NPA, Alm.del - 2013-14 - Bilag 5: Undersøgelse af NATO PA udført i 2014

ContentsExecutive Summary ........................................................... 1Articulate a Clear Mission ........................................................................................1Justify Defence Spending ........................................................................................ 2NATO will remain relevant after 2014 ................................................................... 2Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 3

Main Findings ...................................................................4Interviewee Profile ........................................................................................................ 4Communication with delegates .................................................................................... 4NATO should improve its communication efforts with non-Americans.............. 4Improvements in NATO’s communication strategy have been suggested bythe interviewees ....................................................................................................... 5NATO’s communication efforts in the delegates’ country are somewhateffective but could be further improved ................................................................. 6Only few understand what NATO actually does .................................................... 7Suggestions for improving public awareness of NATO’s role and duties.............8Suggestions for improving NATO’s communication strategy towards thegeneral public........................................................................................................... 9Defence Spending ....................................................................................................... 10The general public is sceptical about spending money on defence .................... 10The economic crisis is, according to the delegates, one of the main reasonsfor not reaching the contribution level of 2% of the GDP .................................... 11NATO must convince Non-American member countries to invest in defence .. 13NATO Post 2014.......................................................................................................... 14NATO has the capabilities to remain relevant ..................................................... 14The end of ISAF: How will it affect NATO? ..........................................................15Both non-American and American delegates interviewed agree that NATOwill remain relevant post 2014.............................................................................. 16NATO’s priority should be to focus on developing its capabilities ......................17

Executive SummaryAs a follow up study to the “Quantitative research among members of the NPA at theGeneral Assembly in Dubrovnik”, NATO has commissioned PwC to carry out aqualitative assessment that evaluates the perceptions of 18 parliamentarians(hereafter “delegates”) of the NATO Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum inWashington, D.C. The results have been presented in two categories: non-Americans(who accounted for 14 interviews) and Americans (who accounted for 4 interviews).The objective of this study is to obtain an extensive picture of the delegate’s attitudesas well as to complement and complete the findings which have emerged from theDubrovnik study. In fact, this research aims at ascertaining the:Effectiveness of NATO’s communication with delegates and the general public;Measures NATO should take to enhance its communication strategy;Attitudes of delegates regarding defence spending;Perceptions of NATO’s relevance post 2014.

Articulate a Clear MissionAsked what NATO should do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties onthe global stage, particularly at a national level, delegates suggested projecting aclearer and more targeted message as well as making use of local militaries toenhance communication.When asked to what extent the general public understands what NATO does, only asmall minority of non-American delegates reported that the general public in theircountries has a basic understanding of the Alliance and its missions. The remainingnon-Americans as well as all the American delegates mentioned that the citizens oftheir countries do not understand NATO. According to the delegates interviewed, inorder to improve its communication strategy, NATO should use the media moreeffectively, target young audiences, enhance its website, increase transparency andconnect with local militaries to disseminate messages.Some of these suggestions emerged previously in the Dubrovnik study in whichparliamentarians suggested NATO should make use of the media to articulate itsmission and objectives as well as to highlight its achievements in order to raiseawareness. The previous study also highlighted a lack in understanding about whatNATO does, which has been confirmed in this study. Delegates, in fact, suggested inthat first study that NATO should invest more in communication specifically throughthe use of media, educational programs, youth outreach, social media and localambassadors. Most of these points, such as the use of general and social media aswell as youth outreach, also emerged in this study and, thus, appear to be ofparticular interest to the delegates.

Justify Defence SpendingBoth non-Americans and Americans are sceptical about spending money on defence.The economic crisis has been identified as one of the reasons behind hostility towarddefence spending. When asked to describe the general mood in their countriesregarding this issue, delegates said citizens believe the faltering economy is one ofthe reasons member countries do not contribute more. The lack of a perceived threat,the lack of political will and other more pressing fiscal priorities are also behind thereluctance of non-American member countries to increase their burden share. All ofthe Americans interviewed said financial constraints are the source of mostcountries’ failure to contribute 2% GDP towards defence. In order to rectify thesituation, delegates suggest NATO must convince people through its words andactions that the cost is justified.These results confirm the findings of the Dubrovnik study where the reason cited forlow contributions was the economic crisis and the resulting budget reductions whichleave fewer funds for defence. Other reasons given by the parliamentarians in thatstudy were the lack of political will, a heavy reliance on the US for protection andnegative public opinion toward defence spending. The current study confirms thesefindings. In order to increase the willingness of countries to invest more in defence,delegates in the previous study suggested NATO should use the media to inform thepublic about the benefits the Alliance offers. This view has been echoed by the viewsof the delegates in the current study who report that NATO should present a clearerargument in order to convince countries to invest more in defence.

