‘NATO 2020’ Recommendations Avoid “New Security” Challenges

‘NATO 2020’ Recommendations Avoid “New Security” Challenges

May 25, 2010 By Schuyler Null

A recently released report, NATO 2020, outlines expert recommendations for the alliance’s new strategic concept. However, while pointing to a nighttime satellite image of the globe at a Wilson Center conference last week, Professor Peter Liotta of Salve Regina University said the report focuses too much on conventional self-defense, when most of the new security challenges of the 21st century will come from areas of the world “where the lights are out.”

In an interview with New Security Beat, Liotta criticized NATO 2020’s emphasis on what he sees as a reactive, rather than a proactive, stance. By ignoring “new security” vulnerabilities such as environmental and demographic challenges, NATO may end up creating more threats for itself down the line, he said.

The report briefly acknowledges that demographic change and environmental degradation represent sources of uncertainty in forecasting global trends. However, neither are included as major threats to the alliance. Instead, the authors say the most probable threats are nuclear or non-nuclear armed ballistic missiles, terror attacks, and cyber intrusion.

Discussions about non-traditional security vulnerabilities often produce contentious and conflicting viewpoints, which makes it easier to ignore them, said Liotta. However, it is important for NATO to realize that security threats – even more conventional ones – do not exist in isolation.

Liotta said the continued focus on NATO’s Article 5, the invocation of collective self-defense, overshadows other important foundations of the alliance. For example, Article 2, which encourages “promoting conditions of stability,” could be invoked to help the alliance address non-traditional security threats.

In his presentation, Liotta, formerly of the U.S. Naval War College, cited mass migration, water scarcity, and low probability, high-risk events, such as rapid sea-level rise from Arctic ice melt, as examples of challenges that NATO should be preparing to meet. He also drew attention to the security challenges of a burgeoning global population, saying that rapid growth and urbanization will produce 600 cities with more than one million people by 2025.

Such extreme events as the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan, China, which killed about 90,000 people and left five million homeless, might be a symptom of the strain our growing population has placed on the Earth’s natural systems, said Liotta. Scientists point out that an earthquake of such magnitude has never been seen in Sichuan and that large construction projects – particularly a large dam and reservoir that lie within 550 yards of the fault line – have likely had a considerable effect on local geology.

In Europe’s current deployment-adverse, difficult fiscal environment, it is perhaps understandable that NATO planners would focus on concrete threats rather than emerging vulnerabilities. But, as Liotta argues, the consequences for ignoring these new security challenges could be no less dire.

Sources: Daily Mail, Foreign Policy, NATO, Telegraph.

Photo Credit: “The Night Lights of Planet Earth” courtesy of flickr user woodleywonderworks.

Topics: Arctic, climate change, conflict, demography, military, population, security, urbanization, water
- http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko
  
  Strikes me that a very reasonable line of argument for the Americans to make within NATO would go something like this: Many member states aren't keen about the Afghan deployment or they put severe restrictions on locations and roles their troops can play in the Afghan theater. Given this reluctance on the part of some in the alliance, would it not be reasonable to ask those member countries to step up procurement in equipment needed to respond to the growing need for humanitarian response out of area? o If the US is often the global 911 for fast responding lift and response when it comes to crises (earthquakes, tsunami, typhoons, floods), then perhaps NATO and/or its member states could pick up more of that burden. Given higher levels of support for climate change and predicted extreme weather events, wouldn't such a division of labor (or reallocation within that division) make sense? Such spending on military hardware and missions may be more palatable to those electorates less willing to support missions such as Afghanistan. I am surprised frankly that argument has not been made already. That said, the inability or unwillingness of any to make even a handful of helicopters available to African Union troops in Darfur suggest that the tug on capacities and will must be very strong indeed to motivate action.
- Tom Deligiannis
  
  Peter Liotta's post is very interesting. I thought that the folks in Brussels were making more progress of late on non-traditional security concerns.
  
  Geoff, you make a persuasive point. But I wonder if such an argument would be more attractive to political leaders and less attractive to military officials in non-US NATO countries? I can only provide insights from Canada.
  
  Our military has spent the last 9 years enhancing their ability to fight terrorism and insurgent wars in far off lands – buying more long-distant lift, light armoured vehicles, enhancing troop training, etc. We've shifted a great deal from our well known involvement in peacekeeping missions – to the point where one well known Canadian military commentator pegged our new approach – "Peacekeeping if necessary, but not necessarily peacekeeping" – meaning we should engage in peace operations "only if it is something we can do and something that is right for us."
  
  At this point, I believe that Canada's military is behind the US in integrating non-traditional security activities in its operations. Since the end of the Cold War, we've taken only hesitant steps toward operations where the military is involved in natural resource protection, humanitarian operations in distant countries, etc. Terrorism and the War in Afghanistan tilted the priorities of our small and resource strapped forces tremendously.
  
  Given our current government's hostility to anything non-traditional (nary a word is said in official circles about global warming security concerns), it might be a good thing for NATO to take more of a lead in integrating such concerns, as Mr. Liotta suggests – if only to drag along laggards like us.
- http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko
  
  Tom, Indeed, I don't imagine many non-US NATO countries would be enthusiastic about this mission. I could just see it as a logical argument for the Americans to make when they get frustrated with limits on deployments in active conflict theaters while still being asked to other humanitarian missions. I think back to the old burden sharing debates of the mid 1980s.

New Security Beat

NewSecurityBeat

‘NATO 2020’ Recommendations Avoid “New Security” Challenges

Join the Conversation

Featured Media

New Security Beat

NewSecurityBeat

‘NATO 2020’ Recommendations Avoid “New Security” Challenges

Join the Conversation

Trending Stories

Featured Media

Related Stories