CHALLENGES FOR SMART DEFENCE INITIATIVE

Abstract

The present paper addresses one of the most recent initiatives in defence planning, with a major impact in this respect at the level of NATO and its Member States. We depart from the premise that, in spite of passing almost two years since it has been officially launched, during 2012 Chicago Summit, Smart Defence is still a subject of high topicality, given the amplitude of its objectives, the evolution of the characteristics of the international security environment, as well as the challenges attached to this initiative's implementation. As a result, we considered necessary to focus our attention mainly on the challenges which have to be overcome by the Alliance and its Member States in order to put into practice this initiative, looked upon as the main solution for developing the capabilities necessary for facing nowadays' security risks and threats. But, in order to reach to these challenges, we also found it necessary to emphasize the context in which Smart Defence was born, as well as to summarize its role and its main coordinates.

Headnote

The present paper addresses one of the most recent initiatives in defence planning, with a major impact in this respect at the level of NATO and its Member States. We depart from the premise that, in spite of passing almost two years since it has been officially launched, during 2012 Chicago Summit, Smart Defence is still a subject of high topicality, given the amplitude of its objectives, the evolution of the characteristics of the international security environment, as well as the challenges attached to this initiative's implementation.

As a result, we considered necessary to focus our attention mainly on the challenges which have to be overcome by the Alliance and its Member States in order to put into practice this initiative, looked upon as the main solution for developing the capabilities necessary for facing nowadays' security risks and threats. But, in order to reach to these challenges, we also found it necessary to emphasize the context in which Smart Defence was born, as well as to summarize its role and its main coordinates.

Keywords: smart defence, economic and financial crisis, pooling and sharing, specialization, NATO core tasks, collective security.

Introduction

Over the past decade, NATO Member States' defence budgets have been declining steadily. The current economic and financial crisis contributes to the aggravation of the situation and gives birth to further un-coordinated cuts. The situation of defence capabilities has seriously deteriorated after 2008, when the economic and financial crisis impacted seriously the economies of NATO Member States.

In order to respond to the market pressures and to secure their national budgets, most Eu- ropean governments have been forced to reduce their spending. This trend, visible in 2010 bud- gets, will continue and, perhaps, will even in- tensify in the coming years, especially for those countries included in the euro zone and with progressively high debt levels. In the coming de- cade, NATO on the whole and, especially, euro zone countries, will face high pressures on pub- lic finances and slow economic growth. Thus, in times of austerity, resorting to defence budget's cuts is very likely as it represents an easy way for the governments to reduce their expenditures with a low impact on their popularity1.

The fact that NATO countries' armed forces experienced an unprecedented level of cooperation in the field hasn't yet translated in the development of common defence capabilities. A number of capability gaps continue to exist and to unravel, as illustrated by recent operations. At the same time, there is also overcapacity in certain areas at the NATO level, for which there is scope for rationalization2.

Joint development and maintenance of ef- fective defence capabilities is a huge challenge to the countries having achieved the Alliance membership during the last two extensions. All these countries have registered significant trans- formations in terms of organizational structures and partially replaced or modernized their armed forces' armament and equipment. But, in terms of financial constraints, the question of maintaining the achieved level of capabilities and the acquisi- tion of new capabilities is becoming increasingly important.

In seeking to overcome this challenge, the EU announced various policy approaches, such as the "Pooling and Sharing" initiative. This approach is an EU concept which refers to Member States-led initiatives and projects to increase collaboration on military capabilities. The pooling of capabilities occurs when several Member States decide to use capabilities - either nationally owned or multi-nationally procured - on a collective basis. Sharing or, more precisely, role-sharing is when some Member States relinquish some capabilities with the assumption or the guarantee that other countries will make them available when necessary3. But these approaches are practically very slow when it comes to connecting with national defence industries.

Smart Defence initiative is a similar ap- proach, announced by the Secretary General of NATO during 2012 Chicago Summit. The aim of this approach is to combine the political efforts of NATO Member States to identify opportunities and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Alliance, with limited resources. "Acting together, the nations can have access to capabili- ties which they could not afford individually, and achieve economies of scale. Cooperation may take different forms, such as a small group of na- tions led by another nation, or strategic sharing by those who are close in terms of geography, culture or common equipment"4.

