fbpx
DAY 3Defence & SecurityGLOBSEC 2019
[ June 17, 2019 by Team Globsec 0 Comments ]

Day 3 Summary

  • Opening DAY 2
  • 11:00 – 11:30
    GLOBSEC Chat: American Leadership Going at It Alone 

    Ambassador Ron Johnson argued that contrary to popular opinion, from his perspective transatlantic relations remained strong. He argued that the US wants a zero-tariff world but only on the basis of reciprocity and fairness. In the China context, he believed that cyber theft of intellectual property was a huge issue of concern. 

    “NATO is a defensive alliance; it is not meant to go to the offense .” – Hon. Ron Johnson 
    “We need to call China out on the cyber theft. That is the first line of defence.” – Hon. Ron Johnson 

  • 12:00 – 12:30
    GLOBSEC Chat: Space Race: New Frontier of Hybrid Threats? 

    In the next five years, our dependence on space assets would increase at least three folds. There is a distinction between militarization of space and weaponization of space. The international regime on space needs to be updated as it does not have the capacity to deal with private sector stakeholders.

     

    This debris (from shutdown satellites) are already causing problems many methods were tried but they are extremely costly. – Amb. Sorin Ducaru 
    Our dependence from the space is already extremely profound , its like breathing air. – Amb. Sorin Ducaru 

  • End of DAY 2

DAY 2Defence & SecurityGLOBSEC 2019
[ June 8, 2019 by Team Globsec 0 Comments ]

Day 2 Summary

  • Opening DAY 2
  • 08:50 – 09:30
    GLOBSEC Chat: NATO’s Readiness for Disrupted Security

    NATO’s objective is to create peace in perpetuity and in that regard, there are three components. Improving indications and warning, improving command and control, and finally improving mission command. NATO is in the early stages of embracing the cyber domain, and it has to be done from a military perspective, a whole government perspective, and from a national perspective. Time will tell if the Sino-Russian cooperation will go beyond political statements.

     

    “My first concern when folks mention Russia and China is vigilance.”- Gen. Tod D. Wolters

    We have to ensure that we see the battlespace better tomorrow than we did today. -” Gen. Tod D. Wolters

  • 09:30 – 10:30
    NATO at 80″: Alliance Navigating Disrupted Partnerships

    Contrary to common perception, NATO is as relevant as ever today and needs to modernize ifself. If the European pillar of NATO is stronger, NATO is stronger. Expanding European security capabilities is important to tackle asymmetric threats, hybrid and cyber threats, nonstate actors, and the challenge to stay united as the western community.

     

    “NATO at 80 will have new challenges, and the same goals, the same stability.” – H.E. Radmila Shekerinska

     “I am optimistic that the UK would stay militarily engaged in Europe.” [regarding Brexit] – H.E. Jacek Czaputowicz

    “NATO’s success is due to its adaptability. We are confronting ourselves with different threats and a 360 degrees approach is something we keep close to our hearts. NATO is focusing more and more on innovation, with a focus on allied command coordination.” – Amb. Tacan Ildem

    “When we are stronger here in the European pillar, we are a stronger NATO.” – Vice Admiral Joachim Rühle

  • 14:00 – 15:00
    European Strategic Autonomy: Which Muscles Should the EU Flex

    European strategic autonomy is significant since EU’s objectives need EU forces. But these capabilities are not aimed at competing with NATO, rather their objective is to contribute to the goals of NATO. The US needs to realize that they are not the global hegemon anymore. US and Europe need to sit down and define burden sharing.

    “The strategic missions of the EU are perfectly consistent with the core task of NATO. Autonomous space for EU is perfectly consistent with NATO. The maximum level ambition of EU is to run peace enforcements along NATO.” – Gen. Claudio Graziano

     “There is a muscle mess when you look at Europe – we do not have the right muscle developed and we do not have the capabilities to flex them.” – Anna Wieslander

    The EU defence cooperation has taken a more pragmatic turn that is the way we should continue to work. We cannot flex muscles if we do not have them.” – Olivier de France

    “It takes 20 years to get something done. (…) We (EU) should bring something new to the table now and fast. (…) It takes long and (EU) voters are not happy.” – Frank Haun

  • 15:00 – 16:00
    Security Architecture in the Middle East: Building on Sand?

