Read on Twitter
[Thread] The report of the experts group appointed by @jensstoltenberg to think on the future of NATO has just been released. Brace yourself because the report is 67-page long and has 138 recommendations. My initial thoughts 
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/176155.htm?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=natopress&utm_campaign=20201201_report
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/176155.htm?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=natopress&utm_campaign=20201201_report
1/ The starting point: Despite being one of the most successful military alliances in history, NATO has been confronted in recent years to growing internal divisions. These tensions have been increasingly difficult to manage amid a rapidly deteriorating security environment.
These flaws were bluntly highlighted by Pres. Macron in his itw with @TheEconomist in which he notably denounced the lack of political cohesion within the Alliance. https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english
Pres. Macron's comments opened a debate of the state of the Alliance and led the Leaders to launch in London a "forward-looking reflection process" on the future of the Alliance. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_171584.htm
It is not the first time that such a process is launched. In similar moments in its history (in 1967 with the Harmel report for instance), NATO has already paused to reflect on its challenges. 2020 was such a time for NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67927.htm
2/ The mandate: While Allies have managed to strengthen the military component of NATO, Leaders acknowledged in London that they needed to bolster the unity, cohesion, and efficiency of NATO’s political dimension.
Allies therefore asked the Secretary General, with the support of a group of experts, to explore ways of enhancing the political dimension of the Alliance, in particular in three areas :
:
3/ The Reflection Group : Appointed by @jensstoltenberg last March, the group was composed of five men and five women with diverse backgrounds and reflecting the geographic diversity of the Alliance (with experts from 
&
).
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/11/pdf/201125-nato2030-experts.pdf
&).https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/11/pdf/201125-nato2030-experts.pdf
The group was co-chaired by Thomas de Maizière (former German minister of Interior and Defense) and Wess Mitchell (who served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs from 2017 and 2019).
4/ The reflection process: The group conducted extensive consultations within and outside of NATO from April to October 2020. Through more than 90 meetings, the group engaged gvt representatives, scholars, parliamentarians, military officials, & members from the private sector.
Released today after #NATO Foreign Affairs Ministerial, the report of the experts group is entitled "NATO 2030: United for a New Era". After a brief diagnosis of NATO's challenges, the report offers 138 recommendations to adapt the Alliance to the new security environment.
5/ The diagnosis: NATO has experienced, since 2010, fundamental shifts in its external security environment. Allies have simultaneously faced a return of great power competition fueled by 
&
, and the intensification of global threats (terrorism, technologies, pandemics).
&, and the intensification of global threats (terrorism, technologies, pandemics).
But the main danger comes from inside. The report recollects the “ internal strains” weakening the Alliance: diverging threat perceptions, bilateral disputes, tensions over burden sharing, doubts on the reliability of security guarantees, democratic backsliding.
security guarantees, democratic backsliding.
Such “drift toward NATO disunity … must be seen as a strategic rather than merely tactical or optical problem”, the report stresses. “Neither Europe nor North America …are powerful enough to manage these threats alone”.
6/ The recommendations (list not exhaustive):
Update the 2010 Strategic Concept which is an "inadequate basis" for the current geopolitical env. Not a "panacea" but could provide an opportunity to "establish clear priorities", "solidify cohesion" and create coherence.
Update the 2010 Strategic Concept which is an "inadequate basis" for the current geopolitical env. Not a "panacea" but could provide an opportunity to "establish clear priorities", "solidify cohesion" and create coherence.
On Russia: reaffirmation of the dual-track approach of deterrence and dialogue, even though Allies would need to push both components further by raising the costs of aggression, while supporting “increased political outreach” with Moscow notably on arms control.
On China, the Allies should devote “much more time” and “political resources”. NATO should notably strengthen its resilience toward cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns from and better assess the implications for Allies’ security of technological strategy.
The fight against terrorism should become a genuine “cross-cutting line of effort” throughout NATO’s activities (military planning, exercises, intelligence-sharing). NATO could provide a “surge capacity” to individual Allies overwhelmed by a terrorist attack.
NATO should strengthen its resilience toward new risks stemming from climate change and pandemics, by increasing its situational awareness and fully including these challenges in its planning on crisis management.
However, these adaptations would only be achievable if they are underpinned by a return to the Alliance’s core values and a revived political cohesion that should be an “unambiguous priority” for all Allies.
The Allies should pledge, at the highest level, to a “code of good conduct” to abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the 1949 Washington Treaty (uphold on the Alliance’s common values, meet agreed burden-sharing targets, or refrain from politically motivated blockade).
The North Atlantic Council should be the “unique and essential forum” for consultation on the most important security challenges and therefore broaden the scope of issues it tackles, including “national-operational or capability-related” decisions having an impact on NATO.
NATO and the EU should seek to “reinvigorate trust and understanding at the highest levels”. A joint Summit in 2021 could provide an opportunity to better organize the relationship & identify areas of greater cooperation.
To reinforce NATO's decision-making, the report proposes to promote ad hoc coalitions within the Alliance, set a time-limit for decision in the event of a crisis, or raise the threshold for single-country blockages to the Ministerial level when involving ext bilat disputes.
7/ The limits: obviously, the report has its own limitations starting with a lack of prioritization or some caution when dealing with political cohesion (what could be the corrective measures when an individual Ally does not comply with the "code of good conduct" for instance?).
But many of these shortcomings are the result of the diverse composition of the group which in turn is reflecting the political sensitivities within the Alliance.
8/ Next steps: The report is intended to provide a baseline for and inform the deliberations of @jensstoltenberg who should put forward his own proposals at the next NATO Summit in 2021.
France and Germany will continue to play an active role in this process ahead of next NATO Summit. and released a joint communiqué where they "thank the group for its outstanding work ... and substantial and well-balanced recommendations" [END] https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/security-disarmament-and-non-proliferation/news/news-about-defence-and-security/article/joint-statement-by-the-foreign-ministers-of-france-and-germany-nato-report-of
and released a joint communiqué where they "thank the group for its outstanding work ... and substantial and well-balanced recommendations" [END] https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/security-disarmament-and-non-proliferation/news/news-about-defence-and-security/article/joint-statement-by-the-foreign-ministers-of-france-and-germany-nato-report-of
