Atlantic Voices - Partners Across the Globe: Stretching the Transatlantic Bond

YOUTH ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION (Supported by ATA)

Atlantic Voices, Volume 6, Issue 10 1

- Flora Pidoux

Since its creation, NATO has tremendously changed. Starting from an

Alliance that connected Western Europe with North America to deter threats coming from the USSR, NATO has come to

encompass more and more members over the years. Beyond the expansion of the membership, the Allies also aimed at

spreading their security ideal further, forced to acknowledge that their safety was vulnerable to the stability of other regions. With threats arising in its direct proximity,

NATO thus set up the Partnership for Peace and the Mediterranean Dialogue to enhance cooperation on tackling threats arising in the

broad European and North African regions. However, NATO has become

increasingly vulnerable to attacks coming

from farther, as illustrated by the 9/11 attacks. In light of this, handpicked countries, referred to as ‘Partners across the

Globe’, have been given preferential terms to cooperate on key security issues with NATO.

The first article discusses the partnership with Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan; the second focuses on Japan’s and South Korea’s bond with the Alliance; and the third dwells

on the cooperation between the Allies, Australia and New Zealand.

Partners Across the Globe: Stretching the Transatlantic Bond

Volume 6 - Issue 10 October 2016

Contents:

Shifting the Sands of the Transatlantic Bond

Mr. Roger Hilton analyzes the partnerships that tie NATO with Afghanistan,

Iraq and Pakistan and which aims at tackling terrorism at the source.

Extending the Bond Eastward

Mrs. Floor Doppen studies the partnership between NATO, Japan and

South Korea, which emerged in reaction to North Korea’s nuclear threats.

Mr. Matt Bowers discusses the bond that Australia and New Zealand share

with the Allies, which is based on governance similarities as well as comparable

security threats and a commitment to global security.

In orange, NATO Partners across the Globe (Image: NATO)


Early Global Outreach

As experience has confirmed, combating terrorism

has been a global operation that has required efforts

from across the world. Since 9/11, the Alliance has thus

pluralised its partnerships, expanding its geographic

scope of operations through a network of international

military installations and political dialogue that has

enabled them to project power and contribute to global

stability. This has been expressed with NATO

formalizing partnership relations with Afghanistan in

2010, Pakistan in 2011, and Iraq in 2012. NATO’s

engagement in the region is, however, not a nascent

experience. With the Cold War being fought on all

peripheries, the three states played a role in proxy

battles. Unsurprisingly, due to their geo-strategic value

NATO embarked to monopolize their utility once again.

Pakistan, in particular, has been central to NATO’s

matrix of Middle Eastern and Asian policy. Islamabad’s

integration with NATO took form through two

mirroring organizations; the Southeast Asian Treaty

Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty

Organization (CENTO). SEATO was a product of US

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who imagined it in

1954 as a bulwark against regional Communist

movements. Due primarily to internal conflict, SEATO

never reached its potential and collapsed in 1977.

Mimicking this was CETNO or the “Baghdad Pact”,

which shared a similar role as a Western bastion against

Communism within the Middle East. Conceived in

1955, Iraq’s participation in the Organization lasted

until 1958 when the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown by

Shifting the Sands of the Transatlantic Bond

By Roger Hilton

n the devastating aftermath of 9/11, NATO

was forced to confront a threat it had limited

familiarity with: Islamic terrorism within the

Euro-Atlantic boarders. After grappling with the

Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the Alliance

has needed to seek out expertise beyond its normal

sphere of competencies to tackle fundamentalism. To

increase security in this new era, NATO’s tactical

reconfiguration extend into the deserts of Iraq as well

as the mountainous Khyber Pass of Pakistan and

Afghanistan, subsequently stretching the transatlantic

bond. Unfortunately, terrorism has proven to be a

stubborn enemy, as potent attacks from the so-called

“Islamic State” (IS), have hit Belgium, France, and

Germany. With this persistent threat lingering, NATO

has had to leverage its “Partners Across the Globe”

concept, recasting the utility of Iraq, Afghanistan, and

Pakistan to disband Islamic networks and reduce their

public appeal. The diverse roles of these states have

risen with the ascension of IS, which claims (marginal)

ideological support in all three and publicly declares

their intent to attack NATO states. As the spectre of

radicalism is showing no signs of exhaustion

throughout the Middle East and South Asia,

reinforcing the transatlantic bond as a catalyst for

stability is urgently needed. If NATO is to avoid

violence spilling over to the member states, it would

do well to continue to collaborate with this troika of

states, and provide them with material and

professional support to eradicate the potential of

terrorism to strike and grow.


General Abdul Qasim who withdrew Iraq from CETNO

in 1958 and opened diplomatic relations with the Soviet

Union. Similarly, CETNO’s impact was minimal and

dissolved after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Despite the

loosening of ties between the Alliance and Pakistan, the

1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was put in

the epicenter of Western operations. After the

withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989, the Taliban

assumed power starting in 1994., The ascension of

Saddam Hussein as Iraqi President and the subsequent

Iran-Iraq War complicated matters for NATO in the

region. Consequently, the litany of these factors

indefinitely suspended the cultivation of transatlantic

values in all three states until 9/11.

21st Century Outreach

Where the past objective of NATO with Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Pakistan centered on containing the

spread of communism, the role of these states today has

been to eliminate sanctuaries for terrorism and facilitate

regional stability, as illustrated by the subsequent NATO

intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and the American-

led intervention in Iraq two years later. Although some

terrorist havens were destroyed and Saddam Hussein

removed from power, these interventions inadvertently

contributed to a power vacuum that destabilized Iraq

and Afghanistan and injected uncertainty into Pakistan.

To stem the groundswell of violence, the Alliance has

taken a tailored approach to each state composed of a

combination of methods and providing hard security,

professional training, and resource management.