The question of NATO role in the implemen- tation of Smart Defence initiative can be seen from different perspectives and, as a result, there can be obtained different images and expecta- tions regarding the Alliance's role from this point of view.

1. Smart Defence - role and main coordinates

Lately, we ask ourselves more and more often how to achieve the current strategic objectives. In spite of the fact that the current global economic and financial crisis reduced the defence budgets and limited funding opportunities, it cannot be assumed that the challenges of the international security environment reduced. On the contrary, the current international context has increased the need for an effective transatlantic coopera- tion. In this line of thought, there can be identi- fied two major challenges: firstly, the economic and financial crisis and the afferent financial aus- terity and, secondly, the maintenance and even development in terms of scope and intensity of security threats. As a consequence, it is essential to find an innovative solution for how to preserve and revalidate NATO role in international secu- rity, more precisely, for preserving its capacity of producing and delivering its specific product, namely "collective security".

Applying Smart Defence concept is one of the solutions for revitalizing NATO and will be subjected to the following framework:

* collective defence will remain one of the main core tasks of the Alliance, being aimed at deterring and defending against security risks, even though they occur beyond the borders of NATO Member States, as close as possible to the sources of risks in the widest (coalition) format;

* transatlantic relations are complex and NATO is just a very important starting point for them, as these relations also include social, political and economic dimensions, national interests and cooperation;

* the positive impact of applying best practices in the development of defence budgets and their distribution is obvious;

* the cost of defence supposes a high degree of uncertainty, but, nowadays it also supposes the reduction of the programs, elimination of duplicate programs, projects and expenses, abandoning the unnecessary programs, and pooling and sharing resources and capabilities;

* the need for maintaining the Alliance's ability to fulfill its core missions, as stipulated by the Strategic Concept (collective defence, crisis management, cooperation in security), by developing or acquiring the necessary key capabilities.

Within Smart Defence Initiative, NATO's role mainly consists in coordinating Member States' efforts in this respect, which creates the condi- tions for economies of scale and for developing NATO's capabilities through specialization. Thus, NATO Member States wifi have the proper condi- tions for acquiring the necessary capabilities, by identifying the resources in the interest of their building, while making the necessary savings of resources. This objective could be fulfilled only by coordination so as to ensure the building of the entire capability package necessary for collective security. NATO needs to develop clusters of capabilities in order to achieve a high degree of readiness and rapid reaction capacity. Those clusters could include framework nations, national headquarters, mission focus groups, or groups of allies providing niche capabilities, such as air transport, air refueling, precision- guided munitions, intelligence, reconnaissance and ground surveillance assets like drones, suppression of enemy air defences, and all the other tangibles of modern war fighting5.

Underthese conditions, accordingtothe quoted source, NATO must find ways to incentivize its members to form these clusters of capability and equitably distribute the costs of using them on operations to the broader NATO community. Of course, there are many open questions as:

- Where is the balance between common capabilities, solidarity, and the flexibility to allow groups of countries to go it alone?

- How can NATO persuade those allies wedded to national sovereignty to accept pooling and sharing vital capabilities with the assurance that they wifi be available when that ally needs to use them?

Creating political trust in the Alliance wifi be as important as solving the cost-sharing issues. The operation of each of these groups wifi require effective leadership and in general all groups wifi have a need of effective NATO or NATO agencies coordination. This wifi allow them to be closer to the groups, and thus more useful in the process of coordination.

In this context, but with other words, Member States may divide tasks among themselves, but without sharing a common responsibility for achieving the mission and goals related to collective defence. This wifi result in more efficient and full use of non-military (civilian) resources in the interest of the mission and tasks of security and defence.

The effective implementation of Smart De- fence initiative requires a general understanding of the following issues:

* the impact of the economic and financial crisis on the level of defence spending is perceived by all as an objective factor, not as an expression of the subjective (individual) treatment of common security;

* the focus on defence spending is shifting from economy to efficiency, i.e. now- adays is not so important how much you spend but how we will spend less money on defence and security;

* the necessity of finding ways for re- ducing defence spending and to increase capa- bilities through a qualitative change in manage- ment;

* the crisis should not be a reason for the weakening of ties between NATO and its Member States, but on the contrary, it should be seen as a challenge and a reason for strengthen- ing and streamlining.