NATO will remain relevant after 2014Both non-American and American delegates think that, while NATO has thecapabilities to remain relevant, it will have to make adjustments. Interoperability,deployability and deterrence were listed as areas that should be enhanced in thefuture. While non-Americans are somewhat cautious in their conviction that theAlliance will remain relevant after 2014, Americans feel very strongly that NATO willplay an important role going forward. Reasons given for this include the persistenceof international terrorism, cyber issues and the on-going need for global security.Concerning the end of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), non-Americans are mixed in their outlooks. Some feel that with no clear mission, publicsupport for NATO will wane. Others see this as an opportunity for the Alliance toreturn to its original mission of pursuing national security. Still others think this willgive the Alliance space to engage in civil diplomacy and humanitarian efforts. TheAmerican delegates are unanimously supportive of the ISAF mission, declaring itgreatly beneficial. The Alliance’s priorities for the future, they say, should be to holdon to the ground they have gained, both politically and in terms of internalcapabilities, through ISAF. In that way, the mission will have been a success.In the previous study, delegates considered the end of ISAF to be a positive changefor NATO—although most feel NATO should maintain its presence in Afghanistan inorder to facilitate a smoother transition and support the country beyond 2014.Although, the previous study suggested that the end of ISAF will allow NATO to “restand recuperate”, member parliamentarians believed combating terrorism should bethe main priority for the Alliance in the future. Cyber security (in conjunction withmilitary operations) is also perceived as a key strategic priority. While these pointswere also mentioned in this study, the highest priorities for the future, according tothe delegates in Washington D.C., are developing specific capabilities, strengtheningrelationships and cooperating with other partners.

ConclusionsBoth studies conducted among members of the NATO Parliamentary Assemblyraised important points:There is a lack of understanding regarding what NATO does: the generalpublic needs to know more about the role of NATO in order to appreciate itsvalue;A more efficient use of the media is needed: both General Media and SocialMedia should be employed as essential communication tools to raiseawareness among the general public;NATO needs to build personal relationships with the delegates and establisha closer proximity to the “real people” through local representatives incountries.In conclusion, both studies suggest strong efforts need to be made in terms ofcommunication. In particular, this study found that a clear and targeted messageshould be communicated in order to reach a broader audience and further increaseawareness. Explaining the role, activities and benefits of the Alliance would behelpful to convince the public of its usefulness and could increase the willingness ofcertain member countries to invest more. NATO continues to be vital to ensuring thecollective defence and will continue to be relevant post 2014, especially if it developsspecific capabilities. NATO should translate the experience acquired in Afghanistanwith ISAF into future missions.

Main FindingsInterviewee ProfilePwC interviewed 18 parliamentarians (delegates), 14 were Non-American and 4 wereAmerican1. The sample was composed of individuals representing various politicalparties: there were 6 Conservatives, 1 member of the Alliance of Liberals andDemocrats, 1 Socialist, 1 member of the Freedom and Democracy Party and 5 non-Americans from unidentified political parties. Three of the Americans interviewedidentify with the Democratic Party, while one did not state his party allegiance.Because only two of the delegates interviewed were women, there is an underrepresentation of women in the sample.The following countries were represented: the US, The Netherlands, France,Denmark, Germany, the UK, Greece, Canada, Croatia, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania andEstonia.For a complete listing of the interviewee demographics, see appendix 1.

Communication with delegatesNATO should improve its communication effortswith non-Americans.Satisfaction of non-American delegates with NATO’s communicationefforts is quite low, especially when it comes to the transparency ofinformation provided.More than 40% of those surveyed (6/14) said they are satisfied with NATO’sfrequencyof communication toward them. While three said they are “somewhatsatisfied”, five reported being “dissatisfied” with the frequency of the Alliance’scommunication. Those who are dissatisfied said they almost never receiveinformation from NATO.In terms ofquality,just under 30% of the delegates interviewed (4/14) said theyconsider NATO’s communication efforts to be of high-quality. An equal number saidthe quality of communication could afford to be improved, two said they considerNATO’s communication to be of low-quality, and four did not comment. Reasons forthe criticisms were the impression that NATO “always focuses on the big topics, likeISAF”, “the Alliance needs to be more relevant for today—e.g. explain why NATO stillmatters” and “people only know about NATO because of military operations andinvasions.”Impressions concerning thescopeof NATO’s communication are mixed. Half of thedelegates (7/14) are at least somewhat satisfied with the scope of information theyreceive. Three said they are “not very satisfied”, one said he is “not at all satisfied”,and three did not register an opinion. The basic criticism offered by those who aredissatisfied with the scope of communication is NATO’s overarching focus on issueslike Afghanistan and other missions. These individuals suggested NATO shouldbroaden its message.Concerning thetransparencyof NATO’s communication efforts, delegates weremore critical. Only one reported being “very satisfied”, while three said they are“somewhat satisfied”. Four of the delegates are “not very satisfied”, three are “not at1

all satisfied”, and three declined to comment. Those who are satisfied with NATO’stransparency arereallysatisfied: “Very, very, very good reports—good flow, goodquality, good information,” reported one delegate. Others offered a more critical viewsaying they are unsure where and how NATO formulates decisions, they want to hearmore “real stories” and they feel there is little or no transparency.All of the American delegates interviewed are satisfied with NATO’scommunication efforts.The four Americans interviewed said they are unanimously pleased with thefrequency, quality, scope and transparency of information they receive from NATO.Each answered all four questions with the same response: one said NATO’s efforts inthese areas are “excellent”, one said he is “very satisfied”, one said the Alliance does“a good job”, and one said, “I get what I need.”

