| Summary/Abstract |
Although recent years have seen more talk about Article 5 and the need for NATO to stand up to an expansive Russia, NATO states are unlikely to engage in a new Cold War with Russia. Instead the alliance continues to explore its agenda in the post-Afghanistan and post-Crimea period. One answer to these tensions is to develop an agenda stressing human security to counter the pervasive threats of regional instability and terrorism. After reviewing the alliance's Military Concept Against Terrorism (MCAT), the deliberations of the 2012 Chicago and 2014 Wales Summits, and the European Union's Common Defence and Security Policy (CSDP), this article explores two propositions. First, that the vacillating commitment of alliance members who chose to address security issues through EU mechanisms or optional coalitions of the willing threatens NATO's relevance. If NATO's members are unclear about the alliance's agenda and identity, others cannot know what the alliance is willing to do to protect its interests. Second, by developing Military Concept against Terrorism and Smart Defence along a human security framework coupled with maritime operations would enable the alliance to better satisfy the needs of its European members, allowing them to employ NATO to support the EU's Common Defence and Security Policy, and ensure a continued reliance on NATO. As one area where there is a consensus between NATO's European members and the USA, counterterrorism is the most promising field that the alliance can focus on. NATO, therefore, should position itself as a key counterterrorism force, albeit one that is not strictly kinetic.
|