BEYOND BORDERS: TRANSITIONING NATO TOWARDS HUMAN SECURITY PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE 21 ST CENTURY: A YOUTH PERSPECTIVE NATO STUDENT POLICY PAPER COMPETITION 2016 Oscar Vejen Lacoppidan Security Risk Management, University of Copenhagen 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This policy paper focuses on the different aspects of security necessary for NATO to consider in the effort to establish future peace and security within and between memberstates. It builds on the understanding that security and peace are not the same, but can be achieved by similar means, and argues that NATO must consider both national and human security as cardinal elements in future activities. This will allow NATO to proactively shift the conditions of engaging in an issue, and be perceived as a provider of peace and security in the future. The brief proposes two initiatives as part of an overall strategy to redefine NATO s activities and perception in the future: Enhance national security in Turkey, Poland and the Baltics, focusing on mitigating hybrid warfare. Position NATO as a force for human security by expanding operations from the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. INTRODUCTION NATO was forged in an era of turbulence and changing world orders in an endeavor to defend and deter threats towards the peace and security of member-states. Today, we face similar patterns of rupture and new constellations of threats towards peace and security are emerging. While these shifts also hold potential for redefining and indeed strengthening NATO, these must be critically assessed in terms of operational impact today, and their implications for tomorrow. However conditioned by the past, NATO needs to act on and shape the opportunities of tomorrow, and adjust initiatives, moving beyond military means, to continue its core activity of promoting peace and security. This implies using from NATO s hitherto reactive steps in a proactive manner in order to condition future threats towards peace and security. 2
INITIATIVE I: PROMOTE NATIONAL SECURITY FOR NATO MEMBERS The developments in Ukraine and Syria have had major implications on NATO memberstates. Russia s annexation of Crimea, herein Putin s legitimization by vowing to protect Russian minorities everywhere, pose a significant risk to the stability of the Baltic countries. While NATO has little interest and mandate in assisting Ukraine re-establishing Crimea as part of Ukraine, it should instead resolutely show that NATO protects memberstates with the similar geopolitical risks. Russia s demonstration of hybrid warfare capacities in both Ukraine and Syria proved how timely insertion in destabilized areas is crucial. While it is important not to trust the past to predict the future, these capacities are likely to be crucial elements in future security issues. It would immediately seem that NATO is at a strategic disadvantage as it would be difficult to legitimize official creation and insertion of hybrid warfare capacities due to NATO s mission to defend and deter, not destabilize and attack. A more sustainable option is to focus on mitigating elements and specific institutions vulnerable hybrid warfare, herein monitoring geopolitical developments to identify vulnerable areas. This would allow NATO to proactively mitigate hybrid warfare through the production and dissemination of material to countries, member-states as well as their neighbors. Such dissemination makes local communities in vulnerable countries more resilient towards hybrid warfare, while simultaneously promoting peace and security for areas, whose instability may inflict on NATO. While NATO shouldn t counter hybrid warfare by engaging in it, hybrid warfare can be curtailed indirectly by limiting the vacuum of power it relies on. By bolstering NATO s military presence in the Baltic as well as Poland and Turkey, NATO will be able to mitigate the aptitude of hybrid warfare capacities in these areas. Deploying capable and sizeable resources to such areas provides a credible threat to expose and counter entities contemplating engaging in hybrid warfare, thereby curtailing the very effect of hybrid warfare. Enhanced monitoring and policing areas create a credible threat and deter hybrid warfare. Therefore, the current steps on enhancing military capacities in the Baltic countries, as well as Poland, are well taken, but must be coupled with a narrative of how NATO establishes peace and security for itself and beyond. By publicly demonstrating 3
countermeasures to hybrid warfare, NATO will position itself as a proactive, yet defensive organization, promoting the national security of its member-states from attacks and attempted exploits, rather than engaging in the same against other states. A similar, non-confrontational approach is necessary in the current developments between Turkey and Russia. It would be detrimental for the peace and security of NATO as an organization, and Turkey as a country, if the current developments were to escalate to armed conflict. NATO must work in close collaboration with Turkish officials to abstain from reacting to Russian provocations. Russian activity in Turkish territory is built upon the assumption that NATO will not risk a full confrontation with Russia, hence enabling the provocation to continue. NATO can mitigate this threat, and thus enhance Turkey s national security, by instating NATO observational capacities in the areas. The presence alone is highly likely to deter further Russian provocation, as it would curtail the advantage of Russian ability to question Turkey s reports of infringed sovereignty, while it would also force greater Russian caution in their operational space. Turkey s domestic security issues facing are similarly inflamed by Russian activity in Syria, providing the country with further incentive to publicly accept observational capacities from NATO. As will be argued in the following section, such capacities can also help provide human security, and thus reposition NATO in accordance with contemporary issues. Points of action - Continuation of bolstering activity in eastern-most member-states, specifically the Baltics and Poland, including efforts to counter the possibilities of hybrid warfare. - Implement observational capacities from NATO along the Turkish-Syrian border, as well as naval elements in Turkish and international waters, as close to Latakia as possible. - Clear communication of the reasoning and ends of initiatives to counter misinformation, while also creating a common narrative of NATO. 4
INITIATIVE II: ENHANCE HUMAN SECURITY Having been caught off-guard by Russia s advance in Crimea and Syria, NATO needs to react and regain its position as the defining entity when it comes to international security and peace. While NATO s primary mission is to defend and deter attacks against memberstates, and thus provide national security, invoking a greater focus on human security can be a vital step in this endeavor. The current mobilization in the Aegean Sea to counter human trafficking is a crucial step in defining NATO s role moving forward, as now citizens of non-member states are also benefitting from NATO operations. In order to secure its future position, NATO must exploit the immediate and future potential of acting and being perceived as an international human security organization. This novel approach to ensuring human, and not only national, security is a crucial step towards defining NATO moving forward and, in doing so, redefining the operational space of other entities, herein Russia. Russian decision-making processes are opaque and swift, while NATO has more interests to take into consideration. Due to this operational and strategic advantage, NATO is compelled to invoke new strategic initiatives to change the field of practice, forcing Russia to adjust. This not only mitigates the impact of Russia s strategic advantage within decision-making, but also provides NATO with the opportunity to redefine international security and peace issues. Beyond the immediate advantage of making Russia readjust, enhancing operations to go beyond the Aegean Sea and into the Mediterranean area will posit NATO as an international force for peace and human security, while simultaneously elevating NATO presence in areas close to the Syrian border heavily inflicted by Russian bombings. In the longer term, this will force Russia, and other states, to similarly engage in issues with other ends than militaristic, in order to maintain international legitimacy. For example, the regress to militaristic tactics has been highly due to Russia s invocation of these in a time otherwise characterized by an increasingly diplomatic approach to security issues. Russia s current position for negotiation comes against the backdrop of military activity in a time, which has otherwise seen increasingly diplomatic approaches. By moving through more diplomatic and indirect interventions, future conflicts will be forced to use other means, as the significance of military involvement diminishes. Further, framing and engaging in specific issues as security or peace issues provides NATO with the advantage 5
of delineating what issues are dealt with at the international level. By accruing this type of legitimacy, NATO will be perceived as the central organization for solving security issues, herein both national and human security. Enhancing the current operations in the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean thereby provides both instant military and surveillance opportunities, and long-term political and diplomatic potentials. The risks associated with failure of such an expansion are loss of resources and a damaged image, as the organization s authority wanes with failed operations. This is most significant in NATO s status and authority next to Russia, as failure would posit NATO as the weaker or inefficient part. However, while this latter risk is significant, the same damage to authority can be caused by inaction, leaving an expanded effort to curtail the refugee stream as the most viable option. Similarly, a successful operation would position NATO as an international heralder of peace and security through various means, and Russia as an exclusively military entity, operating with reference to its own interests. Responding to issues concerned with human security proactively shape future security issues to involve this element, and condition other parties to apply similar approaches to future issues. This will limit the digress into invoking national security strategies as the ones seen in Ukraine and Syria, as there will be a focus on the issues for human security, and peace. Finally, such an approach will enable creating the narrative of a NATO, which ensures peace for its member-states as well as security for humans beyond the states. Points of action Expand the current operation in the Aegean Sea to larger areas of the Mediterranean Sea Clearly communicate diplomatic and non-militaristic means for ensuring human security 6
CONCLUSION In order to secure security and peace in the future, NATO must take a more proactive and defining role in current security issues, and strategies to uphold the original focus of NATO to defend and deter must be rethought following the current developments. By combining operational elements focusing on national and human security, NATO will establish itself as a humanitarian and military power as opposed to the current sole focus on military operations. This is an essential effort in ensuring future peace and security within NATO, as it changes the perception of NATO s role as an entity providing security beyond its members. Further, this would limit the digression to purely military confrontation in the future, instead forcing agendas and means influenced by NATO s policy. Doing so will posit NATO as a proactive shaper of future security and peace issues, rather than a reactive entity. 7