    The future of warfare continues to race along the tracks of technological advancement, and the NATO Allies must be able to not only keep up but also foresee these developments in order to best tackle them and preserve peace in the future. NATO Allies must retain their advantage in flexibility, speed in innovation, and interoperability, in the domains of Artificial Intelligence, autonomy, big data analytics, and quantum computing. Developing military applications of civilian technology and methods to counter them is inevitable, as due to the proliferation of knowledge and technology our adversaries are doing so. The best option is to be as far ahead as possible, and retain military superiority through technological superiority. We must pick up the pace to make these improvements.

     

    “While the international community has done a good job tackling terrorism, we have not done enough in countering extremism.” – H.E. Anwar Mohammed Gargash

    “Historically, my country was not in favour of nuclear weapons. Can you get everybody at the table to talk about that?” – Nasser Judeh

    “Do not look at it [architecture of the ME] in the classical sense of NATO or the Pentagon, we live in an era with the primacy of domestic politics.” – Amb. Cameron Munter

    “There is also multiconceptual world – lack of hegemony, different future outlooks that have made its way to the core of the world vision of security in the MENA region.” – Mirek Dusek

  • End of DAY 2

DAY 1Defence & SecurityGLOBSEC 2019
[ June 7, 2019 by Team Globsec 0 Comments ]

Day 1 Summary

  • Opening DAY 1
  • 14:15 – 15:15
    Diplomacy for the Post-Rule World

    The OSCE provides value to its member states by providing tools for cooperation but it can not subsitute for lack of political will. It may seem that the states are trying to move beyond the rules framework of the international order, but in reality states want more rules because they are struggling with this disrupted world. International law applies to cyber space but the problem is that for incidents that do not meet the threshold of active conflict there are very few rules.

     

    “The weakening of those who has been traditionally leading leads to the promotion of organisations are weakened.”- Greminger

    “Business interests have tendency to be much more global than political interests.” – Frank

    “States are facing the whole new world trying to come to the terms, seeking for new rules.” – Grigas

    “There will be different rules for different states, until world will move to better rules.” – Grigas

  • 15:45 – 16:45
    Fuel to the Fire: Weaponising Islam in Europe

    The threat of political Islam is being perpetuated due to the political agenda of certain countries. European Muslims might join groups like ISIS because of perceived disenfranchisment. Europe needs to help moderate voices within Islam and help sustain political Islam to effectively counter violent extremism.

     

    “Sustaining political Islam was the solution for the prevention of violent extremism.” – Dupuy

     “When state administration is not there someone will occur in order to replace the role of the state.” – Dupuy

    “Climate change is now an inevitable outcome, let’s make it an opportunity. “

    “It is necessary to distinguish between Islam and terrible criminal acts which are not Islam at all and it is not acceptable to mark these crimes with Islam because it is connected not with Islam but with criminals” – Gassana

    “One of the biggest crisis that face terrorist organisations is legitimac” – Wario

    “States are not democratic enough” – Wario

  • 16:45 – 17:45
    Cloak & Dagger: Enhancing the Resilience of Our Societies

    The nature of threats has evolved to a point where a few milligrams of chemical agents can kill dozens of people within seconds. At the same time, fake news is the sort of threat that can disrupt citizens‘ lives through the internet of things or increasing vaccines hesistency. The only way to meet these challenges is for states and civil society to proactively be running informations campaigns on social media where this misinformation is being perpetuated.

    “Fake news about chemical weapons can undermine organisations” – Gonzáles

     “In terms of health care there are 10 main threats, including climate change, ebola, and vaccination hesitancy” – Schiever

    “The challenge of the world is that technology came first and regulations came second.” – Abel

    “Most often-used tactic in terms of spreading disinformation is not to convince a particular audience, it is rather to confuse the audience.” – Milo

  • 15:15 – 18:00
    GLOBSEC Talk: Future of War: Still a Human Affair?