Pakistan-NATO

In October of 2001, when NATO intervened in

Afghanistan as part of the International Security

Assistance Force (ISAF), Pakistan immediately became

the Alliance’s preeminent partner. Specifically,

Islamabad proved their utility to the operations through

military cooperation as well as logistics support. The

institutionalization of cooperation through the Tripartite

Commission, a joint military and security forum that

includes representatives from the NATO-led ISAF

operation, Afghanistan and Pakistan, concentrates on

four areas: intelligence sharing, border security,

countering improvised explosive devices, and initiatives

relating to information operations. Additionally,

Pakistan has been playing a crucial role in supporting

NATO’s logistics operations. Although multiple routes

to delivery lethal and non-lethal equipment to

landlocked Afghanistan exist, the two available Pakistani

routes are significantly faster than through Russia and

Central Asia. In 2004, Pakistan earned the title of

“Major Non-NATO ally”, and in 2011 was officially

included in NATO’s flexible partnership policy

programme allowing them access to NATO’s

Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM) and the

possibility to develop a bilateral programme. At the

2012 Chicago Summit, the Alliance reaffirmed

Pakistan’s pivotal role in combatting terrorism.

Outside of the security realm, NATO has cooperated

on issues related to international peacekeeping and

emergency humanitarian assistance. During the Bosnian

War in 1994, Pakistan participated in the United

Nations Protection Forces in Bosnia (UNPROFOR) to

compliment NATO's operations. In 2005, NATO came

to the aid of Pakistan after a devastating earthquake

resulted in nearly three million people being displaced

and starved of food and shelter. In response, NATO

airlifted almost 3,500 tons of supplies and provided

engineers, medical units and equipment for relief

operations.

Despite these joint achievements, the relationship is

not without shortcomings. In November of 2011,

relations regressed drastically when US-led NATO


forces opened fire on two Pakistani border outposts

near the Afghan border killing 28 soldiers. The hostile

reception by the general public to the events led to a

major breakdown of relations that resulted in

Islamabad expulsing the US from the Shamsi Airfield

and the immediate closure of all NATO supply lines

to Afghanistan. It took an intensive diplomatic effort

by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to secure the

reopening of the supply lines in July 2012.

Complicating matters for the Alliance are the

persistent rumours that Pakistan is knowingly

harbouring, arming Taliban fighters in Waziristan, to

secure their geo-political interests in Afghanistan.

Pakistan and NATO do not share a uniform definition

of terrorism which has been the main source of

disaccord. This diverging view on terrorism carried

over to the Warsaw Summit, where Afghan President

Ghani accused Islamabad of distinguishing between

“good and bad terrorists”, echoing NATO’s position.

Afghanistan-NATO

NATO’s cultivation of Afghanistan as a Global

Partner was an accelerated process. Initially, the

mandate of the ISAF mission was to secure Kabul and

neighbouring areas from the Taliban and al-Qaeda in

order to facilitate the establishment of the Afghan

Transitional Administration. The Western-backed

government was not without resistance as fugitive

Taliban leader Mullah Omar orchestrated an

insurgency campaign to deter its installment. In

response to this guerilla warfare, NATO increased its

counterinsurgency operations, peaking at more than

130,000 troops from 51 NATO and partner nations.

ISAF assisted in the training of the Afghan National

Security Forces to enhance their competencies for the

future. Complementing this hard security was

NATO’s public outreach through nation building

projects to secure the “hearts and minds” of the Afghans.

Under the auspices of its updated Strategic Concept,

the Alliance and Afghanistan signed the Declaration on

an Enduring Partnership at the 2010 NATO Summit in

Lisbon. This Declaration was designed to provide long-

term political support to Kabul and complement ISAF’s

combat training and military advising, all in anticipation

of when Afghan forces would assume the reigns for

national security management. In December 2014, ISAF

ceased combat operations in the country and shifted to a

strictly advising capacity. Since January 2015, the

Afghan National Defence and Security Forces have

maintained full responsibility for security nationwide.

Currently, NATO’s involvement is defined by three

inter-related mandates: a NATO-led Resolute Support

mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan security

forces and institutions; a contribution to the broad effort

of financial sustainment of the Afghan security forces;

and the enhanced NATO-Afghanistan Enduring

Partnership, developed jointly with the Government of

Afghanistan. At the 2016 Warsaw Summit, NATO

assured the continuation of the partnership with

Afghanistan as they confirmed that they would

collectively fund Afghan security forces by providing

roughly $1 billion annually over the next three years. At

the upcoming Brussels Conference on Afghanistan that

will take place in October, NATO will focus on

contributing to a wider international effort to advance

the country’s self-reliance.

Iraq-NATO

In 2003 as the Iraqi Interim Government gingerly

entered the post-Saddam era, the future prospects of

national security were uncertain. Upon Baghdad call for

assistance, the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I)

was established in 2004. Its non-combat mandate, was

designed to offer guidance to the Iraqi security forces by


providing training and building the institutions to

create a national security service. Specifically, the NTM

-I concentrated on three main lines of training: support

the Iraqi Command and Control Structure,

professionalize the Iraqi Armed Forces in tandem with

institutional education to develop Iraq military

doctrine, as well as professionalize the Iraqi Police

through Carabinieri-led training. Since the inception of

the NTM-I, 23 NATO members as well as Ukraine,

have facilitated this by contributing either personnel,

financial resources, or equipment. Through the

Training, Education and Doctrine Advisory Division

(TEDAD), transferable training skills have been

installed to help them prepare the next generation of

trainers as well as develop their training methods. In

total, 5,000 military and 10,000 police personnel have

profited from this instruction. The Officer Education

Training & Advisory Branch has created the National

Defence College, the lead cross departmental Institute

on grand strategic and military strategic issues, as well

as the Defence Language Institute that is responsible for

teaching foreign languages, principally English, to

personnel in the Iraqi Armed Forces and government

administration. Despite the high educational impact

delivered by the NTM-I, it would cease to operate in

2011 due to a lack of legal status for NATO troops.

