Transatlantic cooperation in combating terrorism sometimes raises doctrinal
quarrels about what intellectual framework is appropriate in policy-making and
what agencies should have the lead role in implementing preventive actions and,
if necessary, coordinating the response to a catastrophe. In practice, great
strides have been made toward common practices on both sides of the Atlantic in
areas of police work ranging from information-sharing on travelers and joint
customs work to less public areas such as intelligence-sharing. Some new
suggestions are circulating about possible ways to tap into NATO’s resources and
capabilities to improve measures of homeland defense in the United States and in
Europe. A specific proposition has been floated from an expert group at two
research centers at the National Defense University in Washington, which trains
military and civilian leaders from the United States and other countries. No
official proposal of this sort is on the table, much less on NATO’s agenda. But
the authors' idea of harnessing NATO’s capabilities to more tasks consolidating
homeland defense has received some attention in official Washington. Meanwhile,
ideas about consolidating homeland security in allied nations are being widely
discussed in national capitals.
As the authors point out, many European members of NATO are working hard to
improve their cooperation on disaster-response by pooling resources in the
European Union. (An EU plan is under discussion to create a 5,000-strong
multilateral rescue force of firemen, medics and other technicians, called
Europe Aid, which could react to terrorist strikes or natural disasters. But it
reportedly will not be ready before 2010.) Many EU member-states are wary of
seeing NATO take on police and other activities related to homeland security.
Trying to take account of this sensibility, the authors make clear that their
proposals focus on using NATO assets to reinforce and supplement the work of
allied countries’ multinational civilian or other national agencies working in
this sector.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) plays an essential role in defense
of the transatlantic homeland from terrorism, but gets little public credit for
its efforts. NATO could do even more to enhance its capabilities to support the
individual and collective efforts of member and partner countries to enhance
societal security. Alliance leaders have the opportunity to articulate a
strategic direction for homeland defense at NATO’s summit meeting in Riga,
Estonia, in November 2006. Such an initiative would complement – and,
emphatically, not detract from – the efforts by allied governments and by the
European Union. It would enhance NATO’s relevance in the eyes of the public on
both sides of the Atlantic.
There is strong support for housing a growing number of common European
capabilities related to societal and homeland security and emergency response
within the EU
Combining transatlantic strengths to cope with this new mission is a challenge.
Many governments in the alliance view control of homeland security resources as
manifestations of their sovereignty. Europeans have diverse constitutional
approaches to the domestic uses of their military and the lines of authority for
civil-military cooperation in crisis situations. Among the 19 NATO allies and
four Partnership for Peace nations that belong to the European Union as well,
there is strong support for housing a growing number of common European
capabilities related to societal/homeland security and emergency response (such
as customs, police cooperation, environmental security and information-sharing)
within the EU. Indeed, the EU has undertaken a range of activities and
initiatives aimed at improving its military and civilian capabilities and
structures to respond to crises spanning both homeland defense and homeland
security, including crossborder cooperation on consequence-management after
natural and manmade disasters. It has established a situation center in Brussels
that provides threat assessments to national governments.
Recognizing that many EU activities are in their early stages, EU leaders agreed
last year to examine a European Commission proposal for an integrated “rapid
response and preparedness instrument” to react to all types of disasters
(including terrorism) inside or outside the EU; a target-date to finalize
crisis-coordination operational procedures is June 2006. Without impinging on
this EU process, a positive step would be the creation of a joint clearing-house
of capabilities: it would allow the EU and NATO to determine how best to meet
requirements in a specific crisis.
Since 2001, the United States and European governments have made major strides
to enhance their diplomatic, intelligence, financial, customs and law
enforcement cooperation to combat terrorism and enhance homeland security. For
example, most major European ports are actively participating in a plan launched
by U.S. Customs, the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which seeks to
identify and pre-screen high-risk seaborne containers before they are shipped.
By the fall of 2006, it is expected that 90 percent of all transatlantic (and
transpacific) cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to CSI
pre-screening. Improvements can still be made. In May 2006, the United States
and Canada agreed to renew their bilateral air defense cooperation under the
North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Agreement indefinitely and to initiate
integrated surveillance of the continent’s maritime approaches and internal
waterways to improve warning of terrorist and other threats.
But we recommend that NATO leaders go further and adopt a “Homeland Defense
Initiative.” It is important to underscore that NATO would undertake this
initiative in cooperation with national and EU efforts and with a view to
developing a capacity that can be used to
complement national and EU capacities
and be available when these require specialized assistance or are overwhelmed.
Such an initiative fostering cooperation on homeland security would build on
promising, but still modest, developments already under way in this field. The
initiative would include two sets of homeland defense activities – offshore and
border protection-missions for preventing terrorist attacks – and two sets of
homeland security activities. These are:
- guarding the approaches to the NATO region
- enhancing collective missile defenses
- improving counter-terrorism activities
- strengthening transatlantic capabilities for managing the consequences of
terrorist attacks (including weapons of mass destruction) or of large-scale
natural disasters.