    The future of warfare continues to race along the tracks of technological advancement, and the NATO Allies must be able to not only keep up but also foresee these developments in order to best tackle them and preserve peace in the future. NATO Allies must retain their advantage in flexibility, speed in innovation, and interoperability, in the domains of Artificial Intelligence, autonomy, big data analytics, and quantum computing. Developing military applications of civilian technology and methods to counter them is inevitable, as due to the proliferation of knowledge and technology our adversaries are doing so. The best option is to be as far ahead as possible, and retain military superiority through technological superiority. We must pick up the pace to make these improvements.

    “Cyber offense and cyber defence are misleading, we need to focus on cyber intelligence and cyber security.”

    “Sharing of information in the area of big data is a must, not an option. The sharing of information is what make you stronger in the era of big data.”

Defence & SecurityGLOBSEC 2019Publications
[ June 6, 2019 by Team Globsec 0 Comments ]

European Defence at a Crossroads: GESI Political Framework Paper

The aim of European Defence is to enhance the European role and participation in ensuring security in the Euro-Atlantic space and in its neighbourhood. To this end the European Union needs to raise its commitment to contribute to European Defence in full synergy and coordination with NATO and in close and open cooperation with non-EU European countries and allies, in particular with the post-Brexit United Kingdom. The

European Defence’s ultimate goal should not be the ‘’DeNATOization of Europe’’ but to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance through the “Europeanization of NATO.” The case for European Defence is overwhelming – Europeans needs a defence and security capacity that they only partially possess. The rationale for moving forward is self-explanatory: prosperous democracies must be able to adequately protect themselves and their citizens from external threats. Security cannot be fully subcontracted – even to a staunch and reliable ally. However, European Defence needs NATO and will not be credible without NATO at its core. The more European Defence in NATO, the more NATO will defend the Europeans.

GLOBSEC European Security Initiative Steering Committee advocates that the key elements of the strategy for the EU and their Allies to achieve this goal should be:

1.  NATO to remain as the “Cornerstone” of European collective security. For European Defence to become credible, NATO needs to stay in Europe together with European Defence.

2. EU-NATO cooperation is crucial. Remarkable and extremely encouraging progress has been made in the last two years by the two organisations under the stewardship of High Representative Federica Mogherini and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. European Defence must build on it and take it further.

3.  Keep the Brits in.  Without the United Kingdom the EU loses approximately a quarter of its overall military capabilities (not to mention one of its two nuclear powers and Permanent Member of the UN Security Council). The UK must be a fully-fledged participant either by creating a larger-than-EU Security sphere which should also include countries such as Norway and Turkey or by a specific EU-UK bilateral agreement. Such agreements should also be extended to include an open door to participation in EU initiatives such as PESCO & the implementation of the European Defence Fund (EDF) on a “pay to play” basis.

4.  Come to terms with the changing global realities.  Looking ahead, European security needs also to be placed in a global fast changing strategic context. In a scenario of heightened military confrontation between the US and China in the Indo/Pacific area the responsibility of standing up to Russia in the Atlantic/Arctic area would fall mainly on European allies and Canada with probably a reduced American support due to the impact of this military Asian pivot. Such division of labour would be fully consistent with the Washington Treaty. It can be addressed only by gradually building a credible European Defence.

5. Move forward in measured steps.  Strategic autonomy, and a much more security proactive Europe, can only be achieved incrementally in measured steps to develop real capability with realistic ambitions.  What matters is the goal: to give the Europeans the ability that currently they do not have, or have only in a very limited way to engage a peer enemy in high intensity operations over a long period of time. This is what “strategic autonomy” should be about. It implies that the European Union needs to develop military capabilities that would allow European countries to meet certain areas of security challenges without NATO.

