Jag undrar om någon av de försvarspolitiker som talar sig varma för NATO eller övriga som sitter tysta läst dokumentet?
Vad säger svenska politiker om användandet av kärnvapen eller en närmare samordning mellan Pentagon, Nato och EU. Eller att en av avsikterna med dokumentet är att stoppa en självständig europeiska säkerhetspolitik utanför NATO. Eller att de 5 försvarscheferna vill ta bort veto rätten för länder mot att sätta in styrkor.
Eller är det som vanligt att försvarspolitik diskuteras aldrig öppet i sverige?
Nato behöver en ny strategi
Världen har förändrats dramatiskt sedan Nato antog sin nuvarande strategi 1999. Då var Nato en regional allians inriktad på att försvara alliansens territorier. Men det räcker inte längre. Dagens viktigaste uppgift är att förhindra kriser, väpnade konflikter och krig där svaret i första hand kanske inte är militära insatser. Därför behöver Nato en ny strategi, skriver fem tidigare försvarsstabschefer för Project Syndicate.
Berlin — 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 current “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 September 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 pre-determined 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 United Nations, and the European Union. 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.