For nearly two decades, the maritime dimension’s relevance within the NATO alliance has increased. From 1993–96 Operation Sharp Guard enforced an embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to the former Yugoslavia, and the alliance’s commitment to safe and secure seas continued in the following years. NATO initiated its only Article 5 action, Operation Active Endeavour, in support of the United States immediately after 9/11, and the ongoing effort still displays NATO’s solidarity and resolve in the fight against terrorism. Over the past three years, developments relating to piracy and operational deployments to the waters off Somalia further increased the visibility of the maritime dimension.
From October to December 2008 the alliance conducted Operation Allied Provider in compliance with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s request for assistance. The NATO task force provided protection to World Food Program–chartered ships and conducted deterrence patrols in areas susceptible to criminal acts against merchant shipping. Later, NATO conducted Operation Allied Protector and in August 2009 approved Operation Ocean Shield, which is currently focusing on counterpiracy operations. Thus, the alliance has broadened its approach, offering assistance to regional states in building their capacity to counter piracy.
In addition to current operations, however, the risks to alliance interests—from threats to sea-lines of communications, energy supply, and critical infrastructure, to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—all require a maritime framework.
An Alliance Maritime Strategy
At the end of March 2009, the North Atlantic Council agreed the development of an Alliance Maritime Strategy, aimed at improving the understanding and consideration of maritime matters within the alliance, and a NATO Maritime Security Operations Concept to provide quick solutions to the current operational challenges related to piracy and maritime situational awareness. That initiative is very important, because for the first time since 1984 the alliance has decided to undertake the development of work in the maritime dimension.
The strategic commanders submitted their input on the Alliance Maritime Strategy to NATO headquarters in 2010, where it was approved in January 2011 after a long debate at the political and military levels. Work on the strategy drew from the Multiple Futures Project, which was completed by Allied Command Transformation in 2009. This project provides a strategic assessment of the future security environment. A long and inclusive effort identified the trends and drivers and built a series of possible futures, which were analyzed to determine security and corresponding military implications for the alliance.
The Alliance Maritime Strategy aims to address the maritime dimension, describing the strategic context, the maritime role areas, the implications of a comprehensive approach, and the broad capabilities required. This will provide the framework for the follow-on conceptual work.
This effort is an opportunity to foster a common strategic vision, helping NATO define the political perspective of the maritime dimension, which has important implications not only on the military aspect, but also on the relationship between NATO and other countries of the world with regard to global maritime governance.
Maritime Contribution to Alliance Security
With increased interdependence of nations through global trade, the Alliance Maritime Strategy advocates the development of partnerships as a way of enhancing security to meet emerging challenges in the maritime dimension. Outreach makes an important contribution to NATO policy and also offers opportunities to prevent crisis and conflicts and to develop regional stability. Maritime security is an area especially suitable for cooperation among partners. At the same time, the document confirms a strong resolve to retain NATO’s traditional role for maritime forces, such as deterrence, collective defense, and crisis management.
Collective defense, supported by a policy of deterrence, remains the political/military cornerstone of NATO’s solidarity and mutual commitment. It requires a fully integrated effort that builds on the unique strengths in the traditional dimensions of air, sea, and land, and the fast-growing dimensions of space and cyber.
NATO’s crisis-management operations increasingly require forward presence, rapid response, and expeditionary forces. The prevention of crises through a network of partnerships provides opportunities to develop cooperation, trust, and mutual understanding; enhance interoperability; and build capacity. And the alliance must promote maritime security to assure freedom of navigation and the peaceful exploitation of the maritime commons.
NATO must also further evolve a maritime comprehensive approach and foster interaction with the international maritime community, including international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and law enforcement agencies in the maritime field, with partner and non-partner nations. In support of the roles identified, maritime forces must be well trained, capable, flexible, sustainable, and most importantly, interoperable. All this may require transformation of the alliance’s maritime organization and capabilities.
Balance Between Defense and Security
The Alliance Maritime Strategy was approved by members only two months after the new NATO Strategic Concept was released at the Lisbon Summit. The Strategic Concept lays out the alliance’s enduring purpose and nature and its fundamental security tasks, identifies the central features of the new security environment, specifies the elements of NATO’s broad approach to security, and provides guidelines for the further transformation of its military forces.
