Members of the NATO delegation: Dr Karl-Heinz Kamp, Dr Karl Lamers, Dr Micheal Ruehle, Mr James Appathurai, Lt Gen Klaus Olshausen

Session I: NATO Out of Area Operations - Views and Perspectives

Karl-Heinz Kamp

'Out of Area' is a dubious phrase as it gives the impression of NATO not being allowed to operate beyond a certain geographical parameter. Although Article 6 of the NATO agreement does lay geographical restrictions, in theory, NATO is able to deploy everywhere in consonance with the UN charter. The clause that attack on an ally must be treated as an attack on all, provides NATO this kind of mobility. The 'out of area' clause is a 'benign illusion' and hence obsolete. NATO is a global organization in an era where the spread of WMDs combined with missiles of all means of delivery makes geographical distance irrelevant. Globalisation holds true for security policy realm as well. The Prague Declaration enables NATO to operate "whenever and wherever necessary to safeguard its members."

The prospects of globalising NATO brought with it fears of NATO being transformed into a global cop. Such an apprehension was rife among countries like Russia, China and, to an extent, India. This is a misplaced fear as any action by NATO requires the unanimous consent of all 26 members. This prerequisite has negative fallouts in the form of inaction or delayed action. A case in this regard is the Balkan crisis, which erupted in 1992. By the time NATO could arrive at a consensus on the issue in 1995, there was a delay of three years and a huge casualty of about 220,000 lives. Now, neither Russia nor China levies such allegations. In fact China is looking forward to enter into an agreement with NATO.

The undermining factor for NATO has been the mismatch in upholding international responsibility in congruence with its image and the lack of availability of resources. NATO is also loosing out as a key forum for forging political consensus on security issues. This is due to its inability to arrive at consensus on important security issues. NATO refrains from discussing critical security issues and focuses exclusively on ongoing operations. NATO should enter into an internal security dialogue to rectify this lacuna. Though NATO did enunciate a strategic concept in 1999, the strategic foundation on which that document was drafted is now outdated. There is a need to initiate a strategic debate. A strategic debate serves many purposes: 1) It will enable individual members to clarify their goals 2) It will enable NATO as a whole to arrive at a common acceptable denominator 3) It will enable NATO to open its eyes to the consequences of being a global actor and what it means to shoulder global responsibility. Such an exercise will lend a new meaning to the term 'out of area' operations.

Vinod Patney

The German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, had once promised not to expand NATO. However, changing situations demand changing policies to meet the changing realities. Arguments on legalities are futile. While it is advantageous to hold moral high ground, in reality, it is no match to the pragmatism of power. The stark reality was that with the end of the Cold War, there was a well-equipped, well-manned army without a mission. We have moved from an era of defensive deterrence to interventionist policies and humanitarian missions. US-NATO represent a power bloc whose operations are spread across the entire globe be it Bosnia, Kosovo, the Middle East?what next? It is an imperfect world. There is no region that cannot be bettered. There are 40 odd conflicts taking place in the world today. How would NATO choose in which to intervene? A strategic debate within NATO would be a very useful exercise in this regard.

Going by the UN mandate, intervention can be justified only if there is a "clear and present danger". This warrants the exercise of power in which power plays the role of a judge, jury and executioner. Doctrines like preemption, prevention clearly shows that power talks and others listen. Why can't this power be exercised in the form of non-military techniques like sanctions, use of diplomacy and so on? Use of force should be purely for the purpose of deterrence and should be the last option.

There is a growing belief that it is better to prevent adverse things from happening instead of dealing with the consequences. While I agree with this line of thought, I urge countries to then tackle the root causes of problems like terrorism. There is an urgent need for introspection, which should be made an integral part of the strategic debate. There is a need to analyze if the powerful nations, who inflict their power on others, ameliorate problems or exacerbate them? An exit strategy needs to be thought out before engaging in any situation. The importance of local support should also be registered.

NATO-India cooperative endeavour should not be limited to security issues. It should be broader to include issues like trade and commerce. While it is important to better ties with NATO, bilateral relations with various member countries should also be promoted. One needs to continuously engage in the balancing act keeping in view the changing realities. The current reality is that the Westphalian model is outdated. In its place is a new model fashioned in Washington and franchised in Brussels. Amidst these new developments, India can expect a more mutually beneficial and satisfying relationship with NATO.

Discussion

A few points merit attention:

1) The conditions under which NATO was formed no more exist

2) United States has developed global interests

3) Role of UN with bodies like NATO-EU playing a proactive role.

4) The growing importance of China. How to factor in all these aspects while discussing NATO's role? What policy has NATO adopted with regard to deployment of forces for its seven new entrants?

