One key issue emphasized in this part of the document was nuclear non-proliferation. This is an obvious priority as the largest potential threat to NATO in the past and still today has bee Russia. Given that Russia has almost 7,000 nuclear warheads (comparatively the US has 6,185 nuclear warheads), this is an important issue in the security and stability of the alliance. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-nuclear-weapons
The document also mentioned that Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement making them non-nuclear states. Something to mention here is that after the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine inherited 3,000 nuclear warheads making it the third largest nuclear power. Ukraine agreed to give these nuclear warheads back to Russia for dismantlement as long as Britain, the US and Russia agreed to protect Ukraine. The importance of this agreement, known as the Trilateral Statement was highlighted by the annexation of Crimea in 2013, when many Ukrainians criticized the EU for not retaliating harshly against the Russians for the invasion. https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
@Justin Spusta Great historical analysis. I noted the line " The Alliance continues to support Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity, democratic development, economic prosperity and its status as a non-nuclear weapons state as key factors of stability and security in central and eastern Europe and in Europe as a whole." While NATO did take some action, and it looks like Ukraine is taking steps towards membership, on the whole, it appears as though NATO did not fulfill its promise to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I can understand why Ukrainians were critical of NATO and its members given the promises made.
The references to the Cold War in this document interest me. In one of my classes we read documentation that NATO has served its purpose since the Cold War has ended. I don’t particularly agree with this point, but I know people who do. After reading the earlier documentation on NATO’s shifting focus I find this interesting. This document and the previous one focus on the broad approach of security. Part II Article 12 references the operating environment of NATO. I’m curious to see how this document would be adapted today. This document is almost as old as I am. Part III the Approach to Security in the 21st Century interests me. I would appreciate seeing the updated revisions to include new focus areas in the evolving landscape. I know with recent developments documents like these will include dedicated sections to cyber and counter terrorism.
I agree that it would be interesting to see the updated versions, as these are particularly fast evolving fields of conflict. I think the argument for NATO being obsolete is interesting because its original purpose is completed and the mission is no longer relevant. There seem to be other bodies of peacekeeping that are more universal and sometimes more successful in modernizing. I think the way that NATO adapts in the next few years is important because with China's rise and such a tumultuous US election, they will have to shift a large part of their focus to serve their member states.
Reading today’s document was especially interesting to me. I was able to draw several connections to my specialization. Article 4 states that the alliance must safeguard common security interests in an environment of further, often unpredictable change. This is similar to the goals of many Federal Agencies. The common security interests can be people, places, or things that Federal Agents protect. A bigger example would be the United States’ border. The US Border Patrol has a common interest with the Department of Homeland Security especially considering the border during this current unpredictable time. Another way this document analyzes several key components similar to Federal Law Enforcement is in article 10. Article 10 breaks down security tasks that several agencies practice on a daily basis. Security is a big part of daily operations for Federal Law, situational awareness is built into every aspect and is a priority in anything done. Consultation and deterrence go hand in hand by letting your counterparts or allies know what is threatening to you and deterring any threats being presented to your group. I also took notice of other parts of this document such as crisis Management which is vastly important to not only Federal Law agencies but also organizations such as NATO. Knowing your challenges and risks also is very similar to doing a threat assessment which is a tremendous thing to do before considering your option in any event. This document definitely proved to be just as interesting and vital to both the world stage and Federal Law stage as every other document thus far.
In a lot of ways, defending a nation as large and diverse as the United States and an alliance as large and diverse as NATO run into the same challenges. I noted in my post that NATO had recently taken steps to begin securing the borders of NATO countries, which is similar to the concern of the US Border Patrol. The fact that NATO deals with such a vast array of issues all in the name of security shows the complexity of the threats faced by the modern world. Perhaps NATO also shows that there is a great need for cooperation and communication between different federal agencies. As you said, common security interests are present throughout the federal government.
@Jay I think you bring up a valid point. With the complexity of NATO's challenges and security issues namely NATO taking steps to secure its member's borders, I think that should trigger some increased cooperation within the Federal Government. That would allow NATO to spend its time better serving everyone as a whole alliance. This could also be seen as a task that the US could be required to do as standing up its own defense to resist attacks on its own volition is a task that is consistent for members to do within NATO.
NATO’s perspective on countering terrorism is impressive and effective due to the collaborative ways in which the Alliance interacts with other international organizations and non-member states. NATO consults with the UN, EU, OSCE and the GCTF to enhance their knowledge of worldwide counter terrorism efforts and keep relations strong with those who are non-members. The Alliance continues to show global assurance and support by meeting with foreign leaders, just yesterday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Mohammad Hussein in Brussels to reaffirm NATO and Iraq’s commitment to countering terrorism especially during a pandemic:
The regional Hub for the South is also a great example of their Counter-Terrorism Policy Guidelines. NATO focuses on awareness, capability and engagement, and by creating a Strategic Direction South Hub it opened a framework for their southern region. Stability is NATO’s goal and by having those living in North Africa and the Middle East involved in the Hub, it makes for a broader network of intelligence sharing with sources and experiences.
I was happily surprised to read this section and confirm the steps NATO is taking to modernize and face the most trying issues of this era. NATO's stance on terrorism is clear and it is advantageous for them to have acknowledged the shifting nature of war. Being a body that was founded to combat war in the traditional sense, displaying an urgency to learn as much about the developing threat is commendable. This section mentions several times the importance of a military response force that is capable of deploying as fast as possible and can adaptable to any situation. Advancing their concentrations on these specific aspects of their military shows initiative and strategic development in a contemporary manner.
I found the Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum (linked below) that was published May 2020 and after skimming pieces that were applicable to this discussion I see them solving inconsistencies that were previously concerns of our discussion, specifically a sections on "Defining Terrorism" and "Terrorist Use of Cyberspace & Technology". In the "Defining Terrorism" section the Alliance came to the agreement that "Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence perpetrated by non-state actors targeting ‘non-combatants’ with a goal of achieving psychological impact on an audience beyond the event itself for a political, social, religious, or ideological purpose." Though states are still at odds about how to legally address this definition, it is groundbreaking to have agreed upon this. The "Terrorist Use of Cyberspace & Technology" section addresses the sweeping use of technology by terrorists to amplify their reach and outcomes, and again emphasizes the importance of focused research in this field as to use it as a tool of defense.
Our colleague @Roy Rashke recently shared a post on LinkedIn from the Global Counter-terrorism institute that polled viewers of the post on whether or not there should be a universal definition of terrorism. At least when I responded, most people said there should be a universal definition.
The Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum was an interesting document to skim over, and I agree with you it shows that the alliance is taking note of threats all over the world. There was one brief section on Boko Haram, which is a security threat that I have been reading up on a lot lately, that shows the alliance is cognizant of these threats. I also think it was important that the CTRC stressed coordination with other international organizations, like the UN, EU, and AU. This is essential to NATO becoming a proactive security force with a global reach.
@Jay I have a firm belief that NATO having a unified definition of a terrorist event or terrorism in general would be very useful. This would allow members the ability to seek funding for terrorist defenses specifically. This could also better show the disbursement of funds for each priority. Then in turn as new priorities are found to be a credible threat to NATO, priority focuses can shift based on the Alliance's needs, thus makign it easier to stay current and relevant.
For me, the most interesting part of this week's discussion is to look at how gradually NATO has been adjusting its goals to an increasingly modern world. At the time of the founding, the threat of the USSR was most prevalent. In 1991, terrorism and non-state actors got a larger role, and there was the impending threat of an unstable Yugoslavia. By 1999, NATO had recognized mass migration and biological weapons as a possible threat. In 1999, NATO began talking about how Russia, the successor state to NATO's greatest threat, was a vital security partner, and cooperation with them was vital. Then in 2006, the need for flexible responses to crises around the world is stressed even further, and the idea of asymmetric warfare and cyber warfare make their first appearances. The 2006 Comprehensive Political Guidance is also the first time the word stabilization makes its appearance in the NATO strategic plan, showing an increased understanding of modern security threats. I imagine the factors behind these goals are what eventually motivated NATO to begin cooperation with the African Union in 2005.
