NATO HQ - time for a makeover?

The world has changed.

The threats have changed.

So has NATO.

We need and we will have

a Strategic Concept

that takes account of today’s realities

and tomorrow’s challenges as well.

As NATO prepares a future vision,

this is an opportunity to change

what NATO does and how it does it.

This organisation is in need of reform.

We need the Secretary General

to be empowered

with some discretion

over people, over funds

and the ability to really pursue

the path that the Concept sets out.

Some target the bureaucracy at NATO

as a key area needing change.

When you have

400 committees to run

what is in essence one council,

you have problem.

Do we really need all the committees

that all the NATO insiders

have to sit in every day?

Probably not. They have to go

to seventeen meetings every day,

so they have less time

to actually sit back, relax,

and think through their positions

on the major issues of a day.

Fundamental reform, re-looking at

how this organisation does business

in a different world, in which

the need for agile and quick decisions

based on quality analysis

is high on the agenda,

ought to be part of what we're trying

to do. No more business as usual.

And the concept could help NATO

become again a place, or the place,

where key consultations take place.

We stopped using NATO

as a political forum.

We assumed

where we disagree so vehemently

that it makes no point to go

to Brussels to reach a consensus.

Another consequence is that we

don't spend enough money on NATO

because we don’t feel that

the alliance is addressing our threats

because allies have

such diverging visions on NATO.

NATO has lost its function

as being the key transatlantic forum

for discussion on strategic concerns,

threats and interests.

One thing we would like

to see happen in NATO

is that this becomes a body

that once again becomes the place

in which the members take their

concerns for international security,

start discussing them, consult about

how to act and perhaps forge actions.

The Concept should make clear

that the alliance isn't just a place

where we agree military standards,

from which we command operations,

when we cross the threshold

into launching a mission.

It should also make clear that NATO

is first and foremost a political body,

in which we sit down and talk,

not just about threats and concerns

that might cross the article 5

treshold,

but also a whole range

of other things that trouble us.

What are the areas that the Concept

could change in NATO’S make-up?

The first one is the proper balance

between the operations,

and second,

the proper balance in views

among the bigger

and smaller countries

to make sure

that this is our Strategic Concept,

that each member state can identify

itself with it. That’s very important.

The most important thing it is,

it has to do is to...

...to re-activate

the transatlantic grand bargain

which we had

over decades in the Cold War.

The North Americans do something

for the Europeans and vice versa.

One thing you would want to be

very careful of is not creating sort of

first and second tier NATO

citizenship.

We’re all in the fight together.

We’re all in these operations together.

The nature of the threat these days,

is a 360-degree battlefield.

What could this mean

for relations with partners?

For example how could it impact

on the NATO Russia council?

I think that we have to re-enforce it

seriously, and not by bureaucrats,

because,

to the best of my knowledge,

people whom I met

in both embassies in Brussels,

one in NATO embassy

and another one EU embassy,

they are qualified, good diplomats.

What we need is a lot more

of young, very well educated,

Western-trained,

in terms of legalities, experts.

But this cross-fertilisation

should take place now.

And if we do it the same way

in NATO-Russian negotiations

in the council and in the EU-Russian

negotiation and cooperation

and partnership agreement,

we will reach better results.