Info

Chapter 12: The Military Command Structure Internal Adaptation of Alliance Forces The internal adaptation of the Alliance's military forces is a further development of the reductions and restructuring undertaken in recent years to enable the Alliance to confront more effectively the circumstances of the changed security environment. This process can be traced back to the London Declaration of July 1990, when Heads of State and Government of NATO nations called for a process of adaptation commensurate with the changes that were reshaping Europe. The London Summit was a decisive turning point in the history of the Alliance and led to the adoption, in November 1991, of a new Strategic Concept, reflecting a much broader approach to security than had been envisaged hitherto. This was reflected in the evolution in the European security situation in 1992 and 1993 and, in January 1994, NATO Heads of State and Government called for a further examination of how the Alliance's political and military structures and procedures might be developed and adapted to conduct the Alliance's missions, including peacekeeping, more efficiently and flexibly. In September 1994, the Military Committee launched the NATO Long Term Study (LTS) to examine the Alliance's Integrated Military Structure and to put forward "proposals for change to the Alliance's Force Structures, Command Structures and Common Infrastructure". As work continued on the Study, Foreign Ministers provided further crucial guidance at their meeting in Berlin in June 1996, defining the scope of missions for NATO for which the new command structure would need to be equipped. At their meeting in Berlin in June 1996, NATO Foreign Ministers affirmed that an essential part of the Alliance's adaptation is to build a European Security and Defence Identity within NATO, to enable all European allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the Alliance as an expression of shared responsibilities; to act themselves as required; and to reinforce the transatlantic partnership. They also called for the further development of the Alliance's ability to carry out new roles and missions relating to conflict prevention and crisis management and efforts against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, while maintaining the capability for collective defence. This was to be complemented by enhancing the Alliance's contribution to security and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area by broadening and deepening cooperation with NATO Partner countries. This essential impetus for the Military Committee's work on internal adaptation resulted from decisions taken collectively by all 16 member countries. In December 1997, Spain announced its intention to join the new military structure. France, which participates in the Military Committee's work on internal adaptation, has indicated that it is not in a position to participate fully in NATO's integrated structures, but has expressed its continued positive attitude towards the continuing process of internal adaptation and selective participation in NATO-led operations. The Alliance's efforts to improve its capability to fulfil all its roles and missions called for three fundamental objectives to be achieved. The Alliance's military effectiveness had to be ensured; the transatlantic link preserved; and the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) developed within the Alliance. The overriding imperative in developing any new structure was that it must be "mission oriented". It needed to provide NATO with the capability to cope with the full range of Alliance roles and missions, ranging from its traditional task of undertaking collective defence, to fulfilling new roles in changing circumstances, including "non-Article 5" missions such as peace support operations. Furthermore, factors such as flexibility, force effectiveness, Alliance cohesion, the principle of multinationality, affordability and incorporation of ESDI and CJTF requirements all had to be taken into account. The new structure also had to have growth potential and the flexibility to accommodate new member nations without the need for major restructuring. In this context, it was determined that the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland would not require any additional NATO command structure headquarters. Finally, the structure had to afford adequate opportunity for the participation of Partner countries.