While we have had some discussion about how NATO is struggling to adapt to some aspects of the modern world, one cannot say it has not been adaptable to modern threats. And the fact that NATO has begun work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across Africa shows its commitment t and understanding of the modern threats to the union.
I appreciate your address of or previous discussion regarding NATO's adaptability in the modern world. After reading today's portion of the document and the CTRC, I am much more inclined to believe that their response is reasonable and timely. I think I respect the caution in addressing these changing conflicts because it grants time to learn about how the new parties operate and counter that effectively. I look forward to see how they develop against cyber attacks from non-state actors because that is a subject I found much less literature on.
The Comprehensive Political Guidance from 2006 is quite reflective of the post-9/11 world.
Not only is there a greater emphasis on combating terrorism as @Jasmine Wilkens and @Madeline Smith have pointed out, but the sections on upgrading the NATO's capabilities repeatedly stress the need to be prepared for operations "beyond Alliance territory, on its periphery, and at strategic distance." There is also an awareness that these operations might take place with little or no support from the host country.
This is obviously a reaction to the NATO mission in Afghanistan after 9/11 and a realization of the need to be ready for more such scenarios. But this also contributes to the contemporary debate about NATO's purpose.
It was originally intended to promote security in Europe and the North Atlantic, and the terror attacks of the 21st century make it clear that member states can be threatened from beyond this region.
However, Alliance members may not always be able to agree on what constitutes a far-away threat worthy of NATO action. The US's invasion of Afghanistan was supported broadly the Allies, but the 2003 invasion of Iraq enjoyed significantly less support. How effective can NATO be at a strategic distance if non-North Atlantic threats aren't given the same weight by different members?
I thought this article from Politico written in 2019 did a good job of showing how NATO is divided on so many security threats. Some NATO members, such as the United States, warn that China is the new USSR, while others, like Greece and Italy, have begun working closely with China. Some, such as French President Macron say that terrorism should be the enemy of NATO while many eastern European countries are more concerned about a Russian resurgence.
Despite the fact that a strategy was established, it seems there is little consensus within NATO as to what the organization should be. And as you stated above, if half of NATO is cooperating with China and the other half hates them, how can they possibly have a strategy to deal with Chinese influence across the world? An alliance is only powerful if it stands unified, and if NATO cannot agree on ways to combat these key issues, it cannot be an effective organization to deal with contemporary threats to security.
I linked a paper I read for a research project a few years ago that I believe does a good job of breaking down the three considerations weighed when deciding on issues like this. From what I surmised, the first point of assurance that NATO considers for intervention is the severity of the human rights atrocities being committed, how many innocent civilians are being impacted. The next consideration that is taken is if there is UN acknowledgement of the conflict. The third is the economic incentive to involve the Alliance in the particular situation. The paper uses several case studies both you and @Jay Rosato have mentioned including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Syria,and Libya.
Jay,
You identify the focus change over time in relation to primarily Nation-state actors. This is always interesting to watch. I also enjoy watching the issue priority changes over the years. Where were Artificial Intelligence concerns in 2000 or 2010, compared to 2020? Hypersonics is a priority now, but where was it 5 years ago? China & Russia change priorities and how fast should others follow? This is the exciting world of global power dynamics? I, of course, enjoy the economic lens but there are many many optics to view these issues.
It is definitely very interesting to look at the change over time in security strategies. I also enjoyed comparing the 2017 National Security Strategy to the previous versions, especially the 1987 NSS. It is amazing to see these organizations continuously adapt their priorities to new phenomenon and new technologies that weren't even on the radar several years back.
I find the direct references to other international organizations to be interesting. Seeing the UN and the EU referenced in this article interests me. I think any and all cooperation in this context is beneficial. I enjoyed the following quote from the article.
“This environment continues to change; it is and will be complex and global, and subject to unforeseeable developments. International security developments have an increasing impact on the lives of the citizens of Allied and other countries.”
Identifying the threat landscape is important to NATO’s goals of protecting member states and deterring any and all threats. I am glad to see the public documentation heavily addresses this factor. Terrorism is mentioned directly which is not surprising. I do however find it interesting that terrorism is mentioned heavily prior to the events of 9/11/2001. For the second part of this article, I found the interactions of the alliance to be interesting. The fundamental security tasks of NATO being “security, consultation, deterrence and defense, crisis management, and partnership” is aptly aligned with their goals. I am curious to see how these goals relate to the actions of member nations in 2020.
I also noted that the cooperation between NATO and other international organizations and I agree with you that it is beneficial. Especially in an era where threats anywhere in the world can threaten the lives and livelihoods of people in the alliance. In my area of specialty, it is good to see NATO working with the AU, not only because it may help the stability of the continent, but it also shows western commitment to Africa, which is incredibly important as China's footprint in the continent grows.
The Conflict Political Guidance part of the document is interesting to read as it recognizes that the modern threats to NATO security are non-coventional (terrorism, cyber-warfare, economic warfare, etc.). Due to NATO having to deal with threats not immediately on their borders, NATO has expanded its jursidiction from threats to NATO to global threats to security. One can see this in NATO's relief projects in Afghanistan. NATO also takes on a proactive role in security. Understanding that instability in other countries could lead to terrorism in NATO countries, NATO has responded by taking initiative to resolve conflicts in unstable areas.
While NATO does not have to worry about a conventional conflict, non-conventional attacks have been an issue in the past two decades (i.e the September 11 attacks, the 7/7 bombing and the Paris attacks in 2016). As a result, NATO's priority in security is now focusing on domestic threats of terrorism while also tracking trends and patterns in terrorism abroad. The recent refugee crisis has also played a role in NATO security as many fear that the number of refugees in Europe would lead to more crime and more potential terrorist attacks. Turkey's role as a crossroads from the Middle East into Europe has made it a key component of NATO while at the same time going against NATO standards of justice and democracy.
It is abundantly clear from reading this political guidance the threats terrorism causes to NATO. Like several of my colleagues, @Jay Rosato and @Madeline Smith, NATO could benefit from a universal definition of a terrorist attack or terrorism in general. The fact that this guidance mentions the use of Article 5 by the US would be indicative of the need for a definition of Terrorism so that in the event of having to invoke article 5 again in the case of a terrorist event it would be much easier to prove you need help with defense. I can also appreciate that this guidance furthers the base principles of security, consultation, deterrence, crisis management, and partnerships. This is essential for a unified response. As for Article 7, this is very similar to Federal Agencies and their ongoing training. Many Agencies have so many continuing education units that agents need to complete each year to try and keep up with the latest intelligence and education in their fields. Continuing to analyze article 7, I believe that a unified defense that is able to respond quickly to rapidly changing circumstances is the best way to the alliance strong. It shows a commitment to the defense of its members and the willingness to aid anyone of its members at a moment's notice. The threat analysis and risk assessments are something federal agents in charge are familiar with as well due to their job of keeping their team members safe during missions. The one aspect of the Alliance's requirements that I particularly find fascinating is the operational security of missions and joint operations. I think that is critically important as that could be more damaging to the alliance than actual terrorist events.
I agree that a universal definition of terrorism is vital to assuring that if Article 5 is ever evoked again, that every country has a clear understanding of why they are going to war. I would even go as far as to say that the definition should include a level of severity and organization that are grounds for evoking Article 5. As you said, a unified defense and a common understanding are the best ways to keep an alliance strong.