Improvements in NATO’s communication strategyhave been suggested by the delegates.While non-Americans provided suggestions to improve NATO’scommunication with them…Several themes emerged concerning suggestions for improving NATO’scommunication strategy:Build personal relationshipsTwo of the delegates interviewed specifically mentioned building “personalrelationships” as a means for improving NATO’s communication strategy—othersalluded to this notion, but used different language to express their ideas. “NATOshould not be an ‘ivory tower’,” said one delegate. Another added, “With so muchcontent in the mail and email, the most effective [means of communication] is one-to-one relationships.”Use Social MediaTwo delegates specifically recommended the use of social media as a means ofenhancing communication efforts. “NATO should use all available tools,” said onedelegate, who was satisfied with communication. “They have done well at beingvisible with social media.” Another added, “Using social media more is good.Following [NATO] on Twitter and good links—this might be a good feature to have.”Use the General MediaTwo delegates mentioned specific initiatives NATO could take to leverage on themedia. “NATO should have public campaigns to explain their purpose and buildawareness through media relations,” said one. The other made suggestionsconcerning content: “Provide more context. Don't only talk about the Alliance, buttalk about events around the world. Find a way through the media—we wantknowledgeable and authentic communication.”Connect with Members of ParliamentTwo delegates took issue with the flow of NATO’s communication, suggesting thatdirect contact with MPs will improve things. “There is no easy way of doing it. Theyhave to identify MPs and develop relationships with them,” said one delegate.Another expanded on this idea, “Communication should go to the MP, not theSecretary of NATO’s association.”

… most of the Americans interviewed said NATO does not need toimprove its communication efforts with them.All of the Americans interviewed are satisfied with NATO’s communication effortsand three of them have no suggestions for improving it. One delegate, however,offered this insight: “NATO should help us to better understand what the purpose oftheir engagements is. Also, they could improve the transition between members ofthe Delegation.”

NATO’s communication efforts in the delegates’countries are somewhat effective, but could befurther improved.Half of non-Americans say NATO’s communication efforts are noteffective and the Alliance should improve its communication to thegeneral public in terms of frequency and definition of its role.When asked to comment on how effective NATO’s communication efforts are in theircountries, half of the delegates said “not very effective.” Two consider NATO’scommunication to be “effective”, three said it is “not at all effective”, and oneremained neutral.The primary criticism is that the general public does not receive communicationsfrom NATO. Next is the perceived lack of a defined role. The following commentsencapsulate the spirit of opinions offered by delegates:“NATO needs to reach more young people (schools, universities and othergroups) to clear up what are NATO's missions for the 21stCentury.”“NATO has lost trust with people. They need to hold events to engage thepeople. It’s essential to reach these groups in East Germany.”“It’s not good. 50% of the population doesn't know what NATO does –99%don't know what the NPA does. It's a relic from the Cold War. The ‘strategicconcept’ hasn't been well communicated.”“They are doing the best that they can. The public is just not interested inNATO. NGOs are the best way to convey messages. Peers are better thanmilitary officers.”“It’s quite effective, but the Secretary General is Danish, which means thatthe Danes are paying more attention. Denmark is also making a significantcontribution to ISAF, which gets attention.”

Although half of the American delegates interviewed are satisfied withNATO’s communication to the general public in the US, NATO shouldconsider increasing its visibility and communication effectiveness.While two of the American delegates interviewed said NATO’s communicationefforts in the US are “fine”, the other two offered suggestions for improvement:“NATO needs to be more visible with people other than immediatestakeholders. Members of Defence & Foreign Affairs committees understandthe importance of NATO, but not every Congressman or Senator does.”“They could be more effective with Key Leader Engagements, Congressmanand other congressional committees (that are relevant, ForeignAffairs/Defence etc.).”6

Only few understand what NATO actually doesOnly a minority of non-Americans understand what NATO does.When asked to what extent people in delegates’ countries understand what NATOdoes, responses were evenly mixed. About 20% of the respondents (3/14) said thatpeople in their country had at least a basic understanding of the Alliance and itsmission—two were effusive in their praise. This is the case among Eastern EuropeanStates as these countries still consider Russia to be a risk and citizens have memoriesof the Soviet occupation. On the other hand, the remaining 80% (11/14) said that thepeople in their countries do not understand NATO—four insisted that people actuallyhave no idea what the Alliance does.Those who responded positively to the question offered the following insights:“People understand what NATO does. The referendum in Spain was recentso the new generation is clear on why we joined NATO—the referendum hadthe effect of educating the Spanish about NATO's activities.”“They understand the threat of Russia, which has exercises to attack NATO.The communication is working and Estonians know that they are beingheard. Estonia's priority is Article Five.”“Six out of 10 will say that NATO is a collective defence organization.”

