The one issue the Strategic Concept must deal with is ...

The importance of the new concept for NATO: video 1

For some, the most important changes the Strategic Concept must bring are in what NATO does. For others, it will be how NATO does it - especially in terms of the organisation’s workings. Here we set out the different priorities.

 Subtitles: On / Off

The importance of the new concept for NATO

For some, the most important changes the Strategic Concept must bring are in what NATO does. For others, it will be how NATO does it - especially in terms of the organisation’s workings. Here we set out the different priorities.

I think If we reach an understanding...

What... How far we go

with out-of-area operations

and what is the raison d’être

of the out-of-area operations?

Is it an independent new mission,

independently

from our article 5 defence agenda?

Or is it still a national

or alliance defence operation

and, is it always weighed

against our defence interests?

This is, I think, crucial

because otherwise

we may end up in confusion

if a question comes:

Shall we go or shall we not?

Communicate

the very simple message

that what NATO is all about

is security and stability for its people.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And let the experts decide

how this is going to be done.

How does NATO be an effective actor

in a globalised world?

We live in a world of globalised

threats, challenges and opportunities.

And we're a regional alliance

within the North Atlantic area.

How does that regional actor

act effectively in a globalised world?

That is the challenge we face.

As individual countries.

But also in alliance.

Close the gap

between those who believe

that expeditionary missions are

the nearly exclusive domain of NATO

and those who believe

that NATO isn’t doing enough

to address their territorial threats.

The gap

between the Afghanistan Firsters

and the article 5 group is

the most divisive debate in NATO.

The new Concept should make it clear

that we will be doing missions.

It’s difficult to define only one...

I would mention two, if possible.

The first one is the proper balance

between the operations,

and second,

the proper balance in views

among the bigger

and smaller countries

to make sure that

this is our Strategic Concept,

that each member can identity

itself with it. That’s very important.

It must deal

with renewing commitment

to the defence

establishments across Europe.

That is perhaps the thing that

has become lacking in many cases.

That need not be part

of the Strategic Concept,

but it must be part of the dialogue.

There should be no Head of State

who sits down and signs up

to the Strategic Concept

who hasn’t also thought through

with his people or her people,

the implications financially,

the implications man-power,

in terms of the health of the people

that they deploy in these operations,

the implications

of agreeing to that document.

Always when you say there is

one thing you have to deal with,

then I think that ignores

the complexity of this world.

We have to face our many threats.

So if there is one priority here,

it’s that you look at all the threats

and you make a selection out of that.

So that’s how I deviate your question.

But I think that’s essential.

Then you go too far in simplification,

that’s exactly what we don’t need.

The scope…

...and being an economist,

the resource of responsibility.

If you say, we will take care of all

major security situations in the world

and that’s our vocation,

then let’s from the very beginning

decide what will be the resource.

When I’m in Washington, discussing

the initiative of Mr Medvedev

of the global anti-missile system,

they say:

Let’s start talking with you guys

because at least you know

what you’re talking about

in terms of money,

technological possibilities

and existing structures.

I think cooperation.

I think rationalising the forces

to have a credible force

that can be projected. But...

You know, NATO has always been

a forum for dialogue.

And I think the more

that dialogue happens,

the more we understand each other,

each different culture and country.

Not what must be changed,

but what must be retained.

Let’s not forget that the current

Concept has a lot of merit in it.

I don’t think that it should be changed

for the sake of change.

But there should be a retention

of the core principles of article 5

and collective defence

that I’ve already referred to...

But, yes, let’s look

at the new emerging threats

that are now out there

and round it off in that way.

I think If we reach an understanding...

What... How far we go

with out-of-area operations

and what is the raison d’être

of the out-of-area operations?

Is it an independent new mission,

independently

from our article 5 defence agenda?

Or is it still a national

or alliance defence operation

and, is it always weighed

against our defence interests?

This is, I think, crucial

because otherwise

we may end up in confusion

if a question comes:

Shall we go or shall we not?

Communicate

the very simple message

that what NATO is all about

is security and stability for its people.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And let the experts decide

how this is going to be done.

How does NATO be an effective actor

in a globalised world?

We live in a world of globalised

threats, challenges and opportunities.

And we're a regional alliance

within the North Atlantic area.

How does that regional actor

act effectively in a globalised world?

That is the challenge we face.

As individual countries.

But also in alliance.

Close the gap

between those who believe

that expeditionary missions are

the nearly exclusive domain of NATO

and those who believe

that NATO isn’t doing enough

to address their territorial threats.

The gap

between the Afghanistan Firsters

and the article 5 group is

the most divisive debate in NATO.

The new Concept should make it clear

that we will be doing missions.

It’s difficult to define only one...

I would mention two, if possible.

The first one is the proper balance

between the operations,

and second,

the proper balance in views

among the bigger

and smaller countries

to make sure that

this is our Strategic Concept,

that each member can identity

itself with it. That’s very important.

It must deal

with renewing commitment

to the defence

establishments across Europe.

That is perhaps the thing that

has become lacking in many cases.

That need not be part

of the Strategic Concept,

but it must be part of the dialogue.

There should be no Head of State

who sits down and signs up

to the Strategic Concept

who hasn’t also thought through

with his people or her people,

the implications financially,

the implications man-power,

in terms of the health of the people

that they deploy in these operations,

the implications

of agreeing to that document.

Always when you say there is

one thing you have to deal with,

then I think that ignores

the complexity of this world.

We have to face our many threats.

So if there is one priority here,

it’s that you look at all the threats

and you make a selection out of that.

So that’s how I deviate your question.

But I think that’s essential.

Then you go too far in simplification,

that’s exactly what we don’t need.

The scope…

...and being an economist,

the resource of responsibility.

If you say, we will take care of all

major security situations in the world

and that’s our vocation,

then let’s from the very beginning

decide what will be the resource.

When I’m in Washington, discussing

the initiative of Mr Medvedev

of the global anti-missile system,

they say:

Let’s start talking with you guys

because at least you know

what you’re talking about

in terms of money,

technological possibilities

and existing structures.

I think cooperation.

I think rationalising the forces

to have a credible force

that can be projected. But...

You know, NATO has always been

a forum for dialogue.

And I think the more

that dialogue happens,

the more we understand each other,

each different culture and country.

Not what must be changed,

but what must be retained.

Let’s not forget that the current

Concept has a lot of merit in it.

I don’t think that it should be changed

for the sake of change.

But there should be a retention

of the core principles of article 5

and collective defence

that I’ve already referred to...

But, yes, let’s look

at the new emerging threats

that are now out there

and round it off in that way.

Videos in The importance of the new concept for NATO:

1. The one issue the Strategic Concept must deal with is ... :

2. NATO HQ - time for a makeover?

Share this    DiggIt   MySpace   Facebook   Delicious   Permalink