Home / Press review / Archive / Magazine / Politics / Counter Terrorism / Article

"Counterinsurgency" – New Types of NATO Operations?

Since the end of the Cold War the types of operation conducted by NATO have changed. Humanitarian aid, counter-terrorism and nation-building have been added to its list of tasks. What strategies have NATO member states developed to meet the new challenges?

Long gone are the times when NATO's prime focus was on a Cold War Europe and the Alliance concentrated less on actual war than on "deterrence". During the time of bipolarity, war between the two military blocks bore extremely high risks including the danger of mutually assured destruction. Therefore, military policy had to be directed with the enemy in mind but it involved a limited extent of the actual use of soldiers. In this sense, military policy was essentially geared toward the preparation for a war which – as both sides hoped – would never start.

Canadian ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) patrol in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Photo:AP

Since the end of the Cold War, this behavioural pattern has been in a state of fundamental flux. Western governments (and NATO) focus much more of their energies on resolving violent regional conflicts. Both deterrence and defence of one's country and alliance have lost much of their significance. Even the German army changed from a deterrence troop to an "army in operation”. Western military troops are deployed more easily, more quickly, and more often than during the Cold War. Official reasons (such as "new threats”, "humanitarian needs”) are probably less important than the fact that the reservations against using force have become diminished because the danger of a strategic escalation has nearly vanished. After all, ethnic conflicts and humanitarian disasters have happened before. However, nowadays we react differently. This change has become apparent in new forms of deployment and operations used by the Allies and NATO, but it is also to be seen in the NATO strategy of April 1999 which was considerably modified from its 1991 strategy.[1]

Paragraph 20 of the strategy states: "The security of the Alliance remains subject to a wide variety of military and non-military risks which are multi-directional and often difficult to predict. These risks include uncertainty and instability in and around the Euro-Atlantic area and the possibility of regional crises at the periphery of the Alliance, which could evolve rapidly. Some countries in and around the Euro-Atlantic area face serious economic, social and political difficulties. Ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states can lead to local and even regional instability. The resulting tensions could lead to crises affecting Euro-Atlantic stability, to human suffering, and to armed conflicts. Such conflicts could affect the security of the Alliance by spilling over into neighbouring countries, including NATO countries, or in other ways, and could also affect the security of other states.”

Euphemistically we could say that this is a highly flexible understanding of security policy, one that does not commit itself to anything substantial and at the same time one that leaves open all possibilities of out-of-area military and security policy. We could also maintain, however, that such matters are highly vague and unclear since they are full of uncertainties ("could evolve”, etc.). After all, this wording allows NATO to claim total responsibility for managing unclear, unpredictable, or completely unknown risks. NATO also gives itself a mandate to deal with anything that might jeopardise stability (an undefined term) and affect the security of the Alliance or other countries. If the term "security” is stretched far enough, there will hardly be any development that could not be seen as endangering security. Put pointedly, NATO does not commit itself to anything in particular but authorises itself to do everything, depending on the latest evaluation of the situation. Even organised crime, the disruptions of the supplies of vital resources or the uncontrolled movements of large numbers of people could fall under NATO's responsibility.

1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . next »