In September of 2012 the Alliance agreed to an

Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme

with Baghdad that institutionalized political dialogue

and allowed for more tailored cooperation. This

followed up with Iraq being included in the Defence

and Related Security Capacity Building (DCB) Initiative

that was launched at the 2014 Wales Summit to

provide support to nations requesting defence capacity

assistance. Despite NATO’s investment in Iraq, it is

hard to reconcile how the supposed professionalized

Iraqi army collapsed immediately in the face of IS

aggression. A continuing deteriorating of security

throughout the region led NATO in July of 2015 to

agree to a package of defense capacity building measures

and pledged to continue to build institutions capable of

restoring national stability for Baghdad.

Intensifying Transatlantic Bonds

For the foreseeable future, it appears that terrorism

will remain a permanent feature of the international

system. Consequently, NATO’s cooperation with Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Pakistan constitutes the advantage it

needs to dismantle radical Islam’s operational

infrastructure and ability to conduct foreign attacks. As

front line states against terrorism, these three countries

must be supported through expertise training and long

term financial aid, as failure to do so would jeopardize

Euro-Atlantic security. NATO must remain steadfast in

stretching the transatlantic bond to have any chance of

returning a modicum of security to these troubled

regions and at home.

Roger Hilton is an international affairs professional.

Roger has previous experience at the Office of the State

Minister of Georgia for European and Euro-Atlantic

Integration as well as with the delegation of Belgium at

the OSCE. He is a graduate of the Diplomatic Academy

of Vienna where he holds a Masters in Advanced

International Studies.

“Relations with Pakistan” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, March 3, 2016

“Chicago Summit Declaration” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, May 20,2012

“Afghanistan and NATO’s Enduring Partnership” NATO Public Diplomacy Division, 2012

“NATO Training Mission - Iraq (NTM-I)” Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, September 30, 2014

About the author

Bibliography


bilateral relations with Japan and the Republic of Korea.

As NATO’s largest contributor, US foreign policy

affects the Alliance’s focus and it seems like no

coincidence that Japan and South Korea have been

building stronger ties with both Washington and the

Alliance over the past decade. The Obama

administration officially announced in 2012 its

unsurprising pivot to Asia after years of security

rapprochement with the region since the turn of the

century. The institutionalisation of security partnerships

between the two Asian countries and the Alliance thus

seems like the natural next step. Japan’s and South

Korea’s continuous support must, however, also be

acknowledged: both countries have often displayed less

reluctance to act than NATO members themselves.

Japan and South Korea’s involvement in NATO’s

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in

Afghanistan is the perfect example of that.

It was within this context that the 2010 New

Strategic Concept was conceived. It enhanced the role of

what the Alliance now calls ‘Partners across the Globe’.

Cooperative security was added in the New Strategic

Concept as a core task of NATO in the current security

environment. This core task specifically targets NATO’s

relations with its various partners on the following three

broad ideas: : strengthening partnerships; arms control,

non-proliferation and disarmament; and increasing its

assistance to new member states.

The biggest change that the New Strategic Concept

brought was the opening of NATO’s full range of

activities in the Partnership Cooperation Menu (PCM).

Comprising approximately 1,400 activities, this forum

allows all partners with which NATO has individual

programs of cooperation to pick and choose the activities

Extending the Bond Eastward

By Floor Doppen

J apan and the Republic of Korea (also referred

to as South Korea) are both major non NATO

member states that have continuously

contributed to the Alliance’s missions. Given the

geographical distance between the Euro-Atlantic

region and its Global Partners in the Asia-Pacific,

cooperation is not self-evident. Consequently, until

the beginning of the 21st century both political and

operational cooperation were limited, infrequent and

not institutionalised. The relations between these two

states and NATO have, however, developed steadily

over the past years. One of the main reasons for this

development is the concern NATO, Japan and South

Korea have over the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea’s (DPRK or North Korea) nuclear threat.

When the Cold War ended, NATO’s partnership

policy was mainly used as an instrumental tool to

reintegrate and democratise a divided Europe.

Following the 9/11 terror attacks against the United

States, the Alliance started to focus on global

challenges that could pose a threat to its members.

The Allies realised that future security threats could

originate anywhere in the world, and that these threats

needed to be tackled before their reached the Euro-

Atlantic, which increased the importance of

cooperating with what they at the time called ‘contact

countries’. ‘Global Partner’ replaced this appellation

after the NATO Riga Summit in 2006, indicating the

increasing intensity of the cooperation between the

Alliance and non-member states like Japan and South

Korea.

Strengthening Global Partnerships

The increased focus on strengthening partnerships

in the Asia-Pacific region is partially due to the US’s


they want to participate in. Relations with all Global

Partners are hereby streamlined, and the Individual

Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP) is

regarded as the only generic partnership document for

all Global Partners. Some states advocated to fully

institutionalise NATO’s relations with the Global

Partners, in the same format as the Partnership for Peace

(PfP) or the Mediterranean Dialogue. This

institutionalisation did not happen, mainly because of a

reluctance from some European member states (France

and Germany in particular). These European member

states feared that institutionalisation could antagonise

countries like China, which might interpret closer ties

with Japan and the Republic of Korea as provocation.

This is an important consideration, especially for those

European states that

have few stakes in the

Asia-Pacific region and

do not wish to offend

Beijing. Consequently,

the IPCP is currently

open to all non-

member states who

share NATO’s

strategic goals and

fundamental values. In

practice, this non-

exclusivity implies that

no country is excluded

from potential cooperation with NATO, including

China.

