NATOSource is proudly sponsored by EADS North America

New Atlanticist
National Interests
- Afghanistan
- Albania
- Armenia
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Bosnia-Herzegovina
- Brazil
- Britain
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Chad
- China
- Congo (DRC)
- Croatia
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Georgia
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kosovo
- Kyrgyzstan
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Libya
- Macedonia
- Malta
- Montenegro
- Morocco
- Netherlands
- North Korea
- Norway
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russia
- Saudi Arabia
- Serbia
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Somalia
- South Africa
- South Korea
- Spain
- Sudan
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Taiwan (ROC)
- Tajikistan
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- U.A.E.
- U.S.
- Ukraine
- Uzbekistan
- Yemen
US Ambassador to NATO: ' European commitments to NATO are too-often lacking'
Jorge Benitez | January 19, 2012From Ivo H. Daalder, U.S. Mission to NATO: [W]hile Europeans don’t spend enough on defense, they also don’t spend efficiently. Europe’s $300 billion annual budget, as former Secretary Gates said, “if allocated wisely and strategically, could buy a significant amount of usable military capability. Instead, the results are significantly less than the sum of the parts.”
Our European Allies support pooling and sharing—in theory. In practice defense cooperation remains far too rare among European states. Pooling and sharing takes a back seat to domestic defense industries, which are used to bolster economies and employment. Long term capabilities and security are sacrificed in the interests of short-term economic gain.
Consider the forty-plus specific proposals made by NATO’s Allied Command Transformation to improve multinational cooperation among the Allies. Projects like armored reconnaissance vehicles or jammers against remotely controlled IED’s. To date the Allies have followed through on only fourteen of these recommendations.
The problem is that Europe is content to depend on the US for core defense capabilities. Last year’s operation in Libya only accentuated the growing capability gap, as the US provided 75 percent of all intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets and flew 75 percent of aerial refueling missions. In addition, we provided the bulk of trained targeteers, and sold precision guided munitions to our Allies after their inadequate stockpiles had rapidly depleted. If the operation had gone on much longer, it would have been increasingly difficult to sustain.
So the problem is clear. But what is the solution? To spend more and spend smarter, we need to know exactly where our money is going.
In this sense, the solution is to create what we might call a NATO Force 2020—a clear picture of NATO in the year 2020, with all the capabilities necessary to confront modern and future threats. By defining and building a NATO Force 2020, we can align NATO’s forces with its new Strategic Concept. That’s the document created at the last Summit in Lisbon to chart NATO’s course over the next decade. The next Summit in Chicago is the chance to make NATO Force 2020 a reality. There we can steer NATO’s evolution over the next eight years, making the Strategic Concept more than a vision. At the core of NATO Force 2020 should stand the NATO Response Force, ready and able to meet future challenges. Even as countries spend less on defense, the NRF can be an agent for focused transformation. A capable NRF will shift the burden of security from any one Ally to the collective as a whole, ensuring NATO responds quickly and effectively if and when needed.
But this capability can only be obtained with commitments to common efforts in other areas. Let me mention three. First, a commitment to NATO intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. . . . Second, realistic training and exercises should be an integral part of NATO Force 2020. . . . Third, role specialization is another important way forward for a resource-constrained Alliance. . . .
I’ve explained today why NATO must reform. I’ve submitted that we expect more from our European Allies. And I’ve suggested some goals for NATO’s evolution and for European investment. But as President Obama said, the underlying truth that led to NATO’s creation over sixty years ago remains relevant today. In a dangerous world, Europe and America are safer together – and so is the rest of the world.
Excerpts from Remarks to U.S. Army Europe Senior Leader’s Forum by U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo H. Daalder, "Europe's Strategic Importance to America Security." (photo: U.S. State Department)
NATOSource

The daily news of the world's most powerful alliance.
The views expressed in NATOSource are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
Follow on Twitter: @NATOSource
"I am an enormous fan of NATOSource. I use it virtually every day, because it provides a wide variety of views, a solid base of factual knowledge, and keeps me in touch with the world of NATO."
Admiral James Stavridis, (Ret,), former SACEUR

(Graphics: Deutsche Welle and Reuters)
Key Issues
- Alliance Unity
- Allied Command Operations
- Allied Command Transformation
- Article 5
- Burden Sharing
- Capabilities Gap
- Chicago Summit
- Congress
- CSTO
- Cyber Threats
- Defense Spending
- Energy Security
- EU
- High North
- Intelligence
- ISAF
- Missile Defense
- NATO Defense Ministerials
- NATO Exercises
- NATO Ministerials
- NATO Operations
- NATO Partnerships
- NATO Response Force
- Nuclear Weapons
- OSCE
- Piracy
- R2P
- SACEUR
- SACT
- Secretary General
- Smart Defense
- Special Forces
- Strategic Concept
- Terrorism
- Transatlantic Relations
- United Nations
- Weapon Systems
TransAtlantic Links
Media Links
- Associated Press
- Baltic Times
- Brussels blog
- Deutsche Welle
- Economist
- EU Observer
- European Voice
- Financial Times
- Guardian
- Hurriyet Daily News
- International Herald Tribune
- Kathimerini
- Kyiv Post
- Le Monde Diplomatique
- Moscow Times
- New York Times
- Newsweek
- Prague Daily Monitor
- Radio Free Europe
- Reuters
- Ria Novosti
- Russia Today
- Slovak Spectator
- Spiegel
- St. Petersburg Times
- Sur
- Telegraph
- Times (London)
- Today's Zaman
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Xinhua
Research Centers
- American Enterprise Institute (AEI), United States
- Aspen Institute, United States
- Atlantic Council, United States
- Brookings Institution, United States
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, United States
- Cato Institute, United States
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS), United States
- Center for International Relations (CIR), Poland
- Center for Security Studies (CSS), Switzerland
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), United States
- Center for Transatlantic Relations, United States
- Cicero Foundation, Netherlands
- Council on Foreign Relations, United States
- Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), Denmark
- EU Institute for Security Studies, France
- European Council on Foreign Relations, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Spain, UK
- European Institute, United States
- Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique (FRS), France
- French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), France
- Fundacion para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociale (FAES), Spain
- German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Germany
- German Marshall Fund of the United States, United States
- Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos (GEES), Spain
- Heritage Foundation, United States
- Hoover Institution, United States
- Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques (IRIS), France
- Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), United States
- Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Germany
- Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), Italy
- International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), United Kingdom
- Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Germany
- Lemnitzer Center, United States
- Marshall Center, Germany
- Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Netherlands
- Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway
- RAND, United States
- Real Instituto Elcano, Spain
- Ridgway Center, United States
- Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), United Kingdom
- Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), United Kingdom
- Schuman Center (RSCAS), Italy
- Security & Defence Agenda (SDA), Belgium
- Strategy International (SI), Greece
- U.S. Institute of Peace, United States
- Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, United States

