Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS Newsletter
Other Research
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Alumni & Networks
Alumni
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
Commentaries
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Paper
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
2024 Indonesia Elections
Great Powers
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
Media Mentions
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Future Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSIS Newsletter
      Other ResearchScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to Apply
      Financial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      AlumniAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)SRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersCommentariesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PaperInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      2024 Indonesia ElectionsGreat PowersSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesMedia Mentions
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO06027 | Expanding NATO: An Organisation Searching For The Wrong Missions
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO06027 | Expanding NATO: An Organisation Searching For The Wrong Missions
    Bernard Loo Fook Weng

    21 April 2006

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    THE idea that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) might evolve into a security organisation with a global mission has been debated on occasions ever since the Berlin Wall fell. It is an idea that has re-emerged, with Australia and Japan, in particular, proposed to be enmeshed in the NATO network of partnerships.

    In the first place, NATO has always been regarded, at least in American strategic circles, as almost an ideal case of an alliance structure providing a framework for strategic partnership. During the Cold War, the United States had attempted to create similar alliance structures – in this part of the world, as seen in the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). That SEATO comprised only two member states that were genuinely part of Southeast Asia was merely one of the internal contradictions that eventually spelt its demise.

    So how likely is the success of this new idea of a network of strategic partnerships working in tandem to enhance global security? How viable is this idea that NATO might eventually evolve into a network of global partnerships?

    A Stillborn idea?

    From a purely military standpoint, this is a stillborn idea, even without considering the political contradictions within it – such as the fact that Australia and Japan may share strategic interests with the United States, but they have little in common between themselves.

    In the first place, neither Japan nor Australia has the military capacity to intervene in any crisis situation for an extended period of time. Both countries do have the necessary depth of military resources to be able to do so. To some extent this has to do with shrinking manpower resources – in Japan’s case a function of its declining birth rates, and in Australia’s case the inability of the military sector to compete with the private sector in attracting sufficient talent into its ranks. This has made for military organisations that are manpower-light.

    It is no accident that both Australia and Japan are seeking to engage with the so-called revolution in military affairs – sometimes also referred to as military transformation – that came to prominence in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and apparently validated in the subsequent campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, given the heavy emphasis of this military transformation process on sophisticated technological skills and capabilities, both countries are in the Asia Pacific and probably the best placed to engage with this process. Nevertheless, for both countries, shrinking manpower resources has been a dominant concern driving their respective military transformation agendas.

    Nor does either country have the necessary hardware to allow them to intervene in regional crises at distance. That NATO forces have been deployed in theatres of operation far away from Europe is the result of primarily United States military lift capacities. Most of the European armed forces do not have the heavy lift capacity to allow them to intervene, absent the United States, in any crisis outside of Europe. The same condition applies in the case of Australia and Japan. In both armed forces, there is insufficient numbers of long-range heavy lift, either in air or naval platforms, which would allow them to intervene in any crisis at distance from their respective shores, except for very short-term deployments. Military deployments at distance for a period any longer than a few weeks become an almost insurmountable problem for both Asia Pacific powers.

    Beating the constraints

    The only way by which both states could hypothetically engage in a military intervention of such nature would be in partnership with the United States. American participation, however, is increasingly something that no one can take for granted any longer. The recently-concluded 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) has spelt out a vision of the United States military where there will be increasing emphasis on special operations capabilities – extremely useful in a variety of low-intensity military operations, but of dubious value to crisis interventions. Increasing emphasis in this QDR is placed on combat platforms. But given the likelihood of further budget cuts, this will mean a likely reduction in non-combat platforms such as heavy air and sea lift capabilities. All this results in a United States military that will be increasingly incapable of intervening in more than two crises widely separated. Given the increasing likelihood of a prolonged American deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, this does not portend well for the ability of United States military interventions in the Asia Pacific.

    Thirdly, a key principle of military actions has always been focus, or maintenance on the aims. Expanding NATO’s sphere of operations may seem like a good idea, but may also result in a dilution of its core military competencies. Military interventions in far-off locales is a difficult operation, demanding a wide array of skills such as language competencies, cultural awareness and sensitivities, in-depth knowledge of local political and social conditions. All of these are important skill sets determining success in military interventions, but which are notoriously difficult and time-consuming to acquire and master.

    In other words, even if NATO members have the necessary depth of manpower resources and the heavy long-range lift to allow them to participate in interventions in the Asia Pacific, their forces will have to acquire all the skill sets to avoid any failure. Time however may not allow them to acquire these skill sets — not without jettisoning existing skill sets, or sacrificing resources. To do so may result in NATO forces losing their vital advantages in the missions they are currently either training for or deployed in.

    Finally, by expanding the network of NATO partnerships, this may introduce strategic mismatches that can undermine the strategic coherence of the organisation. The strategic interests of NATO and United States allies in the Asia Pacific do not necessarily converge. Such a proposed network may ultimately result in an organisation, loosely defined as a result of such expansion, which becomes further riven by internal disputes over strategic interests and objectives. This could ultimately undermine the ability of NATO to function effectively as a strategic entity that has, at least thus far, a more or less coherent strategic vision. A NATO that cannot function effectively in its area of interest does no one any favours. Nor does a widened NATO that loses its focus and its military coherence.

