NATO

• Missile Defense Systems
• Afghanistan
• Euro-Atlantic Partnership

I. Missile Defense Systems   

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is responsible for protecting troops, territories and populations of member states. The rapid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, short and medium range ballistic missiles and light weapons is of concern to NATO and both warrants and requires the development of projects and activities aimed at curtailing the power of these weapons. Beginning in 1999, NATO’s Strategic Concept recognized the potential threats of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC). To protect its population and its military, NATO needs to develop a defense system to reduce vulnerability while remaining flexible and effective at realizing the goals of this organization. NATO is currently studying three possible missile defense systems:

• Theatre missile Defence (TMD) capability: NATO plans on the operational capacity of this system by 2010. It will be comprised of low and high altitude defenses, communication and radar capabilities, warning systems and various interceptors. It will protect troops and civilians in a particular area by being able to protect against short and medium term ballistic missiles.

·      Missile Defence for the protection of NATO territory: Following the 2002
Prague Summit, NATO approved conducting a study to examine the feasibility of a missile defense system. The Missile Defense Feasibility Study (MD FS) concluded that the system was technically feasible. This study should provide the basis for political and military discussions between NATO leaders.  The aim of this system would be for the defense of NATO forces, territory and populations against long range missile threats.

• TMD cooperation with Russia:  NATO works closely with Russia and regards Russia as an important partner in defense and military areas. Under the 2003 TMD Ad-Hoc Working Group, the NATO- Russia Council is studying interoperability concepts to develop a system to allow NATO and Russia to work together to conduct join TMD operations during crisis response missions.

top

NATO’s twenty six member states agreed to meet and assess the political and military implications of a theater defense missile system. Progress and decisions of this meeting should be monitored as part of preparation for this committee session. The meeting is expected to focus on developing a missile defense system by 2010, the continued study of political and military feasibility of a system and continued cooperation with Russia.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was formed in 2002 and addresses issues of common concern between NATO and Russia. Main areas of cooperation include; terrorism, defense reform, military cooperation and counter-narcotics activities. While there are many areas where NATO and Russia work together, there are several issues where opinions diverge.

Several NATO member states exhibit downward trends in their defense spending. The Secretary General of NATO notes that this is a pattern that must reverse itself and calls on these states to increase budget apportionment to defense needs. Development of a theater defense missile system will not be realized without adequate funds. Euro-Atlantic integration, primarily in the Western Balkans, is based on solidarity and democratic values and is important for long term stability in the region. This requires member countries to work together to find acceptable solutions to various issues. The United States is a major partner in NATO and there is discussion of US systems being integrated into the NATO missile defense system.  Through the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), the United States and the United Kingdom have conducted extensive research into avenues for cooperation, technology and information transfers between the two countries. Among the information transfers has been the sharing of early detection warning systems that will be part of the theater missile defense system.

top

While NATO has a history of cooperation in missile defense when a member state is threatened, missile deployment has become one of the first steps to be taken. The number of ballistic missiles immediately outside NATO’s geographic area has been rapidly increasing. It is possible that these missiles are equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Other neighboring missiles may provide additional challenges in the form of Hezbollah and Iranian missiles which are within short range of NATO member states.

Topics to Consider:

• Will the existence of a theater missile defense system help deter enemy attacks?       
  
• Will NATO members be more inclined to engage in pre-emptive attacks if there  is a TMD System?                                                                                                        
  
• Could there be any other uses (technological or communicative) for a TMD?               
  
• Is there a way that the missile defense system could be used for crisis management? 
  
• How is priority chosen for missile defense assets? 
   
• Will US integration result in increased dependency on the US? 
  
• What is Russia’s role in a TMD and what are possible Russian reactions to such a system?
  

Suggested web sites:

NATO Missile Defence

NATO Documents Missile Defence

Defense Link

NATO Analysis

II. Afghanistan   
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ has played a crucial role in the United Nations’ mandated mission in Afghanistan. The current mandate for NATO is defined in UN Security Council Resolution 1776. This resolution states that NATO objectives include disarming militias, reforming the justice system, training a national police force and army, providing security for elections, and combating the narcotics industry. NATO’s original plan involved a four-phase strategy to help bring the majority areas of Afghanistan under control.  The first phase, which involved the occupation of Northern Afghan, took place between 2003 and 2004. The second phase, which aimed to establish control over the Western part of Afghani, took, place in 2005. Both of the first two phases were accomplished relatively easily because both regions are very stable. NATO launched phase three in 2006, which led forces into Southern Afghanistan. The Southern region was being occupied by the left-over Taliban forces inside Kandahar. Phase four would lead NATO to control the rest of Afghanistan, except for border regions which were under American control as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