The remainder suggested the general lack of understanding can be attributed to theimpression that the Alliance is a Cold War relic, assumptions that NATO is solely amilitary entity and limited knowledge.“People understand NATO's role during the Cold War and its ties to theWest. But the East Germans need to understand why NATO is important tothem.”“Perceptions of NATO areold!NATO doesn't explain what it does now (otherthan Afghanistan).”“Not many understand—especially young people. They understand NATOonly as a military or political organization, but not about [its involvement in]natural disasters, floods and emergency response.”“They understand more of the fundamental philosophy behind NATO andinternational security, but they don't understand the military alliance’simportance and why they have to pay the price—that they can't take securityfor granted.”“Greeks believe NATO interferes with countries. They do not understandNATO beyond that.”“Croats understand NATO through tanks, bombs and missions. They do nothear about civil missions or other initiatives.”“They understand that NATO will protect them from Russia. Outside of that,there are no threats.”

Suggestions for improving public awareness ofNATO’s role and dutiesAccording to non-Americans, NATO should have a more precise messageand intermediary to be used in its communication.Asked what NATO should do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties onthe global stage, particularly on a national level, delegates suggested:Projecting a clearer and more targeted message“Try to have a clear concept of what kind of security they are providing:What global role does instability play and what would the consequences befor the work without NATO? Why is it important today? Who is the enemy?Once they had the USSR on the rise, but now what? How does it look today?Will the alliance be able to deal with major conflicts around the world?NATO is a ‘stronger alliance’ than ‘a coalition of the willing.’”“Go to the younger people and open discussions. Explain why it's stillrelevant.”“Make a bigger effort to communicate in the traditional media. Answer thequestion, ‘What does NATO stand for?’ NATO relies too much on its existingsupporters without looking for new ones.”“Establish a program for youth in schools. The youth in Lithuaniaunderstands what the EU is, but not what NATO is.”“Countries need to see that doors are open and to know what they must do toenter. NATO membership must be available to the Middle East and Africa.Libya was not a great example in terms of unity. NATO needs to bettercoordinate its strategy.”

Making use of local militaries to enhance its communication“NATO should collaborate with the Greek military and politicians to enhancepublic awareness on a national level.”“NATO should speak through the Spanish military forces, which is highlyregarded by the population. Don't send messages via politicians who areloathed!”“Try to use spokespersons in those countries, people who are local and willadvocate on NATO's behalf. This is better than the use of social media—military officials engaging the public.”

Americans also believe NATO should improve its communication andoutreach.The four Americans pointed to improved communication and broader outreach asmeasures the Alliance could take to enhance public awareness of its role and dutieson the global stage.“Better communication, including more outreach and stories in the media,and news that reports the progress of the Alliance through stories.”“More outreach on the part of national stakeholders.”“NATO should have more public outreach to institutions like universities.Perhaps host a speaker series of NATO officials at schools with internationalrelations programs.”

Suggestions for improving NATO’s communicationstrategy towards the general publicNon-Americans say NATO should focus on five key areas to increasepublic awareness.Suggestions for improving communication towards the general public focused on fiveareas:Making use of traditional media“Use the [traditional] media more; be more direct and precise incommunications.”“More coverage in the traditional media; more energy creating own storiesbeyond the regular news channels; become more open; emphasize thepolitical alliance and its core values.”

Defence SpendingThe general public is sceptical about spendingmoney on defenceMost non-Americans are wary of defence spending due to the downeconomy.When asked to describe the general mood in their countries toward defencespending, delegates offered four basic assessments, the most common related to thescepticism resulting from the economic crisis.General attitudes toward defence spending listed according to thefrequency with which they were mentionedGeneral mood in the country towards defencespendingPeople are opposed to defence spending due to budgetconstraints.4People are uninformed about the issue.2People remain neutral on the issue.2People are supportive of defence spending.Answers do not add up to 14 as some respondents have given multiple answers.Examples of statements made by the interviewees include:Budget constraints“People are generally sceptical of defence spending. This may be becausethey don't understand the importance of defence/security—the currenteconomic climate affects this. People don't understand why you would spendmoney on defence when you are cutting social programs. The public is verysceptical about the aircraft purchases to replace the F-16.”“There’s a general disquiet when defence cuts are announced, but when[fiscal] waste is uncovered at the Ministry of Defence, there is a lot ofresentment about those kind of ‘domestic mistakes’.”“The Cold War is over and they’re always asking for more money that wedon’t have—they have to be more accountable, more responsible [stopmaking] false investments and wasteful spending.”No. ofiterations9

Lack of understanding“The transatlantic link is the most important, and it’s under threat becauseof defence cuts. People don't understand globalised threat—they only want tobe part of things that impact their own nation.”“There is a mixture of thinking in Western Europe—talk about social securityissues vs. hard security. People don’t understand why we are inAfghanistan—countries closer to Russia think about this differently. TheEconomic crisis also affects their ability to pay.”