Responses

Michael Ruehle - Language has a corrupting influence on thought. This holds true for NATO as well. NATO is often considered/termed a 'bloc', which is erroneous. A bloc is monolith in nature, while NATO is far from being a monolith. NATO is a community or an alliance at best. Differences among member countries on the Iraq issue is illustrative of NATO not being a bloc. On the issue of European Union (EU) becoming a military actor, it is purely because diplomacy works best when backed by military power.

Klaus Olshausen - Different actors like NATO, EU cater to different situations. There is no overlapping of roles.

James Appathurai - The emergence of an active NATO and EU will work in favour of the UN as these bodies carry out the will of the UN. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is leading this blue ribbon process of deepening NATO-UN relations at a strategic level. About deployment of forces in the territory of new entrants, it is NATO's deliberate policy to avoid deploying substantial combat forces to allay Russia's fears of encirclement. However, Russia on its part, will have to put efforts to make her neighbours, many of which have come closer to NATO for security reasons, feel secure.

Karl-Heinz Kamp - Preemption is not a new discovery of President Bush Jr. It is an old concept of preventing threats rather than facing the consequences. The new twist is the inclusion of military options instead of just concentrating on political options. On the question of UN, most of the problems faced today are intra-state in nature or from non-state actors. The UN Charter does not reflect this changed reality.

Session II: India and the Security Situation in Asia

Dipankar Banerjee

When we speak of Asia, we limit it geographically to South Asia, Japan, parts of China and East Asian countries at best. There is an urgent need to dispel this mindset and go beyond to include Middle East and Central Asian security. The view about Asian security from New Delhi is not very promising. It is considered the arc of instability. The security situation is complex with a combination of political Islam and terrorism and failed or failing states. The potential for instability is real. Responsibility and role of New Delhi in the overall security scenario is fundamental and critical.

Asia is facing the fallouts of the adverse developments in Iraq. The direction in which it is heading is still unknown. Nonetheless there is a need for engagement. The 'War on Terror' is essentially premised in Asia, though the implications are global. Some of the immediate challenges that Asia faces are as follows:

1) Tackle the root causes that lead to terrorism.

2) Deal with the immediate violence that terrorism causes.

3) Develop a coalition or some kind of a cooperative framework to combat terrorism.

4) Develop and strengthen national and regional resilience to tackle the situation.

Karl A Lamers

Some of the reasons which makes India appealing for NATO interaction are:

1) Engagement with neighbouring states.

2) Intensive cooperation with global players like the US, UK, EU.

3) Further integration into the global market.

4) Working towards securing a permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

5) Nuclear Power

Being the second most populous state in the world, with growing economic and military power, India is an 'emerging' global power. It adopted a self-conscious policy on Iraq by supporting US but refusing to send troops. The 21st century is often called the 'Asian century'. Significance of regional security policy has grown for all including NATO and EU. This interaction provides an opportunity to exchange positions, discuss concerns and think of consequences before crisis arises.

Some of the important South Asian states and their concerns are as follows:

Pakistan - The biggest concern is solution to the Kashmir problem. Purchase of arms from the US is another issue. Here, there is the need to balance India's concerns.

Nepal - Peaceful future depends on political solution to the Maoist problem.

Bangladesh - Situation here is volatile mainly due to Islamic fundamentalism.

Sri Lanka - Bloody ethnic strife waged by the LTTE continues unabated.

Afghanistan - Drug problem is the severest problem facing this country. This threat threatens to destabilize not only the South Asian region but also Central Asia.

NATO is not an appendix of the US. Any interaction with it will be a dialogue in partnership for arriving at peaceful solution of disputes. What is needed is trust in cooperative security structures. Unsolved conflicts in South Asia threaten this region as well as Europe. Nuclear escalation, international terrorism, migratory pressure and human rights violations are some of the glaring problems faced by this region. Solving the problems without the use of force is a win-win situation for all. The Asian Regional Forum is one such platform that supports and furthers a constructive dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region. The adoption of the Joint Declaration on Conflict Resolution Strategies by SAARC is another effort in this direction.

On the issue of NATO-India engagement, it must be said that there are ample opportunities for cooperation despite India not being a NATO member nor a dialogue partner like Russia. India's recent improvement in ties with the US can provide the ground for moving in this direction. NATO-India engagement might be looked with skepticism from various quarters like Russia and China. But institutionalized cooperation with both these countries reduces that risk.

Discussion

• What kind of cooperation can be envisaged with NATO, an entity essentially formed as a military alliance?

• With issues like Non-state actors, WMD proliferation, failing/failed states coming into the fore, security has become a contested terrain. In such a situation, the fundamental question is 'what is the nature of security' today? Does security mean military security or does it go beyond to cover non-military or human security?

• Is NATO complimenting or supplanting the UN?
  

