Nato starts soul-searching process
Nato on Tuesday (7 July) launched a public consultation process aimed at clarifying the alliance's role in fighting the new range of threats that have emerged in recent years.
The current strategic concept dating back to 1999 "clearly belongs to the last century," although the ground principle of collective defence still remains valid, outgoing Nato secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in his opening remarks.
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
Among his 400-strong audience was former US secretary general Madeleine Albright, the UN's anti-nuclear chief, Mohammed El Baradei, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, due to take over Mr Scheffer's post on 1 August.
Apart from globalised terrorism networks, other new threats have emerged, such as cyber attacks, energy disruptions, pirates attacks on UN and commercial cargoes, as well as the race for resources and strategic influence in the Arctic.
However, he warned against transforming Nato into a "second United Nations" trying to tackle too many problems on too many fronts. "The question is not what Nato can do, but what Nato should do," Mr Scheffer said. "Let's not eat more than we can swallow."
The new concept would also have to emphasize the EU-Nato relationship more, Mr Scheffer said, conceding his "disappointment" that a "true strategic partnership between the two side had still not come about.
The main sticking point in EU-Nato relations is a dispute over the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, an EU member state. Only Ankara, a Nato member, recognises the northern part of the island as an independent entity. The long-running dispute has seen institutional cooperation between Nato and the EU put on hold.
Surviving the Cold War
Set up 60 years ago to protect Western Europe from a potential Soviet invasion, Nato's 'raison d'etre' changed considerably after the break-up of the USSR and the re-integration of Eastern Europe into the transatlantic community.
Ms Albright, 72 years old and one of the architects of the first strategic concept, said that Nato was still "in the process of adjusting" after the fall of the Soviet Union.
"The Cold War was bitter, but also fairly stable – with relations kept in place by an Iron Curtain and a concrete wall," the former US secretary of state said. "Today, political dynamics are more fluid – and so are the dangers. Serious threats emanate from viral ideologies, failed states, irresponsible leaders, dangerous technologies, and environmental neglect."
Younger experts pointed out that young people do not know or care about Nato, and that its new concept should be simple enough to be put on a "bumper sticker" and involve social networks such as Facebook where people are asked what security means to them.
Elder academics scoffed that "the only way to get attention is to have a disagreement" and that being considered "boring" was a sign the institution was on the right track.
Russia as threat and partner
Relations with Russia featured strongly in the debate.
Ms Albright strongly rejected the Russian-floated theory that the West "took advantage" of its weakness following the break-up of the USSR and enlarged Nato.
"I don't buy this theory, that we didn't respect Russia. We spent a lot of time trying to respect Russia, believe me," the former US diplomat said.
Yet to Moscow, Nato membership of its close neighbours and former Soviet republics was "a red line" the West should not have crossed, Moscow-based Dmitri Trenin from the international think-tank Carnegie said.
In his view, Nato newcomers whose capitals were "east from Berlin" saw their membership as being "only about Russia."
Former Czech minister for EU affairs Alexander Vondra also echoed these concerns, noting that the alliance has no defence planning for its new members. He cautioned against "a total revolution" within Nato that would scrap the old principle of defending any member state against foreign aggression in exchange for broader concepts.
Mr Scheffer said the new strategic concept should reassure new members that the alliance takes the traditional defence commitment seriously.
"NATO cannot function in the long run with two types of membership: those who feel secure and willing to transform and those who feel less secure and are less willing," he said.
Daniel Korski from the European council on foreign relations, a London-based think tank, saw three categories of Nato members – a group fretting about Russia's aggressive behaviour; a second wanting to change the set-up to include "expeditionary" forces, quickly deployable in remote countries and a third group that "wants to do as little as possible.
"They want to fight neither Russia nor the Taliban," Mr Korski said.
The next step in drafting the strategic concept will take place in August under Mr Rasmussen. A drafting panel will be set up with experts put forward from each member state.
The new concept is to be adopted by Nato leaders at a summit scheduled to take place in Lisbon at the end of 2010 or early 2011.