NATO-Japan Relations

Japan signed its latest IPCP with NATO on the 6th of

May 2014. In addition to promoting political dialogue

and defence exchanges, practical cooperation focusses

on a wide array of areas identified in the PCM. Among

others, they agreed to cooperate on cyber defence,

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, counter

terrorism, disarmament, maritime security (counter

piracy), conflict management, and defence science and

technology.

Amongst NATO’s Global Partners, Japan has the

largest population, economy, military budget, and the

most active overseas development programs. Tokyo also

shares a long history with the US following World War

II. Between 1945 and 1952, the US occupying forces,

led by General Douglas A. MacArthur, enacted

widespread military, political, economic, and social

reforms in the country. This resulted in strong bilateral

ties between Tokyo and Washington. However, Japan’s

primary motive for its involvement with NATO was

more of a political motive than an operational one.

Tokyo sees NATO as a useful mechanism through

which it can raise awareness in Western countries about

pressing strategic

developments in North

East Asia. During

Foreign Minister Taro

Aso’s term (2005-2007),

his strategy was to

expand Japan’s

diplomatic horizons

beyond its traditional

allies. In this sense,

Europe is considered by

Japan as a potential

partner that shares the

same fundamental values as they do. Through NATO,

both Taro Aso and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wanted

to educate their European counterparts on Asia’s

security environment. Especially after the European

Union’s (EU) move towards lifting the arms embargo on

China between 2003 and 2005, Japan felt that the Union

did not understand the extent of the threat that China

posed to the region, notably through the several

territorial disputes that oppose several East-Asian states,

including Japan with Beijing.

Libyans celebrating the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Japanese Prime

Minister Shinzo Abe (L) address a joint news conference at the Alliance headquarters in Brus-

sels May 6, 2014 (Photo: Reuters/Francois Lenoir)


When it comes to operational cooperation Japan is

a rather unique case. Japan’s constitution, in

particular Article 9, constrains Japan’s contributions

to NATO operations seen how it poses different

restrictions on the use of its army. In short, Article 9

prohibits Japan from ever gaining war potential, and

the Japanese Self Defence Force (JSDF) has

subsequently only focussed on its defence capabilities.

Largely because of these restrictions in operational

military power, Japan’s contributions to ISAF and

other NATO operations were different in nature from

the efforts of other Global Partners. They did not

contribute any troops to NATO’s mission in

Afghanistan, but proved to be an active political and

financial contributor to the operation and to many

more. The country has provided operational funds to

support activities of Provincial Reconstruction Teams

(PRTs) and deployed experts to the Lituanian-led

PRT in the Ghor province. In addition, they were also

a financial contributor to the PfP Trust Fund project

on munitions safety and stockpile management in

Afghanistan, as well as to the Helicopter Trust Fund

and the NATO-Afghan National Army Trust Fund.

Finally, Japan was also part of NATO’s counter piracy

efforts off the coast of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden.

Japan is also one of the front runners on Ballistic

Missile Defence (BMD), which is a tool that NATO

considers crucial in pursuing one of its other core

tasks of collective defence.

NATO-Republic of Korea Relations

The Republic of Korea signed its first IPCP with

the Alliance in September 2012. Joint priority areas

focus on, among others, cyber-defence, response to

terrorism, multinational peace support operations,

interoperability and Science for Peace and Security

(SPS). To date, the collaborative activities of NATO

with the Republic of Korea under the SPS Programme

primarily focused on the development of advanced

technology and cyber defence. Common projects

include the development of a compact sensor system for

unmanned aerial systems and the defining of solutions

for preserving confidentiality and integrity for big data

processing.

The Republic of Korea’s relations with NATO are

more recent than Japan’s. Their relations started in 2005

when Ban Ki-moon, then Foreign Minister, addressed

the North Atlantic Council in an informal meeting

during a visit to the NATO Headquarters in Brussels.

The foreign minister expressed Seoul’s hopes for

exploring possibilities of cooperation between his

country and the Alliance. By 2010, this political move

towards more cooperation was translated into

operational cooperation with the Alliance. In April 2010

a contingency of around 350 staff was sent to the Parwan

province to pursue economic and social development

within NATO’s operation in Afghanistan. Seoul also

donated around $75 million to the Afghan National

Army Trust Fund between 2011 and 2012. South Korea

also contributed to Operation Ocean Shield in the Gulf

of Aden on anti-piracy operations.

The Threat of North Korea

Both Japan and South Korea share the same core

security concerns: North Korea and its nuclear and

ballistic missiles ambitions. Regardless of other

perceived security threats in the region, North Korea is

the one imminent and explicit threat that binds both

Global Partners and NATO. The threat of North Korea

is explicitly mentioned in the IPCP’s NATO has with

both Global Partners. The Alliance has frequently

condemned Pyongyang’s repeated acts of aggression, in

particular its nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile

program. The latest statement came after recent reports

about a possible fifth nuclear test conducted by North

Korea. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a

statement on September 9th declaring his strong

condemnation of North Korea’s consistent provocations


and violations of international regulations. The fact that

NATO takes a clear stance on the North Korean issue

does imply that NATO realises the global nature of

those threats. It also demonstrates that NATO is aware

of the political weight the Allies carry within the

security arena. NATO has positioning itself as a

significant player in global security which matches with

the political authority accompanying the fact that it

speaks on behalf of its 28 independent member

countries. Japan and the Republic of Korea have been

using this political authority to their advantage to build

their case against North Korea.

However, the biggest question for NATO’s future

involvement in Asia-Pacific is the willingness of

European member states to get more involved in that

region. While the US is a major ally of both Japan and

the Republic of Korea, this does not imply that

European states will come to their rescue just as

willingly. Granted, the UK, France, Belgium, the

Netherlands, Greece and Turkey sent forces to the

Korean War (1950-1953) to fight alongside their US

allies. It is unclear whether they would do the same

again in this day and age. As the treat of North Korea

grows, so will Japan and the Republic of Korea’s

incentives to find reliable defence partners that share

their same concerns. Using NATO as a tool to reach

out to both Europe and the US would be a very

effective method to do just that.