Responses

James Appathurai - NATO maintains interaction with non-member states on an adhoc or bilateral basis. But the interaction is restriction to dialogue or military exchanges. NATO lends its expertise in peace support and counter-terrorism operations to interested countries on a contract basis. NATO does not have a standing army. It supports the UN at its behest. It is not a competition to the UN. As for the solution to the Afghan drug problem, the initiative has to come from the Karzai government. Since Afghanistan survives on an opium economy, the change has to be slow and cautious. NATO will lend all its support to the Karzai government in its efforts.

Karl-Heinz Kamp - The broad consequences of a green signal from all the 26 member countries of NATO are: 1) It makes NATO a panacea for all security problems; and 2) Different kinds of activities undertaken by NATO will find different levels of acceptance.

Karl A Lamers - NATO is more than a military organization. There exist rigorous political interaction among its member states.

Session III: NATO-India Cooperation in the 'War on Terror'

Michael Ruehle

Combating terrorism is a recent addition to NATOs agenda. Prior to 9/11, terrorism was seen as a domestic phenomenon that needed to be dealt with at the domestic level. NATO only dealt with external factors. Following 9/11, the 'self defence' clause as enunciated in Article 5 of NATO, was invoked for the first time to deal with the revised Brian Jenkins form of terrorism which believes in lot of people watching as well as lot of people dead. The guiding assumptions that propelled NATO were:

1) Religious extremism is a key factor responsible for terrorism. NATO's prime concern was to safeguard the population of member countries against it.

2) Use of WMD is real.

The participation of NATO in the 'War on Terror' marked the end of a Euro-centric NATO. The endorsement of the military concept is also a fairly recent one. Some of the services that NATO offers are as follows:

Anti-terrorism operations - Includes aspects like intelligence sharing, tactical missile defence development, etc.
Consequence management - Includes early detection of radiological attacks, rendering emergency medical aid, etc.

Civil-military cooperation - like working towards energy security.

NATO has a limited military package to offer 'as and where required'. The fact remains that security today requires more than NATO and more than military solutions.

Prof Varun Sahni

Possibilities of NATO-India cooperation in combating terrorism can be analyzed at three distinct levels:

I. Conceptual Level - At this level the possibilities of cooperation between NATO and India are high as terrorism threatens open societies everywhere. India and Europe being robust liberal democracies are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. There are common threats that the two share but doubt if they can be dubbed as shared threats. That brings us to the operational level.

II. Operational Level - There are moderate but concrete possibilities of cooperation at this level. However, the cooperation is tactical and episodic in nature like actionable intelligence sharing in real time and military instrumentality that includes joint exercises, experience sharing. For continuous, institutionalized cooperation like that between Australia and NATO, one needs to go to the strategic level.

III. Strategic Level - At this level the possibilities for cooperation are remote for reasons like, one of the key sponsor of terrorism is a frontline ally in the War against Terrorism. Added to this are fundamental incompatibilities like what is terrorism, who are its 'victims'. There exists a deeply consequentialist differentiation on the latter issue, where Anglo-American victims are considered as 'victims of terrorism' and terms like 'ancient hatreds' are used to describe deaths elsewhere. India, despite its record is not regarded as a member of the democratic group of states like Japan and Israel. Not being a part of the security community, India is compelled to maintain strategic autonomy.

Discussion

• 'Out of area' operation is much more relevant to India than any other country as India has been grappling with the scourge for terrorism for more than a decade now. NATO's main concern should be to develop a framework for resolving existing problems, terrorism being the most important one.

• How does NATO plan to combat terrorism when one of its ally, Pakistan, is the epicenter of terrorism, proliferator of WMD and close to being a failed state?

• What is the nature of NATO's relationship with the EU security set up, as EU seeks to have its own standing army?

• What are the possibilities of cooperation on security concerns beyond Pakistan?

• What kind of a position does France enjoy in the NATO, keeping in mind its past differences with other prominent NATO members.

• How does one deal when terrorism merges into insurgency?

• One needs to move beyond Indo-Pak problem to find a common ground beyond India and NATO.

• We should be wary of the trap laid out by some in the form of classification of terrorists into 'moderates' and 'extremists'. There can be no such thing as moderate terrorist.

Responses

Klaus Olshausen - Though NATO and EU share a single set of forces, they take up tasks depending upon their expertise.

Michael Ruehle - For best results, one needs to move beyond the geographical context of terrorism to the functional context, which is a grey area. The issue of Pakistan is a tricky one. While there are pointers to it being a sponsor of terrorism, it happens to be an ally in the battle against terrorism. On the issue of France, it is at times a difficult member, but an important member nonetheless.

James Appathurai - NATO has no agreed position on Pakistan. It should not be confused with the US position. I agree that while there is ample room for dialogue on technical cooperation, there are fewer possibilities of a strategic dialogue between NATO and India, as of now, on shared threats.