As for Article 7, I am reminded of the post you made yesterday, where you noted that in the modern world, so many issues are interconnected. Border security is not only a concern for the US Border Patrol, but also homeland security. In an era where a political crisis in Mali can potentially lead to a terrorist attack in Paris, NATO needs to be able to respond to a wide variety of situations and have partners around the world in order to assure that threats can be taken care of when they arise.
@Jay Rosato I could not agree more. That is why I think the cooperation, partnership, crisis management and consultation aspects that are continually stressed in this guidance are so vitally important. The ability to foster that strong sense of partnership with groups around the world to ensure not only your country but every country is safe from terrorism. Your point about members understanding why they are going to war is spot on, each NATO delegate should be well informed to report back to their respective country. As for the levels of severity, I think that is an excellent plan. Would the different levels indicate different NATO responses or would NATO not get involved if it was a level 1 attack vs a Level 5 attack?
@Roy Rashke I was thinking in terms of a Level 4 or Level 5 attack would justify involvement, but you bring up a good point that different levels of attacks should definitely justify different levels of response. The 9/11 terrorist attacks warranted a full-scale response as to pull off such a major attack, Al-Qaeda would have to process significant logistical and financial resources, and they would have the potential to disrupt the security of nations around the world. Al-Quaeda could almost be viewed as a foreign power. Smaller-scale attacks should warrant a response, but perhaps not one so large, as the security threat is likely not on the same level. No terrorism should be taken lightly, but perhaps not every issue warrants a full-scale response.
Similar to many of the other comments, after today's reading, I am more confident that NATO has established guidelines for adaptable and quick response to threats. I appreciate that NATO recognizes that the scope and strategies of international threats is ever-changing. The parties involved in NATO are expected to be ready to overcome a threat when one arises.
I am also appreciative of the idea of being proactive rather than reactive. I think the parties of NATO have established this concept based on what I read today. The organization has acknowledged that they must be ready when a threat arises and attempt to diffuse a situation before it turns aggressive and that aggression is not an ideal situation, it appears to be a last resort for NATO.
Standardization of NATO policies requires mulitinational alignment objectives and cooperation. Interoperability amongst NATO Allies, partner nations and other international organizations is imperative to meet modern day NATO missions. Technological advances, especially in a changing security environment raises concerns that drive the requirement for multinational interoperability amongst NATO Allies and partner nations.
As I was reading the end section to the 2009 Declaration on Alliance security, this line stuck out to me: "We stand ready to work with Russia to address the common challenges we face." I wonder if NATO would feature this same spirit of cooperation in a 2020 version of this document, given direct Russian interference in the political affairs of NATO members, such as interference in the 2016 US presidential election of the annexation of Crimea. I came across a NATO factsheet on relations in Russia from 2014 which quoted "committed to “[Russia is] committed to creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence...Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine."
Russia NATO relations will be interesting to watch over the next several years, as some members of NATO grow more cautious of Russia while others have begun to relax their guard.
On a more positive note, it was good to see the African Union mentioned specifically as a vital strategic partner. Many potential issues for NATO members are present on the continent, and it is always good to see western nations taking an active approach to issues around the world. As Africa continues to grow in terms of its economy and population, this will be an important relationship to maintain.
Also, a quick note about the video from Kings College, I remember being absolutely fascinated by the dispute over the name of Macedonia between the FYROM and Greece when I first learned about it. I understand it had a lot of cultural significance, but for Greece to go as far as blocking the FYROM's membership into NATO over a name always astonished me. Though it is good to see that the two have resolved their dispute and Greece has welcomed North Macedonia as the newest member of NATO.
I also mentioned the shift in Russia's relationship with NATO, seeing as this document is slightly dated, especially on this issue. Russia effectively attempting to break up the Alliance shows a hostility that leaves very little hope for future cooperation. Watching this issue evolve over the next few years will be very important, especially regarding the effects of the 2020 United States election, seeing as Russia's involvement in 2016.
Given that this document was written in 2009 and Russia has since then been increasingly expansionist, it is interesting to see how this document would differ in today's world. NATO has recently had problems with possible Russian influence in Montenegro's recent election, which could shift Montenegro's allegiance from NATO to Russia. Turkey, another NATO country, has had more relations with Russia, despite warnings not to. The most recent action to sour the relationship between NATO and Russia was the attempted assassination of Alexander Navalny which other European leaders and lawmakers denounced. I am curious to see if Alexander Navalny returns to Russia and how Europe will respond if he is attacked again. https://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-opposition-leader-alexey-navalny-poisoned/story?id=72489940
The Declaration on Alliance Security was a fitting end to this discussion as it cements all of the talking points that were asserted consistently throughout. Something I noticed was the mention of climate change as one of the most important emerging challenges and the organizations they were seeking cooperation with. The Alliance mentioning climate change is attractive due to its nonmilitary nature. In past discussions, we have spoken at length about NATO's response to the shifting methods of warfare and counterterrorism measures. This is commendable, but still is a threat they can fight with military and weaponry. Climate change, on the other hand, is a threat that solely requires cooperation and innovation at the highest level. All of the forward-looking sections of this document mention the desire to continue cooperating diplomatically and involving new actors in this, which seems to create the perfect body to tackle this issue. I have linked another dissertation I read for research last year that analyzes the security risks of climate change and speaks on the mostly observant role NATO has taken up until now.
Another interesting piece of this declaration was their wishes to work with Russia to create a secure region. Acknowledging the vast political and cultural changes that have come between 2009 and 2020, this stood out to me as significant because it has become almost completely obsolete now. Since 2013 Russian aggression towards Ukraine has been in obvious violation of NATO's core values and therefore halted cooperations. Furthermore, Russia breaking the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, released in 2018, proved blatant disregard for NATO's mission and annulled any hope of partnership in the near future.
Given recent flooding in the Sahel, climate change is becoming an increasing worry for many West African countries. I also looked at an ISS forecast for the Sahel G5 countries up to 2040 and it labeled climate change as a key threat to the regions stability. Potential poverty and displacement created by natural disasters are a major security threat and provide the potential for more poverty, migration, and violence. That is why it was reassuring for me to both see that this document mentioned climate change, but also to see that it was making a relationship with the African Union a priority. This will be an essential partnership to combat climate related instability in both Europe and Africa.
@Jay Rosato Yes, almost all of my prior research is about the vast infrastructure and policy gaps we have in preparation for the movement climate change will cause. Although the majority of my research is about Asia and Pacific islands, it is hard to read on the topic and not acknowledge the cost the African people are already paying. A substantial case study I found is that of Lake Chad. This lake provided water to Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon but has shrunk to the point of hardly supplying for Chad and Cameroon. In such a destabilized region, the decrease of significant resources like this are sure to cause security threats.
@Madeline Smith Thanks for bringing this document to my attention. Conflict in Lake Chad is something I have been researching a lot this past week, but I haven't come across many resources discussing how climate change is playing into the mix. The article brings up the important point that conflict and climate change tend to build on each other. Conflict reduces the ability of the local population to adapt with climate change, which in turn makes the region less stable and more vulnerable to conflict. This is in part why NATO's military and non-military resources are needed to combat the issues that the modern world faces.
Like @Madeline Smith, I find it fascinating that NATO saw fit to include climate change on its list of increasingly relevant global threats in this Declaration on Alliance Security. I've heard repeated references to climate change as a national and international security threat, but unlike terrorism and cyber warfare, its implications for security do not enjoy widespread discussion (at least not that I've seen).
With the effects of climate change becoming increasingly apparent in the Arctic, Africa, and the United States, perhaps greater attention will be given to it as a phenomenon in the future security strategies of both individual countries and intergovernmental organizations like NATO.
