|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/96Pictures/94Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Summary of '94 NATO Workshop in Os, Norway</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">Summary of the '94 NATO
Workshop</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">In Os, Norway</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">Admiral Guido Venturoni,
General Vigleik Eide, General Helge Hansen,</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">Admiral Pierre Lacoste, Mr.
Guido Spina</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">ADMIRAL GUIDO VENTURONI</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Chief of Staff of
Italian Armed Forces</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Throughout the NATO Workshop, we
heard interesting presentations and discussions on the great challenge
confronting us today: the development of a new security order in Europe.
Several of the speakers focused on an important initiative taken in
response to this challenge--the Partnership for Peace program, with its
corollaries of peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, and peacemaking. While
I understand the political value of Partnership for Peace, I am also
interested as a military man in the program's technical aspects including
our discussions on the need for a common doctrine and common procedures;
the need for interoperability (which, I agree, must not be
overemphasized); training problems resulting from different recruiting
systems; and the degree of experience of the available manpower. Moreover,
it is clear that training for war fighting and training for peacekeeping
normally require approaches and behaviors that are psychologically very
different. We also considered the U.N.-NATO interface, particularly in
Bosnia; command-and-control issues; and resource problems. During these
discussions, I noted that peacekeeping and defense budgets are "separate
but not separable," reversing a well-known principle related to the
Combined Joint Task Force.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Nonetheless, several crucial
aspects of the challenges to the new NATO still deserve attention. We must
look in particular at the problem of resources in its wider and more
comprehensive economic dimension, in order to determine:</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The economic implications for
the new NATO;</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">How the new NATO can deal
with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The possible contribution of
industry to the Partnership for Peace and the Combined Joint Task Force;</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">How the new NATO can engage
more effectively and credibly in crisis management; and</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The changes that must be made
in the NATO political decision making process and its chain of command
in order to accommodate non-NATO participation in operations.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">I would like to conclude with a
plea: Let us not lose enthusiasm or let skepticism prevail! While
Partnership for Peace does not meet everyone's expectations, it may very
well exceed our dreams. Since it is up to us to make these dreams come
true, we must be optimistic. We should encourage individual, bilateral,
and multilateral initiatives to be taken within a single, coherent
framework. In this way, building a new European security will not be a
chance process, but a common goal.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">To better explore these
subjects, we divided the workshop into four groups, which were led by
General Vigleik Eide, former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee;
General Helge Hansen, Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe,
Admiral Pierre Lacoste, former President of Fondation pour les Etudes de
Defense Nationale; and Mr. Guido Spina, Vice President of Alenia. The
remarks of these group leaders appear below.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">GENERAL VIGLEIK EIDE</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Former Chairman of the
NATO Military Committee</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction. The new NATO must deal with the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. As a global matter, the problem must be addressed in
various ways that are broader than the Alliance, for example, through
bilateral discussions between the main nuclear powers. Although NATO can
certainly contribute to its resolution, we cannot rely solely on military
means. In order to permit our leaders to solve the problem, we must adopt
a comprehensive approach to employing all possible sources of influence:
political or diplomatic, economic, and, perhaps, military. NATO might
contribute by establishing common procedures that would help define the
proliferation issue as an important area for common interest, and thus
contribute to the Partnership for Peace. NATO could also assist with
information, intelligence, and procedures. Clearly, the Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty is important; and we must deal with all weapons of
mass destruction, not only nuclear weapons. Although the problem is
complex, its solution is clearly in our common interest area.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Possible Contributions by
Industry. Since the economic aspect of our cooperative effort is
important, industry can clearly contribute to the Partnership for Peace
and the Combined Joint Task Force. Identifying common interests in
economic development would help improve stability and security, which, in
turn, would facilitate economic cooperation. Within the domain of economic
cooperation, there are various possible approaches and players (including
bilateral efforts, the European Union, and others). While NATO is not
necessarily the best group to assist economically, it can help emphasize
the importance of economic issues, identify problems, and propose possible
solutions. It can also make available the Conference of NATO Armaments
Directors, perhaps the SHAPE Technical Center, and its experience with
command-and-control, communications, and other related issues. Finally,
NATO can identify specific areas for cooperative work, such as defense
industry conversion, or training. And, of course, training together might
help identify ways to reduce resource requirements. The proposed industry
contribution should not be a one-way street. And the new Partners need to
understand how they might benefit from such contributions. Certainly,
establishing standards might benefit many Partners because the requirement
to meet those standards might permit access to wider markets for Partners'
products.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Crisis Management. The new NATO
needs to perform crisis management more effectively and make changes to
accommodate non-NATO participation in operations. Crisis management must
not be viewed primarily in a military context. Every possible
means--economic, diplomatic, political--must be used, including the use of
force. During crisis management, it is essential to establish procedures
and mechanisms for early political consultation in order to reach
agreement on a political platform to deal with the crisis.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In the future, it may be
difficult for the new NATO to reach agreement, especially on participation
in the active handling of a crisis. Only some of the Partners may agree on
active measures. The other Partners, however, will have to accept and
support such decisions, even if they do not do so actively by supplying
forces. If disagreements occur, a regional approach to crisis management
may be necessary, which would exclude some members, or be to the detriment
of some regions. Another major point is that the use of force in crisis
management should not necessarily be a last resort. In some cases, it
would be important for force to be part of the established political
platform. As the Chairman of the Military Committee reminded us during the
Workshop, the supposition was made at the 1992 NATO Ministerial Council in
Oslo that NATO would work under an overarching U.N. or CSCE mandate.
