SDA Header
Wednesday 27 August 2008

Space and Security in Europe

"The security of European citizens is a must and the information received from space is indispensable" ESA's Gerhard Brauer made it clear that this Roundtable touched upon a very timely topic. The debate showed that there were many facets to space and its potential use in the realms of defence. But as SAIC's Robert Bell noted "There are many miles to go in this saga"

December 2004

NDA

Is Maritime Security Europe's Achilles Heel?

If maritime security was indeed the EU security policy’s Achilles heel, there was complete agreement on how to respond – it was through more effective cooperation between all parties. Not all questions were answered but there was complete harmony in several areas – this was a policy where only global solutions would be effective, all actors had to be involved and the political will to succeed was paramount.

October 2004

NDA

Countering Bioterrorism: Science, Technology and Oversight

This report reflects the deliberating of the specialist and experts who gathered in Brussels in June and October 2004 to discuss developments in the biological terrorism field. The report makes recommendations that could help accelerate the slow-moving political process governing of developing to the bioterrorism threat.

October 2004

NDA

Does Europe need a Black Sea Security Policy?

“Does Europe need a Black Sea security policy?” That was the question posed at the latest New Defence Agenda round table. A lively debate ensued but a precise answer was hard to find. Perhaps the most representative response was the ISS’s Oksana Antonenko’s “Yes… but!”, as it accurately reflected the lack of clarity in the region’s future.

September 2004

NDA

On the Eve of Istanbul: Can NATO become a vehicle for reform?

Ambassador Nicholas Burns opened his remarks by confirming the US’s firm commitment to NATO, a commitment that came from “every level and every branch of the US government”. Ambassador Burns stated that a strong NATO alliance was the basis of American policy. Despite well-publicised differences, he noted that the Alliance had proved to be “a flexible and supple instrument”. Despite arguing that both the US and Europe were taking NATO less seriously, the Centre for European Reform’s Charles Grant argued that NATO was unique and “here to stay”. His concern was that NATO was now operating in so many areas, it perhaps had an “identity crisis”.The GCSP’s Julian Lindley-French could not agree that Europe should completely buy-in to the US’s ideas on transformation as it would not be possible for all of the EU to transform to the US’s  expectations. Lindley-French wanted less emphasis on network-centric warfare and he wanted the US to listen to Europe’s ideas at the forthcoming summit.

June 2004

NDA

NDA Bioterrorism Background Report by Drs. Jill Dekker-Bellamy

"Defining a European Approach to Preventing Bio-Terrorism: Health Security Policy in the 21st Century"

June 2004

Drs. Jill Dekker-Bellamy

Countering Bioterrorism: Prevention and Protection

Participants agreed that the objective of preventing and combating bioterrorism cuts across a wide range of challenges.  These include: stockpiling and harmonising sufficient quantities of vaccines between nations; tracking shipments of lethal biological agents; enforcing international sanctions; coordinating verification and information exchanges among law enforcement agencies, customs authorities and the scientific community; reorienting research and development funds toward prevention; boosting security at virological research facilities; raising public awareness; and improving communications and coordination between public and private actors, including the interaction between civil and military authorities. With an eye to elaborating a first set of recommendations later this year, the task now falls to the group to: 1) select what is feasible to include in the recommendations and 2) promote effective communication between all organizations currently working on bio-defence projects.

June 2004

NDA

NATO Secretary General announces Istanbul Summit Agenda at NDA Conference

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) made the first of a series of speeches leading up to the June 28-29 Istanbul Summit at the NDA Defending Global Security Conference at the Palais d'Egmont on May 17th. NATO will showcase its new plan for defending security by projecting stability.  This will be done by strengthening relations with the Balkans, in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and in the Mediterranean; through military operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean Sea; and by modernising forces organisation and deployment for newer operations far from home. It is expected that the Summit should decide the expanding role to be taken by NATO in Afghanistan, including aiding the UN with upcoming elections; further development of the Alliance's partnerships, the termination of NATO's mission in Bosnia; and the continued development of NATO's military transformation, including enhanced airlift and sealift capabilities and missile defence and counter-terrorism measures.

