II. INtErNAtIoNAL rELAtIoNS
2. Characteristic features of preparing the new strategic concept
The turn in terms of developing the new strategic concept took place in the 2009 jubilee summit. This, however, was preceded by a long series of arguments and seminars where researchers and experts analysed the past and the possible forthcoming events in the international arena, the feasible future of NAto and formed their opinion about the new strategy. Among other things, they discussed the legitimacy of the organisation, the current state of Article 5, the enlargement (open door), the possible global role of NAto, the situation in Afghanistan and other issues.
The most characteristic opinion of experts about the interest groups within NAto was summarised by the authors18 who distinguished three groups within NAto. Having analysed19 the features of these groups it was concluded that they emphasize very different elements in a series of issues. These differences obviously made it difficult to develop the new strategic concept.
The groups and their characteristics are the following:
1. The group called “status quo” emphasizes the maintenance of collective defence and the regional (European) character of the organisation. It does not support NAto to become a global alliance. At the same time the regional character of the organisation does not mean that it limits its activities exclusively to the North-Atlantic region. They claim that NAto can receive a global mandate as a regional organisation too;
however, it does not have to become the world’s policeman as an organisation with a global membership. The principal aim of enlargement is strengthening the stability of Europe. They raise serious concerns about Georgia’s and Ukraine’s access to NAto since it would make NAto’s relationship with russia harder. By emphasizing European
18 NoEtZEL, timo – SCHEEr, Benjaamin: Does a multi-tier NAto matter? The Atlantic Alliance and the Process of Strategic Change. International Affairs 85 (2009.) 2. 215-223. http://www.gg2020.net/fileadmin/gppi/Noetzel-Schreer_-_Does_a_multi-tier_NAto_matter.pdf (4. September 2013.)
19 NoEtZEL - SCHEEr, 2009.
Tamás Sorosy
[ 136 ]
interests they question the exceptional role of the USA. They regard NAto as part of a multilateral security architecture, which, integrating russia, would create a global region of security. They consider operations in Afghanistan mainly stabilisation and reconstruction tasks. Its representatives: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, turkey.
2. The aim of the group called “reformer” is to harmonize NAto interests to the requirements of the American strategy. Its starting point is that it is only NAto with a global membership that can cope with global threats. They claim that the Alliance may become able to renew its strategic function by its global position. Its new role is to become the world’s policeman. The Alliance needs to keep its door open for all the democratic countries of the world in opposition to Article 10 of the Washington treaty, even if the candidate countries are politically unstable. They would proceed with the ISAF mission as operations against the rebels. Its representatives: United States, Britain, Canada, Netherlands.
3. The aim of the Central European group called “reversal” is to reverse the organisation towards its original goals and they view the legitimacy of NAto in its original anti-russian character. They regard russia as the main source of danger due to their historical experience of Soviet imperialistic politics. Because of the perception of the russian threat they focus on emphasizing Article 5 but they do not oppose participating in crisis management operations outside Europe either. Its representatives:
Poland, the Czech republic, the Baltic states.
on 7th July 2008 a seminar was held in Brussels where apart from NAto members, UN, EU, EAPC, MD, ICI representatives, leading security policy NGo20 experts as well as scientists and global company managers21 participated.
During the summit held on 3rd-4th April 2009 in Strasbourg and Kehl heads of state and government determined to develop the new strategy for which they accepted a Declaration on Alliance Security. For the new NAto Secretary General, rasmussen, the development of the new concept became a priority issue.
In the Declaration on Alliance Security they defined the principles and normative regulations of the future strategic concept dissolving certain dilemmas and integrating some new elements:22
20 Non-governmental organization
21 SHELL, ENI, Lloyd’s
22 Declaration on Alliance Security. Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Strasbourg/Kehl on 4th April 2009. http://
[ 137 ]
• Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty remains a cornerstone,
• the door of the Alliance is open for all European democracies,
• global threat terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber assaults (the order was determined at the Prague summit complemented with cyber assaults), energy security, climate security and unstable and fallen states mean a further security challenge,
• capability development (flexibility, crisis management),
• developing strategic connections with international organisations (UN, EU, oSCE,23 AU24) and especially with russia,
• Afghanistan is main priority, there are activities proceeding in the Western Balkans too,
• developing partnership for the sake of cooperative security (where the term appears without any further explanation).