Both Japan and South Korea agree that their

relation with the Alliance is still developing and both

express a desire to further it, both politically and

operationally. Aside from the imminent threat of North

Korea, latest tensions in the South China Sea over

contested islands also increase the need for a reliable

security partnership. NATO benefits from the

relationship as well in its efforts to secure the world

and their members from threats that could destabilize

the security environment. It remains to be seen how

the partnerships with Japan and South Korea will

develop further, but there is definitely reason to believe

that they will deepen rather than the opposite.

Floor Doppen is a student of International Relations

and Diplomacy at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Bagbaslioglu, A. (2010), “Relations With ‘Global Partners’ in the Framework of NATO’s New Partnership Policy”, Security Strategies, Volume: 20, pp 49-78.

Cooperative Security as NATO’s Core task, Building security through military cooperation across the globe (7 Sep. 2011), retrieved from: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77718.htm

Frühling, S., Schreer, B. (2009), “NATO’s New Strategic Concept and US Commitments in the Asia-Pacific”. The Rusi Journal, Vol. 154, No. 5, pp. 98-103.

Green, M. (2016), “The Legacy of Obama’s “Pivot” to Asia”, Foreign Policy (September 3, 2016), retrieved from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/03/the-legacy-of-obamas-pivot-to-asia/

Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme Between Japan and NATO (6 May 2014), retrieved from: http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2014_05/20140507_140507-IPCP_Japan.pdf

NATO intensifies scientific cooperation with the Republic of Korea (26 Nov. 2015), as retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127384.htm?selectedLocale=en

NATO Secretary General Statement on North Korea (9 Sep. 2016), retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_135008.htm

Schreer, B. (2012), “Beyond Afghanistan. NATO’s Global Partnerships in the Asia-Pacific”. Research Division, NATO Defense College, No. 75.

Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (19-20 Nov. 2010), retrieved from: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20120214_strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf

The Law Library of Congress (2015), “Japan: Interpretations of Article 9 of the Constitution”. Global Legal Research Center, Sept. 2015.

Tsuruoka, M. (2010), “The Future of NATO: Cooperation and its Limits”. Stiftung Wissenschaft un Politik, Session IV, Discussion paper.

Tsuruoka, M. (2013), “NATO and Japan as Multifaceted Partners”, Research Division, NATO Defense College, No. 91.

About the author

Bibliography


By Matt Bowers

S ince its inception, NATO has operated as a

network of partnership and mutualism

among its members to provide security,

stability, and peace to the Atlantic community. At its

naissance, the single greatest threat to global security

was the Soviet Union, the shadow of which loomed

large over Europe in the aftermath of World War II.

Fears of Soviet influence in Europe spurred the

foundation and subsequent expansion of the Alliance

eastward, a process which still continues today,

notably through the Partnership for Peace program.

Simultaneously, NATO has sought to engage

countries further afield in strategic partnerships,

augmenting the collective defense apparatus between

Europe and North America with individualized

agreements beyond the immediate Euro-Atlantic

sphere. Never have these partnerships been more

valuable than today. In a globalizing world of evolving

transnational threats, broadening the scope of

partnerships is essential to strengthening the security

of Alliance members and, indeed, the global

community. Propaganda emanating from Raqqa, for

example, can incite an extremist in Sydney to

violence, leading to policy change not only in

Canberra, but also Brussels and Washington. As

emerging threats metastasize and grow globally,

maintaining partnerships in all corners of the globe has

become a key NATO priority.

Two of NATO’s most vital partnerships are with

Australia and New Zealand – countries half a world

and oceans away from the Atlantic periphery that are,

in fact, closer to the heart of the Euro-Atlantic

community than any other partnership in NATO’s

history. Middle powers with robust economic and

defense structures, the two countries punch above their

weight on the global stage and face similar transnational

threats to the NATO alliance. Both also occupy a unique

space in the modern global security regime as vehement

Pacific adherents to the North Atlantic Charter’s tenet of

“safeguard[ing] the freedom, common heritage and

civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of

democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Their

partnerships serve to complement and further NATO’s

work toward achieving this goal in the Euro-Atlantic

community and beyond.

Natural Partners in Peace and Security

The closeness of the relationship between NATO,

Australia, and New Zealand is based on a foundation of

values and historical ties that defy geographic distance

while also maximizing on the partners’ geostrategic

locations and interests.

Geographic isolation largely left Australia and New

Zealand adrift in the global order emerging from the

ashes of World War II. As remnants of the British

Empire in the South Pacific, they were simultaneously

European and yet as far removed from Europe as can be.

To this day, they have retained political attributes of

Atlantic-minded countries despite their remoteness. Both

are open democracies with industrialized economies that

share the values and global security interests of the

Atlantic community. It is not difficult to imagine them as

natural full members of the transatlantic Alliance but for

geography.

Indeed, the modern security challenges facing

Australia and New Zealand: Pacific Countries, Atlantic Partners


Australia and New Zealand largely mirror those of the

transatlantic community. Transnational terrorism,

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, migration

flows, climate change, energy security, maritime issues,

cyber threats, and regional power dynamics all transcend

geographic distance, creating shared interests with the

Atlantic community in tackling these issues at the global

level.

Bolstering Cooperation through Joint

Operations

The two countries have been active partners in

NATO missions for decades, deploying military

personnel, pooling and sharing resources, and enhancing

interoperability in engagements around the world. Both

countries have been active in Kosovo and contributed

troops to the Stabilization

Force (SFOR) in Bosnia

during its mandate from

1996-2004. Currently,

they remain deeply

committed partners in

two of NATO’s largest

missions: Resolute

Support Mission (RSM)

in Afghanistan and

combating piracy around

the Horn of Africa in Operation Ocean Shield.