May 2004

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Defending Global Security: The new politics of transatlantic defence cooperation

The highlight of the third New Defence Agenda (NDA) Annual Conference was undoubtedly NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s speech in which he outlined NATO’s agenda for the forthcoming Istanbul summit. Stressing the need to adapt to a changing world, de Hoop Scheffer said that “business as usual” was not an option. Ahead of the Istanbul Summit, he detailed NATO’s plans to “project stability” in order to tackle problems wherever and whenever they emerged. The Secretary General also named Afghanistan as a high summit priority, as a successful mission in that country was vital for Europe’s security. Focussing on the importance of Russia, de Hoop Scheffer repeated his hope that President Putin would be present at the Istanbul Summit. The General Secretary also looked for closer links with the EU, via a partnership guided by “pragmatism, close consultation and transparency”. Throughout a wide-ranging speech, de Hoop Scheffer kept returning to the need for NATO to deliver results by improving the deployability and usability of its forces. Emphasising the gap between the well-accepted political commitment and the ability to generate NATO forces when required, de Hoop Scheffer said the Alliance must adapt to new developments “not only politically but also militarily”.

May 2004

NDA

Press Dinner with Nick Witney, Head of the European Defence Agency Establishment Team

Speaking at the latest New Defence Agenda (NDA) hosted press dinner, Nick Witney, Head of the European Defence Agency Establishment Team, provided a wide-ranging overview of the role the agency might be playing in the coming years. Looking at the reason why an agency was required, Witney said that Europe needed to raise its game on defence. The root problem was fragmentation - insufficient coordination of defence requirements across the EU and hence no unity of supply. The end result, according to Witney, was a poor return on investment for the EU’s current expenditure of some $185 billion per annum. For the head of the Establishment Team, collaboration was the name of the game and the defence industry was calling on “governments to get their acts together”. Speaking more cautiously, Witney reminded his audience that the agency would start relatively small (less than 100 people with a few million euros to be spent on studies and advisors) and would therefore have to be extremely flexible. He likened the agency to a “systems integrator” who could bring all the main defence actors together – overcoming what he called “process fragmentation.”

April 2004

NDA

Assessing the Military Threats of the Future

The New Defence Agenda June roundtable set out to assess future military threats and in particular, how Europe should react to them. The first session, focusing on European security, developed into a power struggle between the US, with its “act now” approach, and a Europe, that wanted to give more thought to the root causes of terrorism and, in parallel, to avoid total dependence on the US. The afternoon session looked at intelligence, where a majority of speakers felt confident about the efficiency of data gathering and processing and a vocal minority warned of complacency in that area. Everyone, however, was in no doubt about the need for improved intelligence sharing across the board.  In the morning debate, the US Mission to the EU’s Michael C. Ryan was critical of Europe, saying that it sometimes lacked political will. As an example, Ryan quoted Afghanistan, where the EU had publicly supported action but had not lived up to its commitments. The FT’s Peter Spiegel dismissed the idea of a separate European “Security Doctrine” and argued strongly that this matter was best discussed in NATO and nowhere else. Spiegel also spoke against European projects that duplicated US capabilities, i.e. the Galileo project where the US already had its GPS system in place.

April 2004

NDA

Towards an EU burden-sharing of defence costs?