At the request of Secretary General rasmussen a 12-member Group of Experts25 was formed in September 2009, as a novel innovation. In the first phase called reflection activities26 meant a series of seminars and a discussion of recommendations in several venues (Luxemburg, Brdo, oslo, Washington) relating to important issues of the Alliance (core tasks and functions; role in the era of globalisation; security environment, partnership, threats, transformation, abilities). It was followed suit by the consultation phase, where the issues were discussed with responsible government officials of NAto member countries as well as with the representatives of the civilian sphere.
Summarizing all of these the Group of Experts published its report in May 2010. The 57-page document called NAto 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement27 is the working document for the would-be strategic concept.
The Summary of Findings states that NAto’s fundamental task, collective
www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_52838.htm (5. September 2013.)
23 organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
24 African Union
25 Madeleine K. Albright - Chair (United States), Jeroen van der Veer – Vice-Chair (The Netherlands), Giancarlo Aragona (Italy), Marie Gervais-Vidricaire (Canada), Geoff Hoon (United Kingdom), Ümit Pamir (turkey), Fernando Perpiñá-robert Peyra (Spain), Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz (Germany), Bruno racine (France), Aivis ronis (Latvia), Adam Daniel rotfeld (Poland), yannis-Alexis Zepos (Greece). In: http://www.nato.int/
strategic-concept/experts-strategic-concept.html (20. September 2013.)
26 A roadmap for the New Strategic Concept http://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
roadmap-strategic-concept.html#group (20. September 2013.)
27 NATO 2020: Assured security; Dynamic engagement. Analysis and recommendations of the group of experts on a new strategic concept for NATO. online: www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
expertsreport.pdf (19. September 2013.)
Tamás Sorosy
[ 138 ]
defence, is unchanged. It supposes that the Alliance will get into the limelight of international attention fewer times than earlier. It states that collectively the member states are able to face challenges more effectively, among which weapons of mass destruction comes in the first place followed by terrorism and cyber assaults. It also states that maintaining transatlantic relations, strengthening partnership and effective consultations must be prioritized to prevent crises. The open door policy, the transformation and the reforms have to be maintained. It is necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and NAto needs to make efforts to create a world without nuclear weapons.
They need to keep cooperating with russia, the main areas of which are nuclear non-proliferation, rocket defence and measures against terrorism.
New partners have to be found. As a vision to the future it states: “For NATO 2020, the twin imperative is assured security for all its members and dynamic engagement beyond the treaty area to minimize threats.”28 The so-called Further Analysis and recommendations deals with security environment, core activities, partnership, political and organisational issues, reforms, and civilian-military operations. The recommendations aim at making the operation of NAto more effective.
The last phase of the development called Drafting and final negotiation phase was less open to public since the summer of 2010; a four-member group was working on the project headed by Jamie Shea, Head of Policy Planning Unit. The first draft was introduced to NAto ambassadors by the Secretary General at the end of September, then the draft was discussed on 14 october at the joint meeting of foreign and defence ministers in Brussels.29
It was the third version that heads of state and government encountered at the Lisbon Summit, which was approved on 24th November 2010 after a short debate.
to summarize, it can be seen that the new strategic concept came into being under special circumstances after long theoretical arguments and a half-year international open social debate. The 12-member unique Group of Experts summarized the findings, defined the recommendations and a four-member group made the planned draft of the concept. During a short political debate the foreign and defence ministers agreed on the document, which was finally accepted by the heads of state and government in November. As a novelty, the process was organised by the NAto Secretary General throughout the whole time.
28 NAto 2020. 12.
29 It is interesting to note that a joint NAto meeting like this was convened only 11 years earlier.
[ 139 ]
3. The principal elements of the new strategic concept and its differences