Australia and New Zealand have been integral non-

NATO partners in Afghanistan, the lengthiest and most

complex mission NATO has undertaken to date

following the American invocation of Article V in

response to the September 11 attacks in 2001. Both have

steadfastly supported the coalition, contributing to both

the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and

now RSM to advise and train Afghanistan’s developing

security apparatus. Of the 39 countries comprising the

forces of RSM, Australia, as of July 2016, ranks eighth

for troop contributions – two percent of the total

coalition. Of non-NATO countries, only Georgia, which

harbors active ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration,

has more troops currently active in RSM. Along with

other non-NATO partners, New Zealand also maintains

forces as part of RSM. As emphasized in particular in the

2012 Individual Partnership and Cooperation

Programme between New Zealand and NATO,

cooperation in Afghanistan, as in Bosnia before, has

established a “genuine security partnership aimed at

enhancing interoperability in support of NATO-led

operations, contributing to security, peace and stability,

particularly in the Euro-Atlantic and Asia-Pacific

regions, promoting democratic values and norms and

improving our joint ability to tackle emerging security

challenges.” The same can be said of the Australian

partnership.

Furthermore, both

Australia and New

Zealand have joined

Operation Ocean

Shield, NATO’s

counterpiracy mission in

the western Indian

Ocean aimed at

protecting maritime

commercial routes and

securing humanitarian

aid corridors to

Somalia. In January of 2014, New Zealand became just

the second non-NATO ally to join the mission after

Ukraine (like Georgia, a country with active Euro-

Atlantic ambitions); Australia has since partaken in

Ocean Shield as well. Upon joining the Operation, New

Zealand Defense Minister Dr. Jonathan Coleman

declared that the deployment of personnel and

resources to the Gulf of Aden demonstrated once again

the country’s “commitment to playing our part in

supporting NATO in areas of common interest.” While

Ocean Shield is slated to conclude in December of this

year, NATO has committed to continuing to support

The Royal New Zealand Navy’s HMNZS Te Mana, deployed as part of Operation Ocean Shield (Photo: Royal New Zealand Navy)


anti-piracy initiatives off the Horn of Africa by

“maintaining maritime situational awareness and

continuing close links with other international counter-

piracy actors.” It would be in NATO’s and the partners’

interest to continue to collaborate in this new phase of

NATO’s anti-piracy work, furthering the maritime

partnerships developed during Ocean Shield.

With each mission that partners engage in, their ties to

the Alliance strengthen, as do their technical capacities to

operate closely with NATO partners. Former Secretary-

General Anders Fogh Rasmussen highlighted this in

welcoming New Zealand to Operation Ocean Shield in

2014, noting that “[b]y working together, we not only

make a real difference in dealing with today’s security

threats, we also improve our ability to operate together.”

This existing framework of interoperability serves not

only to bolster cooperation in ongoing missions, but also

to prepare both sides of the partnership for future joint

endeavors.

Transnational Threats Call for Closer Partnership

The greatest threats to global security today are not

solely conventional and confined to state borders; they

now encompass asymmetric, non-geographic challenges

that have the capacity to grow and expand transnationally.

Cyber threats, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction, and maritime security have emerged

quickly as critical threats to mutual NATO and Australia-

New Zealand interests. All of these were deemed priority

areas for cooperation in both the 2012 Individual

Partnership and Cooperation Programme between New

Zealand and NATO or the 2013 Individual Partnership

and Cooperation Programme between Australia and

NATO.

These threats and others such as migration flows,

energy security, and climate change cannot be addressed

from an Atlantic or Pacific perspective exclusively; they

require cooperation at a broader global level. The

increased interoperability, intelligence sharing, and

dialogue developed between the Alliance and its South

Pacific partners through Afghanistan and Ocean Shield in

particular have set the stage for further integrated

cooperation in addressing such challenges going forward.

Indeed, in 2011, then-Australian Foreign Minister Kevin

Rudd wrote in an op-ed in The Australian that his country

supported the Alliance’s strategic partnerships, and that

he “look[ed] forward to flexible and substance-driven co-

operation with NATO, one that meets Australia's

requirement and one that will strengthen our bonds with

our allies and partners in NATO.”

Transatlantic Deterrents in the Asian Periphery

The geographic advantage of Asia-Pacific regional

partnerships with Australia and New Zealand, as well as

Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Mongolia, adds a

dimension of geostrategic complementarity to the

Alliance’s focus on missions within or in response to

threats to the Atlantic periphery. Security in the Pacific

Rim has become an increasingly important pillar in the

global order in the past two decades, but cooperative

engagements in the region have repeatedly been

interrupted by crises erupting in Europe and the Middle

East. The United States, holding vested interests in the

Pacific, has typically led in this area, most notably with the

Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia” policy to

strengthen economic and security ties among America and

other Pacific Rim countries.

Some experts have argued, given Australia and New

Zealand’s strategic interests in the Pacific and NATO’s

lack of clear policy for the region, that divergent interests

suggest a more limited political partnership driven by

Pacific demands is appropriate. But as American attention

has realigned eastward again with that of the European

Allies in the face of a resurgent Russia, NATO’s

relationships in the Pacific are more essential than ever,

and present an opportunity for symbiosis between the

alliance and its partners. The presence of NATO

partnerships with strong middle powers in the Asia Pacific


adhering to the principles of democracy and the rule of

law provides an implicit check on global security

interests in the region, such as

territorial disputes and an

unpredictable nuclear North Korea,

and strengthens both sides’ ability

to cooperatively counter less

conventional emerging threats.