At its latest roundtable, the New Defence Agenda discussed how defence costs could be shared across the EU. However, as the day progressed, there was a gradual change of topic with the focus moving firmly to security. Moderator Michel Berendt opened the morning session by noting that it was difficult to separate defence and security and later, Thales’ Martin Hill observed that industry was mainly talking security, as it was “chasing the money”. Several speakers emphasised the gap in expenditure between Europe and the US and there was universal acceptance that defence budgets were being squeezed. Europe therefore needed to get more bang for its euros – not forgetting the odd pound or two. Another recurring theme was the need to harmonise defence requirements, as NATO’s Vicente Martinez Candela noted that a pre-requisite for creating common budgets was an agreement on common policies. Throughout the discussions, the main stumbling block towards enhanced co-operation and burden-sharing was not difficult to identify: NATO’s Adrian Kendry said that the EU was “operating in a sea of nation states” while UKRep’s Sandy Johnston stressed while the EU would continue to decide collectively on the launching and running of military and civilian operations, member states would be unlikely to relinguish national decision-making over the deployment of their armed forces.

March 2004

NDA

Europe's drive to implement an anti-terrorist strategy

The latest New Defence Agenda roundtable asked if Europe was on track with its anti-terrorist activities. After three hours of keen debate, it was apparent that although Europe was tackling some of the major threats, it was far from having a comprehensive strategy at the EU-level. The key theme emerging from the debate, and echoed by many of the speakers, was the need for improved cooperation and coordination: within the EU-25 itself, between the EU and NATO, and between the EU and the US. Most speakers expressed optimism about the overall ant-terrorist situation while recognising that improved coordination was necessary. EUROCONTROL’s Victor Aguado argued that his organisation had reacted well in the wake of 9/11, while Kenneth Moss of the National Defense University, Washington DC insisted that much work remained to be done. SEMA’s Lars Hedström called for improved coordination between the EU and NATO. Adding a note of caution, the German government’s Susanne Welter emphasised the need for a balance to be found between control and the need for an open society. Speaking from the floor, the ISS-EU’s Gustav Lindström called for the various plans to be harmonised and the public to be more informed about the true nature of the threats. It was also clear that more agreement is needed on both the threat and the possible responses. The BWPP’s Jean-Pascal Zanders argued that the threats of terrorist attacks were often exaggerated, commenting worryingly that such assessments were now part of the US budget process.

February 2004

NDA

Fresh Perspectives on Europe's Security

To set new thinking on security policy across to public opinion as well as policy makers, the NDA has initiated a series of Discussion Papers. Authors include Javier Solana, Lord Robertson, and Eduardo Serra.

February 2004

NDA

The Powers and Responsibilities of the European Defence Agency

The New Defence Agenda’s first roundtable of 2004 saw a packed house and three hours of intense debate surrounding the future of the European Defence Agency. Perhaps those who came expecting to hear revolutionary talk were disappointed, as although speakers reinforced the Agency’s importance, they emphasised that it is just one step along the way to a common European defence policy. Discussions concerning who would head the agency may have cast a shadow over the proceedings, but its creation was seen as a move in the right direction towards a converging CFSP. The UK Ministry of Defence’s Sarah Beaver was insistent that the challenge lay in defining “a consolidated demand” that could drive “a consolidated supply”. Listing a number of reasons why the agency was required, Beaver argued that Europe’s failure to collaborate successfully in defence matters was due to the countries of the enlarged EU “spending resources on the wrong things or inefficiently or both”. Emphasising the financial aspects of the agency’s plans, Beaver stressed that nothing would be achieved unless the 25 defence ministers buy-in to the shared vision as to how Europe’s defence capabilities should be developed. On behalf of the Italian Ministry of Defence, Lt.-Gen. Gianni Botondi declared that the agency would be a first concrete step towards the creation of a “single competent body responsible for armament cooperation in Europe” but that its success “depended on the will of nations” – a theme taken up by many speakers. Taking a similar tack, the German Ministry of Defence’s Hilmar Linnenkamp stressed the inter-governmental and advisory nature of the agency, and while noting that the Secretary-General High Representative would be in a position to “advise and bully” the defence ministers into collective action, they themselves held the key to success.

January 2004

NDA
Powered By OdysseePowered by Odyssee