DEFENCE AND SECURITY



DSC139 DSC 17 EOriginal: EnglishNATO Parliamentary AssemblySUMMARYof the meeting of the Defence and Security CommitteeNarikala, Hotels & Preference Hualing TbilisiTbilisi, GeorgiaSaturday 27 May 2017nato-pa.intJune 2017 ATTENDANCE LIST Committee ChairpersonRaymond KNOPS (Netherlands)Acting General RapporteurJoseph A. DAY (Canada)Special RapporteurWolfgang HELLMICH (Germany)President of the NATO PAPaolo ALLI (Italy)Secretary General of the NATO PADavid HOBBS Member delegationsBelgium Brigitte GROUWELSPhilippe MAHOUXVeli Y?KSELOlga ZRIHENBulgariaHristo GADZHEVCanadaLeona ALLESLEVRaynell ANDREYCHUKPierre-Hugues BOISVENUCheryl GALLANTCroatia Romana JERKOVICNenad STAZIC Czech RepublicTomas CZERNINJan FARSKYMartin SEDLARDenmarkMarie KRARUPEstonia Marko MIHKELSON FranceGuy-Michel CHAUVEAUGilbert LE BRISGermanyLorenz CAFFIERKarin EVERS-MEYERRobert HOCHBAUMGreeceAndreas LOVERDOSHungaryMihaly BALLAMatyas FIRTLIcelandJon Steindor VALDIMARSSONItalyLorenzo BATTISTAVito VATTUONELatvia Artis RASMANISLithuaniaDainius GAIZAUSKASRasa JUKNEVICIENEJuozas OLEKASLuxembourg Nancy ARENDT KEMPAlexander KRIEPSNetherlandsAngelien EIJSINKFranklin van KAPPENRaymond de ROONRonald VUIJKNorwayPeter Christian FR?LICHPolandWaldemar ANDZELJan DOBRZYNSKIStanislaw PIETARomaniaNicu FALCOICostel LUPASCUAndrei POPAttila VERESTOYSlovakiaJuraj DROBAGabor GALAnton HRNKOSloveniaZan MAHNICSpainMaria del Carmen ALVAREZ-ARENASRicardo CORTESGabino PUCHETurkeySirin UNALUnited KingdomLord CAMPBELL OF PITTENWEEMLord HAMILTON OF EPSOMUnited StatesRob BISHOPRick LARSENMichael R. TURNERAssociate delegationsArmeniaEdmon MARUKYANKoryun NAHAPETYANAustriaHubert FUCHSReinhold LOPATKAHarald TROCHHannes WENINGERAzerbaijanZiyafat ASGAROVGudrat HASANGULIYEVSiyavush NOVRUZOVBosnia & HerzegovinaNikola LOVRINOVICFinlandTom PACKALENMikko SAVOLAGeorgiaIrakli BERAIAGiorgi KANDELAKISofio KATSARAVABeka ODISHARIAIrakli SESIASHVILIRepublic of MoldovaDumitru DIACOVArtur RESETNICOVMontenegroTarzan MILOSEVICGenci NIMANBEGUObrad Miso STANISICSerbiaVladimir DJUKANOVICZoran DRAGISICDragan SORMAZSwedenLena ASPLUNDAsa LINDESTAMMattias OTTOSSONHans WALLMARKSwitzerlandCorina EICHENBERGERUkraineIryna FRIZSerhiy LARINOleksii SKRYPNYKOksana YURYNETSRegional Partner and Mediterranean Associate Member DelegationsAlgeriaMoustafa DJERDALIJordanTawfiq TAWALBEHMoroccoMohammed AZRIEuropean ParliamentJonas FERNANDEZEva KAILIZdzislaw KRASNODEBSKIJozo RADOSParliamentary ObserversEgyptMohamed ABDELREHIMMahmoud AWAD Kazakhstan Talgatbek ABAIDILDIN Abay TASBULATOVPalestinian National Council Jamal ABUALROB Walid ASSAFRepublic of Korea Ju-Hong HWANG Jong-Kul LEEParliamentary Guest AfghanistanFazel Azim Zalmy MOJADIDIKhalid A. PASHTOONSpeakers Levan IZORIA, Minister of Defence of GeorgiaMajor General Vladimer CHACHIBAIA, Chief of the General Staff of the Georgian Armed ForcesMyriam BENRAAD, Lecturer in Peace and Development Studies, M.A. Course Director, University of LimerickInternational Secretariat Ethan CORBIN, DirectorAnna PICHLER, (Temporary) CoordinatorCarmyn CHAPMAN, Research AssistantMaciej LEMPKE, Research AssistantOpening remarks by Raymond KNOPS (Netherlands), ChairpersonChairman of the Defence and Security Committee (DSC), Raymond Knops (NL), welcomed Committee members and new colleagues to Tbilisi and thanked the Georgian delegation for their outstanding work hosting the 2017 Spring Session. He noted the organised visit to the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) taking place the following day. Mr Knops asked everyone to stand for a moment of silence for all the victims of recent terrorist attacks in England and Egypt. Mr?Knops then welcomed the distinguished speakers (Minister of Defence of Georgia and Chief of the General Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces) to the Session and noted that all speakers’ biographies could be found on the NATO PA website. Finally, the Chairman outlined the general procedures for questions and answers throughout the day’s meeting and said the official attendance list for the Spring Session would be produced from the sign-in list.Adoption of the draft Agenda [066 DSC 17 E]The draft Agenda [066 DSC 17 E] was adopted. Adoption of the Summary of the meeting of the Defence and Security Committee held in Istanbul, Turkey on Saturday 19 and Sunday 20 November 2016 [233 DSC 16 E]The Summary of the meeting of the Defence and Security Committee [233 DSC 16 E] in Istanbul, Turkey on 19 and 20 November 2016 was adopted.Consideration of the Comments of the Secretary General of NATO, Chairman of the North Atlantic Council on the Policy Recommendations adopted in 2016 by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly [049 SESP 17 E]Members of the Defence and Security Committee did not have comments regarding the policy recommendations adopted in 2016 by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly [049 SESP 17 E]. Panel discussion by Levan IZORIA, Minister of Defence of Georgia on Georgian Defence Priorities in the Face of Near- and Long-Term Challenges and Major?General?Vladimer?CHACHIBAIA, Chief of the General Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces on The Georgian Armed Forces TodayThe Chairman introduced Levan Izoria, Minister of Defence of Georgia since 2016. Minister?Izoria underscored the importance of this meeting and noted the positive evolution of the NATO-Georgia relationship, expressing gratitude for the way NATO approaches Georgia’s membership aspirations. He also cited Montenegro’s pending accession as evidence of NATO’s continued commitment to the Open Door policy – a motivating force for continued defence reforms in Georgia. He highlighted Georgia’s goal as an aspirant country: to build a democratic and just state, contribute to international peace and security, and develop the tools to strengthen human rights. He also emphasised Georgia’s work to align with NATO standards, particularly in the defence sector. He highlighted four strategic directions Georgia identified as central to the continued defence reforms: 1) enhanced defence capacity; 2) defence budgeting; 3) working