The destabilizing effects of shifting politics and threats from terrorism are being felt across the Alliance and NATO is being challenged to respond effectively to this new security environment, say Ismet Ramadani, Ilija Djugumanov and Marija Jankuloska.

In an era when the growing unconventional and asymmetric threats in the globalized and hyper-connected world tend to defy the prosperity and stability of States, the Alliance is torn between two fronts. It is also torn between the demands and expectations of its Member States in prioritizing where to place its focus.

The current waves of insecurity, reflected in Russia’s expansionist politics in the East and the rise of the Islamic State (IS) and DAESH in Syria and Iraq – which has resulted with migrant flows in NATO’s southern borders – have caused destabilizing effects which are felt in both the Eastern and Southern flanks of the Alliance. This has generated an ‘Arc of Crisis’ stretching from the Middle East and the Caucasus to the Eastern borders of the Alliance. Given the indivisibility of the security threats and their propensity to cause spillover and cascade effects, they have unequivocally challenged the Alliance’s efforts to effectively deal with the current threats to security.

The way in which NATO member countries perceive the threats greatly affects the capacities, resources and efforts that will be invested in response to them. Differences between NATO Member-States when it comes to threat perception are evident. On one hand, the countries of the Eastern Flank, such as Poland and the Baltic Countries, are mostly concerned with the threats that derive from Russia. The Kremlin’s recent revanchist policies and annexation of Crimea have intensified these anxieties.

On the other hand, the countries from NATO’s Southern Flank (among which are Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey) conceive threats stemming from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) - especially the ones transpiring from the ISIS expansion, migrant influx and the spread of violent extremism - as the most imminent threats to their security. In such circumstances, NATO is found at odds with the demands and expectations of its Member States and the necessity, to address comprehensively the dual challenges that it is currently facing.

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

However, bearing in mind that security is indivisible and inter-dependent, the effective and successful response should not address these challenges partially, but rather as a whole. As the US Air Force’s General Philip Breedlove expressed during his speech at Belgium's Royal Military Academy   on the importance of avoiding competition between the Allies "Success in each region depends on success in the other."
It could be argued that any success in achieving greater security hinges upon reducing vulnerabilities throughout the Alliance. Speaking on this issue NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also asserted that, “NATO does not have the luxury of choosing between either responding to the challenges stemming from the south or the challenges stemming from the east, we have to do both at the same time”.

But any proactive engagement in certain region requires a combination of political, civilian and military instruments, which entails the use of both financial and physical resources. In the period of economic crisis and fiscal challenges when the effectiveness of addressing several security challenges simultaneously is seriously questioned, a due attention should be paid on how the resources are allocated and what alternatives can be applied in order to balance the real necessities and the resources available.

PRESERVING UNITY

To that end, certain points should be taken into consideration in order to settle these issues of concern. Firstly, the reliance on a unified and comprehensive approach should be seen as imperative in relation to any potential reaction to these challenges. Given that security cannot be achieved alone, the cohesiveness and unity within the Alliance should be preserved. Coordination efforts among the allies should be encouraged in order to achieve coherence and efficiency in their actions.

Secondly, the utility of defense spending should not be underestimated. The imbalance in capabilities that exist between Member States can largely hamper the efforts in attaining comprehensive and effective security. The Smart Defense Initiative that was introduced in 2011 was a leap forward in achieving greater security with less money. Despite that, the Wales Summit Declaration saw States pledge to spend 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense and 20% of defense budgets on major equipment by 2020. At the moment, only a few Member States meet the 2% requirement among which are U.S., Great Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.

In this regard, measures should be undertaken in order to ensure that the decisions made during the Wales Summit are effectively implemented. At the same time, given that the mismatched capabilities among the allies can be a serious drawback, a set of mechanisms need to be implemented that will manage the imbalance among the allies and to make Member States capable and self-sufficient in responding and countering the threats to their security.

Finally, introducing new forms of cooperation is important in the sense of increasing preparedness and responsiveness of NATO Member States. The Readiness Action Plan that was introduced at NATO’s Wales Summit is an advancement in this area. It uses two types of measures directed at addressing the threats arising from East and South. They consist of assurance short-term measures and adaptation measures aimed at achieving long-term objectives.

The short-term assurance measures are envisioned as important tools directed at hindering Russia’s assertiveness, while the long-term adaptation measures appear to be more salient in mutually addressing diverse threats and in terms of ensuring sustainability of the Alliance’s goals. The trainings and exercises along with the other cooperation mechanisms are set to ensure long-term interoperability as a prerequisite of attaining long-term security.

COOPERATIVE SECURITY

Another aspect that should be taken into account is the cooperative security initiated in the 2010 Strategic Concept. The partnership strategy has fitted perfectly in the new security reality, where the implementation of cooperation mechanisms and confidence building beyond the Alliance’s borders can be construed as key factors for stability. In this vein, the partnership policy can be seen as advantageous in strengthening dialogue, capacity building and cooperation in times when the resources are scarce and insufficient -if taken alone- to address the variety of threats and challenges that the world currently face.

Over the years, NATO has succeeded in evolving and adapting to the new security reality. Instead of solely preserving its military-based objectives, the Alliance has adopted a flexibility that continues to be developed to reduce expenditure and to focus on cooperation, dialogue and diplomatic strategies. Proceeding in that direction is crucial in order to respond effectively to the new security dynamics that have been generated by the current ‘Arc of Crisis’.