Though
smart defense might not be controversial as a concept, its implementation
raises issues of state sovereignty. Since military capabilities will have to be
pooled for example, one air force squadron will be responsible for defending
the airspace of multiple member states. Some members might not be comfortable
with this idea. Yet, smart defense is a concept that merits support and the
reluctant member states should view it as a vehicle for greater peace and
security while keeping the cost low.
Smart
defense does not entail the imposition of the will of one member state over
another. Smart defense should be seen as an instrument which member states can
utilize to fit their specific needs. Thus, member states would be able to
communicate clearly and act independently with other neighboring member states
in concluding their agreements in areas such as that of airspace patrol or
setting up a common cyber defense system.
Another
benefit which smart defense is that by cooperating, member states would devote
less money for their defense than it would have been required if they had to
set up their own defense systems. One current example of how smart defense
works in action is the c-17 Strategic Airlift Consortium of member states that
have acquired a few transport airplanes to transport soldiers and supplies. The
consortium has been successful in reducing the cost of transport for the member
states while providing the requisite service. In addition, another example of
smart defense is the cooperation of Baltic States to patrol their collective
airspace while sharing the use of fighter jets.
By
definition, a regional institution would have to be given powers in order to be
effective in the pursuit of its objectives. The loss of state sovereignty is an
unavoidable byproduct of close cooperation. However, smart defense is an idea
that is worth pursuing because it is the best way for the alliance members to
avoid making their economic problems a security crisis. I would propose the
Secretary General appoint a fact finding committee that would identify the
security needs of the Alliance in consultation with local officials and make
proposals for the achievement of these needs at the lowest cost to the member
states. The framework document will be introduced at the Chicago Summit and the
member states will be asked to consider it and offer any amendments to it. The
framework document will be able to ease any fears regarding the potential loss
of national sovereignty.
At this
stage of the smart defense promulgation, all that can be done by the Secretary
General is to convince the member states, mainly in Europe, to pool their
resources and share their expertise with neighboring member states in order to
maintain the same high level of peace and security while spending less.
However, the mechanisms required to have an effective and efficient cooperation
would be up to the member states to decide and codify. Yet, the only mechanism
which the Secretary General can insist upon and endeavor to instill is that of
trust.
Close
cooperation and sharing of national military resources result in apprehension
of national sovereignty. However, trust between the cooperating member states
can remedy this fear. As said above, smart defense will inevitably limit
national sovereignty. What the member states should be reminded of and
encouraged to avoid is the alternative scenario. That is the case of increased
instability and insecurity. Namely, NATO failing to carry out its mandate and
become irrelevant. This dilemma will certainly render smart defense the only
viable solution available.