I would agree that climate change has not been historically viewed as a large of a threat, in part at least because it seems we are just now beginning to see some of the effects, such as the melting of the Arctic, swarms of locusts in East Africa, or floods in the Sahel. I could definitely see it becoming a larger priority in many individual countries. Especially if mass migration begins happening as a result. But I question the role that politics will play in this.
I noticed going through the 2015 NSS, the Obama administration had highlighted Climate Change as a security issue, saying on the first page " at home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security." But the 2017 NSS makes no such claim. There are a few vague references to environmental stewardship, but nothing as clear as the 2015 NSS. Returning to the question of how political the US National Security Strategy is, this might be some strong evidence showing that domestic agendas play more of an impact in the NSS than we would like to think.
I think that one of the major problems with climate change is that it is an invisible threat to security much like a disease. Because terrorism is something that NATO can physically combat against, can monitor and prevent against, it is an easier threat for NATO to focus on rather than the more complex threat of climate change. It is easier for NATO to observe terrorist movements and prevent them than it is for them to implement policies to reduce carbon emissions.
I found it interesting as well. Especially because to this day I still have discussions with people who do not believe climate change is real and also that it is not necessarily a negative thing.Looking at how they made it an important note in this declaration will definitely become a point for me to add when it comes to those discussions. As you said, it is not something that is widely talked about in comparison to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction threats. I am always looking at the future and wondering if they would double down on climate change if they were to ever right an updated declaration as well as other threats that were not present at the time this was written.
The Declaration on Alliance Security (2009) shows a shift away from combatting conventional threats altogether in pursuit of a proactive approach to global security. The document mentions energy security, climate change and instability from fragile states. While these are not traditional threats to the security of the alliance they are still threats that need to be addressed. The combination of climate change-related disasters and increasingly unstable regimes could result in larger numbers of refugees coming into NATO territory. The civil war in Syria, the civil war in Libya and the crises in South Sudan have already resulted in large numbers of refugees coming into NATO members, especially Turkey which is on the border of the Syrian conflict and Greece and Italy which are across the Mediterranean from Libya. Humanitarian groups and human rights activists have been overwhelmed trying to rescue refugees that become stranded in the Mediterreanan. The most recent incident happened two days ago when a boat capsized and killed 24 refugees. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/dozen-migrants-feared-drowned-libya-coast-200915154357375.html
The threat of climate change is global and will lead to more instability and more wars for resources. Natural disasters will become more frequent and stretch NATO resources thin. Cities like Venice and Amsterdam could be virtually destroyed by rising sea levels. While climate change is not a traditional threat, it is possibly one of the more impactful threats to NATO security.
Like @Madeline Smith and @Griffen Ballenger mentioned, I also find NATO's emphasis on climate change to be very important and especially relevant in today's world. Just yesterday I read an article on NATO's secretary general Jens Stoltenberg and his seminar on security and the environment at NATO headquarters in Brussels. While climate change has always been a prevalent topic/issue (although it has not always been addressed as one by different leaders), the pandemic has made it even more urgent. There have been various studies conducted on the correlation between climate change and the spread of diseases and many results indicate climate change has and will continue to increase the risks of the current virus our world is combatting. A study conducted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health suggests that "climate change has already made conditions more favorable to the spread of some infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, waterborne diseases, and mosquito borne diseases." In regards to my specialization, Latin America is currently one of the regions being most affected by COVID-19. In the past year, IPCC's special report on climate change also found that the environment in South & Central America, as well as the Caribbean will continue to undergo harsh changes, which most likely have an effect on the spread of diseases and viruses, like COVID-19. Hopefully, intergovernmental organizations like NATO's focus on climate change can continue to make an impact on regional/state action, especially when it comes to the risk of health and safety.
I recently made a post on LinkedIn about a call for papers by BMC for how climate change is impacting the spread of infectious diseases. Maybe COVID-19 will bring infectious disease's relation to climate change into the larger dialogue, and perhaps even become a focus in some national security strategies. But I would also agree with you that the importance of climate change varies greatly depending on who is in charge. As I noted in my response to @Griffen Ballenger, President Obama and President Trump placed the threat of climate change very disparately in their versions of the NSS.
The Declaration on Alliance Security sets the pavement for how NATO will continue throughout the years. This document was not written that long ago, and still it is interesting to see how we have evolved from it and changes could be made. For example, there have been numerous talks by President Trump about having the United States leave NATO. He talks about doing this because he believes that NATO only really pays for Europe’s defense. But in the declaration, they make it very clear that they are just protecting the security threats that face the alliance territories. They also aim to strengthen their relationship with many different organizations such as the EU, UN and more. However, it does also say that NATO understands the need to strengthen the European Defense. So I can see where it may seem like that is all NATO is worried about, but when we look at the bigger picture and the whole document, it really is aimed to protect its allies and to help maintain peace and security just like the EU or the UN.
I could understand people's concern with NATO's focus on protecting Europe above all else because they specifically said that they are looking to expand membership specifically in Europe, but that does not mean that they are disregarding other states. I agree with your analysis that NATO holds true to it's goal to protect allies and they show this by focusing on the cooperation and information sharing with organizations like AU. Even if states are not members, they are still benefitting from NATO's intelligence and power.
The Declaration on Alliance Security (2009) echoes the stance on terrorism in previous documents. Terrorism is a constant threat to NATO due to the aforementioned challenges outlined in today’s readings. Fail states and fragile nations allow terrorists to move freely which in turn increases the damage terrorism can cause. I believe that my colleagues, @Madeline Smith and @Jay Rosato, and myself seem to agree that NATO will benefit from a unified definition of what terrorism is. Yesterday Jay and myself discussed maybe implementing a tier system to classify terrorist attacks and I believe in the next Summit that happens we may see a tier system or even a definition for NATO on terrorism. I would like to pose a few questions to some of my colleagues. These questions are, do you consider the use of cyber- attacks at the same level or on a different level, either above or below, WMDs or conventional weapons? Should each attack warrant the same response from NATO if not how should NATO classify the attacks? Would we go back to the discussion of the number of direct victims affected? These are some of the questions that hopefully will be addressed in future summits of NATO.
These will indeed be questions vital to the future of NATO, that hopefully are being discussed whenever NATO meets. As for your question about cyberattacks versus conventional attacks, I would say that I hold the belief that conventional attacks that lead directly to the loss of human life should always be taken more seriously. Cyber attacks are obviously incredibly dangerous and pose a major threat, but to me, it is of less concern than the ability of a non-state actor to directly harm physical American civilian and military lives and assets. My line of thinking is that if an organization has the potential to launch an attack directly on NATO soil, it has a certain level of organization and manpower that makes it a great danger to the western world. While cyber-attacks are certainly something we should be preparing against, they require less manpower and are (at least at the moment) usually less dangerous than a major conventional attack. This is obviously still bad but does not require the same level of response. But that is just my line of reasoning, and as we see more cyberattacks at a greater scale, perhaps I will come to a different conclusion.
@Jay Rosato I appreciate your line of reasoning. I can agree with you any attack that leads to the direct loss of human lives should be a top priorty and be considered a bigger threat then a cyber attack. I agree that whenever NATO meets next which I believe is in December, they start discussions on some of these questions or risk assessments because as you stated, if an organization has the capacity to launch an attack on NATO soil it is a threat that needs to be addressed.
