by Hélène Kirkkesseli
On 11 March 2020, Strife had the pleasure of welcoming Paul King, editor and programmer at NATO for over twelve years, to discuss the Alliance’s history, as well as its current agenda. One of our Senior Editors, Stanislava Mladenoa, chaired the discussion.
The discussion started off by addressing the ‘elephant in the room’: the growing criticism around NATO’s relevance in the contemporary world. As NATO celebrated its seventieth anniversary last December, it faced harsh criticism from multiple leaders of NATO member states, amidst concerns that the United States is progressively disengaging. This situation begs the question: is NATO going through a mid-life crisis?
King’s responded that this critique was nothing new per say, but an old debate, revisited. He explained that this debate was already existent ten years ago, yet Russia’s annexation of Crimea has brought renewed attention to it. Indeed, NATO had been working since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to foster closer ties with Russia, which would have benefitted all sides. Although it seemed Russia was NATO’s partner at its sixtieth anniversary, Russia’s skepticism towards NATO now suggests otherwise.
NATO also faces another issue: as an organisation born in 1949, it still works according to ‘old’ rules. Following the Second World War, the Alliance focused on physical borders. Now, because of technological developments, it must adapt to novel challenges emerging from the increasing reliance on the cyber world. King made note of this situation in his discussion, with reference to the 2007 cyberattack carried out against Estonia, which turned out to cause far more damage than a physical attack. NATO has and is continuing to learn to respond to these threats: as evidenced by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which both highlights key contemporary challenges and outlines how NATO proposes to deal with them.
The main difference with the criticism expressed these past few months is that these are coming from NATO members themselves. In an interview with The Economist in October 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron declared ‘What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO’, calling into question the effectiveness of the collective defence mechanism as provided for in Article 5 of the Treaty. He sees this mechanism as dependent on the United States’ commitment to the Alliance. This is now uncertain, particularly following the US’ unexpected decision to withdraw from Northern Syria. Yet, while President Macron may have broken a rule, his remarks should be seen as an opportunity to prove him wrong: by highlight the strengths of the Alliance and how these can help further international security interests.
In light of recent attacks, the discussion then moved on to consider NATO’s fight against domestic and international terrorism. Following the Brussels bombings on 22 March 2016, King recalled driving by Louise Street and spotting a military truck, on which four letters had been obscured: K.F.O.R. (short for Kosovo Force). He explained that this truck was highly emblematic of both where NATO stands today, and the challenges it faces in regards to terrorism. When NATO was operating in Kosovo’s strife towards peace in 1999, the Alliance knew who it was fighting and how these groups would respond. In 2016, King notes, none of this applied: the truck was there to respond retrospectively to an unpredictable attack.
King then went on to explore domestic security issues concerning chemical weapons. In response to a question from the audience regarding NATO’s response to the Salisbury attack, King discussed the difficulties of fully grasping Russia’s use of hybrid techniques. The first reason for this is that NATO can only intervene and access this information if its intervention is requested by one of its members. In this regard, the wide diversity of techniques employed by Russia further added to the fact that NATO members are reluctant to share intelligence unless certain it will not be compromised. For the moment, it appears that NATO is keeping up with Russia’s hybrid techniques, but not quite getting ahead.
Another member of our audience questioned King, this time regarding NATO’s perception of China, which seemed to be understated compared to Russia. He explained that due to the geographical proximity of several members of the Alliance to Russia, many of whom joined NATO precisely due to the existential threat it poses for their national security, Russia will remain a major preoccupation for NATO. However, China is indeed an issue which NATO will have to address, as has been acknowledged by NATO’s Secretary-General last December who stated: ‘There’s no way that NATO will move into the South China Sea but we have to address the fact that China is coming closer to us, investing heavily in infrastructure’. While NATO remains a defence alliance and has no interest in starting a conflict, China is undoubtedly a major player in the world and should be monitored.
Moving forward, King discussed the impact of NATO enlargement on decision-making within the Alliance. As he explained, this is where a positive can turn out to be a negative in practice. Enlargement must be considered as positive for the Alliance. However, any country willing to join NATO must reach out to the Alliance, NATO does not go ‘door to door’ seeking to enlarge. This means that as long as countries remain interested, the Alliance retains its legitimacy, in spite of criticism expressed against it. On the flip side, NATO works by consensus: with every member state having its own distinct security priorities, some discussions may turn out to be more difficult than others.
Overall, and despite increasing criticism from its members, NATO’s agenda for the 21st Century is very busy. In addition to facing ‘old’ threats, the Alliance must deal with a variety of newer issues with had not been envisaged in 1949, such as cyber-threats, domestic terrorism, Russian disinformation and China’s military expansion. Perhaps this proves that even at seventy, the Alliance is relevant now more than ever.
Hélène is currently pursuing an MA in International Peace and Security within the War Studies department of King’s College London. Prior to this, she graduated from the double Law degree program between the universities of Paris-Nanterre in France and Essex in the UK, specializing in international public law and EU law. Having previously interned at the DG for External policies of the European Parliament and the US Embassy to France, she is now focusing her studies particularly on the South Caucasus region. You can follow her on Twitter: @hkirkkesseli
The post Event Review – NATO’s Agenda for the 21st Century: In Conversation with Paul King appeared first on Strife.