to contribute to regional security and stability, particularly with regards to NATO neighbouring member states; 4) partnering to contribute to international peace and security with NATO as well as other international organisations.Mr Izoria then elaborated the measures undertaken by Georgia to align the country with the NATO Alliance’s post-Wales Summit declarations. He stated Georgia aims to establish a more adaptable, balanced, self-sufficient, and structured military in line with these expectations. The Minister underscored the key role the Parliament of Georgia plays in urgently implementing necessary defence reforms. He also noted the importance of existing defence cooperation with NATO member states, particularly with the Baltic and Nordic states – particularly when it comes to understanding the models these states followed to re-instate their draft systems and to modernise and update their national reserve structures as well. The goal of the modernisation plan, he continued, is to ensure the alignment of Georgian defence institutions to NATO standards. He noted his vision was to have national defence forces fully funded and combat ready; emphasising programmes to modernise anti-tank formations, aviation and artillery equipment, as well as a focused upgrading of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capacities. The Minister also noted the Georgian combat readiness programme that resulted from the special partnership measures initiated with Georgia at the Warsaw Summit. This will result in the training of thousands of soldiers, equipped with the most modern capable equipment and training within modern infrastructure. Minister Izoria mentioned a plan to inaugurate a new centre to focus on enhancing Georgian force readiness within the next year. All efforts are aimed at synchronising activities with NATO standards and ensuring the capacity to contribute to peace, stability, and security in the region and beyond. The Minister also noted the importance of budget allocation to defence institutions; Georgia lives up to the NATO 2% GDP standard, he said. He continued by stating it was normal for Georgia to spend at such levels, as the government is in the process of replacing legacy Soviet infrastructure and equipment as it seeks to create modern defence forces. He also said Georgia is investing significantly in new equipment; far surpassing the NATO standard of 20% investment in new infrastructure. The Minister then noted Georgia’s work with international organisations – including with NATO and the EU – was important for regional development and security, particularly in the Black Sea region. Again, the Minister noted the importance of the new training and evaluation centre the Defence Ministry is creating. He noted the recent passage of a visa-free regime to enter the EU for short stays as evidence of Georgia’s progress with regards to Georgian compatibility with EuroAtlantic values and vision for an open and inter-connected global system. Minister Izoria then pointed to Georgia’s important contributions to global peace and security missions; with 871?Georgian servicemen participating in international missions, even as far afield as Mali and the Central African Republic. The Minister said Georgia’s commitment to international security operations is evidence of their commitment to Euro-Atlantic security and common values, particularly the rule of law. In closing, the Minister reaffirmed Georgia’s enduring commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan, where the country is currently the fourth largest troop contributor. Major General Chachibaia welcomed the Committee members, and expressed the honour Georgia felt to host the NATO PA Session. For Georgia, he began, defence cooperation is central to the restoration of the country’s sovereignty, especially in light of the conflicts taking place in the country since the beginning of the century. He highlighted that these conflicts resulted in the loss of approximately 20% of the nation’s territory to quasi-independence movements and threatened annexation. General Chachibaia then provided additional information on Georgia’s cooperation with the international community and western security providers, beginning with partnerships established in the 2000s with the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and the Baltic states. He said the cooperation with these countries contributes to the development of Georgia’s defence capabilities – particularly through professional military education exchanges. The General then overviewed the defence reforms being implemented and their importance to ensure their readiness as a modern fighting force, thereby finally overcoming the legacy of Soviet infrastructure and equipment. He cited the 2008 war with Russia as a turning point, as Georgia’s defeat and subsequent loss of territory in the war served as a wake-up call highlighting the inadequacies of the Georgian forces. This resulted in a new focus on land and air mobility and an overall force downsizing to have a leaner, more professional fighting force. Georgia is now able to undertake meaningful defence reforms, he continued, and pointed to the GEL 13 million allocated for the development of infrastructure projects and combat preparedness as an example of the steps being taken to implement the reforms by 2020. The General also told the delegation Georgia is aware its conventional capabilities in the face of another Russian challenge would be insufficient. As such, he said the Georgian Defence Forces were developing asymmetrical tactics and strategies as well to supplement their conventional forces and doctrine. Georgia has also embarked on a new set of cooperative measures with the United States, which General Chachibaia said would be of significant assistance to achieve its goals. The scope of cooperation with the United States will mean the training and outfitting of nine combat regiments. This capacity building cooperation with the United States will be greatly assisted by the newly established training and assessment centre, as mentioned by