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
The US Department of Defense recently released this year’s “Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” This annual report provides a comprehensive overview of China’s military capabilities, strategic objectives and evolving global ambitions. Taiwan features prominently in this year’s report, as capturing the nation remains central to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” a goal he has set for 2049. The report underscores Taiwan’s critical role in China’s long-term strategy, highlighting its significance as a geopolitical flashpoint and a key target in China’s quest to assert dominance
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
RSS