    About the Author

    Bernard Loo is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries /

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    THE idea that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) might evolve into a security organisation with a global mission has been debated on occasions ever since the Berlin Wall fell. It is an idea that has re-emerged, with Australia and Japan, in particular, proposed to be enmeshed in the NATO network of partnerships.

    In the first place, NATO has always been regarded, at least in American strategic circles, as almost an ideal case of an alliance structure providing a framework for strategic partnership. During the Cold War, the United States had attempted to create similar alliance structures – in this part of the world, as seen in the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). That SEATO comprised only two member states that were genuinely part of Southeast Asia was merely one of the internal contradictions that eventually spelt its demise.

    So how likely is the success of this new idea of a network of strategic partnerships working in tandem to enhance global security? How viable is this idea that NATO might eventually evolve into a network of global partnerships?

    A Stillborn idea?

    From a purely military standpoint, this is a stillborn idea, even without considering the political contradictions within it – such as the fact that Australia and Japan may share strategic interests with the United States, but they have little in common between themselves.

    In the first place, neither Japan nor Australia has the military capacity to intervene in any crisis situation for an extended period of time. Both countries do have the necessary depth of military resources to be able to do so. To some extent this has to do with shrinking manpower resources – in Japan’s case a function of its declining birth rates, and in Australia’s case the inability of the military sector to compete with the private sector in attracting sufficient talent into its ranks. This has made for military organisations that are manpower-light.

    It is no accident that both Australia and Japan are seeking to engage with the so-called revolution in military affairs – sometimes also referred to as military transformation – that came to prominence in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and apparently validated in the subsequent campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, given the heavy emphasis of this military transformation process on sophisticated technological skills and capabilities, both countries are in the Asia Pacific and probably the best placed to engage with this process. Nevertheless, for both countries, shrinking manpower resources has been a dominant concern driving their respective military transformation agendas.

    Nor does either country have the necessary hardware to allow them to intervene in regional crises at distance. That NATO forces have been deployed in theatres of operation far away from Europe is the result of primarily United States military lift capacities. Most of the European armed forces do not have the heavy lift capacity to allow them to intervene, absent the United States, in any crisis outside of Europe. The same condition applies in the case of Australia and Japan. In both armed forces, there is insufficient numbers of long-range heavy lift, either in air or naval platforms, which would allow them to intervene in any crisis at distance from their respective shores, except for very short-term deployments. Military deployments at distance for a period any longer than a few weeks become an almost insurmountable problem for both Asia Pacific powers.

    Beating the constraints

    The only way by which both states could hypothetically engage in a military intervention of such nature would be in partnership with the United States. American participation, however, is increasingly something that no one can take for granted any longer. The recently-concluded 2006 Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) has spelt out a vision of the United States military where there will be increasing emphasis on special operations capabilities – extremely useful in a variety of low-intensity military operations, but of dubious value to crisis interventions. Increasing emphasis in this QDR is placed on combat platforms. But given the likelihood of further budget cuts, this will mean a likely reduction in non-combat platforms such as heavy air and sea lift capabilities. All this results in a United States military that will be increasingly incapable of intervening in more than two crises widely separated. Given the increasing likelihood of a prolonged American deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, this does not portend well for the ability of United States military interventions in the Asia Pacific.

    Thirdly, a key principle of military actions has always been focus, or maintenance on the aims. Expanding NATO’s sphere of operations may seem like a good idea, but may also result in a dilution of its core military competencies. Military interventions in far-off locales is a difficult operation, demanding a wide array of skills such as language competencies, cultural awareness and sensitivities, in-depth knowledge of local political and social conditions. All of these are important skill sets determining success in military interventions, but which are notoriously difficult and time-consuming to acquire and master.

    In other words, even if NATO members have the necessary depth of manpower resources and the heavy long-range lift to allow them to participate in interventions in the Asia Pacific, their forces will have to acquire all the skill sets to avoid any failure. Time however may not allow them to acquire these skill sets — not without jettisoning existing skill sets, or sacrificing resources. To do so may result in NATO forces losing their vital advantages in the missions they are currently either training for or deployed in.

    Finally, by expanding the network of NATO partnerships, this may introduce strategic mismatches that can undermine the strategic coherence of the organisation. The strategic interests of NATO and United States allies in the Asia Pacific do not necessarily converge. Such a proposed network may ultimately result in an organisation, loosely defined as a result of such expansion, which becomes further riven by internal disputes over strategic interests and objectives. This could ultimately undermine the ability of NATO to function effectively as a strategic entity that has, at least thus far, a more or less coherent strategic vision. A NATO that cannot function effectively in its area of interest does no one any favours. Nor does a widened NATO that loses its focus and its military coherence.

    About the Author

    Bernard Loo is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

    Categories: Commentaries

    Last updated on 02/10/2014

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info