the Defence Minister during his presentation. Again, he stressed, these intensive efforts have the aim of bringing Georgian forces up to NATO standards. He noted that during his visits to Afghanistan, everywhere he went he heard only positive feedback from member state and partner nations’ forces operating in theatre of the professionalism of Georgian troops.In conjunction with the effort to ensure Georgian forces’ compatibility with NATO standards, General Chachibaia reviewed the utility for NATO in continuing to cooperate and train with Georgian forces. He pointed to Georgia’s environmentally diverse territories as an opportunity for the Alliance. He also highlighted the country’s quality military education institutions, and cited the implementation of new standards in the military field as a strength for both the country and partners. He also thanked the Georgian forces for their dedication and commitment to protecting their country. Finally, he explained Georgia is a multinational society, where all ethnic groups have a chance to integrate into society, particularly via the armed forces. The Speaker thanked everyone for their attention.Minister Izoria and General Chachibaia then engaged in a question and answer discussion on the topic. Chairman Knops asked the first question to the Defence Minister about how the country balances its new defence investment ambitions, which surpass the NATO 2 and 20 benchmarks for Allied investments, with its other priorities such as health care or education. Minister?Izoria noted strong governmental and public support to channel resources into the defence sector. Strong government support, particularly from the Executive and the Parliamentary Defence Committee has been helpful in moving toward the fulfilment of these ambitions. Minister Izoria also noted the significant progress made over the last three years (moving from 4-6% defence spending), and acknowledged the challenges before Georgia, including those in the social sphere (health care and welfare), but stressed that without security, none of these other sectors can function normally, if at all. Juozas Olekas (LT) asked if support for Euro-Atlantic integration from other parties in Parliament, including the opposition, was also strong. Minister Izoria explained decision-makers in Georgia, with the support of the population, are united in their commitment to guarantee the security of the country, and noted it is a priority to ensure adequate funding for defence. He reported, based on discussions with the Minister of Finance, funding for readiness and equipment will be available in coming years. He expressed appreciation for the staunch support from the Parliamentary Committee, as well as from countries, like Lithuania. Questions then focused on the role Georgia plays in supporting and ensuring regional security. Siyavush Novruzov (AZ) asked how Georgia planned to ensure the security of cooperative regional (and EU) projects, including energy and infrastructure initiatives against those who seek to disrupt them. He, along with Koryun Nahapetyan (AM) inquired about the progress of restructuring the Georgian armed forces; both asked what it will mean, specifically, for the Georgian armed forces to conform with NATO standards and the challenges to move beyond legacy Soviet equipment and the impact on Georgian armed forces’ readiness. Mr Nahapetyan also asked about the models for and challenges to the renewed conscription policy in Georgia, particularly in terms of financing. Hannes?Weninger (AT) congratulated Georgia for its, like Austria’s, strong partnership and contributions to NATO and EU framework peace missions. He asked about Turkey’s recently stated intention to veto the participation of Austria’s forces in training and exercises as a partner nation, due to its recent criticism of the political situation in Turkey after the attempted July 2016 coup. He asked how this could be compatible with the Alliance’s emphasis on shared values. To Mr Weninger, Dr Izoria highlighted Georgia’s cooperation with regional partners on fighting terrorism and trainings that have taken place with US troops and with Turkey, “an essential strategic ally,” under the Substantial NATO-Georgia package (SNGP). He noted that this partnership must be continued and strengthened. In response to the representatives from Azerbaijan and Armenia, the Minister explained that tri-partite cooperation between Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan was vital to ensuring regional stability and security, particularly with regards to regional infrastructure projects. He reiterated the central goal for defence reforms is to ensure all defence components meet NATO standards. As examples, he cited modernising weaponry and equipment and the need to purchase anti-tank equipment. He reported the process of standardisation focuses on education, training, and combat readiness. Regarding the question about conscription, the Minister said Georgia had learned a lot from the recent Nordic and Baltic states’ experiences with the reintroduction of conscription. He noted Georgia’s ability to afford the new policy due to the savings from streamlining its armed forces during recent modernisation overhauls. Giorgi Kandelaki (GE), member of the opposition party in Georgia (“European Georgia”) then countered earlier statements made by the Defence Minister regarding the progress in defence reforms, expressed his disagreement with the reasoning provided for disbanding the 5th brigade; he noted the opposition felt the decision had sent the wrong signal at the wrong time from Georgia given the regional security situation. He continued by taking up the question about popular support for Euro-Atlantic integration in Georgia. He said that, while public opinion remains overwhelmingly proNATO and pro-Europe, there has been a degree of erosion in this support, which he said was due to the prevalence of Russian propaganda in the country. Mr Izoria said the justification for merging the 5th brigade with the 1st brigade was to make Georgian armed forces even more capable of countering