The Americans interviewed say the US public does not support defencespending due to lack of understanding and an obvious threat.All of the Americans interviewed indicated that the mood in the US towards defencespending is not favourable. However, it’s worth noting that at least three of thesedelegates are Democrats.“It’s an uphill battle. Most people only see big dollar signs and not the valueor what spending means to them and our allies.”“It’s difficult. Most Americans don't understand the need for defencespending since there’s no immediate threat. 2001 was a long time ago in theminds of many Americans.”“It’s terrible. People have forgotten the point of defence spending. Iraq andAfghanistan [soured] people on the need for defence spending.”“The mood is very poor. The public doesn’t understand the need. They ask,where does the money go? They understand the budget cuts, but not theeffect of those cuts.”

The economic crisis is, according to the delegates,one of the main reasons for not reaching thecontribution level of 2% of the GDPFor non-Americans, the economic crisis exacerbates issues of diversepriorities and threat perception.The issue of financing NATO is a complicated one. There are four main reasons whymember countries don’t contribute 2% of their GDP to defence, according to the non-American delegates interviewed. While the economic crisis is frequently cited as anexplanation for lack of contributions, we must look beyond a mere financial shortfallto understand the issue more clearly. The stress created by limited resources onlyhighlights member countries’ priorities.Reasons member countries do not contribute 2% of their GDP listedaccording to the frequency with which they were mentionedNo. ofiterations4433Main reasons for member countries do not contribute2% of their GDPLack of perceived threatDistribution of fundsThe economic crisisLack of political will

Distribution of funds“The burden sharing system in NATO is wrong. [NATO] should use a systemcloser to the UN burden sharing system. For example, operational costsshould be divided equally.”“It is different from country to country. The social cost in Denmark is notreflected in the defence budget (Veteran Care). Contribution to security isnot the only contribution that affects security abroad. Humanitarianspending is part of it. If we spend more on humanitarian affairs then we canspend less on defence.”

The economic crisis“It is unpopular to give more money during the economic crisis. There is areason not to give, so politicians want to be sensitive—they are concernedthat they might be voted out if they give away money.”“In the economic crises, budget cuts, salaries, pensions and healthcare arepriorities. Military is a luxury.”“Our economy dropped 17-18% last year. This is drastic. Unfortunately, it ishard to determine where the money should be sent.”

Lack of political will“The countries don’t uniformly hold defence spending at the same level. Whyshould it be higher? NATO hasn't sufficiently explained why it needs more.”“There is no political will. The purpose of having the Army, Air Force andNavy becomes pointless—there is no rationale.”“There is too much reliance on ‘other nations’ to step up and fulfil theirobligations. Politicians blame public opinion, but it's a convenient excuse.There is a lot of resentment of other NATO nations.”

Americans point to fiscal limitations for the lack of adequate defencespending.All of the Americans interviewed said financial constraints are the source of mostcountries’ failure to contribute 2% of GDP towards defence.“Each nation has its own fiscal priorities.”“They are facing the same fiscal crises that are faced by the United States.”“The US carries the burden. The non-2% countries may have to step-upbecause [the US] is stepping back due to domestic politics.”

NATO must convince Non-American membercountries to invest in defenceNon-American countries think NATO should present a clearer argumentin favour of defence investing.More than half of the delegates (8/14) interviewed said that in order to persuademember countries to contribute 2% of their GDP, the Alliance has to articulate amore compelling message. Three delegates took this a step further suggesting NATOshould convince member countries to contribute through its actions—if thesegovernments see a visible benefit, they will be more likely to support funding.Finally, one delegate said the Alliance is “too nice” to nations who don’t contributetheir burden share. In his opinion, NATO should be a bit more forceful. Twodelegates did not offer comments on this issue.Convince countries to invest by presenting a clearer argumentFive delegates mentioned persuasion as a means of garnering financial support forNATO’s missions.“NATO could increase willingness to invest more by explaining the purposeand benefits of the Alliance.”“NATO faces the challenges as to why it exists: What if Iran cooperates?What is NATO doing to protect us? What can NATO do aside from fightingwars? We need success stories (focus more on Afghanistan).”“This requires good politics after 2014. They have to convince us why it’s stillimportant to fund those missions, convince the public that it’s worth it.”

Show countries why investment mattersThree delegates suggest the Alliance demonstrate the benefit of investment throughits actions.“This is done through procurement—how do you get more bang for thebuck? Focus on interoperability.”“They could do more of what they already do: smart defence, pooling,facilitating more multi-national cooperation, training, exercises and jointmulti-national units. Invest in relevant projects over the improvements ofthe security alliance.”“More equal burden sharing across all NATO operations. Nations aren'twilling to support an NATO Response Force because of the increasedassociated commitments if they're called into action.”

