slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
NATO, World Security and Terrorism Portobello High School 16 March, 2010

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

NATO, World Security and Terrorism Portobello High School 16 March, 2010 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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….

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'NATO, World Security and Terrorism Portobello High School 16 March, 2010' - erika

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
NATO, World Security and Terrorism

Portobello High School

16 March, 2010

many issues to consider but my focus is on
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…

Where we are and where we are going?

up to 1989
Operated in Europe only

16 members

Enemy-USSR & allies

Political, diplomatic and military alliance with clear purpose and consensus

SUCCESSFUL- prevented war in Europe

Up to 1989
nato deterrence
NATO “Deterrence”

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”

nato in the 1990 s
NATO in the 1990’s

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

1995 nato gets involved in bosnia
1995- NATO gets involved in Bosnia

UN Mandate

NATO Air Campaign

Dayton/ Treaty of Paris

NATO land forces committed- over 50,000


1999 kosovo
1999- Kosovo

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.

9 11 01
  • Allies invoked Art.5:-Attack on US is “attack against all
  • 8 measures (4 October 2001)
9 11 01 and after terrorism what s different
Unique combination of factors:

- global reach, capability, resilience, sophistication, ambition, and lack of restraint

More difficult to keep track of individuals

Greater availability of arms

World wide/easier communications

Rise of Fundamentalism

9.11.01 and afterTerrorism-What’s different?
9 11 a huge challenge for nato
“Security threats” from outside Europe

NATO needed to reshape and reorganise

“Level playing- field”?

Could European allies provide sufficient military support, alongside USA?

9/11- “A huge challenge” for NATO
nato dealing with terrorist threats
Mediterranean and maritime


Rapid Reaction Response Force

Nuclear, biological and chemical threats

Dealing with “after-effects” & “consequences”

Building partnerships

NATO dealing with terrorist threats
dealing with terrorist threats at sea
Dealing with terrorist threats- At sea
  • “Active Endeavour”- Mediterranean
  • Purpose –to deter terrorism
  • Why:
  • Stop terrorist attacks on people in Europe
  • Shipping routes are vulnerable
  • Previous terrorist attacks- USS Cole 2000; French oil tanker in 2002

- 65% of oil/gas consumed in West Europe pass through Med.

dealing with terrorist and other threats at sea
Shipping routes and “choke points”:

- 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 partnerships

Dealing with terrorist and other threats- At sea
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan what happened in 01
Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan – What happened in ‘01?
  • Post 9/11-“Bush Doctrine”
  • US-led “Operation Enduring Freedom”
  • Bonn Conference - Dec 01
  • UN set up Int’l Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
  • Afghan opposition proposes new Gov’t
  • ISAF mandated to secure Kabul
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan 2003 to 2005
Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan – 2003 to 2005
  • UN offers leadership of ISAF to NATO
  • NATO- control of command, co-ordination and planning
  • UN extended ISAF mandate to all Afghanistan in 4 stages
  • By end ’05, 30,000 personnel from 26 Allies and 11 non-NATO nations
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan 2009
Taliban attacks “ bolder and widespread”

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 discredited

Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan – 2009
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan president obama 1 12 09
Committed further 30,000 US troops.

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 Pakistan

Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan –President Obama- 1/12/09
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan march 2010
Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan –March, 2010


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

helmand province20
23,058m; largest province in size

In the south; 160Km border with Pakistan

Extreme range of temperatures

Sparsely populated ( population- 1.1 million)

Capital- Lashkar Gah

Main ethnic group- Pashtun

Helmand Province
life is hard
Infant mortality- 152 deaths/1000 live births

( Iraq- 44/1000; UK-4,85/1000)

Maternal mortality-1600 deaths/100000 births

Life expectancy- 44 years (Iraq- 66.5;UK- 79)

High illiteracy- 43% men; 14% women

1/3 unable to get enough food to live active, healthy lives

Life is hard
current isaf strategy operation moshtarak
“Decisive clearing operations” on threatened populations

ISAF will:  

- 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 employment

Current ISAF Strategy- Operation Moshtarak
dealing with terrorist threats afghanistan critical issues
Not everyone is pulling their weight…

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/cultures

Dealing with terrorist threats- Afghanistan –Critical Issues
dealing with terrorist threats other issues
Dealing with terrorist threats- Other issues

Nuclear Biological Chemical Defence (NBCD)

AWAC aircraft to protect airspace

Missile defence

Crisis management

weapons of mass destruction wmd
WMD – risks to international security

NATO seeks to prevent the proliferation of WMD

NATO’s practical initiatives

NATO’s work improve civil capabilities

NATO support for arms control and non-proliferation regimes

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
how has nato changed since 1990
Peacekeeping- Yugoslavia ( Bosnia, Kosovo)

Dealing with terrorist threats

Making NATO forces more flexible

How has NATO changed since 1990?
nato response force nrf

Air: about 200 sorties per day

Land component:

brigade size

Up to NATO

Task Force

NATO Response Force(NRF)

Strength ( 25,000)


Under the command of a

Deployable Joint Task Force HQ

Highly ready and technologically advanced

Can do wide range of missions worldwide

Can deploy after five days’ notice

Six-month rotations

Preceded by a six months of training

how has nato changed since 199037
Peacekeeping- Yugoslavia ( Bosnia, Kosovo)

Dealing with terrorist threats

Making NATO forces more flexible

Building partnerships

How has NATO changed since 1990?
building relationships with others
United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU)

Euro Atlantic Partnership Council

Partnership for Peace

Russia and Ukraine

Istanbul Co-operation Initiative

Mediterranean Dialogue

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Building Relationships with Others
nato and eu
Since 24.01.01 co-operated on security issues.

21 EU members are members of NATO

Common strategic interests

Tensions and friction

- Security & Defence Policy

- European members “under spending on military”

- France versus USA

nato russia relations
NATO Russia Council (NRC) - regular meetings

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…
international herald tribune
“The strongest potential sources of widespread warfare in the coming decade are likely to be frustrated aspirations in Russia, an isolated and resentful China, and a militant form of Islam which resorts to violence on a spasmodic but potentially catastrophic basis….”International Herald Tribune
challenges facing nato
Cumbersome decision making (28 members ).

Reluctance of some members to pay their way

Lack of unity amongst the NATO members

Relationship with EU ( EU Defence Force)

European security on Obama agenda



Challenges facing NATO
then and now
Then and Now

Up to 1989

Operated in Europe only

16 members

Enemy-USSR & allies

Conventional, backed by nuclear

Inward looking/ Europe only

Military alliance with clear purpose and consensus

Successful track record


Europe and elsewhere

28 members

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

nato the fight against terrorism
Permanent forum for consultations

Anti- terrorism operations ( Active Endeavour, Afghanistan, Balkans, Securing Public Events)

Innovative technology


Managing consequences

NATO & the Fight against Terrorism
mr bill rammell uk minister of armed forces speech aug 2009
"We need to address terrorism as a whole society because it is our whole society which this new terrorism threatens. That means reaching out to those in our society who are being specifically targeted by Al Qaeda and others who would give support to extremist violence.”

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
a few suggestions for discussion
Can politicians look longer term and make adequate protection against future threats?

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…