Therefore, it is important to keep improving relations between NATO and
the United Nations and to offer NATO's assistance for U.N. crisis
management.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">GENERAL HELGE HANSEN</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Commander-in-Chief
Allied Forces Central Europe</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Economic Implications. The
economy is part of security. In economic terms, the new NATO will bring
not only costs, but benefits to NATO members and Partners. Therefore, NATO
should identify savings and other benefits that will result from the new
partnership and present this analysis to the public. This would ensure
support for our efforts and facilitate the work of the governments
concerned.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Possible Contributions by
Industry. As to industry contributions to the Partnership for Peace and
the Combined Joint Task Force, it appears that stability--which
Partnership supports--is a prerequisite for any industrial investment. The
group that I led at the NATO Workshop proposed several suggestions
concerning the possible contributions of industry:</FONT></FONT> </P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">As to how Partner countries
can open up their markets for mutual benefit, we are unable to propose
an answer.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Before defining options for
cooperation, the degree of interoperability should be identified. The
NATO Industrial Advisory Group in Brussels should be able to help in
this area.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Perhaps there should be a
sequence for entering into any type of cooperation. First, there should
be general agreement on the broad political terms in order to satisfy
basic political interests. Then, the military procurement road map
should be developed in terms of timing and funding. In order to promote
cooperation among the Partners, the definition of these terms should be
left to the industries concerned.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">One Partner state noted that
the procurement policy for Partner countries--how and how much defense
equipment could be procured in the West--may depend on what these
Partner countries can offer to the traditional NATO countries.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Crisis Management. Until now,
NATO decision making--especially for a political crisis--was based on
Article 5. Therefore, a common cause facilitated consensus between the
member nations. In the new NATO, two things have fundamentally changed:</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">First, the group of countries
participating in political decision making has grown or will grow;</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Second, there may not be a
clearly defined common cause in non-Article 5 operations. In such
circumstances, an a priori consensus on all potential sources for crisis
cannot always be obtained. Therefore, a common cause must be sought on a
case-by-case basis; then ad hoc structures--force structures, force
packages, and, if necessary, a military command structure--must be set
up. The Combined Joint Task Force concept may offer a solution, but a
consensus will still need to be reached on a case-by-case basis.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">As a result of the changing
crisis management situation, there is a danger that NATO might be turned
into a world police force for the United Nations. To prevent such a
development, NATO's engagement in crisis management and peace operations
should be clearly limited to the NATO area of interest.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">ADMIRAL PIERRE LACOSTE</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Past
President,Fondation pour les Etudes de Defense Nationale</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In addition to representatives
of NATO countries, seven participants from non-NATO countries (including
General-Major Vasili Filipovich Latta of the Russian Defense Ministry)
made discussions particularly interesting in our group.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Crisis Management. We did not
agree that the chain of command was dependent upon political decisions nor
could we agree that clear political decisions were necessary beforehand. A
Finnish representative felt it was difficult to achieve efficient
structures for decision-making processes. General Sir Edward Jones
observed that NATO's present structures, going back to 1992, were designed
for quick reaction and still depend on the Cold War mentality and the
geography of our Alliance.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Today, however, we must accept
the fact that our political decision-making process is taking more time--a
reality to which our present structures must adapt. A U.S. participant
stressed the need to improve the current structures, since NATO lost
credibility in recent crises by reacting too slowly. Clearly, it is no
longer possible to wait for the political consensus from 16 nations before
acting.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">A Russian member of our group
suggested that the Combined Joint Task Force concept may not work if
political and diplomatic questions have not been settled beforehand. He
also stressed that, for practical reasons, we must preserve the NATO
system since it does exist. Finally, the Partnership for Peace process
must be preceded by a political-diplomatic process of exchanges and
consultations as well as military preparations, training, and exercises.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">A Finnish ambassador underlined
the need for a clear mandate for United Nations operations. General Sir
Edward Jones cited a situation in Somalia (where a Turkish officer always