6.   Work towards a rational and realistic division of labour. The European Union should take the lead in addressing security challenges that cannot be met with military means only and/or require a civilian/military mix of responses.  We are not starting from scratch. From the Balkans to Africa the EU has built a good track record in relatively “soft” security missions mixing military footprint and civilian assistance and in focused operations such as the Atalanta counter piracy mission. The security problems arising from the South, by no means negligible, involve non-State actors. Solutions cannot be found in traditional military deterrence only; they must confront an array of complex issues related to state governance, political instability and economic development. NATO cannot do the South alone. Hence a gap to fill and a role for an enhanced European Defence, and specifically for EU’s contribution to it.

7.  Avoid duplications, allow flexibility, create additional capabilities.  The EU should aim at a “light” structure option and avoid duplicating the NATO Command Structure. Given the limited resources available, attempts at duplicating would only lead to two depleted Command Structures – better to integrate and ‘’Double Hat’’ appointees than burden nations with increasing the number of staff/command appointments they need to fill. Flexible, adjustable and scalable structures are best suited to integrate in the European Defence national ownership and coalition of the willing model, as needed and available. Initiatives such as the E21, can more easily accommodate national interests and different security priorities than a single unified structure with lengthy decision times.

8. Accept the 2% as a necessity and move on.  Increased defence spending is indispensable, especially by the countries that lag behind the NATO target of GDP 2%. However, it will not be sufficient if issues related to defence spending efficiency (procurement, mobility, standardization, coordination etc.) are not adequately addressed and if the EU Industrial base is not consolidated and strengthened.  Europeans need to spend more and better on defence and security. It will only be sustainable if the European Defence Industry is a beneficiary and if the EU industrial base is consolidated and strengthened, notably through European Defence Agency’s (EDA’s)  current endeavours and the financial resources of the new EDF.

9.  Translate European commitment into national implementation.  European governments have in fact agreed to do quite a few things on defence, witness progress being made with PESCO. Member States now have to deliver on their commitments by embedding those promises, policies and processes at home in their national defence establishments and among their military planners.

10. If we had to summarise in three points what is required for European Defence to succeed, three concurring elements will be essential:

  • a common strategic culture among European partners, meaning a common understanding of the security threats and challenges Europe is facing in the security field;
  • a common institutional framework capable of defining both strategic and operational concepts;
  • a common industrial base to build up the relevant military capabilities.

European Defence has the potential to boost the security credentials of the EU while enhancing rather than weakening NATO.

GLOBSEC European Security Initiative Steering Committee     1 June 2019

GLOBSEC European Security Initiative builds on the expertise acquired and momentum of the GLOBSEC NATO Adaptation Initiative (GNAI) seeking to shape policy debates that decrease the imbalance in transatlantic defence capabilities. The primary objective of the GESI Initiative is to produce innovative and straightforward policy recommendations that empower Europe’s defence capabilities and operational readiness for a wide spectrum of challenges. GESI mission is not to support the creation of parallel European military-political structures to NATO, but rather to propose an avenue for a new level of European defence competence.

GLOBSEC European Security Initiative Steering Committee

Gen. Knud Bartels (Ret.) – Danish Chief of Defence, Staff 2009-2011, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee 2012-2015

Gen. Wolf-Dieter Langheld (Ret.) – Commander Allied Joint Forces Headquarters, Brunssum 2010-2012

H.E. Rastislav Káčer – Ambassador (Ret.) to the United States and Hungary, Honorary Chairman of GLOBSEC

H.E. Stefano Stefanini – Ambassador (Ret.), Permanent Representative of Italy to NATO and Diplomatic Advisor to the President of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano 2007-2010

H.E. Pierre Vimont – Ambassador (Ret.) to the United States, former Executive Secretary-General of the European External Action Service

GLOBSEC Project Team:

Alena Kudzko, Deputy Research Director, GLOBSEC Policy Institute

John Barter, Defence and Security Adviser, GLOBSEC

Download the full report here.