Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished Guests,
Let me start by saying that more than an actual closing speech, I will address you for the next few minutes with some brief remarks on NATO going global vs. regional crises. Mind you they are not one exclusive of the other. On the contrary one includes the other and are mutually integrated.
First of all, I too would like to thank the organizers for the kind invitation to attend this most interesting debate. And I am particularly happy to be here both in my present position in Rome as president of the Centre for Advanced Defense Studies, but also in my previous job as a NATO Commander, the Maritime Commander for the Southern Flank.
I also think this meeting comes at a most appropriate moment, and I will shortly explain why.
In 1949, a military alliance was forged between the United States and its Allies in the North Atlantic Region with the clear purpose of deterring Soviet expansion and aggression in Europe. However, despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed over two decades ago, and with it the threat of conventional warfare in Europe, this Transatlantic security relationship continues to exist. As of today, once more (and this happens in cyclical waves) the question the public opinion poses is:
“In today’s Global world, depicting such fluid, dynamic and uncertain scenarios, what role, if any, should NATO play, absent the conditions that provided it with its founding purpose and justification?”
In the presentations that we were giving this morning, many of the points that were touched upon did give different types of answers to this question.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has slowly but constantly moved towards a more Global perspective. As the threat to the physical security of NATO members diminished, the organization shifted its focus to broader and more geographically diverse threats.
In fact, one of the first milestones of this historical shift of focus was the Washington summit in 1999, that gave birth, after quite some years, to a New Strategic Concept, in which crisis response operations became part of its core missions. It was then that NATO officials started talking about what today is clearly defined as “Comprehensive Approach”.
More than 10 years passed by and the Lisbon Summit of 2010 came out with another New Strategic Concept, this one too acknowledging and embracing the constant evolution of the international terrorist threat after the 9\11 disaster, thereby stating that when the Alliance identifies threats beyond its borders, the organization will “engage where possible and when necessary to prevent crisis, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction”. The philosophy underlined in that statement is clearly one of anticipating situations of tension and creating or re-establishing stability as early as possible and at the furthest distance, to avoid any sort of spillover effect.
Thus, the contemporary NATO (version 3.0…?), essentially a Transatlantic Military Organization whose core mission still remains collective defense, has indeed extended its boundaries to meet the expectations and needs of the International Community and become a global security provider. Furthermore today, NATO finds itself in a new global constellation of powers and in an increasingly complex and interdependent securitized world.
On the other hand, the foregoing core mission is facing an enduring financial crisis and two decades of declining defense spending worldwide, especially in Europe.
If a solution exists to the challenge of addressing such expanding mission requirements with an economically constrained Alliance, it could be found by strengthening NATO’s connection with other countries and organizations around the globe.
I am firm on putting aside immediately the option of “leaving business as it is”, as it will eventually cause the slow but inexorable dissolution of the Alliance. And, believe me, I do not even want to think about such an outcome.
We must remember that NATO, though shaken by the economic crisis, continues to play a pivotal role of balance in global power politics.
So, according to me, the key word here is partnership. Partnership is not a choice anymore, but a must. It is not a choice between staying at home vs. going global. It cannot be peripheral to NATO’s vision – it has become part of NATO’s core business. In almost all areas, the Alliance needs effective and structured Partnerships to be successful, to manage crises, to defend against emerging security challenges and to promote stability. Partnerships are also what will lead us today to better understand and take into account, in our relations and negotiations, the predominant weight of the concept of “equilibrium of interests” rather than “balance of power”.
From Afghanistan to the Balkans, and in 2011 in Libya, NATO’s partners have played a vital role in the operational outcome and the political legitimacy of the missions. They have made NATO stronger and kept the world safer. So it is as important for NATO to invest in strong partnerships as it is to invest in modern military hardware and in flexible forces.
So as was confirmed by many this morning NATO is, in many ways, going global, as it forges partnerships with countries as distant as Japan and Australia to engage in security activities in places as remote as Central Asia, Africa, and the Arctic. These new partnerships benefit both sides: partners make concrete, valuable contributions to the Alliance’s success, while NATO improves their security, confirming its new role as the hub of a global network of partnerships.
Address at the conference NATO Between Global Security and Regional Crises, organized by the Italian Atlantic Committe, University of Bari, 14th May 2013.