Americans are unsure about how NATO could increase membercountries’ willingness to invest more in defence.American delegates are aware that the US carries an unbalanced share of thefinancial burden for supporting NATO, but are unsure about how to motivate othercountries to step up and do their part.One delegate suggested that if the Alliance articulates “a better value proposition”,member countries may be incited to give. Another surmised, “The US has beenthreatening to reduce our spending in Europe and on NATO, but we can’t do that andthen expect to set an example and still want European nations to contribute todefence.”

NATO Post 2014NATO has the capabilities to remain relevantNon-American delegates think that, while NATO has the capabilities toremain relevant, it will have to make adjustments in the future.NATO should keep pace with the changing world.The majority of the delegates (10/14) said NATO has strong capabilities to goforward.“NATO was initially created to deal with issues other than what we are nowfacing,” said one delegate. “Are issues likepiracy, energyand others to bediscussed in NATO? Perhaps we need to reconsider.”

Opinions of the remaining non-American delegates are mixed: two of the delegatessaid that NATO currently has the necessary capabilities to remain relevant in thefuture while other two believe the opposite.The notion that NATO has “great potential” and is becoming more relevant is sharedby at least four of the delegates interviewed.“After the Cold War, after the Balkans, after ISAF, we still need anorganization to bring in military alliance,” said one delegate, adding, “Theyhave a role in developing countries.”

Other nations mentioned by delegates were China and Iran—these were mentionedas countries that will “test NATO’s non-combat capabilities.”That said, most agree that “a lot of work remains to be done.” Acomplete reviewof Alliance capabilities was suggested: “Especially in Europe, NATO needs to conducta capabilities review to determine the differences between what theyhaveand whatthey can actuallyuse.”Finally, one delegate suggested that, “NATO would be morerelevant if EU countries couldfulfil some of the US capabilitiesin order toensure complete interoperability.”American delegates put forward three areas NATO should focus on.Three facilities were put forth by the American delegates as areas NATO should focuson in order to maintain relevant capabilities in the future:Interoperability:Coordination between NATO nations, as seen withISAF;Deployability:NATO members must develop more flexible and easilydeployable capabilities;Deterrence:NATO needs to remain committed to deterrence and security.

The end of ISAF: How will it affect NATO?Non-American delegates have mixed feelings with regards to the end ofthe ISAF mission.While some delegates are critical, most feel engagement in ISAF has actuallyimproved NATO in terms of strength, communications and interoperability betweencontributing nations. The end of ISAF is perceived by delegates in four ways:With no clear mission, public support will wane“Once ISAF has wound down, what will be the point of NATO? There’s nosense of urgency, and people will say, ‘we shouldn’t have to pay money sincethere’s no operation.’”“What does NATO do now? Is it always useful? Where’s the evidence?”“It will affect NATO because we have a huge, common, on-the-groundmission. NATO will need to find a joint project to maintain the experience inAfghanistan.”“When NATO no longer has Afghanistan to justify itself, people won’tunderstand why it was there. How do we continue to stay involved there?”

Disengaging from Afghanistan will allow NATO to build relationshipswith other nations and focus on other missions“It will save money in the short term however we don’t know if we’ll be goingback in the future.”“The end of ISAF is not the end of NATO. It will make people think of theAlliance less through the lens of military ops.”“NATO needs to build better relationships with other internationalorganizations and each nation state to better exercise their elements ofpower.”15

The end of ISAF puts NATO in a tenuous position. The affect will bedetermined by how things in Afghanistan play out“There is a reputational risk—a risk of roll-back. The general public willquestion NATO’s abilities to achieve missions.”“Afghanistan helped to strengthen NATO. If there is no war to fight, theAlliance becomes too excessive. If Afghanistan collapses, it could hurtNATO’s image.”“The end of ISAF could affect NATO’s coordination with military operations,including modernization (preparation is linked to the Spanish military’sISAF mission).”“It will depend a lot on what events occur after the end of ISAF. No onewants another Afghan-like war, but too much tranquillity could cause NATOto wallow and become complacent.”

American delegates have a high opinion of the ISAF mission.From the American point of view, ISAF has been a very successful mission for NATO.Asked how ending it will affect the Alliance, all four delegates suggested NATOshould parlay the valuable lessons learned through this initiative into futureendeavours. The mission has left NATO in a better and stronger position. Goingforward, the Alliance will have to ensure that it does not lose the ground it has gainedthrough ISAF.“With the end of ISAF, NATO will return to its original focus: deterrence.”“ISAF has improved the Alliance. Now let’s see how we can capitalize onthose improvements.”“ISAF has been very good for coordination and communication across theAlliance. We must not let those gains slip away.”