The implementation of Smart Defence initia- tive requires the introduction of common tools. Firstly, it could be useful to apply a pragmatic approach in determining the requirements for defence capabilities. The existence of danger- ous gaps in the list of capabilities the Alliance is not acceptable. These gaps can be accentuated further reducing unreasonably the means of de- fence. Secondly, Smart Defence concept shall be put into practice by pooling and sharing Member States' capabilities. Last but not least, there shall be implemented a coordination of investment in- tentions and efforts of the Member States. In this approach, each party shall inform the other allies about its intention to make specific investment decisions in advance, not after having made these decisions and taken steps to implement them.

2. Potential difficulties, risks, challenges and solutions related to Smart Defence initiative

Based on the present analysis, there can be identified possible difficulties, risks, challenges and solutions relevant both for the development and the putting into practice of Smart Defence initiative.

Demand of maximum value from the implementation of Smart Defence initiative, taking into account the differences in the current and future status of the individual Member States, requires the use of an individual approach on possible cooperation.

Presently, regardless of the common security and defence policy, there is a division between Member States in terms of "can do it" and "want to do it" in aspects of pooling and sharing defence capabilities. There are four categories NATO Member nations. Thus, the first category is "can do it" and "want to do it" countries, the second category is represented by "want to do it" but "do not have abilities to do it" countries, the third category consist in "can do it" but "do not want to do it" states and the fourth category includes "cannot do it" and "do not have abilities to do it" states. Here lies the need for NATO to play its role of being extremely creative in finding convincing and effective approach to individual Member States.

Another challenge is related to the integration and sharing of existing and future defence capabilities of Member States (pooling and sharing). The added value of this approach can be achieved if Member States think and act similarly in similar conditions. Possible conflict is based on one of the security laws, according to which in secure conditions international actors (Member States) act in a similar way, but in conditions of reduced security (insecurity) countries act differently.

This phenomenon also leaves open the question on the role of NATO. Under conditions of uncertainty, how it is supposed to convince Member States to think and act in a similar manner within Smart Defence initiative? The fulfillment of this role requires efforts from both sides. Thus, NATO has to identify and connect the Member States with similar needs and the Member of the Alliance have to establish and apply sufficiently effective mechanisms for sharing and the common use of capabilities.

The next challenge is to prioritize and, even more, to develop common priorities in the security of Member States. In practice, this process goes through the stages of identifying common priorities, defining the essential skills for their achievement, transformation (reduction) of the structures, reducing bureaucracy, etc. Possible conflict in this case is derived from the fundamental or primary tendency of the organization to keep the statu-quo and the need for a qualitative change of the statu-quo in the interest of implementing the concept of Smart Defence. It is to be understood that not each organizational change would result in obtaining the desired results.

The development and use of the concept of Smart Defence is a challenge in terms of its in- novative character. Smart Defence is an innova- tion, but not in terms of resources (tools) to build capacity in the interest of collective defence, but in terms of how to use the practice of the cur- rently available resources (tools). Tools such as economies of scale, prioritization, specialization, focus, etc. have entered for a long time in the use of the full range of human activities, including in the field of security and defence. The added value brought by the Smart Defence concept can derive only through a qualitative change, i.e. by discovering new ways to apply the already known means (tools). This fact represents the main dif- ficulty for the administration in implementing the concept of Smart Defence. This is not a technical process of adoption and implementation of one or another new resource, but a creative process that requires finding new ways of applying exist- ing resources (tools) in order to achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of the product "collec- tive defence". Possible conflict, in this case, is derived from the essential purpose of the admin- istration to ensure the flow of pre-regulated and structured processes, failing, in this manner, to apply a creative approach to their development and quality improvement.

From the perspective of NATO Member States, Smart Defence is a different type of in- novation, which also would raise certain barriers to its implementation. From the perspective of NATO, Smart Defence is a new way of building and providing capabilities for collective defence and could be defined as marketing, if analyzed from the point of view of the theoretical concepts enabling this innovation. From the perspective of NATO Member States, Smart Defence is more a process of innovation, reflected in the implemen- tation of new or significantly improved processes for investment in defence and in the construction and use of defence capabilities. As each process innovation, Smart Defence is aimed at reducing the cost of product development - collective de- fence - and the quality of that product. In this case, NATO's role is that of a good writer who could create a scenario to effectively manage an innovation of a different nature and different fea- tures for both sides of the stage: the Alliance and the Member States6.