Shared Threats, Shared

Commitment, Shared Benefits

In addition to the shared threats

faced by both NATO and its

Australian and New Zealand

partners, it is noteworthy that both

countries, broadly, come closer to

meeting certain requirements of

NATO membership than some

Alliance members themselves.

At a time when the NATO

budget is of particular concern,

Australia and New Zealand have

demonstrated a far greater

commitment to shoring up defense

spending than many of their

European and North American

partners. According to the most

recent World Bank/Stockholm

International Peace Research

Institute (SIPRI) data for military

spending (2015), calculated to

NATO standards (though with

some minor variance), both outpace

several Alliance members in their

percentage of GDP allocated to

defense, as represented in Figure 1

alongside official 2016 NATO estimates for Alliance

members: while neither country hits the 2% threshold

required of NATO members themselves, they

demonstrate a quantifiable commitment to ensuring

their defense spending is measured but robust in

comparison to the Alliance

writ-large. In a global security

environment in which both the

official NATO numbers and

the independent World Bank/

SIPRI data set show a vast

majority of members are not

meeting their 2% minimums,

partners committed to strong

national defense while being

unbound from this threshold

are essential in supplementing

the Alliance’s capabilities in the

missions it undertakes.

Furthermore, the

benefits of partnership are

mutualistic. For NATO,

partnerships with Australia and

New Zealand advance close

cooperation to jointly address

global threats from both

Atlantic and Pacific angles. For

Australia and New Zealand,

partnership brings them closer

to the Atlantic community and

shores up their security

capacities, including through

military training, disaster

relief, intelligence sharing, and

counterterrorism operations.

The result is an arrangement

very close to membership,

though without the political

power of sitting on the North

Atlantic Council and, chiefly, the obligations that come

with Article V.

NATO Member

/Partner

% GDP for Military (per World Bank/SIPRI, 2015)

NATO estimated % GDP for De-fense for 2016

USA 3.32 3.61

Greece 2.60 2.38

Poland 2.20 2.00

Turkey 2.13 1.56

France 2.10 1.78

Estonia 2.01 2.16

Australia 1.95 N/A

UK 1.95 2.21

Portugal 1.85 1.38

Montenegro* 1.63 N/A

Croatia 1.55 1.23

Norway 1.52 1.54

Romania 1.39 1.48

Bulgaria 1.35 1.35*

Italy 1.31 1.11

New Zealand 1.19 N/A

Netherlands 1.18 1.17

Spain 1.18 0.91

Denmark 1.17 1.17

Germany 1.17 1.19

Albania 1.16 1.21

Lithuania 1.14 1.49

Slovakia 1.12 1.16

Latvia 1.06 1.45

Czech Rep. 0.98 1.04

Canada 0.97 0.99

Slovenia 0.95 0.94

Belgium 0.92 0.85

Hungary 0.85 1.01

Luxembourg 0.52 0.44

Iceland N/A N/A

*Official NATO estimate for Bulgaria does not include pensions

2015 Defense Spending by NATO Members*, Australia, and New Zealand (Data: NATO and SIPRI)


Partnership without Membership – A

Stronger Bond?

Occasionally, the topic of full NATO membership

has been floated for Australia and New Zealand.

Expert commentators, including Ivo Daalder and

James Goldgeier in their 2006 piece “Global NATO”,

and political figures, such as former New York City

mayor Rudy Giuliani during his 2008 presidential run,

have advocated within the past ten years in favor of

expanding the Alliance

membership to partners

beyond the Atlantic such

as Australia and New

Zealand, despite Article X

of the North Atlantic

Charter limiting future

membership to “European”

countries.

Yet, while NATO’s

scope has broadened to

combat threats beyond the

Atlantic, there are

potential drawbacks in fully integrating Australia and

New Zealand into the North Atlantic Charter’s

protocols. The risk of attacks on these countries’

territorial integrity that could prompt an invocation

of Article V is extraordinarily low due to their

geographic isolation, and the close-knit cooperation

they have already fostered with NATO through their

partnership agreements negates the need for them to

be signatories. Additionally, it may not be in Australia

or New Zealand’s geopolitical interest to be obliged

to respond to an Article V invocation by a European

or North American NATO member, although, as

evidenced in Afghanistan, they would likely be ready

and willing to join a NATO coalition due to

precedent, political and cultural ties to the Alliance.

Even in the absence of membership, the strength

of the ties NATO and its Pacific partners share should

encourage continued, deeper cooperation and

integration of resources between them. The partners

have proven their commitment to NATO’s mission and

values, and, as US Navy Commander and former

Atlantic Council fellow Chris Musselman has argued,

“should be consulted rather than informed” regarding the

planning of operations. How deep that consultation goes

beyond simply cooperation after the fact to combat

emerging challenges will be critical in defining the

partnerships going forward.

Global Partners

Bolstering NATO

as Guarantor of

Global Security

Australia and

New Zealand’s

intricate ties with the

Alliance are a

testament to the

relevance, import,

and necessity of

NATO and collective

defense in addressing modern security challenges. It is

clear that Australia and New Zealand place a high

premium on their relationship with NATO to bolster

their own security and ties to the Euro-Atlantic

community, demonstrated through their participation in

NATO missions and budgetary commitments to defense.

Moreover, their adherence to the Alliance’s core

principles and its mission to promote peace and stability

in the global security order serves to symbiotically

deepen and strengthen their cooperation with NATO at

a structural level. Unequivocally, they are two of the

Alliance’s most indispensable partners at a time when

security threats are becoming more global, more

asymmetric, and less conventional. Their partnerships

with NATO have been, and will continue to be,

invaluable in addressing these emerging challenges.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull meets with Australian troops in Afghani-

stan in January 2016 (Photo: REUTERS/Alex Ellinghausen/Pool)


Matt Bowers holds a degree in International Studies and

Political Science from American University in

Washington, DC. His areas of interest include emerging

transatlantic and transnational security challenges,

international economic and energy policy, and US and

European politics. He currently works with the War

Crimes Research Office at the American University

Washington College of Law, and previously served as a

Policy Intern with the Atlantic Treaty Association. The

views expressed in this article are his own. You can

follow him on Twitter @MattWBowers.

