NATO’s mission must creep back

Date: 16/03/06

NATO is suffering from a bad case of mission creep - the process by which a mission or project gradually expands its activities and goals over time, and not for the better.

From peacekeeping to energy, from a military alliance to a political arena, it is creeping far and wide into new and unclear territory, for unclear reasons.

"Mission creep" was apparently first used in the international arena about the ill-fated UN peacekeeping mission to Somalia in 1993, and has since become the bogeyman of all international deployments. (Inevitably, the least popular person in a mission also comes to be known as the mission creep, but that's another matter.)

In 1996, when NATO deployed for the first time in its history, sending 60,000 troops into Bosnia as part of the Dayton Agreement, fear of mission creep was practically obsessive. On a nearly daily basis the mission informed itself and the people of Bosnia that it was to keep strictly to its tasks of patrolling a ceasefire and its timing of one year. Ultimately this made the mission far less useful than it should or could have been, since Bosnia was in a state of post-war flux that demanded far greater flexibility and creativity. Most especially, in the first post-war elections in October 1996, NATO could have played a far greater role in providing security in the Serb territories (the part of Bosnia designated the Republika Serpska) - and thus allowed more moderate forces to emerge. Instead, the patrols stuck to their routes and kept well away from politicians, whilst the constant refrain of staying but one year meant that any potential opposition politician or voter was too scared to emerge, fearing retribution once NATO left.

NATO ultimately stayed in Bosnia for nine years, being replaced by the EU in December 2004; and over the years its tasks mutated into a variety of more civilian areas: a classic but understandable case of mission creep. However, this affliction seems to have now affected the entire organisation, with NATO declaring itself interested and possibly involved in ever more issues - the latest being energy.

There is no doubt that following the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine early in the year, energy security has risen to become an extremely important issue, which attracts major headlines. And while energy security mostly deals with actually securing the sources of energy, there is also no doubt that the security of infrastructure - pipelines, ports, refineries, depots and other physical locales - is of major importance. That, however, is not necessarily a reason to involve the military alliance in the matter - to the extent of a NATO Forum on Energy Security - especially when in Europe energy is clearly an issue within the province of the EU.

For some years the EU has been dealing with security of energy infrastructure, co-ordinating between national governments on the matter. As in all matters related to the EU, it could be argued that the co-ordination could be improved - but it does exist, and to date functions well.

Indeed, since the Russia-Ukraine crisis of January this year the EU has intensified its efforts in the energy field - not only by producing a new energy plan, but also by creating an energy cell in DG RELEX and, for a change, attempting a degree of co-ordination between the Commission and the Council.

At base therefore, the EU seems to have taken the matter in hand - which is not surprising: if there was ever an issue to fall clearly within the province of a common security policy, it must be energy. This being the case, and for the sake of coherence, it is not desirable that NATO enter into the energy sphere.

Most European militaries have already become somewhat distorted as a result of being pulled in opposite directions by NATO and the EU - both of which demand to be a priority at the expense of the other. Having conflicting plans on energy security from the two would be unwanted - and totally unnecessary. Keeping this in mind, NATO may be better advised to hold a forum on its mission creep; it seems to be a truly pressing matter.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Author takes a look at the way NATO's military missions have evolved over time and the organisation's attempts to take on issues relating to energy security.

• Primary Source