Presentation 2

NATO is a complex structure of inter-dependencies under the nations’ supervision

NATO structure

SecretaryGeneral

Committees subordinate to

Council, DPC,NPG

MilitaryCommittee

28 nations

Military Reps to NATOMilitary Reps

to NATOMilitary Reps to NATOMilitary

Representatives to NATO

Perm.Reps to NATOAmbassadorsPerm.Reps to NATO

AmbassadorsPerm.Reps to NATOAmbassadorsPerm.Representatives

to NATOAmbassadors

28 nationsInternational

Staff

International Military Staff

North Atlantic Council

Nuclear PlanningGroup

Allied Command Transformation

Allied CommandOperations

Canada USRegional Plng Grp

Defense PlanningCommittee

Political Affairs and

Security PolicyDivision

OperationsDivision

Public Diplomacy

Division

Defence Policyand Planning

Division

DefenceInvestment

Division

Senior ResourceBoard

Civil & MilitaryBudget Committees

Secretary General

Deputy SecretaryGeneral

International Boardof Auditors

NATO Office ofSecurity

Executive Management

Division

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

International Staff

Council Secretariat

Office of the Financial

Controller

CC-Air HQRamsteinGermany

CC-Land HQHeidelbergGermany

CC-Air HQIzmir

Turkey

CC-Mar HQNaples

Italy

CC-Land HQMadridSpain

CAOC-1Uedem

Germany

DCAOCUedem

Germany

CAOC-2FinderupDenmark

CAOC-3P.Renatico

Italy

DCAOCP.Renatico

Italy

CAOC-4LarissaGreece

JFC HQ BrunssumThe Netherlands

Joint HQ LisbonPortugal

JFC HQ NaplesItaly

CC-Mar HQNorthwood

UK

CC-Air HQRamsteinGermany

CC-Land HQHeidelbergGermany

CC-Air HQIzmir

Turkey

CC-Mar HQNaples

Italy

CC-Land HQMadridSpain

CAOC-1Uedem

Germany

DCAOCUedem

Germany

CAOC-2FinderupDenmark

CAOC-3P.Renatico

Italy

DCAOCP.Renatico

Italy

CAOC-4LarissaGreece

JFC HQ BrunssumThe Netherlands

Joint HQ LisbonPortugal

JFC HQ NaplesItaly

ACOSHAPE

Mons, Belgium

CC-Mar HQNorthwood

UK

CommanderUSEUCOMDual-

hatted

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

Allied Command Operations (ACO)

MILIT. COMMAND STRUCTURE

National Authorities

Permanent Representatives(Ambassadors to NATO)

Integrated Military Command Structure

Strategic Commands

International Military Staff

Military Representativesto NATO

Allied CommandTransformation

Allied CommandOperations

Secretary GeneralCommittees

subordinate to theCouncil, DPC and NPG

Nuclear PlanningGroup (NPG)

Defence PlanningCommittee (DPC)

North Atlantic Council (NAC)

Military Committee(MC)

International Staff

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

Civil and military structure

Political Affairs and

Security PolicyDivision

OperationsDivision

Public Diplomacy

Division

Defence Policyand Planning

Division

DefenceInvestment

Division

Senior ResourceBoard

Civil & MilitaryBudget Committees

Secretary General

Deputy SecretaryGeneral

International Boardof Auditors

NATO Office ofSecurity

Executive Management

Division

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

International Staff

Council Secretariat

Office of the Financial

Controller

IntelligenceDivision

Operations Division

Plans & PolicyDivision

Cooperation& Regional SecurityDivision

Logistics Armaments &Resources

Division

NHQC3S*

Financial Controller

Legal Officer

Support ActivitiesPersonnel

Public InformationAdvisor

Director (DIMS)

ExecutiveCoordinator

SITCEN

IntelligenceDivision

Operations Division

Plans & PolicyDivision

Cooperation& Regional SecurityDivision

Logistics Armaments &Resources

Division

NHQC3S*

Financial Controller

Legal Officer

Support ActivitiesPersonnel

Public InformationAdvisor

Director (DIMS)

ExecutiveCoordinator

SITCEN

*The NATO HQ Consultation, Command & Control (3C) Staff

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

International Military Staff

CC-Air HQRamsteinGermany

CC-Land HQHeidelbergGermany

CC-Air HQIzmir

Turkey

CC-Mar HQNaples

Italy

CC-Land HQMadridSpain

CAOC-1Uedem

Germany

DCAOCUedem

Germany

CAOC-2FinderupDenmark

CAOC-3P.Renatico

Italy

DCAOCP.Renatico

Italy

CAOC-4LarissaGreece

JFC HQ BrunssumThe Netherlands

Joint HQ LisbonPortugal

JFC HQ NaplesItaly

CC-Mar HQNorthwood

UK

CC-Air HQRamsteinGermany

CC-Land HQHeidelbergGermany

CC-Air HQIzmir

Turkey

CC-Mar HQNaples

Italy

CC-Land HQMadridSpain

CAOC-1Uedem

Germany

DCAOCUedem

Germany

CAOC-2FinderupDenmark

CAOC-3P.Renatico

Italy

DCAOCP.Renatico

Italy

CAOC-4LarissaGreece

JFC HQ BrunssumThe Netherlands

Joint HQ LisbonPortugal

JFC HQ NaplesItaly

ACOSHAPE

Mons, Belgium

CC-Mar HQNorthwood

UK

CommanderUSEUCOMDual-

hatted

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

Allied Command Operations (ACO)

MILIT. COMMAND STRUCTURE

ACTNorfolk, USA

Strategic ConceptsPolicy &

RequirementsIdentification

Joint ConceptDevelopment

Future CapabilitiesResearch &Technology

Education &Training

USJFCOM

NATOAgencies/

Bodies

Multi/ NationalCentres of Excellence

NATO DefenseCollege

Rome, Italy

NATO SchoolOberammergau,

Germany

NATO Communications

& Information System School

Latina, Italy

NATO MaritimeInterdictionOperational

Training CentreSouda Bay, Greece

ACT Staff ElementMons, Belgium

CapabilitiesPlanning &

Implementation

Joint Warfare CentreStavanger, Norway

Joint ForceTraining Centre

Bydgoszcz, Poland

Joint Analysisand

Lessons LearnedCentre

Monsanto, Portugal

Undersea ResearchCentre

La Spezia, Italy

OVERVIEW HOW DOES NATO WORK?

Allied Command Transformation (ACT)

MILIT. COMMAND STRUCTURE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

• Questions??????

Evolution of the EU-NATO relations

HistoryPre-ESDP period

• Cold War – NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (+neutrality or non-alignment)

• WEU – weak security attempt to contain Germany (Brussels Treaty 1948.)

• Failure of different attempts to create supranational defence arrangement (most notably EDC 1954.)

HistoryPre-ESDP period

• Cold War – NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (+neutrality or non-alignment)

• WEU – weak security attempt to contain Germany (Brussels Treaty 1948.)

• Failure of different attempts to create supranational defence arrangement (most notably EDC 1954.)

History Proto-ESDP period (1)

• 1989 – end of the bifurcation of military alliance structures – demise of the Warsaw Pact

• NATO side – period of self-examination, finding new raison d’être

• EC/EU side – Maastricht Treaty (1992):- Creation of the CFSP(“...common defence policy which

might in time lead to common defence” TEU); - rebirth of the WEU as a European defence organization

providing a ready-made mechanism for the MS to exploit.

History Proto-ESDP period (2)

• WEU as a model for understanding the EU – “variable geometry” (intergovernmental, complement, not alternative to NATO, kept defense provision away from the EU)

• The EU-WEU relationship: European pillar of NATO – ESDI (first mentioned in 1991 NATO Strategic concept)+ defense component of the EU!

• “Petersberg tasks” 1992. WEU – expanding its operations to encompass “humanitarian and rescue tasks, peace-keeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management” + institutionalization of WEU

• 1994. NATO decides to make available assets and capabilities for WEU operations

History Proto-ESDP period (3)

• Amsterdam Treaty:

- Strengthening of the commitment on military security

- Closer institutional relations with the WEU with a possibility of its integration into the Union

- Inclusion of the Petersberg tasks in the text (Finland, Sweden)

- High Representative for CFSP (+ Secretary General of the WEU) symbolically J. Solana!

History From Aspirations to Operations

• Turning point – St. Malo agreement (change of attitude of T. Blair, reason - Kosovo) – start of the ESDP

• The EU should have “the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so”

• Two means of implementing EU-led operations: with NATO assets and capabilities, or without them

• Cologne meeting of the European Council 1999: EU and NATO activities should be “complementary” and not “competitive”

• Helsinki meeting of the European Council 1999: formal launching of the ESDP

• Autonomous capacity of the EU to react when NATO as a whole is not engaged!

• The force: 60.000 troops operational at 2003, capable of staying in the field at least 1 year.

• Also, creation of institutions to support the decision (Political and Security Committee, Military Committee, Military Stuff , etc.)

History From Aspirations to Operations

• WEU going to history (although it still exists, but without a major role)

• European Defense Agency, European Institute for Security Studies, EU Satellite Centre, European Security and Defense College

• May 2003 – “existing operational capacity across the full range of Petersberg tasks, limited and constrained by recognized shortfalls”

• June 2004 new plan “Headline Goal 2010”• Operational centre of the EU• First non-NATO military structure to emerge in post-Cold

War Europe

NATO Developments• Evolutionary development of NATO in contrast to

revolutionary development of ESDP

• 4 NATO summits as staging posts: Rome 1991(new strategic concept), Brussels 1994 (PfP), Madrid 1997 (start of the enlargement), Washington 1999 (NATO position on ESDI-accepting the autonomy of Europe)

• Prague 2002 Declaration on ESDP – NATO giving EU access to NATO assets and capabilities for operations in which NATO itself is not engaged military

NATO Developments (2)

• 2003 “Berlin plus”- very important, provides for EU access to NATO operational planning, NATO capabilities and common assets, NATO European command operations and the NATO defense planning system adapted to the needs of Europeans

• Berlin-plus missions of he EU: Concordia (Macedonia), Althea (BiH-symbolic replacement of NATO’s SFOR mission)

Political cooperation and consultations of the EU and NATO

• Formally they started in 2001. with exchange of letters between NATO Gensec and Sweden, who presided the EU at the time

• May 2001. first official meeting of ministers of foreign affairs

• Regular consultations on ambassadors level, level of military committees + Gensec of NATO and HR of the EU

Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations

• Quality of US – Europeans relations as significant (the most important) factor in “division of labor” between the EU and the NATO

• Relative military weakness of the Europeans vis-à-vis US at the end of the century, and therefore incapability of sustainable Balkan diplomacy

• Incomparable military budgets after September 11

Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations (2)US “making the dinner” and Europeans “doing

the dishes” (Kagan)• Despite expectations on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g.

Huntington), EU didn’t (try to) become superpower. Why?• Europe has developed over the past half-century genuinely

different perspective on the role of power in IR, based on unique historical experience

• Modern European culture is constant rejection of the past• Europe is trying to “multilateralise” US• So, what Europe wants? US umbrella, dealing with itself

only? “EU foreign policy is the most anemic all the products of EU integration”.

Atrophy in Transatlantic Relations (3)US “making the dinner” and Europeans “doing

the dishes” (Kagan)• US “hyperpower” (Vedrin)

• EU as American project

• The great paradox is that the passage to post-modern Europe was made possible by US, and by their decision not to take the same passage

• Madeleine Albright 1998 concerns about 3 Ds: “decoupling” transatlantic link, “duplicating” defence reources and “discrimination” against the non-EU European NATO members

• “US must sometimes play by the rules of the Hobbesian world, even though in doing so it violates European norms”

• The importance of French return in NATO

Future or what is to be done?

• Uncertainty about the future of EU – NATO relations: what if they want to act in different ways in certain situation? Overlapping capacities

• How long will EU use Berlin-plus arrangements?

• Have the EU and NATO shaped themselves completely? Is their own future certain?