NATO’s approach in Afghanistan is sometimes seen as a “three-pronged” approach. Under the UN mandate, NATO’s first approach emphasizes the provision of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The ISAF consists of over 41,000 troops, and performs multiple functions in Afghanistan. ISAF responsibilities include assisting the Afghan authorities in establishing their authority and influence throughout the country, and creating conditions for stabilization and reconstruction. ISAF primarily helps the Afghan government fight armed opposition groups, conduct stabilization operations and training the Afghan Army.

top

The second approach to NATO’s strategy stresses providing political education and training of military personnel to help bring changes within the Afghan government. NATO hoped the Afghan government would make necessary political changes according to the needs of both the citizens and of NATO. The person in charge or representing NATO to the Afghan government is Daan W. Everts from the Netherlands.

The final approach rests on the Framework for Cooperation in partnership. It is designed to undertake defense reform, defense institution building and the military aspects of security sector reform. It is also aimed to carry out such activities as promoting interoperability between the Afghan Army and NATO forces. This approach strives to replace NATO forces with Afghan force in the future. The last step in NATO’s strategy would allow NATO to eventually pull out of Afghanistan.

Many problems continue to fact he government and citizens of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is one of the world’s leading Opium producers, turning Southern Afghanistan into a region mired in drug related war between NATO forces and narcotics dealers. The narcotics battle in the Southern region has become a large-scale problem for NATO. In addition, the NATO members have begun to have problems recruiting troops to commit to Afghanistan. Currently, a major portion of troops comes from American, British and Canadian.  NATO members are not satisfied with the current progress inside Afghanistan and are becoming increasingly unsettled about the future of the mission.

No easy exit strategy exists for NATO troops in Afghanistan. International cooperation and commitment are needed to end Afghanistan‘s extreme jeopardy. Further lack of commitment from member governments could also pose further problems. The International community along with NATO must be willing to stay and help Afghanistan become a stable place.

Issues and Questions

• Can NATO stage a successful mission inside Afghanistan?
• Are there too many problems within Afghanistan for NATO to achieve success?
• How can NATO solve the over-whelming narcotics problem inside Afghanistan?
• Can NATO continue without troop support from its members?

top

III. Euro-Atlantic Partnership   

The very foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a European-North American  Partnership. On 4 April 1949 North Atlantic Treaty  was signed by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom and United States. Ten European states and two North American states signed the defense treaty and thereby establishing a Trans-Atlantic relationship. Hence, NATO is a Euro-Atlantic Partnership in its intrinsic nature.

However, much has changed since 1949. The cold war ended. The reason for the creation of this organization disappeared yet the organization remained. The new focus become cooperation with the former communist states.

The Euro-Atlantic Partnership is transforming not only its central issue but structure. In 1997, The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was created which reflected NATO’s desire to further progress and to build a security forum for a more enhanced and operational partnership.

top

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was established to address the specific subject areas on which Allies and Partners would consult, in the framework of the EAPC, might include but not be limited to: political and security related matters; crisis management; regional matters; arms control issues; nuclear, biological and chemical proliferation and defence issues; international terrorism; defence planning and budgets and defence policy and strategy; security impacts of economic developments. There will also be scope for consultations and cooperation on issues such as: civil emergency and disaster preparedness; armaments cooperation under the aegis of the Conference of National Armaments Directors; nuclear safety; defence related environmental issues; civil-military coordination of air traffic management and control; scientific cooperation; and issues related to peace support operations.

The face of NATO is changing.  NATO in attempting to find purpose become a crucial actor in peacekeeping missions such as Kosovo in 1999. Terrorism has become major issue since September 11th  2001. Former communist states such as Romania and Estonia joined the Organization in 2004. NATO will likely continue to expand by possibly incorporating states such as Sweden and Ukraine. New or rather revived tensions with Russia has recently become a concern.

The November 2006 Riga summit demonstrates that the relationship between the United States and Europe, it is this: policy concerns on both sides of the Atlantic are often similar, and common challenges are plentiful. The five most pressing concerns  shared by both sides of the Atlantic are reconstruction, confronting radical militant Islam, the proliferation of WMD's, energy cooperation, and increasing economic competition from developing countries. It is key that Euro-Atlantic Partnership strengthen and improve to deal with these issues as well better refine NATO itself.

Key Ideas

l        Removing the bureaucratic gridlock

l        Better communication and cooperation between NATO and European Union member states

l        French re-integration

l        Logistics co-operation

l        Information sharing