The strategic implications into the next decade stemming from the Strategic Concept inform the maritime perspective of the alliance and therefore the Alliance Maritime Strategy, which is fully consistent with NATO’s core tasks, principles, and values.
More important, however, the strategy is a test case for NATO along with the NATO Maritime Security Operations Concept, which was staffed almost in parallel. In fact, it triggers the ongoing debate on the relationship between defense and security and the role of NATO in both areas. The balance between the two is a key challenge and will have long-term implications.
As a result of this process, allies could decide to shift the strategic focus toward security and partnerships, underpinning the political roots of an alliance much larger than the one in place during the Cold War, which concentrated on military options against a clearly identifiable threat.
Superiority and Leadership
Collective defense remains the raison d’etre of NATO, but the emerging security environment characterized by hybrid threats and risks, wider prevention, and stabilization efforts also requires NATO superiority and relevance. There are significant military implications from the changing security climate for planning, preparedness, and operations.
The security issues under the spotlight range from mass migration, terrorism, piracy, and illegal trafficking to weapons of mass destruction proliferation, protection of critical infrastructure and energy supplies, and organized crime.
New maritime states, often with competing interests, are building up technologically advanced military capabilities. Military proliferation and threats to global and regional systems in other parts of the world can affect the security of NATO nations. That is the reason NATO must continue to provide credible military deterrence and superior response in case of aggression, assuring at the same time a safe and secure maritime environment.
NATO today retains sea control in its traditional area of responsibility and a decisive dominance in naval warfare. The alliance must maintain this situation of superiority and technological leadership in critical fields, such as undersea warfare and missile defense. Neglecting the lead in those technological areas could pose serious long-term risks for the security of allies. At the same time, those allies are aware of the increased visibility and importance of maritime-security issues and in particular the perception of the vulnerability of the maritime commons as oceans connect nations globally through an interdependent network of economic, financial, social, and political relationships. That network—composed of ports, infrastructure, and pipelines, as well as vessels sailing along sea lines of communication—supports trade and is very vulnerable to disruption. Interests are growing in new frontiers (Africa and the High North) and in the exploitation of marine resources, which are fostering an idea of territorialization of the seas, where nations claim their right to exploit resources in areas increasingly distant from their coastlines.
The Strategy and Key Challenges for NATO
In this strategic scenario, the development of an Alliance Maritime Strategy poses to NATO a number of challenges related to the balance between defense and security:
The relationship between the maritime dimension and other dimensions. The strategy outlines the contribution to deterrence, the collective defense of NATO, and to joint crisis management (response and prevention). The roles of maritime forces are strictly connected to those of land or air forces, for instance. That relationship has to be coherent across the dimensions of air, land, space, and cyber, supporting and reinforcing joint operations and the visions of all services. This aspect has to be taken into account by the alliance to follow a common and integrated approach when developing the conceptual frameworks of other dimensions.
NATO dominance in naval warfare. The alliance has to identify the proper level of readiness and response to remain dominant against the current level of threat, which is more blurred than in the past. It also must be clear regarding how technologically advanced and interoperable NATO forces have to be. Member nations could decrease the number of assets for traditional naval-warfare scenarios to better resource emerging requirements in maritime security. The alliance, however, has to maintain a balanced set of forces and capabilities and lead technology developments in the event of the need to build up maritime forces in the future. To minimize long-term risks, the private sector must find a role in this context, especially when the situation requires development of effective and interoperable solutions (for example, in sea basing and maritime unmanned systems), making the best use of available resources. In this regard, NATO must also continue to develop the knowledge of the maritime environment, capitalizing on its research and technology expertise.
Partnerships and NATO’s role in maritime security. Global challenges require global responses. In the security environment problems can be solved only in partnership, implementing a comprehensive, interagency approach. NATO, in this instance, is one part of global maritime governance. When politically agreed to by nations, NATO can contribute to the current efforts of international organizations and other stakeholders, striving to avoid duplications (for example, with the European Union). NATO’s contribution can be in the form of maritime assets, maritime capacity building, command and control, interoperability, situational awareness, education and training, and lessons learned. A balance must be identified to properly prioritize requirements and to define the level of ambition of NATO in maritime security.