Australia-NATO Joint Political Declaration, NATO, 18 January 2003. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_94097.htm?selectedLocale=en

Blaxland, John, “Australia joining NATO must be carefully considered.” The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 September 2014. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-joining-nato-must-be-carefully-considered-20140904-10c91n.html

“Counter-piracy operations.” NATO, 12 July 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48815.htm

Croft, Adrian, “Giuliani says NATO should admit Israel, Japan.” Reuters, 19 September 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-giuliani-idUSL1992785020070919

Daalder, Ivo and James Goldgeier, “Global NATO.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006.

“Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2009-2016),” NATO, 4 July 2016. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

Frühling, Stephen and Benjamin Schreer, “The ‘Natural Ally’? The ‘Natural Partner’? – Australia and the Atlantic Alliance,” in Hakan Edstrom, Janne Haaland Matlary and Magnus Petersson (eds.), NATO: The Power of Partnerships (Basingstoke: Palgrave, MacMillan, 2011), pp. 40-59.

Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme between Australia and NATO, 21 February 2013. http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/Australia-NATO-Individual-Partnership-Cooperation-Program.pdf

Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme between New Zealand and NATO, NATO, 27 June 2012. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_88720.htm?selectedLocale=en

Musselman, Chris, “Special Summit Series: Australia and NATO.” Atlantic Council, 26 August 2014. http://

www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/special-summit-series-australia-and-nato

“New Zealand joins NATO’s counter-piracy mission Ocean Shield.” NATO, 21 January 2014. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_106317.htm?selectedLocale=en

“Relations with Australia.” NATO, 7 April 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48899.htm

“Relations with New Zealand.” NATO, 7 April 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52347.htm

“Resolute Support Mission.” NATO, July 2016. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160707_2016-07-RSM-Placemat.pdf

Rudd, Kevin, “NATO Partners Earn Respect.” The Australian, 23 April 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/nato-partners-earn-respect/story-e6frgd0x-1226043480613

The North Atlantic Treaty, NATO, 21 March 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

“Military expenditure (%GDP).” The World Bank, 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

About the author

Bibliography

This publication is co-sponsored by the

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Atlantic Voices is always seeking new material. If you are a young

researcher, a subject expert or a professional and feel you have a valuable

contribution to make to the debate, then please get in touch.

We are looking for papers, essays, and book reviews on issues of

importance to the NATO Alliance. For details of how to submit your

work please see our website at: http://atahq.org/atlantic-voices/

Editor: Flora Pidoux

ATA Programs On November 16th, the Atlantic Treaty Association, in partnership

with MUST & Partners and with the support of NATO Public Diplomacy

Division, will host a conference at the European Parliament in Brussels on

"NATO – EU Cooperation After the Warsaw Summit: Countering

Hybrid Warfare".

With particular reference to the NATO Warsaw Summit and the

recent NATO-EU Joint Declaration along with their standing agreements

on cyber security, this conference will focus on how both organizations

can best use their existing resources to develop a cooperative security

strategy that will effectively counter the ongoing threat of Hybrid

Warfare.

The Rīga Conference has become a unique venue for constructive

dialogue on international security issues between leading global decision

makers. The event is organized jointly by the Latvian Transatlantic

Organisation, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Latvia, and the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia., and will take place

on October 28-29.

More information her: https://www.rigaconference.lv

On October 27-30, Globsec will host the fifth edition of the Globsec

Tatra Summit, which aims to make a lasting contribution to defining the

future of the economic and political governance of the European Union.

This conference will put the emphasis on Central Europe and its interests

in the matter.

More details here: http://www.tatrasummit.org/tatrasummit2016

Images should not be reproduced without permission from sources listed, and remain the sole property of those sources. Unless otherwise stated, all images are the property of NATO.

Atlantic Voices is the monthly publication of the Atlantic Treaty Associa-

tion. It aims to inform the debate on key issues that affect the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, its goals and its future. The work published in Atlantic

Voices is written by young professionals and researchers.

The Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA) is an international non-

governmental organization based in Brussels working to facilitate global net-

works and the sharing of knowledge on transatlantic cooperation and security.

By convening political, diplomatic and military leaders with academics, media

representatives and young professionals, the ATA promotes the values set

forth in the North Atlantic Treaty: Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, Peace,

Security and Rule of Law. The ATA membership extends to 37 countries from

North America to the Caucasus throughout Europe. In 1996, the Youth Atlan-

tic Treaty Association (YATA) was created to specifially include to the succes-

sor generation in our work.

Since 1954, the ATA has advanced the public’s knowledge and understan-

ding of the importance of joint efforts to transatlantic security through its inter-

national programs, such as the Central and South Eastern European Security

Forum, the Ukraine Dialogue and its Educational Platform.

In 2011, the ATA adopted a new set of strategic goals that reflects the

constantly evolving dynamics of international cooperation. These goals include:

the establishment of new and competitive programs on international

security issues.

the development of research initiatives and security-related events for

its members.

the expansion of ATA’s international network of experts to countries in

Northern Africa and Asia.

The ATA is realizing these goals through new programs, more policy acti-

vism and greater emphasis on joint research initiatives.

These programs will also aid in the establishment of a network of internati-

onal policy experts and professionals engaged in a dialogue with NATO.

The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Atlantic Treaty Association, its members, affiliates or staff.

Government & Nonprofit

Atlantic Voices - Partners Across the Globe: Stretching the Transatlantic Bond