NATO needs a new strategy. We, five former defense chiefs of staff, recently published a booklet containing proposals for such a new strategy, as well as a comprehensive agenda for change.
Why is a new strategy needed? NATO's "Strategic Concept" was adopted in 1999, but since then the world has changed dramatically. At that time, NATO was a regional alliance that concentrated on the reactive defense of the Treaty Area.
But reaction is no longer sufficient; today's most urgent task is prevention of crises, armed conflict and war, which may require that the primary response be other than by military means.
Moreover, NATO agreed at its conference in Prague in 2002 that it would act "where necessary," thus abandoning the restriction of acting in defense of the Treaty Area alone. Finally, while the lessons learned since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, suggest that none of today's conflicts can be mastered by military means alone, NATO's means are solely military. Thus, any effective future strategy for NATO must include the development and application of other means.
Rather than adopting the regional focus of the current NATO Strategic Concept or the European Strategic Study, the strategy that we propose is global in its outlook. It seeks to prevent conflicts by eliminating the reasons for conflict. Obviously, this needs to be done by applying primarily non-military means in a proactive -- not a reactive -- way.
The strategy applies escalation and de-escalation of power in a flexible manner and avails itself of all instruments of politics and power -- soft and hard. However, it stresses that the use of military force has to remain the ultimate resort which does not necessarily mean the last.
By its nature, our proposed strategy is defensive. It seeks to protect the NATO countries. Nobody who will read the paper (www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/documents/3eproefGrandStrat(b).pdf) can misunderstand this. It uses a modular approach to alliances by integrating the capabilities of different international organizations as well as countries that are not members of NATO or any alliance. Furthermore, it requires a sustained commitment until the predetermined objective is achieved, an objective that neither aims at conquest nor seeks to impose NATO's preferred political order on an adversary.
The concept is generic, but could be used best by a truly transformed NATO. Given that military means no longer suffice, we emphasize the great importance of improved cooperation between NATO, the UN and the EU. NATO must find ways to avail itself of the instruments and resources that other international organizations have at their disposal. To this end, cooperation between NATO and the EU in particular must be improved. The UN will also continue to play an important role, since it is the only body that can legalize interventions -- be they military or non-military -- in all cases that are not just self-defense.
The key issue is to convince governments of NATO member states -- especially the Europeans -- to improve their awareness of the current and future challenges and to strengthen their political resolve to implement some of the recommendations. We do not have any illusions or high expectations, but a NATO that continues to expand without having the capabilities to meet the obligations to defend an enlarged treaty area runs the risk of becoming a hollow alliance.
In particular, NATO is facing a real challenge in Afghanistan, where self-imposed restrictions deprive NATO of the possibility of success. More generally, the gap between the missions NATO is asked to take on and the means it has to face these challenges is growing day by day.
We do not want to be prescriptive, but we consider it our duty to speak up and call for change, because we are firmly convinced that there is no better answer to the challenges of our times than a vibrant and strong transatlantic alliance. It is our sincere hope that NATO's political leaders will note that there is an urgent need to act to provide NATO with a new strategic concept. NATO's leaders are, we are certain, aware of their first and foremost obligation: To do all they can to protect their nations' citizens in the best possible way.
General Henk van den Breemen is a former chief of the defense staff, the Netherlands; Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge was Britain's chief of staff from 1992 to 1994; Admiral Jacques Lanxade is a former chief of staff of the French Navy; Klaus Naumann is a former chief of staff, Federal Republic of Germany; John Shalikashvili is a former US chief of staff and NATO supreme commander.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS