Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
NATO, World Security and Terrorism Portobello High School 16 March, 2010. Many issues to consider but my focus is on …. A little background What is NATO doing now? Justification for new role What is its relevance to us? Is it working ok? Thoughts about the future….
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Portobello High School
16 March, 2010
A little background
What is NATO doing now?
Justification for new role
What is its relevance to us?
Is it working ok?
Thoughts about the future…
Where we are and where we are going?
Goal of NATO has been deterrence
NATO’s was there to avert a Soviet/ Warsaw Pact attack- “nothing to gain”
NATO relied on nuclear superiority to offset inferiority in “conventional” arms
1980’s- General Rogers, SACEUR- “Currently, we can only sustain ourselves for a short time. I will then be forced to follow ministers’ guidance and ask for authorisation… to use nuclear weapons”
London Declaration, 1990 – “new beginning”
Reduction in conventional forces ( tanks, artillery)
Partnership for Peace – working with former enemies
Enlargement of NATO- New members
“Yugoslavia” - NATO was asked by UN to “enforce” peace initiatives in Bosnia and Kosovo
NATO Air Campaign
Dayton/ Treaty of Paris
NATO land forces committed- over 50,000
Majority of people in Kosovo sought independence from Yugoslavia
Armed conflict /ethnic cleansing
NATO Air Campaign
- NATO Land based forces
NATO conducts 11 months of bombing raids on Yugoslavia. It is the first time NATO acts against a state without UN approval.
- 65% of oil/gas consumed in West Europe pass through Med.
- 20% of daily oil supply via Straits of Hormuz
12% of global trade passes Gulf of Aden
- 80% of supplies for Afghanistan sent by sea
In 2008, 4 major oil co’s asked NATO for tanker protection
NATO role in policing/ protecting shipping:
- Naval force off Somalia/ dealing with pirates
- “Maritime situational awareness”
- Importance of partnershipsDealing with terrorist and other threats- At sea
Improvised explosive attacks (IEDs):
- 48% higher in ’08; 828 IEDs in July ’09
Total casualties of coalition forces- over 1,400
Elections – questions about voting/polling; President Karsai re-elected but discreditedDealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan – 2009
Indicated intention to start withdrawal in 2011
Other NATO members to contribute 5000 plus
USA "founded in resistance to oppression"
Need for "effective partnership" with PakistanDealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan –President Obama- 1/12/09
43 Troop Contributing Nations
c.86,000 troops ( UK- c.9.5K)
Afghanistan- 650,000 km² ( 10 times Bosnia!)
26 Provincial Reconstruction Teams
PLUS Afghan Army and Police
Afghan army- c.100k ( planning for 130k in 2010)
Afghan police- c.81k
- Gain initiative by protecting the population in densely populated areas
- Initial “Gain the Initiative” to take 12 to 18 months
- Separate insurgency influence from the populace
- Help to re-establish rule of law and deliver basic services
- Implement security measures to help economic recovery , foster community development and generate employmentCurrent ISAF Strategy- Operation Moshtarak
Shortages of soldiers, kit, weapons etc
Training of Afghan National Army
Presidential elections in Afghanistan
Co- operation with Afghan Government
Need to win “hearts and minds”
NATO needs to avoid civilian casualties
“ Conflict” between different values/culturesDealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan –Critical Issues
Nuclear Biological Chemical Defence (NBCD)
AWAC aircraft to protect airspace
Practical cooperation - crisis management, civil emergency planning, and environmental security
NRC- “an effective forum for political dialogue”
Annual work programme
NATO and Russia do not always agree on everything and differences remain on some issues…NATO/Russia Relations…
Up to 1989
Operated in Europe only
Enemy-USSR & allies
Conventional, backed by nuclear
Inward looking/ Europe only
Military alliance with clear purpose and consensus
Successful track record
Europe and elsewhere
Enemy- Terrorists, rogue states…
More flexible force
Building relations with neighbours in Europe and further afield
Rather lop-sided alliance with less consensus
Mixed track record
Regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, “Britain's defence and foreign policy operations are often misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented, and that these efforts are in fact at the heart of tackling international terrorism. The greatest priority in tackling terrorism around the globe is the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”Mr Bill RammellUK Minister of Armed Forces Speech- Aug, 2009
Is global engagement more or less easy now?
How much are we prepared to devote to defence budget? How important is defence as a insurance policy to protect national interests?
Is NATO is required now as much as it was in the past? Is the world more or less dangerous now?
( N. Korea, Iran etc)A few suggestions for discussion…