Summary of the discussion on the future of NATO in the view of Sir Peter Ricketts
hosted by first defence on the 27th June 2005
Nato is changing rapidly, a fact not appreciated by the public. In order to maintain interest in the alliance it is essential to have parliamentary support.
15 years ago the purpose of Nato was clear, collective security. Though collective security remains at the heart of Nato, with the disappearance of the Soviet threat Nato has had to evolve quite rapidly
Sir Peter identified that Nato has a number of uses that take it out of its traditional sphere.
Twice Nato has demonstrated that it can adapt, the reaction to the troubles throughout the 1990s in the Balkans and the recent Nato mission to Afghanistan have forced Nato to rethink. Currently Nato’s most important mission is Afghanistan, but the involvement in Dafur is one that the allies could never have envisaged. The partnership programme, which is Nato’s most unsung, is also one of Nato’s great successes. Started in 1994, it has enabled countries affiliated to Nato modernise their armed forces, and has offered counter terrorist help. The scheme has enabled a dialogue with Russia that would otherwise have been unworkable, and put pressure on Russia to stop its interference in the recent elections in Georgia and Ukraine. The programme has encouraged Gulf countries to approach Nato for reform. The second Bush administration has been eager to use Nato to place pressure on the international community to resolve the Dafur issue. There is however some dispute over the precise roles of both Nato and the EU in the region. New members to the alliance are certainly pulling their weight; recent Lithuanian operations demonstrate this.
In describing what Nato might want to do in the future, Sir Peter identified some possibilities.
Nato might want to reconstruct a consensus on its precise role.
Nato should only operate when there is critical public support.
Nato should not become a world policeman; it does not have sufficient resources.
There is absolutely no reason why Nato and Europe should not be able to cooperate and work out a clear division of labour. Bosnia proved difficult, Dafur is proving almost impossible. Much of the problem lies in that some members of the alliance wish to see a big Nato and a small EU, whilst others wish to see a powerful EU and a dormant Nato. The British presidency of the EU ought to be a golden opportunity to ensure reconciliation. Nato can be used to improve wider world dialogue between the EU and the USA. In Nato, those member states of the EU habitually hostile to the USA can meet as allies and settle problems.
Finally Nato is in need of some further transformation, especially in the area of
buildings and structures. There is turmoil over further enlargement and Ukraine is likely to be the main issue to dominate the debate over the next few years. Nato has now taken on more, and there is still angst over Iraq and the precise role it ought to take.
Questions & Answers
With regard to Dafur, it is not a fully-fledged military operation; Nato is providing support to the African Union. EU and Nato having to cooperate through a single cell in Addis Ababa, to try to resolve logistical issues.
On the topic of Nato being without boundary, this is still very much part of the ongoing debate within Nato. Before further enlargement we will need to look at the benefits for the UK and other existing members. Also if Nato takes on more members they will have to conform to the established standards.
On intelligence, it is now clear that a European intelligence agency is off the agenda. Within the alliance itself there is not a strong intelligence assessment division however operational intelligence handling is strong. The alliance is very much dependent on intelligence provided by member countries.
Regarding Uzbekistan there is already an international inquiry underway. It is proving difficult to put pressure on them. Their representatives refuse to turn up to Nato meetings. The USA has indicated that it wishes to hold its own inquiry.
In response to other questions, the idea of a EU seat at Nato would be abhorrent and contrary to the national interest. Nato has in the event of a terrorist strike the ability to engage itself in anti biochemical work. Nato is ready to meet the upsurge in violence in Afghanistan.
