per contribuire allo sviluppo della partnership internazionale e contribuire alla sicurezza marittima globale. Se è vero che il numero ed il livello dei partecipanti costituiscono un’indicazione attendibile dell’importanza di un evento, l’ottava edizione del RSS - che ha visto rappresentanti di 44 Marine che operano nel Mediterraneo Allargato e 20 Organizzazioni Internazionali e realtà militari e civili incontrarsi nella cornice lagunare – può senza dubbio essere definita un successo. Partendo dalla convinzione che il Dialogo e la Cooperazione conferiscano alla Maritime Security un valore aggiunto, rappresentandone un vero e proprio fattore abilitante, i lavori delle sessioni hanno analizzato, da differenti prospettive, il contributo di questo fondamentale binomio a concetti di grande attualità nello scenario marittimo internazionale: la Maritime Situational Awareness, le Maritime Security Operations e la Maritime Capacity Building. L’efficace combinazione di tali concetti consente di conseguire la Maritime Security in senso lato, fattore – quest’ultimo - che sta influenzando e condizionando l’organizzazione operativa delle Marine di tutto il mondo. Le discussioni, gli interventi e gli eventi collaterali di questo Simposio hanno evidenziato l’importanza di una partnership forte ed attiva - sul versante internazionale come su quello nazionale - per un’efficace risposta e contrasto alle sfide che l’attuale ambiente marittimo in continua evoluzione ci pone: la pirateria, il terrorismo e tutte le altre attività illecite che trovano in mare il proprio spazio di manovra rappresentano gli esempi più attuali.
    [Show full text]