the complex international security environment they face, particularly when considering the forces’ self-sustainability. He also noted infiltration of Russian propaganda is not unique to Georgia, but a phenomenon seen throughout the region and Euro-Atlantic space. He highlighted NATO’s commitment to addressing this issue, and said that a whole of Georgian government and society approach was needed to make sure the truth remained the prevailing message. Sirin Unal (TR) remarked on the importance of a common respect for NATO’s common values. He noted that the current Turkish policies against Austria were the result of Austrian hostility toward Turkey. He noted Turkey has no problems with other partners, stating Turkey had long been an ardent supporter of increased partner cooperation in the broader NATO framework. He said the solution to the problem is in the hands of the Austrians, not the Turks.Later in the discussion, the Chair of the Defence Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Irakli?Sesiashvili (GE), provided reflections on the role of the Parliament in the defence reforms in particular and in the oversight of the Georgian armed forces in general. He continued by stating that there is an excellent working relationship between the Executive and the Parliament to achieve the best results possible for the new, modern defence forces for Georgia.Finally, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (UK), thanked the two speakers and inquired as to the actions being taken or planned on the part of Georgia to prevent the country from becoming both a source and a transit point for foreign fighters to join ISIS in Syria. Mr Izoria acknowledged Georgia, along with many other nations, including those in the EU, experiences problems with the foreign fighter phenomenon. He explained Georgian law enforcement and legislators are working together to ensure Georgians do not participate in these criminal organisations or that the country becomes a conduit for foreign fighters traveling from the region to Syria. He continued by stating the Interior Minister is working to minimise the threat, and that Georgia is also cooperating with US and British agencies, particularly in the sphere of military intelligence, to fight terrorism. The Chair thanked both Mr Izoria and General Chachibaia for their presentations and engaging with the DSC members.Consideration of the draft General Report Ballistic Missile Defence and NATO [067?DSC?17 E] by Joseph A. DAY (Canada), General RapporteurThe Chair introduced the DSC General Rapporteur, Senator Joseph A. Day (CA). Senator?Day thanked the Committee Director (Ethan?Corbin) for his work on the report, in conjunction with the researchers at the NATO PA and the Parliamentary staff in Canada. He welcomed comments and discussion of the report. Senator Day began his presentation by highlighting the growing threat posed by ballistic missile system proliferation, thereby underscoring the importance of ballistic missile defence (BMD) to NATO Allies. Senator Day overviewed the ballistic missile threat in the international arena – highlighting threats posed by North Korea and Iran – and noted advanced dual-use technologies are enabling modern missile systems to be faster, more accurate, and have longer ranges. He pointed to increased missile proliferation coupled with increased system testing by Iran and North Korea as evidence of this growing threat. Openly hostile rhetoric by these regimes coupled with their disregard for international norms and agreements undermine peace and stability in the international system.Senator Day then underscored actions being taken by NATO to design a BMD architecture to protect Allied populations, territories, and deployed forces. He said the current NATO architecture – which integrates contributions from NATO nations, some directly under Allied command and control (C2) – works to defend the Euro-Atlantic area against these threats. At present this system, with the Aegis combat systems at its core is assessed at initial operational capacity. He reviewed the decision by the Alliance to undertake BMD as a core component of NATO defence made at the 2010 Lisbon Summit and noted the importance of continued Allied investment in the the system. He then reviewed all major national contributions to date – including those by the United States, Romania, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and, more recently, Poland – and highlighted plans by the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark to update capabilities and integrate them under the NATO BMD architecture. Finally, Senator Day described the advantages the Alliance draws from developing an integrated BMD architecture and the challenges ahead in completing the system. He noted the added opportunities to enhance command, control, and battle management interoperability as nations contribute capabilities. Senator Day also noted continued Russian objections to NATO BMD. He provided a comprehensive overview of attempts made by NATO to engage in dialogue with Russia on BMD, highlighting the architecture is not purposed to threaten Russia or destabilise geostrategic balance of forces, but is rather a solely defensive system designed to protect against external threats. Senator Day underscored the Alliance’s continued commitment to NATO BMD, stating no external country should be able to dictate Alliance defence initiatives. He also offered recommendations for further collaboration on this issue and highlighted the importance for all to remain educated on the role of the system in transatlantic security; NATO BMD offers clear and common benefits for the Alliance.Michael R. Turner (US) congratulated the Committee Director and Rapporteur for an excellent report, noting it accurately reflects a policy shift in NATO on missile defence. He offered several comments on specific details of the report, noting possible edits. Mr Turner also recommended additional attention be paid to the destabilising nature of deployed Russian missile defence capabilities. Gilbert Le Bris (FR) also expressed