NATO needs a new strategy. We, five former defense chiefs of staff, recently published a booklet containing proposals for such a new strategy, as well as a comprehensive agenda for change.
Why is a new strategy needed? NATO's "Strategic Concept" was adopted in 1999, but since then the world has changed dramatically. At that time, NATO was a regional alliance that concentrated on the reactive defense of the Treaty Area.
But reaction is no longer sufficient; today's most urgent task is prevention of crises, armed conflict and war, which may require that the primary response be other than by military means.
Moreover, NATO agreed at its conference in Prague in 2002 that it would act "where necessary," thus abandoning the restriction of acting in defense of the Treaty Area alone. Finally, while the lessons learned since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, suggest that none of today's conflicts can be mastered by military means alone, NATO's means are solely military. Thus, any effective future strategy for NATO must include the development and application of other means.
Rather than adopting the regional focus of the current NATO Strategic Concept or the European Strategic Study, the strategy that we propose is global in its outlook. It seeks to prevent conflicts by eliminating the reasons for conflict. Obviously, this needs to be done by applying primarily non-military means in a proactive -- not a reactive -- way.
The strategy applies escalation and de-escalation of power in a flexible manner and avails itself of all instruments of politics and power -- soft and hard. However, it stresses that the use of military force has to remain the ultimate resort which does not necessarily mean the last.
By its nature, our proposed strategy is defensive. It seeks to protect the NATO countries. Nobody who will read the paper (www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/documents/3eproefGrandStrat(b).pdf) can misunderstand this. It uses a modular approach to alliances by integrating the capabilities of different international organizations as well as countries that are not members of NATO or any alliance. Furthermore, it requires a sustained commitment until the predetermined objective is achieved, an objective that neither aims at conquest nor seeks to impose NATO's preferred political order on an adversary.
The concept is generic, but could be used best by a truly transformed NATO. Given that military means no longer suffice, we emphasize the great importance of improved cooperation between NATO, the UN and the EU. NATO must find ways to avail itself of the instruments and resources that other international organizations have at their disposal. To this end, cooperation between NATO and the EU in particular must be improved. The UN will also continue to play an important role, since it is the only body that can legalize interventions -- be they military or non-military -- in all cases that are not just self-defense.
The key issue is to convince governments of NATO member states -- especially the Europeans -- to improve their awareness of the current and future challenges and to strengthen their political resolve to implement some of the recommendations. We do not have any illusions or high expectations, but a NATO that continues to expand without having the capabilities to meet the obligations to defend an enlarged treaty area runs the risk of becoming a hollow alliance.
In particular, NATO is facing a real challenge in Afghanistan, where self-imposed restrictions deprive NATO of the possibility of success. More generally, the gap between the missions NATO is asked to take on and the means it has to face these challenges is growing day by day.
We do not want to be prescriptive, but we consider it our duty to speak up and call for change, because we are firmly convinced that there is no better answer to the challenges of our times than a vibrant and strong transatlantic alliance. It is our sincere hope that NATO's political leaders will note that there is an urgent need to act to provide NATO with a new strategic concept. NATO's leaders are, we are certain, aware of their first and foremost obligation: To do all they can to protect their nations' citizens in the best possible way.
General Henk van den Breemen is a former chief of the defense staff, the Netherlands; Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge was Britain's chief of staff from 1992 to 1994; Admiral Jacques Lanxade is a former chief of staff of the French Navy; Klaus Naumann is a former chief of staff, Federal Republic of Germany; John Shalikashvili is a former US chief of staff and NATO supreme commander.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS