Anyone remember NATO? Despite periodic summits and conferences and pledges of trans-Atlantic love between the U.S. and various European countries (both Old and New, in Donald Rumsfeld vocabulary), and the involvement of NATO member countries militaries in both Iraq and Afghanistan (though last week saw the withdrawal of the troops of the last non-US military forces from Iraq; leaving the coalition of the billing, oops, I mean coalition of the willing, an Army of one, so to speak) NATO per se has not been a big priority.

Yet, nobody expects NATO to wither away and die, much as some might like it to. Thus, if you can’t kill it, perhaps one might think about trying to change it.

At the very least one might think about a new paradigm for NATO. As it turns out, someone has. That would be a recently formed group called NATO Watch. Created by Ian Davis of Great Britain, currently a freelance human security and arms control consultant,  and a former Director of the British American Security Information Council for six years, NATO Watch seeks to provide independent oversight, information and analysis of NATO policy-making and operational activities; increase transparency, stimulate parliamentary engagement and broaden public awareness and participation in NATO policy-making; and promote NATO policies and doctrine that are in keeping with the shared democratic and humanitarian values of member states, including the defense of human rights and civil liberties, prevention of genocide (‘responsibility to protect’), accountability and openness, promotion of peace and cooperative security approaches, and strengthening of international law;

Why is there a need for NATO Watch? Let us count the ways.

• Existing mechanisms for parliamentary and public accountability and oversight of NATO are inadequate: members of parliament have little influence on NATO decisions and financial controls are dependent on uneven oversight practice at the national level.
• The NATO Parliamentary Assembly has no formal influence or oversight over the decision-making and the various national Atlantic Council organizations largely operate as cheerleaders for the Alliance.
• Restricted decision-making prevents consideration of alternatives and encourages ‘business as usual’.
• The ‘group think’ mentality that contributed to an illegal war in Iraq may also be contributing to failing strategies in Afghanistan and towards Russia.
• NATO’s failure to embrace Russia after the end of the Cold War and relentless expansion eastwards has contributed to a Cold Peace, which is in danger of becoming a new Cold War or worse.
• In the context of the ongoing so-called ‘war on terror’, the failure to undertake an official investigation into NATO’s role in secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees (, and the sobering insight that NATO’s secrecy and security of information policies “were selected to act as coverage for CIA clandestine operations” as well as used to obstruct judicial and parliamentary efforts to establish the truth.
• Refusal to disclose information has also been exploited on numerous occasions in NATO member states to hide inefficiencies, disguise mistakes, and to advance military procurement projects to a stage where they are beyond the point of cancellation, before parliamentary debate can take place.
• The Alliance continues to operate within a Strategic Concept (1999) that is stuck in the last century, and has so far failed to articulate a truly convincing rationale and coherent strategy for this century.  Much still needs to be done in terms of the often-cited ‘NATO transformation’, which has been too narrowly focused on force modernization, interoperability and membership.

Incredible as it seems, despite the decades of NATO’s existence, there is currently no independent non-governmental organization or project monitoring and analyzing NATO on a daily basis as its core mission.

From March 31 through April 1 NATO Watch, in cooperation with three other groups, organized a Shadow NATO Summit to coincide with NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit. The report from that, Options for NATO – pressing the reset button on the strategic concept, was recently released.

It includes a Citizens Declaration of Alliance Security, which outlines some of the basic principles for equipping the Alliance to meet the different and diverse challenges of this 21st century.

Among other things it says, “In order to deepen and extend the shared values-base within the Alliance, NATO needs to become closer to its citizens and civil society. This means an updated, more open, transparent and accountable Alliance, appropriate to 21st century expectations. Parliamentary accountability within NATO requires clear and adequate mechanisms, and a relaxation of secrecy rules.”

If only the Obama administration would commit the Pentagon to the same standard.

It also notes, “There will be no stability in Afghanistan without a comprehensive peace process including all relevant internal actors and neighbours. There is an urgent need to pursue a process that is capable of forging a new and inclusive Afghan national consensus, rather than persisting in the current fight to try to defeat those outside the consensus.”

All in all, the report sets forth options that are progressive and realistic. Let’s hope some policymakers read it.

No related posts.