his appreciation for the interesting report and expressed how important it is to present BMD as a complimentary component of a larger strategy of deterrence; he specifically noted nuclear deterrence as central and irreplaceable. This was echoed by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, who drew attention to, and supported Mr Le Bris in making the distinction between defence and deterrence. He also requested the recent deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea be noted as such in the final report. Senator Day thanked Mr Turner, Mr Le Bris, and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for their comments, affirmed the report is informative in nature, and assured their comments will be considered for the final draft. Next, Mr Unal thanked the Rapporteur for the report and proposed amendments, noting Turkey’s proximity to threats posed by ballistic missiles. Lorenzo Battista (IT) also indicated they would file amendments for consideration and requested additional information be included about Russian submarine missile capabilities. Franklin van Kappen (NL) noted the centrality of evaluating and assessing maritime missile defence. He also suggested the report look more closely at how Europe can better plan future missile defence purchases; he noted Denmark and Germany must only make small software modifications for their radar and tracking capabilities on their frigates to be compatible with the current Aegis system used by NATO, but collective purchase of the expensive SM-3 missiles would enable more countries to contribute to the architecture. He also inquired about Turkey’s planned purchase of the S-400 system, noting integration of this capability unlikely under the US-controlled NATO air picture. Senator Day reiterated that caution should be paid to Alliance purchases and the importance of carefully considering ways to improve burden sharing. The final round of questions focused on security in the Caucasus. Mr Kandelaki offered the report should consider Russia’s actions in Georgia and Ukraine to be part of the same problem and advised caution against returning too quickly to a normalisation of relations with Russia. Mr?Novruzov also echoed his concerns with Russian actions in the region citing the deployment of S-400 and Iskander-M missiles as highly destabilising. Mr Nahapetyan echoed the concerns of the representative from Azerbaijan, expressing concern for offensive capabilities in the region offsetting the balance of power. Senator Day agreed regarding the points on relations with Russia, and noted the positive effects of NATO’s increased activity in the Black Sea region. In response to the representative from Azerbaijan, Senator Day said their comments would be taken into consideration in conjunction with Mr Turner’s suggestions.In closing, Chairman Knops reflected on the 2015 demonstration in Scotland where Dutch and US maritime entities together tracked, engaged, and destroyed a mock test-missile. He said the demonstration underscores the importance of NATO Allies working closely on air defence projects, and provides a strong example of strengthening the Alliance in areas where some capabilities may still be lacking. Senator Day also recognised the importance of Alliance commitment to BMD and evolution of the system. He thanked everyone for the quality discussion.Consideration of the draft Special Report Afghanistan [070 DSC 17 E] by Wolfgang?HELLMICH (Germany), Special RapporteurThe Chair introduced Wolfgang Hellmich (DE) who presented the draft Special Report on Afghanistan. Mr?Hellmich thanked the Georgian armed forces for their excellent cooperation in northern Afghanistan, noting specifically, their efforts to reduce the impact of the attempted terrorist attack on the German Consulate on 11 November 2016 in Mazar-e-Sharif.Mr Hellmich presented the report, noting its importance in the oversight process of NATO engagement in Afghanistan. He reviewed the NATO mission, noting its ultimate aim is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe-haven ever again, making it one of the longest-standing counterterrorism missions. He noted the Alliance is committed to peace and security and encouraging domestic prosperity in the country. He then overviewed the challenges, noting General Nicholson’s, Commander US Forces in Afghanistan, assessment that the Afghan?National?Security and Defense Forces (ANDSF) and the Taliban are locked in a “stalemate:” which leads General Nicholson to conclude an increase in international forces in theatre to support the ANDSF is necessary.Mr Hellmich also overviewed Allied and international partners’ force contributions to the mission; to date 39 countries total with 13,450 troops, with Georgia being the fourth largest. He highlighted the importance of continued commitment to Afghanistan, as the last year has seen a serious uptick in violence due to a Taliban resurgence, making it the deadliest year on record since 2009. In view of the Taliban resurgence, Mr Hellmich noted the likelihood of renewed peace negotiations is low. He continued by stating the group now controls around 10% of the population and is contesting the control of approximately 25% of the country’s territory; other insurgent groups, including Daesh, also remain present in the country. The current situation demands strong commitment to the Alliance’s regional counterterrorism efforts; particularly to deny Daesh’s ability to gain a stronghold in the country. Mr Hellmich explained increased level of violence is now combined with the added challenge of nearly half a million Afghan refugees who were forced to repatriate in 2016; two-thirds of whom came from Pakistan. He noted this reflects a downturn in the relationship between Kabul and regional governments and adds to the already dire humanitarian situation in the country; 4.5 million Afghans are currently in need of assistance. He reassured the Alliance is committed to confronting destabilising forces in the country, as laid out in the Warsaw Summit – financial support to Afghanistan is guaranteed through 2020.The Special