September 29, 2016

Authors
Steven Bartomioli,
Norwich University, Wikistrat
Nicolai Bechfeldt,
University of Southern Denmark,
Danish Army
Tom Field,
University of York, University College
London

ATLANTIC MEMO #53

Policy Workshop Competition

Improving Participation in the NATO Defense Planning

Process

Shaping our NATO: Young Voices

on the Warsaw Summit
Category D:
Increasing solidarity in the face of
divergent threat perception

INTRODUCTION
NATO has adopted initiatives to harmonize national defense plans and to identify
and develop the capabilities needed for a full and expanding range of missions.
However, the NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP) has not been as effective
as it should be. This Atlantic Memo offers suggestions for how NATO should
develop its defense planning efforts to overcome these issues, by focusing on four
key policy areas: the internal dynamics of decision-making, creating regional
interest blocs, inclusion of Civil-Military Cooperation within the NDPP, and improving
specialization. A more transparent decision-making process would result in better
informed allies and publics, consequently more invested in NATO, and therefore
more willing to meet the 2% spending target.

Atlantic-community.org is the
Open Think Tank on Foreign Policy
with more than 9000 members
Editor-in-Chief: Jrg Wolf
wolf@atlantic-community.org

Publisher
Atlantische Initiative e.V.
Forststr. 51
14163 Berlin
Germany
Tel: +49.30.206 337 88
Fax: +49.30.246 303 633

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Directors

1. Improve internal dynamics with an advisory system of voting and increased

transparency.
The North Atlantic Council (NAC) operates such that all states must unanimously
agree upon decisions affecting all members. Yet not all must contribute their fair
share. Vote by unanimity is not transparent and can lead to group think and arbitrary
decision-making. This needs to be eliminated from NATO's mode of operation in
order to garner greater support from its members and the people it is intended to
protect. There must be greater pressure from within NATO to push those states that
are most definitely capable of getting defense planning on track, to the forefront
The best practice that could serve as a role model in a renewed culture of cooperation is for a level playing field whereby each member state has a vote within the
NAC and can influence the decisions made by NATO either at the individual level or
at a larger cooperative level. An (initially) advisory system of voting should be
instituted whereby each ally is given one vote, with the aim of establishing a system
of long-term norms. This would enhance the participation of smaller allies by
increasing the transparency of decision-making processes. Voting members are
allowed three options; For, Against, or Abstain. The option for a state to abstain
from a vote allows for them to still be active in the decision-making process without
jeopardizing the will of their country. This system of voting would further increase
transparency in two ways.

Dr. Johannes Bohnen

Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen

First, a voting system akin to that of a parliament requires a series of motions, voting,
and other hurdles before a topic can be put forth for a final, deciding vote. This is
inherently a self-check system of transparency because small numbers of nations will
be required to reach consensus amongst one another to gather the support to back
motions to be initially heard and subsequently debated and support prevailing
voted upon. This advisory system of voting would provide more transparency by
highlighting individual countrys participation and voting records.
Second, as a result of the proposed voting process, a committee is to be established
which actively tracks and monitors activity of all NATO member states within and
surrounding the Defense Planning Process. This will provide transparency as to how
active member states truly are. Through this monitoring and subsequent publishing of
regular reports, the goal of creating further transparency and increasing public
confidence will be realized. Regardless of the decision to impose an advisory system
of voting within the NAC, this committee would still prove crucial in establishing
transparency of allies commitment and increase international pressure on them. The
fear should not be that the "enemy" might know what NATO is doing but that our allies
and public do not. If our allies and the public are not informed, they are not invested.

2. Empower regional interest blocs within NATO to increase commitment.

Regional interest blocs will encourage members with mutual challenges and interests
to meet and address them in settings where common ground for cooperation is
already in place. These blocs would refine and enhance the tactics and strategies
already in place within these makeshift coalitions. Some allies would feel more
integrated and important in NATO, and so would participate more actively in NDPP.
Members facing similar threats are those best equipped to manage them. For example, irregular migration is a threat to all allies, but countries nearer to North Africa and
the Middle East deal with it most directly. These are the most capable and can better
cooperate to minimize risks, primarily based on their proximity and the opportunity this
provides to develop a comparative advantage through regular operational experience.
It is necessary that the Alliance support the strategies formulated by these interest
blocs to combat threats. The Alliance faces a variety of challenges on multiple fronts.
Encouraging these blocs to develop strategies best suited to their respective regions
would increase the security of NATO as a whole. Simultaneously, this would allow for
the future exchange of best practices should similar issues be encountered by NATO
allies in other regions.
Such a strategy would ensure that all allies would provide resources to threatened
members, allowing them to promptly and effectively counter regionalized direct
threats, thereby preventing them from spreading and affecting the rest of the Alliance.
A much needed specialization given the high intensity of current hazards.
The possible risk is that such groups may eventually pose a challenge to the general
cohesion in the Alliance. However, recognizing that the Alliance is currently facing
multiple challenges, of which many can be confined to specific regions, the cohesion
is to some extent already challenged. For great states, often with multiple spheres of
interest, a membership in a "Baltic compartment" does not prevent contributions to, or
memberships of, other groups. Contiguous "regional interests" are obviously not only
attached to a state's own geographical region but can also be in remote regions as
is the case for many member states fighting the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria.