One key issue emphasized in this part of the document was nuclear non-proliferation. This is an obvious priority as the largest potential threat to NATO in the past and still today has bee Russia. Given that Russia has almost 7,000 nuclear warheads (comparatively the US has 6,185 nuclear warheads), this is an important issue in the security and stability of the alliance. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-nuclear-weapons
The document also mentioned that Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement making them non-nuclear states. Something to mention here is that after the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine inherited 3,000 nuclear warheads making it the third largest nuclear power. Ukraine agreed to give these nuclear warheads back to Russia for dismantlement as long as Britain, the US and Russia agreed to protect Ukraine. The importance of this agreement, known as the Trilateral Statement was highlighted by the annexation of Crimea in 2013, when many Ukrainians criticized the EU for not retaliating harshly against the Russians for the invasion. https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
@Justin Spusta Great historical analysis. I noted the line " The Alliance continues to support Ukrainian sovereignty and independence, territorial integrity, democratic development, economic prosperity and its status as a non-nuclear weapons state as key factors of stability and security in central and eastern Europe and in Europe as a whole." While NATO did take some action, and it looks like Ukraine is taking steps towards membership, on the whole, it appears as though NATO did not fulfill its promise to uphold the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I can understand why Ukrainians were critical of NATO and its members given the promises made.
The references to the Cold War in this document interest me. In one of my classes we read documentation that NATO has served its purpose since the Cold War has ended. I don’t particularly agree with this point, but I know people who do. After reading the earlier documentation on NATO’s shifting focus I find this interesting. This document and the previous one focus on the broad approach of security. Part II Article 12 references the operating environment of NATO. I’m curious to see how this document would be adapted today. This document is almost as old as I am. Part III the Approach to Security in the 21st Century interests me. I would appreciate seeing the updated revisions to include new focus areas in the evolving landscape. I know with recent developments documents like these will include dedicated sections to cyber and counter terrorism.
I agree that it would be interesting to see the updated versions, as these are particularly fast evolving fields of conflict. I think the argument for NATO being obsolete is interesting because its original purpose is completed and the mission is no longer relevant. There seem to be other bodies of peacekeeping that are more universal and sometimes more successful in modernizing. I think the way that NATO adapts in the next few years is important because with China's rise and such a tumultuous US election, they will have to shift a large part of their focus to serve their member states.
Reading today’s document was especially interesting to me. I was able to draw several connections to my specialization. Article 4 states that the alliance must safeguard common security interests in an environment of further, often unpredictable change. This is similar to the goals of many Federal Agencies. The common security interests can be people, places, or things that Federal Agents protect. A bigger example would be the United States’ border. The US Border Patrol has a common interest with the Department of Homeland Security especially considering the border during this current unpredictable time. Another way this document analyzes several key components similar to Federal Law Enforcement is in article 10. Article 10 breaks down security tasks that several agencies practice on a daily basis. Security is a big part of daily operations for Federal Law, situational awareness is built into every aspect and is a priority in anything done. Consultation and deterrence go hand in hand by letting your counterparts or allies know what is threatening to you and deterring any threats being presented to your group. I also took notice of other parts of this document such as crisis Management which is vastly important to not only Federal Law agencies but also organizations such as NATO. Knowing your challenges and risks also is very similar to doing a threat assessment which is a tremendous thing to do before considering your option in any event. This document definitely proved to be just as interesting and vital to both the world stage and Federal Law stage as every other document thus far.
In a lot of ways, defending a nation as large and diverse as the United States and an alliance as large and diverse as NATO run into the same challenges. I noted in my post that NATO had recently taken steps to begin securing the borders of NATO countries, which is similar to the concern of the US Border Patrol. The fact that NATO deals with such a vast array of issues all in the name of security shows the complexity of the threats faced by the modern world. Perhaps NATO also shows that there is a great need for cooperation and communication between different federal agencies. As you said, common security interests are present throughout the federal government.
@Jay I think you bring up a valid point. With the complexity of NATO's challenges and security issues namely NATO taking steps to secure its member's borders, I think that should trigger some increased cooperation within the Federal Government. That would allow NATO to spend its time better serving everyone as a whole alliance. This could also be seen as a task that the US could be required to do as standing up its own defense to resist attacks on its own volition is a task that is consistent for members to do within NATO.
NATO’s perspective on countering terrorism is impressive and effective due to the collaborative ways in which the Alliance interacts with other international organizations and non-member states. NATO consults with the UN, EU, OSCE and the GCTF to enhance their knowledge of worldwide counter terrorism efforts and keep relations strong with those who are non-members. The Alliance continues to show global assurance and support by meeting with foreign leaders, just yesterday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Mohammad Hussein in Brussels to reaffirm NATO and Iraq’s commitment to countering terrorism especially during a pandemic:
The regional Hub for the South is also a great example of their Counter-Terrorism Policy Guidelines. NATO focuses on awareness, capability and engagement, and by creating a Strategic Direction South Hub it opened a framework for their southern region. Stability is NATO’s goal and by having those living in North Africa and the Middle East involved in the Hub, it makes for a broader network of intelligence sharing with sources and experiences.
I was happily surprised to read this section and confirm the steps NATO is taking to modernize and face the most trying issues of this era. NATO's stance on terrorism is clear and it is advantageous for them to have acknowledged the shifting nature of war. Being a body that was founded to combat war in the traditional sense, displaying an urgency to learn as much about the developing threat is commendable. This section mentions several times the importance of a military response force that is capable of deploying as fast as possible and can adaptable to any situation. Advancing their concentrations on these specific aspects of their military shows initiative and strategic development in a contemporary manner.
I found the Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum (linked below) that was published May 2020 and after skimming pieces that were applicable to this discussion I see them solving inconsistencies that were previously concerns of our discussion, specifically a sections on "Defining Terrorism" and "Terrorist Use of Cyberspace & Technology". In the "Defining Terrorism" section the Alliance came to the agreement that "Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence perpetrated by non-state actors targeting ‘non-combatants’ with a goal of achieving psychological impact on an audience beyond the event itself for a political, social, religious, or ideological purpose." Though states are still at odds about how to legally address this definition, it is groundbreaking to have agreed upon this. The "Terrorist Use of Cyberspace & Technology" section addresses the sweeping use of technology by terrorists to amplify their reach and outcomes, and again emphasizes the importance of focused research in this field as to use it as a tool of defense.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/6/pdf/200612-DEEP-CTRC.pdf
Our colleague @Roy Rashke recently shared a post on LinkedIn from the Global Counter-terrorism institute that polled viewers of the post on whether or not there should be a universal definition of terrorism. At least when I responded, most people said there should be a universal definition.
The Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum was an interesting document to skim over, and I agree with you it shows that the alliance is taking note of threats all over the world. There was one brief section on Boko Haram, which is a security threat that I have been reading up on a lot lately, that shows the alliance is cognizant of these threats. I also think it was important that the CTRC stressed coordination with other international organizations, like the UN, EU, and AU. This is essential to NATO becoming a proactive security force with a global reach.
@Jay I have a firm belief that NATO having a unified definition of a terrorist event or terrorism in general would be very useful. This would allow members the ability to seek funding for terrorist defenses specifically. This could also better show the disbursement of funds for each priority. Then in turn as new priorities are found to be a credible threat to NATO, priority focuses can shift based on the Alliance's needs, thus makign it easier to stay current and relevant.
For me, the most interesting part of this week's discussion is to look at how gradually NATO has been adjusting its goals to an increasingly modern world. At the time of the founding, the threat of the USSR was most prevalent. In 1991, terrorism and non-state actors got a larger role, and there was the impending threat of an unstable Yugoslavia. By 1999, NATO had recognized mass migration and biological weapons as a possible threat. In 1999, NATO began talking about how Russia, the successor state to NATO's greatest threat, was a vital security partner, and cooperation with them was vital. Then in 2006, the need for flexible responses to crises around the world is stressed even further, and the idea of asymmetric warfare and cyber warfare make their first appearances. The 2006 Comprehensive Political Guidance is also the first time the word stabilization makes its appearance in the NATO strategic plan, showing an increased understanding of modern security threats. I imagine the factors behind these goals are what eventually motivated NATO to begin cooperation with the African Union in 2005.