had to check with his government before acting) as evidence that, in the
real world, even a clear mandate is not enough. This example suggests
that, in true military operations, unity of command is absolutely
necessary; flexibility is indispensable.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Since all participants cannot
always agree to act in a given case, we need ad hoc structures that can
handle such circumstances. Having forces composed of elements from
multiple nations may be a necessary condition to address this new problem.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">I would add that the term crisis
management refers to a great variety of situations, including preventive
actions, reactive actions, or remedial actions, and must be considered
within a time frame. Today, for example, we are involved in preventive
action in Macedonia and reactive action in Bosnia. After good political
preparation, we took part in remedial action in Cambodia.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">We concluded--with the
concurrence of our Russian member--that we must keep NATO's assets and
experience: exercises, training, interoperability, common procedures,
mutual understanding. But we must also evolve.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Possible Contributions by
Industry to Partnership for Peace (Remarks by Mr. Hal Vorhies). The
Partnership for Peace program can provide a vehicle for industrial
cooperation. Such a cooperative program for industry should be developed
within the PFP, possibly with NATO Industrial Advisory Group (NIAG)
participation. The NIAG already provides a means to improve industrial
cooperation among its members, since participation in NIAG studies
develops personal relationships among industry experts from each of the
participating nations. Those personal relationships can lead to business
relationships for the industries of both Partners and NATO members.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">When entering into these
programs, however, the Partners face the challenge to limit risks. If they
wish business relationships to develop, partner nations must have
and adhere to property laws, contract laws, and laws against corruption. A
United States company such as my own, for example, must conform to our
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which may prevent us from engaging in some
international business practices that are customary in certain locations.
We cannot jeopardize, through violation of the Act, our business at home
in order to win international contracts. Nor would we want to enter into a
high-risk venture in a nation where our competitors are not engaged on the
same level playing field.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In terms of communications
commonality or interoperability, industry can best contribute by helping
to upgrade existing PFP inventories instead of providing a wealth of new
hardware that partners probably could not afford. Computer and software
technologies are progressing very rapidly in Western nations. It is
becoming more possible to introduce technological change through use of
less expensive commercial off-the-shelf equipment in communications
systems. In addition to the upgrade of current equipment, a software
approach provides a pathway to improved interoperability in communications
which, of course, will benefit all NATO members and partners. In my view,
democracies go hand-in-hand with market economies. If we help market-based
economies develop, we will help democracies develop.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1"><B>MR. GUIDO SPINA</B></FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Senior Vice President,
Alenia</FONT></FONT></I></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Possible Contributions by
Industry. The Partnership for Peace program gives industry an opportunity
to provide technology transfer and actually collaborate with Partner
countries, since Partners need defense equipment that satisfies
interoperability and mobility standards. This cooperation, moreover, may
indirectly help promote the free market notion. In addition, industry
supports activities such as the NATO Workshop, which helps broaden the
Atlantic community.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Industry is already creating new
types of multinational, global organizations that will spread to Partner
countries. While industries themselves are initiating the process, it will
take time because there is no way to force cooperative manufacturing. Even
though our defense markets are too small for us to have large, direct
effects on the economies of Partner countries, we will have a catalyzing
action because our cooperation will lead to management efforts (including
production management), training in managerial courses, and other benefits
to Partner countries.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Cooperative industry efforts
will also facilitate other forms of regional cooperation, including
military cooperation. For example, when joint exercises begin at the
regional level, they will be aided by the relationships that already exist
with the neighboring countries. This has already occurred in the Baltic
region, where countries such as Denmark have capitalized on inter-country
industrial efforts. Because of the catalytic effect of cooperation between
industries, expansion that has already started in some fields will
gradually spread to others. Perhaps NATO could help industry identify the
fields where cooperation needs to occur.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="Summary.htm" TARGET="_document">Go
to Top of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="/94Book/94Workshop.htm">Return
to Os '94 Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>