卡内基国际和平基金会-A-Threat-Based-Strategy-for-NATO-s-Southern-Flank_1页_164kb

NATO's Southern Flank: A Threat-Based Strategy Summary

Core Content

NATO's Southern Flank faces a complex and diverse set of security challenges from both state and non-state actors. The document outlines a strategic framework aimed at addressing these threats through a comprehensive and coordinated policy response. It emphasizes the need for NATO to adapt its approach to this region, which is distinct from the Eastern Flank, by integrating various security dimensions and rethinking its priorities and burden-sharing mechanisms.

Main Threats and Policy Responses

1. Hybrid Warfare

• Threat: Hybrid warfare involves a mix of conventional and unconventional tactics, including cyber attacks, disinformation, and irregular warfare.
• Response: NATO needs to adopt multidimensional strategies that encompass territorial defense, cooperative security, and crisis management. This requires a more integrated and flexible approach to security operations.

2. Russia's Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD) Buildup

• Threat: Russia is enhancing its military capabilities in the Eastern Mediterranean, which could threaten NATO's strategic interests.
• Response: NATO should develop a new maritime strategy for the Southern Flank, focusing on the capabilities of its Standing Maritime Group 2. Leveraging advanced air platforms and precision-strike munitions will be crucial.

3. Iran's Ballistic-Missile Proliferation

• Threat: Iran's spread of ballistic missiles poses a direct security risk to NATO members in the region.
• Response: Enhancing missile-defense capabilities and deploying F-22 fighter planes in Turkey are recommended as effective countermeasures.

4. State Failure in the Arab World

• Threat: The instability and failure of some Arab states present significant security risks.
• Response: NATO should support these states in addressing governance challenges and mitigating the consequences of their security threats.

5. Radical and Violent Non-State Actors

• Threat: The presence of radical and violent non-state actors, particularly in the context of terrorism, is a growing concern.
• Response: A more effective counterterrorism strategy is needed, focusing on both prevention and response mechanisms.

6. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) by Non-State Actors

• Threat: Non-state actors are increasingly acquiring WMDs, including chemical and biological weapons.
• Response: NATO should upgrade its WMD proliferation surveillance capabilities to better monitor and respond to these threats.

Strategic Dilemmas

• Political Consensus: Implementing a Southern Flank strategy may require difficult political compromises among NATO members, particularly due to its budgetary implications.
• Resource Allocation: Allocating more resources to the Southern Flank could mean less support for the Eastern Flank, which may lead to internal disagreements over threat prioritization.
• Burden Sharing: The issue of burden sharing remains a divisive topic in the transatlantic relationship. European policymakers need to shift domestic narratives to emphasize the importance of European security investment.
• Populism and Policy Inertia: The rise of populism in Western countries may hinder NATO's ability to project stability and peace globally. This could lead to a domestically driven era of international policy inertia, which is a major obstacle to developing a forward-looking strategy.

Key Takeaways

• The Southern Flank requires a tailored, threat-based strategy due to its unique security environment.
• NATO must balance its focus between different regions and address the challenges of resource allocation and political consensus.
• Strengthening surveillance, defense capabilities, and international cooperation is essential for countering emerging threats.
• The 2016 Warsaw Summit represents a critical opportunity for NATO to address these strategic dilemmas and move toward a more unified and effective approach.

About the Authors

• Sinan Ülgen: Visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels.
• Can Kasapoglu: Defense analyst at the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM).

Contact

• Christine Lynch
  Communications Director
  Email: clynch@ceip.org
  Phone: +3222092993

Carnegie Europe

• Website: CarnegieEurope.eu
• Social Media:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• The Carnegie Endowment is a global network of policy research centers dedicated to advancing peace through analysis and policy development.
• It operates in multiple regions, including Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, and engages with decision-makers across government, business, and civil society.
• The views expressed in this document are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the Endowment.