While we have had some discussion about how NATO is struggling to adapt to some aspects of the modern world, one cannot say it has not been adaptable to modern threats. And the fact that NATO has begun work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across Africa shows its commitment t and understanding of the modern threats to the union.
I appreciate your address of or previous discussion regarding NATO's adaptability in the modern world. After reading today's portion of the document and the CTRC, I am much more inclined to believe that their response is reasonable and timely. I think I respect the caution in addressing these changing conflicts because it grants time to learn about how the new parties operate and counter that effectively. I look forward to see how they develop against cyber attacks from non-state actors because that is a subject I found much less literature on.
The Comprehensive Political Guidance from 2006 is quite reflective of the post-9/11 world.
Not only is there a greater emphasis on combating terrorism as @Jasmine Wilkens and @Madeline Smith have pointed out, but the sections on upgrading the NATO's capabilities repeatedly stress the need to be prepared for operations "beyond Alliance territory, on its periphery, and at strategic distance." There is also an awareness that these operations might take place with little or no support from the host country.
This is obviously a reaction to the NATO mission in Afghanistan after 9/11 and a realization of the need to be ready for more such scenarios. But this also contributes to the contemporary debate about NATO's purpose.
It was originally intended to promote security in Europe and the North Atlantic, and the terror attacks of the 21st century make it clear that member states can be threatened from beyond this region.
However, Alliance members may not always be able to agree on what constitutes a far-away threat worthy of NATO action. The US's invasion of Afghanistan was supported broadly the Allies, but the 2003 invasion of Iraq enjoyed significantly less support. How effective can NATO be at a strategic distance if non-North Atlantic threats aren't given the same weight by different members?
I thought this article from Politico written in 2019 did a good job of showing how NATO is divided on so many security threats. Some NATO members, such as the United States, warn that China is the new USSR, while others, like Greece and Italy, have begun working closely with China. Some, such as French President Macron say that terrorism should be the enemy of NATO while many eastern European countries are more concerned about a Russian resurgence.
Despite the fact that a strategy was established, it seems there is little consensus within NATO as to what the organization should be. And as you stated above, if half of NATO is cooperating with China and the other half hates them, how can they possibly have a strategy to deal with Chinese influence across the world? An alliance is only powerful if it stands unified, and if NATO cannot agree on ways to combat these key issues, it cannot be an effective organization to deal with contemporary threats to security.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/breaking-down-nato-alliance-factions-074855
I linked a paper I read for a research project a few years ago that I believe does a good job of breaking down the three considerations weighed when deciding on issues like this. From what I surmised, the first point of assurance that NATO considers for intervention is the severity of the human rights atrocities being committed, how many innocent civilians are being impacted. The next consideration that is taken is if there is UN acknowledgement of the conflict. The third is the economic incentive to involve the Alliance in the particular situation. The paper uses several case studies both you and @Jay Rosato have mentioned including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Syria,and Libya.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1591/to-intervene-or-not-to-intervene-the-role-of-humanitarianism-un-approval-and-economic-incentives-in-determning-nato-military-intervention-in-conflict#:~:text=Three%20particular%20factors%20are%20identified,NATO%20member%20states'%20economic%20interests.
Jay, You identify the focus change over time in relation to primarily Nation-state actors. This is always interesting to watch. I also enjoy watching the issue priority changes over the years. Where were Artificial Intelligence concerns in 2000 or 2010, compared to 2020? Hypersonics is a priority now, but where was it 5 years ago? China & Russia change priorities and how fast should others follow? This is the exciting world of global power dynamics? I, of course, enjoy the economic lens but there are many many optics to view these issues.
It is definitely very interesting to look at the change over time in security strategies. I also enjoyed comparing the 2017 National Security Strategy to the previous versions, especially the 1987 NSS. It is amazing to see these organizations continuously adapt their priorities to new phenomenon and new technologies that weren't even on the radar several years back.
I find the direct references to other international organizations to be interesting. Seeing the UN and the EU referenced in this article interests me. I think any and all cooperation in this context is beneficial. I enjoyed the following quote from the article.
“This environment continues to change; it is and will be complex and global, and subject to unforeseeable developments. International security developments have an increasing impact on the lives of the citizens of Allied and other countries.”
Identifying the threat landscape is important to NATO’s goals of protecting member states and deterring any and all threats. I am glad to see the public documentation heavily addresses this factor. Terrorism is mentioned directly which is not surprising. I do however find it interesting that terrorism is mentioned heavily prior to the events of 9/11/2001. For the second part of this article, I found the interactions of the alliance to be interesting. The fundamental security tasks of NATO being “security, consultation, deterrence and defense, crisis management, and partnership” is aptly aligned with their goals. I am curious to see how these goals relate to the actions of member nations in 2020.
I also noted that the cooperation between NATO and other international organizations and I agree with you that it is beneficial. Especially in an era where threats anywhere in the world can threaten the lives and livelihoods of people in the alliance. In my area of specialty, it is good to see NATO working with the AU, not only because it may help the stability of the continent, but it also shows western commitment to Africa, which is incredibly important as China's footprint in the continent grows.
The Conflict Political Guidance part of the document is interesting to read as it recognizes that the modern threats to NATO security are non-coventional (terrorism, cyber-warfare, economic warfare, etc.). Due to NATO having to deal with threats not immediately on their borders, NATO has expanded its jursidiction from threats to NATO to global threats to security. One can see this in NATO's relief projects in Afghanistan. NATO also takes on a proactive role in security. Understanding that instability in other countries could lead to terrorism in NATO countries, NATO has responded by taking initiative to resolve conflicts in unstable areas.
While NATO does not have to worry about a conventional conflict, non-conventional attacks have been an issue in the past two decades (i.e the September 11 attacks, the 7/7 bombing and the Paris attacks in 2016). As a result, NATO's priority in security is now focusing on domestic threats of terrorism while also tracking trends and patterns in terrorism abroad. The recent refugee crisis has also played a role in NATO security as many fear that the number of refugees in Europe would lead to more crime and more potential terrorist attacks. Turkey's role as a crossroads from the Middle East into Europe has made it a key component of NATO while at the same time going against NATO standards of justice and democracy.
It is abundantly clear from reading this political guidance the threats terrorism causes to NATO. Like several of my colleagues, @Jay Rosato and @Madeline Smith, NATO could benefit from a universal definition of a terrorist attack or terrorism in general. The fact that this guidance mentions the use of Article 5 by the US would be indicative of the need for a definition of Terrorism so that in the event of having to invoke article 5 again in the case of a terrorist event it would be much easier to prove you need help with defense. I can also appreciate that this guidance furthers the base principles of security, consultation, deterrence, crisis management, and partnerships. This is essential for a unified response. As for Article 7, this is very similar to Federal Agencies and their ongoing training. Many Agencies have so many continuing education units that agents need to complete each year to try and keep up with the latest intelligence and education in their fields. Continuing to analyze article 7, I believe that a unified defense that is able to respond quickly to rapidly changing circumstances is the best way to the alliance strong. It shows a commitment to the defense of its members and the willingness to aid anyone of its members at a moment's notice. The threat analysis and risk assessments are something federal agents in charge are familiar with as well due to their job of keeping their team members safe during missions. The one aspect of the Alliance's requirements that I particularly find fascinating is the operational security of missions and joint operations. I think that is critically important as that could be more damaging to the alliance than actual terrorist events.
I agree that a universal definition of terrorism is vital to assuring that if Article 5 is ever evoked again, that every country has a clear understanding of why they are going to war. I would even go as far as to say that the definition should include a level of severity and organization that are grounds for evoking Article 5. As you said, a unified defense and a common understanding are the best ways to keep an alliance strong.