Rapporteur then overviewed trans-Atlantic commitment to stability in Afghanistan and the role Resolute Support Mission (RSM) plays in supporting ANDSF’s training and combat readiness – from imbedded advisors to equipment investment to ISR enhancement. He emphasised the focus of RSM to address corruption, both in the military and public sector, and increase transparency – he stressed the efforts to cut down on the ANDSF’s ‘ghost soldier’ phenomenon. These are priorities reflected by President Ghani; however, Mr Hellmich explained, infighting among government factions and ethnic and religious tensions hinder government efforts to address this significant issue. He drew attention to the importance of reducing corruption, as Afghanistan needs foreign direct investment, and overviewed Alliance expectations for a return on investment – strong institutions – from the Afghan government, as well as their commitment to the four-year roadmap to enhanced ANDSF and anti-corruption measures. Mr Unal thanked the Special Rapporteur for his work and stressed the importance of international commitment to addressing the challenges in Afghanistan. He also expressed concern at the use of the term “warlord” in the report regarding General Dostrum. There were also a series of comments and questions on the distinction made between terrorist groups and insurgent groups in the report. Mr?Khalid?A.?Pashtoon (AF) also expressed concern the Taliban is not referred to as a terrorist organisation in the report. He also provided specific information on an increase in ISIS in Afghanistan – which he said actually numbers now around 6,000 members in the country; this was noted by Mr Hellmich who said information like this is helpful for the report and he wished for delegations to submit their comments in writing as well. Next, Andreas Loverdos (GR) asked for more clarification on about the distinction in the report between terrorist and insurgent groups. Angelien Eijsink (NL) then requested the final report feature a deeper discussion of President Ghani’s four-year plan and to focus on how this will strengthen the fight against corruption. Mr Hellmich thanked the delegate from Greece for his comments, and noted the difficulty in distinguishing between members of terrorist group, but noted common use of terrorist means. Regarding Ms Eijsink’s question on oversight of funding to Afghanistan from Allies, Mr Hellmich acknowledged the importance that funds provided to the government are used the way they were originally intended, such as for the education sector for example, and noted a desire to examine this more closely in the updated report for the fall. Mr?Olekas and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem pointed to changes in territorial control in the country as important points in the report and requested more information on the actions being taken to improve the stability situation on the ground and for these incidents to be interpreted factually. On the question of territorial control, noted various infrastructural links and roads have been taken back by the government forces, but overall, Afghan forces are still stretched thin. He also noted the importance of regional actors finding forums to engage with the Afghan government to address these problems together. Mr. Knops closed the discussion and said all comments will be taken into consideration by the Rapporteur for the final report in the fall. He then introduced the next speaker. Presentation by Myriam BENRAAD, Lecturer in Peace and Development Studies, M.A. Course Director, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick, Ireland, on The Islamic State: Metamorphoses and Consequences for NATO Member StatesMyriam Benraad, a research fellow, who focuses on the Arab and Muslim World, delivered her presentation. She described the development of ISIS on the ground and discussed how the organisation’s evolution impacts NATO member states. She noted ISIS has proved resilient despite its significant recent setbacks; she noted the persistence of their global reach from the United Kingdom to the Philippines. In the Middle East, the organisation has taken advantage of a security vacuum and worked to advance their radical and highly idealistic, extremist, militant narrative through propaganda and cold and calculated attacks and reprisals. She asked the audience to look beyond the sensational nature of the violence to parse its intent and driving forces. Their communications and rhetoric seek to rationalise and reinforce the use of terrorism and violence – the main objective of the violence being to destroy non-Muslims and spread civil conflict and subsequent chaos – the structure of the group allows it to survive through chaos, thereby giving it an upper hand in an increasingly chaotic world. Ms Benraad explained their militancy is non-traditional, encouraging individual actions. This, she noted demands more attention to counter the spread of their philosophy – the ideology fuels radical actions in Europe – the jihadist discourse has spread throughout popular culture – and is ammunition for their sympathisers.The Speaker also overviewed how ISIS’s use of technology to spread their propaganda poses significant challenges for the Euro-Atlantic community and the world. The use of technology has profound consequences for their militant aspirations, as well as an impact on the use of the internet. The impact of the group’s messaging in Muslim communities in Europe, for example, is widespread, complex, and nuanced, which is a principal reason European intelligence agencies have a challenging time tracking and identifying when and where terrorists will arise and act. All of this requires an innovative approach to studying and understanding the dissemination of propaganda. She concluded by warning ISIS is here to stay as a transnational threat and warned the existing tools to counter this propaganda are inadequate. She also reminded the audience of the transnational and asymmetrical nature of the threat posed by the group; noting that, despite the likelihood of Allied forces retaking