3. Include Civil-Military Cooperation in the NATO Defense Planning Process.

Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) capabilities should be included as a specific
category in the NDPP during the next biannual Defense Planning Capability Survey.
NATO defines CIMIC operations as co-ordinationbetween the NATO Commander
and civil actors which aims to take account of social, political, cultural, religious,
economic, environmental and humanitarian factors at the pre-operational, operational, and transitional stages of missions. CIMIC has been practiced for instance in joint
EU-NATO policing operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Central African Republic
and in the Baltic States preparations to counter sabotage, civil unrest, and cyberattacks from Russia.
Encouraging expenditure on CIMIC resources designed to respond to the migrant
crisis would be the most applicable use of CIMIC at this time. Allies such as Turkey,
Greece, Italy, and Spain are struggling to cope with the refugee crisis. These CIMIC
operations would also incentivize more European member countries to meet the 2%
spending target. These CIMIC capabilities are more relevant to the existing security
concerns of many European countries given recent instances of terrorism and mass
migration than more traditional military capability development. As such, CIMIC would
improve participation by helping to align NATO spending priorities with those of its
members. To be counted against the 2% spending target these capabilities would
have to outline how they would interact with NATO operations. Consultation on the
specific details of this interaction must be discussed at the next biannual Defense
Planning Capability Survey.

4. Specialize in Complete Capabilities.

It is necessary to acknowledge that states want to be able to act and react, including
to non-Article 5 commitments. The way to progress military specialization is through
encouraging allies to specialize in complete capabilities. Such a specialization allows
for the further pooling of resources during the acquisition process.
While it may appear that this kind of specialization does not support cost reductions,
savings are made by actual prioritization. It forces politicians to prioritize what their
military toolbox should be able to do. Member countries will always prioritize protecting
sovereign interests and therefore some assets remain indispensable. Smaller allies
will, however, find it useful to minimize several of these "must-have" assets in order to
prioritize capability specialization. This again reinforces the importance of the pooling
of funds during the acquisition process in order to provide the most state-of-the-art
equipment at the best price possible.

CONCLUSION
NATO can lead the way in demonstrating that a multi-national, multi-continental
Alliance can be effective and innovative. This Atlantic Memo has made suggestions
for a renewed culture of cooperation within NATO. An advisory system of voting and
increased transparency would highlight allies participating in the NATO Defense
Planning Process. This will lead to public pressure to contribute more but eventually
also to increased public confidence in NATO. If our allies and the public are not
informed, they are not invested.
Creating regional interest blocs within NATO to develop strategies best suited for
respective regions would make some allies feel more integrated and valued within
NATO, leading to more active participation in the NDPP.

Including Civil-Military Cooperation in the NATO Defense Planning Process would

incentivize more European member countries to meet the 2% spending target. CIMIC
capabilities are more relevant to the existing security concerns of many European
countries given recent instances of terrorism and mass migration than more traditional
military capability development. As such, CIMIC would improve participation in the
NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP) by helping to align NATO spending priorities with those of its members.
Steven Bartomioli graduated in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from
Norwich University and again in June, 2016 with a Master of Business Administration.
He works as a Research Analyst with Wikistrat.
Nicolai Bechfeldt is a Danish Army Captain. He holds a masters degree of sociology
in international security and law from the University of Southern Denmark.
Tom Field studied at the University of York and University College London. He has
previously worked for the Syrian Legal Development Programme and currently works
for an international relations think tank based in London.
The authors have written this Memo after qualifying with individual submissions, which
provide more detailed information on the aforementioned policy recommendations for
those interested:
Steven Bartomioli: How Defense Planning Will Reinvigorate NATO
http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/how-defense-planning-will-reinvigorate-nato

Nicolai Bechfeldt: Smart Defence Revisited: Future Specialization and the Framework
to Support It.
http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/smart-defence-revisited-future-specialization-and-the-framework-to-support-it

Tom Field: NATO Should Increase Civil-Military Co-Operation

http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/nato-should-increase-civil-military-co-operation

The articles have been written for category C Getting Defense Planning on Track of
the Shaping our NATO competition and respond to the questions: How can some
NATO member countries be encouraged to participate more actively in the NATO
Defense Planning Process? How could NATO Members coordinate better to generate
the modern defense capabilities that the Alliance as a whole needs? What are the
best practices that could serve as role models in a renewed culture of cooperation?
The competition has been made possible by generous contributions from the NATO
Public Diplomacy Division, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Foundation for
Polish-German Cooperation.

Atlantic-community.org maintains editorial independence and this Memo reflects the

opinions of the authors, not those of the sponsors.