As for Article 7, I am reminded of the post you made yesterday, where you noted that in the modern world, so many issues are interconnected. Border security is not only a concern for the US Border Patrol, but also homeland security. In an era where a political crisis in Mali can potentially lead to a terrorist attack in Paris, NATO needs to be able to respond to a wide variety of situations and have partners around the world in order to assure that threats can be taken care of when they arise.
@Jay Rosato I could not agree more. That is why I think the cooperation, partnership, crisis management and consultation aspects that are continually stressed in this guidance are so vitally important. The ability to foster that strong sense of partnership with groups around the world to ensure not only your country but every country is safe from terrorism. Your point about members understanding why they are going to war is spot on, each NATO delegate should be well informed to report back to their respective country. As for the levels of severity, I think that is an excellent plan. Would the different levels indicate different NATO responses or would NATO not get involved if it was a level 1 attack vs a Level 5 attack?
@Roy Rashke I was thinking in terms of a Level 4 or Level 5 attack would justify involvement, but you bring up a good point that different levels of attacks should definitely justify different levels of response. The 9/11 terrorist attacks warranted a full-scale response as to pull off such a major attack, Al-Qaeda would have to process significant logistical and financial resources, and they would have the potential to disrupt the security of nations around the world. Al-Quaeda could almost be viewed as a foreign power. Smaller-scale attacks should warrant a response, but perhaps not one so large, as the security threat is likely not on the same level. No terrorism should be taken lightly, but perhaps not every issue warrants a full-scale response.
Similar to many of the other comments, after today's reading, I am more confident that NATO has established guidelines for adaptable and quick response to threats. I appreciate that NATO recognizes that the scope and strategies of international threats is ever-changing. The parties involved in NATO are expected to be ready to overcome a threat when one arises.
I am also appreciative of the idea of being proactive rather than reactive. I think the parties of NATO have established this concept based on what I read today. The organization has acknowledged that they must be ready when a threat arises and attempt to diffuse a situation before it turns aggressive and that aggression is not an ideal situation, it appears to be a last resort for NATO.
Standardization of NATO policies requires mulitinational alignment objectives and cooperation. Interoperability amongst NATO Allies, partner nations and other international organizations is imperative to meet modern day NATO missions. Technological advances, especially in a changing security environment raises concerns that drive the requirement for multinational interoperability amongst NATO Allies and partner nations.
As I was reading the end section to the 2009 Declaration on Alliance security, this line stuck out to me: "We stand ready to work with Russia to address the common challenges we face." I wonder if NATO would feature this same spirit of cooperation in a 2020 version of this document, given direct Russian interference in the political affairs of NATO members, such as interference in the 2016 US presidential election of the annexation of Crimea. I came across a NATO factsheet on relations in Russia from 2014 which quoted "committed to “[Russia is] committed to creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence...Contrary to those commitments, Russia now appears to be attempting to recreate a sphere of influence by seizing a part of Ukraine."
Russia NATO relations will be interesting to watch over the next several years, as some members of NATO grow more cautious of Russia while others have begun to relax their guard.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2014_04/20140513_140411-factsheet_russia_en.pdf
On a more positive note, it was good to see the African Union mentioned specifically as a vital strategic partner. Many potential issues for NATO members are present on the continent, and it is always good to see western nations taking an active approach to issues around the world. As Africa continues to grow in terms of its economy and population, this will be an important relationship to maintain.
Also, a quick note about the video from Kings College, I remember being absolutely fascinated by the dispute over the name of Macedonia between the FYROM and Greece when I first learned about it. I understand it had a lot of cultural significance, but for Greece to go as far as blocking the FYROM's membership into NATO over a name always astonished me. Though it is good to see that the two have resolved their dispute and Greece has welcomed North Macedonia as the newest member of NATO.
I also mentioned the shift in Russia's relationship with NATO, seeing as this document is slightly dated, especially on this issue. Russia effectively attempting to break up the Alliance shows a hostility that leaves very little hope for future cooperation. Watching this issue evolve over the next few years will be very important, especially regarding the effects of the 2020 United States election, seeing as Russia's involvement in 2016.
There were reports of Russia interfering in those name-change referenda too. More evidence of trying to create that sphere of influence.
Given that this document was written in 2009 and Russia has since then been increasingly expansionist, it is interesting to see how this document would differ in today's world. NATO has recently had problems with possible Russian influence in Montenegro's recent election, which could shift Montenegro's allegiance from NATO to Russia. Turkey, another NATO country, has had more relations with Russia, despite warnings not to. The most recent action to sour the relationship between NATO and Russia was the attempted assassination of Alexander Navalny which other European leaders and lawmakers denounced. I am curious to see if Alexander Navalny returns to Russia and how Europe will respond if he is attacked again. https://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-opposition-leader-alexey-navalny-poisoned/story?id=72489940
The Declaration on Alliance Security was a fitting end to this discussion as it cements all of the talking points that were asserted consistently throughout. Something I noticed was the mention of climate change as one of the most important emerging challenges and the organizations they were seeking cooperation with. The Alliance mentioning climate change is attractive due to its nonmilitary nature. In past discussions, we have spoken at length about NATO's response to the shifting methods of warfare and counterterrorism measures. This is commendable, but still is a threat they can fight with military and weaponry. Climate change, on the other hand, is a threat that solely requires cooperation and innovation at the highest level. All of the forward-looking sections of this document mention the desire to continue cooperating diplomatically and involving new actors in this, which seems to create the perfect body to tackle this issue. I have linked another dissertation I read for research last year that analyzes the security risks of climate change and speaks on the mostly observant role NATO has taken up until now.
Another interesting piece of this declaration was their wishes to work with Russia to create a secure region. Acknowledging the vast political and cultural changes that have come between 2009 and 2020, this stood out to me as significant because it has become almost completely obsolete now. Since 2013 Russian aggression towards Ukraine has been in obvious violation of NATO's core values and therefore halted cooperations. Furthermore, Russia breaking the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, released in 2018, proved blatant disregard for NATO's mission and annulled any hope of partnership in the near future.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD300/RGSD387/RAND_RGSD387.pdf
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50090.htm
Given recent flooding in the Sahel, climate change is becoming an increasing worry for many West African countries. I also looked at an ISS forecast for the Sahel G5 countries up to 2040 and it labeled climate change as a key threat to the regions stability. Potential poverty and displacement created by natural disasters are a major security threat and provide the potential for more poverty, migration, and violence. That is why it was reassuring for me to both see that this document mentioned climate change, but also to see that it was making a relationship with the African Union a priority. This will be an essential partnership to combat climate related instability in both Europe and Africa.
https://media.africaportal.org/documents/Prospects_for_the_G5_Sahel_countries.pdf
@Jay Rosato Yes, almost all of my prior research is about the vast infrastructure and policy gaps we have in preparation for the movement climate change will cause. Although the majority of my research is about Asia and Pacific islands, it is hard to read on the topic and not acknowledge the cost the African people are already paying. A substantial case study I found is that of Lake Chad. This lake provided water to Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon but has shrunk to the point of hardly supplying for Chad and Cameroon. In such a destabilized region, the decrease of significant resources like this are sure to cause security threats.
https://ecdpm.org/great-insights/complex-link-climate-change-conflict/climate-change-conflict-crisis-lake-chad/
@Madeline Smith Thanks for bringing this document to my attention. Conflict in Lake Chad is something I have been researching a lot this past week, but I haven't come across many resources discussing how climate change is playing into the mix. The article brings up the important point that conflict and climate change tend to build on each other. Conflict reduces the ability of the local population to adapt with climate change, which in turn makes the region less stable and more vulnerable to conflict. This is in part why NATO's military and non-military resources are needed to combat the issues that the modern world faces.
Like @Madeline Smith, I find it fascinating that NATO saw fit to include climate change on its list of increasingly relevant global threats in this Declaration on Alliance Security. I've heard repeated references to climate change as a national and international security threat, but unlike terrorism and cyber warfare, its implications for security do not enjoy widespread discussion (at least not that I've seen).