NATO’ s extensive air defense system, including airborne warning and control
system (AWACS) aircraft, were used to provide air surveillance at the Athens and
Turin Olympic games in 2004 and 2006. To guard maritime approaches to alliance
territory, allied warships and aircraft began patrols in the eastern
Mediterranean in late 2001 in what became Operation Active Endeavor. These
patrols, which now cover the entire Mediterranean and involve partners from
outside the alliance, include legal boardings of suspect vessels. They help
guard against terrorist activity in this vital and crowded maritime zone through
which flows 65 percent of Europe’s energy supplies and a large percentage of
other seaborne trade.
The NATO naval command in Naples, Italy, has developed the Joint Information and
Analysis Center (JIAC), an experimental networking system that provides
analysis, warning, and deployment information as actionable intelligence to
appropriate authorities in the alliance. This center could be developed to
provide a wider and more timely flow of information about threatening and
illegal activities in the maritime domain. This information could be shared with
coast guards and other appropriate authorities most able to make use of it in
allied countries and partner nations.
A new NATO initiative fostering cooperation on homeland security would
build on promising, but still modest, developments already under way in this
field
At the 2002 Prague summit meeting of NATO, allied governments agreed to study
options for protecting populations against ballistic missile threats. At this
point, European governments are not prepared to deploy missile defenses for
protection of populations. However, Iran’s ongoing development of missile
delivery systems, if combined with nuclear weapons, would present a direct
threat to Europe of the sort that could build support for fielding NATO missile
defenses. At the Riga summit, alliance leaders could call for an accelerated
assessment of possible “architectures’’ for protecting alliance territory and
populations against missile threats.
To a new degree, NATO should establish mechanisms for cooperation that
puts the alliance’s capabilities behind national police forces and other first
responders in support of their work in homeland security crises
Counterterrorism within the NATO region has remained primarily the
responsibility of national interior and police authorities. NATO’s
counterterrorism activities since 2001 have ranged from safeguarding allied
airspace to command, since mid-2003, of the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan. The alliance has established a Terrorist Threat
Intelligence Unit to improve intelligence sharing and analysis. NATO nations are
developing cutting- edge technologies to protect troops and civilians against
terrorist operations – for example, in detection of "improvised explosive
devices."
NATO should put particular focus on intelligence-sharing and protecting critical
infrastructure. Procedures could be developed to ensure the prompt deployment of
special operations forces – which are useful in disrupting some kinds of
terrorist attacks – if national authorities ask for NATO assistance of this
type. NATO has longstanding, well-institutionalized plans for securing
pipelines, offshore platforms and ports to assure energy supplies in wartime;
now these systems and the resources attached to them could be applied to the new
challenge of anti-terrorist protection of such critical infrastructure.
In managing the consequences arising from terrorist attacks, pandemics or
large-scale natural disasters, a range of alliance capabilities (planning,
logistics, operations) could provide unique support to national and EU
authorities in the NATO region. NATO countries are jointly developing five
nuclear, biological, and chemical-defense initiatives. NATO has deployed a
Czech-led multinational chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological (CBNR)
defense battalion that has been fully operational since 2004 in offering
sophisticated detection and defensive technologies against these weapons of mass
destruction. In this area, NATO has developed a proposal on civil-emergency
planning that calls for the development of non-binding guidelines and minimum
standards for the protection of the civil population against these threats.
There are precedents for NATO’s involvement in disaster relief - Hurricane
Katrina (2005), the Pakistani earthquake (2005-6), and Central European flooding
(2004). Alliance capacity to conduct relief operations after a catastrophic
incident would be strengthened by deliberate planning and coordination of
relevant capabilities.
NATO should undertake a study of homeland defense requirements and capabilities.
The formation of military disaster assistance-response teams with a
chemical-biological decontamination capability should be considered. NATO
defense ministers could expand their regular meetings, when appropriate, to
include interior and health ministers in an effort to foster better
understanding of transatlantic homeland security challenges and possible
responses.
In this context, NATO headquarters would need additional assets focused on
homeland defense missions, and it may be necessary to create an Assistant
Secretary General for Homeland Defense. NATO authorities need to analyze the
issue of how new homeland defense missions should affect the force posture. A
new small, highly-ready force with capabilities oriented to homeland missions,
especially consequence management, may need to be created.
Our recommendation is that NATO leaders at Riga should focus on homeland defense
as a key part of their deliberations. Specifically, the Riga summit should:
- adopt a statement of principles on a “Homeland Defense Initiative” aimed at
complementing national and EU efforts and developing capabilities that can be
available when these are overwhelmed.
- undertake new homeland defense activities for all the countries in the
Partnership for Peace designed to enhance their capabilities for homeland
defense missions.
- announce a few specific force and organizational changes aimed at producing
improved homeland defense capabilities in the near term.
- task NATO headquarters and military staffs to conduct a study of future
homeland defense requirements, capabilities, costs, and improvement-priorities.
This article is based on a joint report, NATO’s Role in Transatlantic Homeland
Defense, prepared by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy and
the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University.
It was written by Neyla Arnas, Hans Binnendijk, Stephen J. Flanagan, Stuart E.
Johnson, Richard L. Kugler, Leo G. Michel, Anne M. Moisan, Jeffrey Simon, and
Kimberley L. Thachuk. The full report is available at
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/.
go to top