Both non-American and American delegates agreethat NATO will remain relevant post 2014More than half of the Non-American delegates think NATO will remainrelevant after 2014…More than half of the delegates interviewed (8/14) are convinced that NATO willcontinue to remain relevant after 2014. Reasons given included the persistence ofinternational terrorism, instability in Africa, cyber issues and a need for moreintelligence. “The global security environment is a multipolar world—this will allowNATO to remain relevant,” said one delegate, who also mentioned China, MiddleEast and North Africa (MENA) and capability building by member countries.16

The others feel the Alliance will remain relevant if it takes certain measures to do so.Among the actions the Alliance should take to ensure its relevance arecommunication, reformation and discovering a new mission.“NATO needs to actively work at it…the Parliamentary Assembly is verynecessary and keeps the Alliance relevant.”“NATO needs to communicate its value to the nations’ populations—thevalue of the transatlantic link. It must also reorganize to EU-ARF (ASEANRegional Forum).”“NATO should be more forceful as an organization. It must transform itsFast Action capabilities (like Libya) and Quick Response Force.”“NATO needs an active role in global affairs or its influence will decline.”

… and so do all of the American delegates interviewed.All the American delegates interviewed said that NATO will continue to be relevantpost 2014.Two of the American delegates said NATO will remain “very relevant” post 2014, andthe other two agreed, although not as effusively.“It will remain very relevant. Threats to the US, her allies and NATOmember nations are not going away. NATO may not be at the forefront ofpeople’s minds, but it is still important to maintain.”“NATO must remain committed to deterrence and the defence of membernations. NATO must complement actions taken by other internationalorganizations.”“ISAF has increased NATO’s credibility, so that will help it to remainrelevant.”

NATO’s priority should be to focus on developing itscapabilitiesNon-American delegates listed numerous priorities for the Alliance post2014.Suggestions for NATO’s priorities post 2014 were myriad and varied depending onthe demographics of the individual being interviewed. The most prevalent suggestionoffered was development of capabilities (mentioned 11 times). Relationship building(mentioned 6 times) and enhancing civil solutions (mentioned 5 times) were alsocommon themes that emerged.Top priorities parliamentarians think NATO should have for the futureare shown below in order of importance

NATO should pursue civil solutions“Priorities should be more of a civil dimension –nation building - consciousof the strength of states - to counter terrorism.”“Develop a new kind of security concept that the public can understand(post-Balkans, post-Afghanistan). NATO should try to uphold internationallaw in conflict situations.”“Beyond war, what can NATO do? Natural disasters? Humanitariandisasters? Maybe help with disasters to keep in front of people. The Allianceneeds to find diplomatic situations.”

American delegates said the Alliance should focus on training,enlargement and interoperability post 2014.While both Non-American and American delegates suggested the development ofspecific capabilities as a priority for the Alliance going forward, they seem to focus ondifferent areas.Both Non-American and American delegates listedinteroperabilityas animportant priority for NATO. In addition, the Americans stressed moretrainingexercises, enlargement and defence investmentas priorities. One delegatesuggested that NATO’s priority should be to support enlargement by including theadmission of Bosnia and other Balkans countries in the Alliance.

Conclusions &RecommendationsCommunicationWhile Americans are generally satisfied with NATO’s communication towards them,NATO should improve its communication efforts with non-Americans. In particularit should consider making better use of the General Media, launching a Social Mediacampaign and building one-to-one relationships with the delegates. They should alsoconnect more regularly with Members of Parliament.Only a minority of the general public (both non-American and American)understands what NATO does. To enhance public awareness, NATO should project aclearer and more targeted message, in particular, by making use of local militaries toenhance communication. NATO should consider improving its use of traditionalmedia; targeting young generations and enhancing the NATO website in order toramp up its communication strategy and reach a broader audience.

Defence SpendingBoth Non-American and American delegates say their countries are sceptical aboutspending money on defence. Most are wary of defence spending due to the downeconomy, which has motivated them to direct funds toward more pressing needs.The general lack of a perceived threat has exacerbated this problem.In keeping with this opinion, delegates said the economic crisis is also one of themain reasons for the failure of many nations to contribute 2% of their GDP todefence. In order to bolster contributions, NATO must convince member countriesthat their investment is valuable. This can be done through articulating a clearermessage and demonstrating inherent value through action.

NATO Post 2014The large majority of non-American and American delegates interviewed thinkNATO will remain relevant post 2014, with Americans unanimously and stronglysupporting this notion. Both non-Americans and Americans also think NATOcurrently possesses the basic capabilities to remain relevant. That said, numeroussuggestions were offered pertaining to adjustments the Alliance will have to make toensure relevancy—most apply to further developing specific capabilities.The end of ISAF is viewed with mixed emotions by non-Americans. Some say that,with no clear mission, public support will wane. Others believe disengaging fromAfghanistan will allow NATO to build relationships with other internationalorganisations and focus on other missions. Finally, one respondent thinks thatleaving Afghanistan is a mistake.Americans, on the other hand, are very clear in their belief that the ISAF mission wasa success that puts NATO in a better position to move forward. The Alliance, theysay, should parlay the valuable lessons learned through this initiative into futureendeavours. NATO’s priority now should be to ensure that it does not lose theground it gained through ISAF and to further develop its capabilities with theknowledge and experience it has developed through the mission.