With the effects of climate change becoming increasingly apparent in the Arctic, Africa, and the United States, perhaps greater attention will be given to it as a phenomenon in the future security strategies of both individual countries and intergovernmental organizations like NATO.
I would agree that climate change has not been historically viewed as a large of a threat, in part at least because it seems we are just now beginning to see some of the effects, such as the melting of the Arctic, swarms of locusts in East Africa, or floods in the Sahel. I could definitely see it becoming a larger priority in many individual countries. Especially if mass migration begins happening as a result. But I question the role that politics will play in this.
I noticed going through the 2015 NSS, the Obama administration had highlighted Climate Change as a security issue, saying on the first page " at home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security." But the 2017 NSS makes no such claim. There are a few vague references to environmental stewardship, but nothing as clear as the 2015 NSS. Returning to the question of how political the US National Security Strategy is, this might be some strong evidence showing that domestic agendas play more of an impact in the NSS than we would like to think.
The 2015 NSS: https://nssarchive.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2015.pdf
I think that one of the major problems with climate change is that it is an invisible threat to security much like a disease. Because terrorism is something that NATO can physically combat against, can monitor and prevent against, it is an easier threat for NATO to focus on rather than the more complex threat of climate change. It is easier for NATO to observe terrorist movements and prevent them than it is for them to implement policies to reduce carbon emissions.
I found it interesting as well. Especially because to this day I still have discussions with people who do not believe climate change is real and also that it is not necessarily a negative thing.Looking at how they made it an important note in this declaration will definitely become a point for me to add when it comes to those discussions. As you said, it is not something that is widely talked about in comparison to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction threats. I am always looking at the future and wondering if they would double down on climate change if they were to ever right an updated declaration as well as other threats that were not present at the time this was written.
The Declaration on Alliance Security (2009) shows a shift away from combatting conventional threats altogether in pursuit of a proactive approach to global security. The document mentions energy security, climate change and instability from fragile states. While these are not traditional threats to the security of the alliance they are still threats that need to be addressed. The combination of climate change-related disasters and increasingly unstable regimes could result in larger numbers of refugees coming into NATO territory. The civil war in Syria, the civil war in Libya and the crises in South Sudan have already resulted in large numbers of refugees coming into NATO members, especially Turkey which is on the border of the Syrian conflict and Greece and Italy which are across the Mediterranean from Libya. Humanitarian groups and human rights activists have been overwhelmed trying to rescue refugees that become stranded in the Mediterreanan. The most recent incident happened two days ago when a boat capsized and killed 24 refugees. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/dozen-migrants-feared-drowned-libya-coast-200915154357375.html
The threat of climate change is global and will lead to more instability and more wars for resources. Natural disasters will become more frequent and stretch NATO resources thin. Cities like Venice and Amsterdam could be virtually destroyed by rising sea levels. While climate change is not a traditional threat, it is possibly one of the more impactful threats to NATO security.
Like @Madeline Smith and @Griffen Ballenger mentioned, I also find NATO's emphasis on climate change to be very important and especially relevant in today's world. Just yesterday I read an article on NATO's secretary general Jens Stoltenberg and his seminar on security and the environment at NATO headquarters in Brussels. While climate change has always been a prevalent topic/issue (although it has not always been addressed as one by different leaders), the pandemic has made it even more urgent. There have been various studies conducted on the correlation between climate change and the spread of diseases and many results indicate climate change has and will continue to increase the risks of the current virus our world is combatting. A study conducted by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health suggests that "climate change has already made conditions more favorable to the spread of some infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, waterborne diseases, and mosquito borne diseases." In regards to my specialization, Latin America is currently one of the regions being most affected by COVID-19. In the past year, IPCC's special report on climate change also found that the environment in South & Central America, as well as the Caribbean will continue to undergo harsh changes, which most likely have an effect on the spread of diseases and viruses, like COVID-19. Hopefully, intergovernmental organizations like NATO's focus on climate change can continue to make an impact on regional/state action, especially when it comes to the risk of health and safety.
I recently made a post on LinkedIn about a call for papers by BMC for how climate change is impacting the spread of infectious diseases. Maybe COVID-19 will bring infectious disease's relation to climate change into the larger dialogue, and perhaps even become a focus in some national security strategies. But I would also agree with you that the importance of climate change varies greatly depending on who is in charge. As I noted in my response to @Griffen Ballenger, President Obama and President Trump placed the threat of climate change very disparately in their versions of the NSS.
The Declaration on Alliance Security sets the pavement for how NATO will continue throughout the years. This document was not written that long ago, and still it is interesting to see how we have evolved from it and changes could be made. For example, there have been numerous talks by President Trump about having the United States leave NATO. He talks about doing this because he believes that NATO only really pays for Europe’s defense. But in the declaration, they make it very clear that they are just protecting the security threats that face the alliance territories. They also aim to strengthen their relationship with many different organizations such as the EU, UN and more. However, it does also say that NATO understands the need to strengthen the European Defense. So I can see where it may seem like that is all NATO is worried about, but when we look at the bigger picture and the whole document, it really is aimed to protect its allies and to help maintain peace and security just like the EU or the UN.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/trump-nato-withdraw.html
I could understand people's concern with NATO's focus on protecting Europe above all else because they specifically said that they are looking to expand membership specifically in Europe, but that does not mean that they are disregarding other states. I agree with your analysis that NATO holds true to it's goal to protect allies and they show this by focusing on the cooperation and information sharing with organizations like AU. Even if states are not members, they are still benefitting from NATO's intelligence and power.
The Declaration on Alliance Security (2009) echoes the stance on terrorism in previous documents. Terrorism is a constant threat to NATO due to the aforementioned challenges outlined in today’s readings. Fail states and fragile nations allow terrorists to move freely which in turn increases the damage terrorism can cause. I believe that my colleagues, @Madeline Smith and @Jay Rosato, and myself seem to agree that NATO will benefit from a unified definition of what terrorism is. Yesterday Jay and myself discussed maybe implementing a tier system to classify terrorist attacks and I believe in the next Summit that happens we may see a tier system or even a definition for NATO on terrorism. I would like to pose a few questions to some of my colleagues. These questions are, do you consider the use of cyber- attacks at the same level or on a different level, either above or below, WMDs or conventional weapons? Should each attack warrant the same response from NATO if not how should NATO classify the attacks? Would we go back to the discussion of the number of direct victims affected? These are some of the questions that hopefully will be addressed in future summits of NATO.
These will indeed be questions vital to the future of NATO, that hopefully are being discussed whenever NATO meets. As for your question about cyberattacks versus conventional attacks, I would say that I hold the belief that conventional attacks that lead directly to the loss of human life should always be taken more seriously. Cyber attacks are obviously incredibly dangerous and pose a major threat, but to me, it is of less concern than the ability of a non-state actor to directly harm physical American civilian and military lives and assets. My line of thinking is that if an organization has the potential to launch an attack directly on NATO soil, it has a certain level of organization and manpower that makes it a great danger to the western world. While cyber-attacks are certainly something we should be preparing against, they require less manpower and are (at least at the moment) usually less dangerous than a major conventional attack. This is obviously still bad but does not require the same level of response. But that is just my line of reasoning, and as we see more cyberattacks at a greater scale, perhaps I will come to a different conclusion.
@Jay Rosato I appreciate your line of reasoning. I can agree with you any attack that leads to the direct loss of human lives should be a top priorty and be considered a bigger threat then a cyber attack. I agree that whenever NATO meets next which I believe is in December, they start discussions on some of these questions or risk assessments because as you stated, if an organization has the capacity to launch an attack on NATO soil it is a threat that needs to be addressed.