Mosul and Raqqa, the group will persist in the region and beyond. Ms Benraad then took questions. Mr Loverdos opened by asking if there is a connection between terrorism and migration. Later, Alexander Krieps (LU) stated it is dangerous to restrict conversations on terrorism to just Islam, and asked about the role of public education in combating radical rhetoric. Olga Zrihen (BE) offered her reflection on Belgium’s effort to create an inclusive society as an important part of providing a counter narrative to jihadist ideology. Ms?Benraad explained the terminology – for example, migrant vs. refugee – here is problematic; for example, the often intertwined and conflated association made between terrorism and Islam empowers groups like ISIS. She said questions of this nature should lead to more rational discussions about our societies and how ISIS might benefit from the migration/refugee crisis not only from a false narrative about the subject, but also the realities that some fighters have found their way into Europe via these refugee flows. She also stressed the deliberate efforts of the group to strain the debate on Muslims, Islam, and Islamic identity in Europe and beyond – she stressed the way in which the group has captured the broader non-Muslim imagination with its violent message and pushed non-Muslims to associate Islam and the Muslim world as a monolithic, violent whole, which is far from the truth. She also suggested, there is not enough attention paid to the religious leaders speaking out against the jihadist message. The impact has been clear by the rise of the issue in European populist narratives. The polarisation of the issue pushes marginalised populations toward sympathy for the group’s narrative and this in turn fosters a sympathy among general populations to the anti-Muslim populist message.Mr Le Bris, Mr Turner, Mr Battista, and Ms Zrihen inquired about the tools and capabilities available to identify and counter radical and jihadist messages perpetuated on TV, in media, and through the deep web while taking into consideration freedom of the press as a cornerstone of democracy. Mr Turner was specifically interested in Ms Benraad’s evaluation of the ability to affect the sources of this propaganda. She explained it will be necessary to re-evaluate the way we approach counter messaging, suggesting stronger efforts to answer Islamist rhetoric with constructive messages for the Muslim community, stronger partnerships with internet giants, and in turn a higher level of responsibility undertaken by social media network providers. Mr Battista also pointed to the issue of radicalisation in prisons, to which Ms Benraad agreed, is a more traditional place for radical conversion where ideology is easily spread among groups vulnerable to sympathising with the radical concept of redemption. Finally, Mr Nahapetyan asked what concrete measures are necessary to ensure ISIS does not develop an independent military industry. Ms Benraad said ISIS’s militant aspirations are dangerous, and cautioned against the detriment of collateral damage – killing civilians – to mitigate or destroy the physical threat. She pointed to the importance of cooperation on local capacity building and attention to longer-term state building projects.The Chair thanked Ms Benraad for her presentation.Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities The Space Domain and Allied Defence [068 DSCFC 17 E] by Madeleine?MOON (United Kingdom), Rapporteur and presented by Gilbert LE BRIS (France)Mr Le Bris presented the draft report in place of Madeleine Moon (UK) who could not be present due to elections in her home country. In his presentation, Mr Le Bris noted the importance of the subject for Allied defence, as the exploitation and militarisation of space is increasing. Spacebased infrastructure enables our modern societies from navigation to communication to financial transactions and beyond. Modern militaries are no less independent from other sectors of society from an increasing dependence on space assets – from situational awareness and precision strikes to force manoeuvre – all are capabilities upon which NATO forces depend.Mr Le Bris also noted space is becoming increasingly congested and dirty – there are 1,100?operational satellites orbiting Earth; with both government and commercial actors engaged it is difficult to distinguish between civilian and military assets, while many satellites are dual-use. In addition, conduct in the space domain is largely unregulated. The absence of a code of conduct, combined with increased number of actors, demands additional attention to the use of the space domain. He then overviewed the principle actors interacting today in space – the United States, Russia, and China, all in possession of anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, and the European Union – and the issues faced due to militarisation of space, primarily space debris and cyber threats. In summary, Mr Le Bris explained increased Alliance dependence on space based access for advanced military capabilities results in a growing vulnerability for Allied forces; Allies today depend on interference-free access to the space. Finally, Mr Le Bris advised the Alliance focus on developing a policy for space operations as well as working to develop an international legal framework for the use of space.Mr Turner thanked the Rapporteur, but presented several areas where he thought some revision was appropriate, a principal concern of his was what he perceived as a mischaracterisation of US space policy. He encouraged more comprehensive attention be paid to the destabilising effects of Chinese and Russian actions in space (i.e.?irresponsible destruction of satellites and the creation of space debris). Rick Larsen (US) recommended the final report expand upon ways to mitigate damage to autonomously controlled satellites and discuss further current initiatives to improve tracking and avoiding space debris. Lord Campbell of Pittenweem asked if it would be possible to highlight the status of the agreement to provide military satellites to NATO after 2019 when the current provision contract will expire. He expressed a desire for more clarity on the issue and a discussion of the steps being taken by the Alliance to secure the necessary agreements to provide the vital service. Mr Le Bris thanked the representatives from the United States for their input and seconded their highlighting the issue of managing space debris. He said all comments and amendments would be considered for the final draft.Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation NATO-EU Cooperation after Warsaw [069?DSCTC 17 E] by Attila?MESTERHAZY (Hungary), Rapporteur and presented by Angelien EIJSINK (Netherlands)Ms Eijsink presented the final report in place of Attila Mesterhazy (HU), who was not able to be at the meeting. She opened the presentation acknowledging the challenges NATO and the EU have experienced in the past, however, noted optimism for the rejuvenated efforts to create real frameworks for cooperation. This is, in part, due to the rapidly evolving international security environment, and as a result, NATO and the EU should revisit their approach for tackling these challenges.She noted the essence of these cooperative efforts are encapsulated in the European Parliament’s contribution in the annex, which she hoped would be incorporated into the final report. Ms Eijsink then reviewed the central areas of NATO-EU cooperation discussed in the report – hybrid threats, cyber security, and counterterrorism – and the major shortcomings. Ms Eijsink pointed to EU and NATO efforts of hybrid threats as a launching point for official cooperation frameworks, and said NATO and the EU could enhance partnership on cyber threats. Finally, she emphasised the importance of each entity delivering effective counterterrorism policies. Currently, NATO-EU counterterrorism focuses on a wide range of issues, with the opportunity to intensify intelligence sharing and data collection capabilities. She concluded the presentation by encouraging NATO and the EU to continue their cooperation efforts in the face of multiple challenges.Eva Kaili (European Parliament) delivered a prepared statement noting the unique engagement of the European Parliament with the NATO-PA in drafting this report. She also reflected on the state of cooperation between NATO and the EU and made multiple suggestions, including a request for broader discussion of the 42 areas of proposed NATO-EU collaboration at the Warsaw Summit. Ms Eijsink said they were impressed by the information provided by the Parliament and agreed it is important to work closely. She asked Ms Kaili to submit her recommendations in writing for consideration.Mr Battista pointed to the centrality of cyber security to the partnership and work of the EU and NATO and asked if this might become more central to strict defence efforts and taken into consideration when evaluating defence expenditures. Mr Loverdos inquired about the state of the Berlin-Plus Agreement, reflecting Ms Kaili’s earlier suggestion that Berlin-Plus should be reinitiated to adapt to the current strategic context in areas in which both the EU and NATO have overlapping interests. On the question of cyber security, Ms Eijsink noted the progress made on cyber defence and security since Nicole Ameline’s 2013 report and said more discussion was needed, especially to consider if cyber would fall under Article 4 or 5. On Berlin-Plus and EU?operations, Ms Eijsink cautioned it better to just talk about specific areas of cooperation with a particular mission and not bring up the argument over Cyprus so that it may be discussed in a constructive manner.Summary of the future activities of the Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities (DSCFC)Mr Le Bris presented the summary of future activities of the DSCFC. He noted the delegation trip to South Korea scheduled for September and explained the trip is highly relevant to the Committee as tensions on the peninsula have intensified. The second DSCFC visit will be to Morocco end of October or beginning of November, where the Sub-Committee will be joined by the Political Committee to discuss NATO Partnerships. He recommended the visits and encouraged members to register.Summary of the future activities of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC)Lord Campbell of Pittenweem overviewed the future activities of the DSCTC, noting the theme for this year is security in the High North and challenges to the South. He provided positive reflections on the recent trip to Kirkenes and Svalbard. Lord Campbell also encouraged those interested to register for the trip to Rome, Italy from 23-24 November 2017, as they will discuss the increasingly complex challenges in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa.Any other businessThe Chairman thanked Mr Le Bris and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for the review of activities. There were no other questions. The Chairman then offered words of appreciation for Mr?Le Bris and Ms Eijsink, as they will not pursue reelection in their home countries, and thus leave the Committee. On behalf of all in the DSC, he stated, both Le Bris and Eijsink very active and appreciated members of the Committee. He complimented Le Bris on his work with the NATO PA since 2002 and noted he is a great person to work with at a personal level. Mr Knops wished him all the best. To Ms Eijsink, he highlighted her passion and high-level engagement during her time with the NATO PA since 2007. He cited her taking the initiative to increase discussion on women in the armed forces in conjunction with UN Security Council Resolution 1325. He said she will be missed.Date and place of the next meetingThe Chair announced the next full meeting of the Defence and Security Committee is set for 5-9 October 2017 in Bucharest, Romania.Closing remarksOn behalf of the entire Committee, Mr Knops thanked all those involved in the Session for their efforts and said he looked forward to seeing everyone in Romania in October. _______________ ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download