Appendix IMethodologyQualitative studyWe have conducted a qualitative assessment by carrying out in-depth interviews with18 parliamentarians (delegates) of the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum inWashington, D.C. on December 2ndand 3rd, 2013.The questionnaire for the interviews was a follow-up to the research study conductedduring the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dubrovnik. The three areas of focuswere:NATO’s CommunicationDefence SpendingNATO’ Post 2014The interviewers asked open ended questions to capture as much information aspossible from the interviewees and give them the opportunity to provide in-depthanswers to the questions asked.The final list of questions was also aligned with NATO’s specifications in order toguarantee that all of the required topics were covered.Interviews were conducted in face-to-face meetings in Washington D.C. during theNATO Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum with the non-American delegates as wellas with the Secretary of the US delegation. The interviews with the three other USdelegates have been conducted over the telephone to facilitate the recruitmentprocess.For this study, we put forth considerable effort to connect with as many UScongressmen as possible (members of the NPA), however only two attended theWashington Transatlantic Forum. We interviewed both and secured interviews withtwo others who agreed to be interviewed separately. Concerning the non-Americanparticipants, we intentionally reached out to parliamentarians from countries withlow or no representation in the Dubrovnik study in order to expand our findings.Note: It has been particularly challenging to interview American delegates as mostof them refused to participate to this research project. Each American delegate,preselected by the NPA, was called or emailed at least twice, and in some cases upto four times during the two weeks following the NATO ParliamentaryTransatlantic Forum. It should be taken into consideration for future studies thatthis exercise has proven that most US Congressional offices have a “we do notparticipate in any surveys/questionnaires for any reason” policy in place whichincreases the difficulty to recruit such high-level targets in market research studies.

AnalysisEach question has been analysed both separately and within the overall context ofthe questionnaire.We present the results per type of country (non-American vs. American) andpolitical party, when relevant. These findings are not generalizable to the wholepopulation of parliamentarians as the sample is not representative.Answers from the in-depth interviews provide more insight on distinct topics, butthey cannot be understood as generalisations. Our findings explicitly identifyanswers that came from the interviews.As all questions were open-ended, they required the interviewee to use his/herown words to explain the answers. In this case, we classified the answers by keymessages, measured the iteration of similar answers and put the key messagesinto context in order to infer the main findings.

Interviewee profileIn order to expand the findings of the Dubrovnik study, we have intentionallyreached out to parliamentarians from countries with low or no representation in theprevious study. Additionally, our team spent two weeks reaching out to US Membersof Congress before the Washington Transatlantic Forum and after the event in orderto have a sufficient representation of US delegates in the sample.The sample interviewed is composed as follows:CountryUnited StatesUnited KingdomGermanyCanadaCroatiaDenmarkEstoniaFranceGreeceLatviaLithuaniaSpainThe NetherlandsTotalPolitical Group AffiliationConservatives, Christian Democrats and AssociatesAlliance of Liberals and DemocratsSocialistFreedom and DemocracyAmerican DemocratOtherTotal61113618422111111111118

Appendix IIDiscussion guideRespondent name (optional):Gender:Country:Political Group Affiliation:□□□□I.Q1.COMMUNICATIONHow satisfied are you with NATO’s communication towardsyouin terms of:Frequency:Quality:Scope:Transparency:Q2.Q3.Q4.Q5.Q6.II.Q7.Q8.Q9.Q10.Q11.Q12.Q13.What should NATO do to improve its communication strategy withyou?How effective do you think NATO’s communication efforts are in yourcountry?To what extent do you think people in your country understand what NATOdoes?What should NATO do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties onthe global stage, particularly on a national level?What should NATO do to improve its communication strategy towards thegeneral public?DEFENCE SPENDING & NATO POST 2014How would you describe the general mood in your country toward defencespending?Why do you believe that most member countries do not contribute 2% oftheir GDP to defence?What could NATO do in order to increase member countries’ willingness toinvest more in defence?To what extent do you think NATO has the right capabilities to remainrelevant in the future?In your opinion, how will the end of ISAF affect NATO?To what extent do you believe NATO will remain relevant post 2014?What should NATO’s priorities be post 2014?24Conservatives, Christian Democrats andAssociatesAlliance of Liberals and DemocratsSocialistOther□□FemaleMale

PwC Luxembourg (www.pwc.lu) is the largest professional services firm inLuxembourg with 2,300 people employed from 57 different countries. It providesaudit, tax and advisory services including management consulting, transaction,financing and regulatory advice to a wide variety of clients from local and middlemarket entrepreneurs to large multinational companies operating from Luxembourgand the Greater Region. It helps its clients create the value they are looking for bygiving comfort to the capital markets and providing advice through an industryfocused approach.The global PwC network is the largest provider of professional services in audit, taxand advisory. We’re a network of independent firms in 158 countries and employmore than 180,000 people. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visitingus atwww.pwc.comandwww.pwc.lu.25