The implementation of a comprehensive approach. In the maritime dimension the relationship with non-military entities may have specific objectives and requirements different from what is required in other dimensions. However, the alliance needs to harmonize and ensure these efforts are coherent across the various domains. Putting this comprehensive approach into operation is a complex endeavor, and NATO needs to strengthen relationships with civilian and international organizations to identify proper solutions. One approach is to integrate operationally military (NATO and non-NATO) and civilian institutions (e.g., law enforcement, non-governmental organizations, industry, and international organizations) in an interagency organization/structure. A number of issues are pending, but it is necessary to engage this theme through practical, perhaps experimental, activities and solutions, similar to what is being done with the Joint Interagency Task Force South model in the United States.
Implications of shifting focus toward security. The engagement of NATO in maritime security is an appropriate and timely response to real-world challenges and threats, but it may imply decreasing priority on strictly military capabilities. The alliance needs to look at the transformational implications and at the capabilities needed in a hybrid environment, where the distinction between defense and security is blurred and unclear. There may be, in fact, capabilities that are needed less in the new security climate or, on the contrary, that emerge in light of new roles. Moreover, the involvement of NATO maritime forces in security roles requires further work in the following areas:
• NATO’s involvement in operations in support of law enforcement activities would not be a core mission, but would be in cooperation with other organizations directed to carry out such tasks.
• The legal basis that underpins alliance maritime-security operations is an issue, as there are differing legal interpretations and laws of nations.
• The ability to share information and collaborate with other nations involved in security-related tasks and missions is critical.
• The cooperation with the European Union is important, although NATO in some circumstances can pursue maritime security activities alone.
In a situation where national and NATO budgets are under pressure, one may expect a shift of resources toward security at the expense of defense to continue to increase. Resources are being progressively diverted in most nations to higher-priority security issues, where civilian stakeholders often have the lead. The alliance has to assess the extent of this shift and its implications, and in particular, how to address new NATO roles with the same or fewer resources, ensuring that they match the level of ambition.
Influence national agendas. The process of reprioritizing efforts and investments is ongoing. Navies in some countries have difficulty positioning themselves in the broader context of their national defense and security visions and strategies. The Alliance Maritime Strategy can be useful as guidance for national maritime strategic reviews, and NATO should sponsor this opportunity.
Reusability of existing maritime assets. Navies are flexible. They can be used in their traditional roles, and at the same time they can effectively tackle maritime-security tasks. Existing assets can be partially reused for maritime security through their dual-use adaptability, but not enough to cover efficiently all requirements. NATO should analyze where a capability gap remains.
Trade-off between quality and quantity. The potential decrease of traditional warfare capabilities could bring long-term risks. One risk is that, nationally and in NATO, lower priority is given to strictly military capabilities from a quantitative perspective and/or to qualitative improvements (e.g., missile defense, sea basing, and power projection). NATO defense planning must indicate critical quantitative and qualitative thresholds of capabilities and their technological content to maintain credibility and effectiveness. This is true especially in niche areas where the military adds significant value (e.g., antisubmarine warfare, amphibious warfare, or mine countermeasures). The number of assets available is critical as far as operational costs, organization, training, and logistics are concerned.
Within the nations, it is highly inefficient and risky to go below certain levels. Some countries could decide to give up and withdraw from certain warfare areas. A partial solution could be to pool resources and specialization, or develop capabilities through multinational cooperation. NATO should play a role in this effort, also facilitating the networking of national competencies. Those thresholds are strictly related to level of ambition and the resources available, with the awareness that it would take a very long time to rebuild lost expertise and capabilities. The alliance should help outline the balance between highly technological assets and capabilities for use in high-intensity conflicts and to deter adversaries, and less sophisticated, but more affordable ones to deploy for maritime-security tasks and outreach.
In summary, the Alliance Maritime Strategy addresses the challenge to fulfil the traditional roles of maritime forces of the alliance, where NATO must remain dominant, while at the same time engaging the security roles that are becoming more relevant in the day-to-day life of member countries. There is no perfect solution to balance defense and security, present and future challenges, resources and level of ambition, requirements, and capabilities, as the strategic assessment of threats and risks provides a blurred picture. It is, however, a duty to indicate the trade-off between the need to counter existing real challenges of today and the moral hazards of a future with possibly reduced ability to counter significant emerging military threats.