BY ELIZABETH BUNN
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all … if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking … action as it deems necessary … to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
– Excerpt from the Washington Treaty, Article IV
“The problem is the willingness and the capability of those countries does not necessarily match their ability to spend …”
– Ajbinder Sull, President and Chief Investment Officer, Pacifica Partners Inc.
* * *
The Chicago NATO Summit yielded an important, albeit somewhat imprecise, message regarding NATO’s commitment to Smart Defense: In light of economic turmoil, member countries are dedicated to sharing resources and working together to develop capabilities they could not otherwise achieve.
Already, NATO has implemented a handful of initiatives that fall under the canopy of Smart Defense. In a press conference following the Summit, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called attention to an agreement between NATO allies in the Baltic States to take turns patrolling that airspace. Doing so, Rasmussen said, allows the countries to contribute additional resources to other areas, such as Special Forces.
During the Summit, NATO members also agreed to what Rasmussen called a “robust package of more than 20 multinational projects” moving forward. The agreements range from acquiring remote-controlled robots that help in clearing bombs, to pooling and sharing boats for patrolling tumultuous areas such as the Horn of Africa.
But the challenge ahead will be whether NATO countries, amid escalating economic turmoil, can make good on their intentions financially. Even as Rasmussen speaks of plans to purchase, acquire and share, NATO members are slashing their defense budgets — the irony, of course, being that some countries may find themselves unable to financially support the programs specifically designed to ease that burden.
For example, Spain presented its 2012 budget in April, and announced a plan to cut €27 billion. Although the defense sector isn’t the hardest hit, the proposed budget nevertheless calls for €6.3 billion in defense cuts.
In February, Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Italy would reduce its fighter jet order by more than 30 percent, from 131 F-35s to 100 or slightly fewer. The Ministry reported that overall cuts also include personnel cuts: 22,000 soldiers, 7,000 Navy sailors and 10,000 members of the Air Force.
Greece also plans to cut defense spending significantly. Cuts would include a reduction in the purchasing of military material by €300 million, as well as a reduction in other military expenses by at least €100 million.
Speaking of Greece – it’s impossible to mention the deteriorating country without acknowledging the growing skepticism that it may soon exit the eurozone. Martin Edwards, a political scientist and member of the New Rules for Global Finance Coalition, said Greece’s exist from the eurozone would have tremendous global repercussions.
“It’s not because the Greek economy is so big – far from it,” Edwards said. “It’s that the spectrum of that leaving is going to produce all sorts of turmoil in markets, and I don’t think we’re ready for the level of pressure that Spain, Portugal and Italy are going to fall under.”
“Because once Greece leaves,” Edwards continued, “the question is ‘OK, who’s next?’”
In light of widespread budget cuts and the eurozone’s uncertain future, concrete examples of Smart Defense may be harder to define. It is worthwhile, then, to look at a sample of NATO countries in the framework of their niche capabilities, or services they specialize in and contribute to the alliance.
Sally Painter, Chief Operating Officer at Washington-based consultancy Blue Star Strategies and a member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, said a focus on unique capabilities is particularly important when considering NATO’s smaller member countries.
“For instance, smaller countries aren’t going to have a huge military air force,” Painter said. “But they could do other things.” Painter offered Estonia and Latvia as examples. While Estonia specializes in Special Forces and cyber security, Painter said, Latvia specializes in de-mining capabilities.
Poland, another example, specializes in training and deploying armed forces. Poland Armed Forces regularly contribute warships to NATO’s maritime operations, and has helped train Afghan Army and police forces.
“It’s interesting because some of the smaller countries have per capita the largest group of people on the ground,” Painter said. “And so there is recognition that it may not be your dollars, but you’re giving us something even more important – you’re giving us your people.”
But some economists say willingness without spending power might not be enough in times of severe financial turmoil.
“I think the issue it comes down to,” Sull said, “is if other European countries are no longer willing to shoulder their share of the burden, or they aren’t able to, then perhaps NATO will have to shrink its mission, it’s mandate or the number of members.”