Peculiarities of NATO's role in the implementation and use of the concept of Smart Defence can be searched more in the following directions:

* increase the coherence of the Alli- ance, in which the role of NATO is to provide total (large) picture of the needs of the common (shared) capability and to define strategic lines to identify possible areas for cooperation of mem- ber states, to distribute (share) good practices;

* growing, focusing and taking benefit from investing in research activities in the field of security;

* developing relations with partners outside NATO, with EU, the private sector and others.

Possible barriers to implementing Smart Defence as a more general approach to security issues would be related to:

* the need for harmonization of Member States' national legal systems, which would provide the basis for applying the general approach in sample areas: exchange of sensitive information, public-private partnership, including network management and meta-management, implementation of international projects;

* the increase of the administrative ca- pacity of the specialized authorities, who are ex- pected to implement the management of security issues as required in the following areas: training of administrative staff, development of adminis- trative systems, etc.;

* the development of an integrated military-technical expertise towards sufficiently effective and full disclosure of current and future capabilities in terms of their use.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that the con- cept of Smart Defence offers the possibility of obtaining the desired effects associated with achieving adequate security and adequate defence capabilities at a lower cost of defence, during the preservation of the spectrum and intensity of se- curity threats. The achievement of this objective requires, above all, a proper understanding and accepting of its essential characteristics by which the added value is derived at the expense of a qualitatively new approach to the use of the al- ready known fundamental theoretical concepts.

Footnote

1 Giovanni FALEG, Alessandro GIOVANNINI, "The EU between Pooling & Sharing and Smart Defence: Making a Virtue of Necessity", CEPS Special Reports, 19 May 2012, http://www.ceps.be/book/eu-between-pooling-sharing- and-smart-defence-making-virtue-necessity, accessed on 20 January 2014.

2 ***, European Defence Agency, "EDA's Pooling and Sharing", Fact sheet, 30 January 2013, p. 1, https://www. eda. europa.eu/docs/default-source/eda-factsheets/final-p- s_30012013_factsheet_cs5_gris, accessed on 20 January 2014.

3 Ibidem.

4 Smart Defence, http://www.nato.int/cps/fr/SID- E402B602-BA05410F/natolive/topics_84268. htm?blnSublanguage= true&selectedLocale=en&submit= select, accesed on 21 January 2014.

5 Jamie SHEA, "Keeping NATO Relevant", Policy Out- look, Carnegie Endowment, 19 April 2012, http://cam- egieendowment.org/2012/04/19/keeping-nato-relevant/ acl9, accessed on 10 February 2014.

6 Venelin GEORGIEV, "Innovative Nature of the Smart Defence Concept. Editorial", in Defence Management. No. 1/2012, available on-line at http://omicsgroup.org/jour- nals/innovative-nature-of-the-smart-defense-concept-2167 -0374.1000el06.pdf, accessed on 15 March 2014.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. ***, European Defence Agency, "EDAs Pooling and Sharing", Fact sheet, 30 January 2013, https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default- source/eda-factsheets/final-p-s_30012013_ factsheet_cs5_gris.

2. ***, Smart Defence, http://www.nato. int/cps/fr/SID-E402B602-BA05410F/natolive/topics_84268.htm?blnSublanguage= true&selec tedLocale=en&submit=select.

3. FALEG, Giovanni; GIOVANNINI, Alessandro, "The EU between Pooling & Sharing and Smart Defence: Making a Virtue of Necessity", CEPS Special Reports, 19 May 2012, http://www.ceps.be/book/eu-between- pooling-sharing-and-smart-defence-making- virtue-necessity.

4. GEORGIEV, Venelin, "Innovative Nature of the Smart Defence Concept. Editorial", in Defence Management, No. 1/2012, available on- hneathttpV/omicsgroup.org/journals/innovative- nature-of-the-smart-defense-concept-2167- 0374.1000el06.pdf.

5. SHEA, Jamie, "KeepingNATORelevant", Policy Outlook, Carnegie Endowment, 19 April 2012, http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/04/19/ keeping-nato-rel evant/acl 9.