Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Presentation- Thals -June 29-Brussels


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Presentation- Thalès -June 29-Brussels Civil-military crisis management: Challenges and Perspectives Introduction - An academic point of view after the presentations made by two practitioners and decision-makers. - Not focused on international but on internal crisis management. - I will try to bring some food for thought using two very interesting publications issued by John Hopkins University last year. This work was coordinated by D. Hamilton who is director of the Centre for Transatlantic Relations of the School for Advanced International Studies. The European contribution was quite large. Nordic experts mainly, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish but also German, Austrian, Swiss, British and French experts contributed to it. - Also, the Marshall Centre is working on this topic. Published 7 chapters of a book dedicated to this topic. The book will be available in a few weeks. I. Challenges. 1. The role of the military in crisis-management is still marginal while problems to be faced could become more and more important. a) Military assistance to Authorities is not new. They provide help from time to time to national emergency management agencies or rescue services in connection with natural disasters or other emergencies. But in general armed forces are used as a last resort and under strict conditions. This is generally the case in Europe. Of course, countries like France and Italy have a history of cooperation between the Police and the Military. Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do not restrict homeland security missions of their armed forces. But a country like Germany has been very cautious for historic reasons. Spain and Poland put certain restraints on the domestic use of their armed forces. b) A new element which could make this situation more difficult: with Al Qaeda inspired terrorism, risks to the Homeland have become more and more unpredictable in terms of their nature and scope. Engineered disasters, such as multiple simultaneous terrorist attacks or incidents involving CBRN materials have become more likely. Consequently, the military might be required to perform a broader range of tasks to protect the homeland. 2. The US Military is doing studies and developing scenarios in order to meet these new challenges.
  • 2. a) First, a number of Rand studies have pointed to the need of military doctrine, organization, training, leadership development and materiel in light of the new homeland security tasks. These tasks would be: reassurance ( presence, guard duty, etc…); providing facility security and infrastructure protection ( patrolling, air defence systems, etc…); WMD protection (detection, decontamination, evacuation, search and rescue, medical treatment); and consequence management ( crowd control, provide utilities, food and shelter, removal of debris, reconstruction). b) Second, the US Department of Defence has issued a strategy for Homeland Defence and Civil Support in which it addresses overall questions regarding tasks, priorities, organization, training and materiel. c) Third, Northcom – the US Command in charge of defence of the Homeland- has drafted plans for the Military’s role in Homeland Security, based on 15 different crises scenarios. Current planning spans from modest support missions with civil authorities in the lead to major emergency management efforts after a mass casualty CBN attack – a scenario in which the Military is foreseen to task the lead due to the scale and the severity of the crises. 3. But , and this is one of the main thesis of these publications, a global approach seems necessary where civilian and military stake holders work together. And there, we will face three problems: a) a structural one. - National police forces, emergency management agencies, the armed forces and the corporate sector need to develop common planning scenarios and common planning goals at the strategic level. The efforts should be joint, not agency specific. -At the operational level, we must be sure that important issues do not fall between the cracks in a layered system. It also needs to be clarified who is responsible for what. Finally, mechanisms of coordination, clear lines of authority and a common situational picture are important elements to ensure an effective multi-agency response to major incidents. International coordination and standardization when it comes to forging the structures would, obviously, add further robustness to national systems. b) a cultural one. Yet, though forging new structures is important, arguably it is not sufficient. Structural reforms do not in themselves ensure cooperation. On the contrary, they might trigger defensive reactions. People have to be culturally prepared and accept these changes. A starting point could be to utilize common education, exercises and drills of civilian and military actors to build mutual trust. The aim is to promote a common culture of cross-cultural cooperation
  • 3. c) a political one. Many countries are reluctant to deploy troops at home for historical reasons. This clearly cannot be overcome overnight and will need guarantees for civil liberties if the role of the Army is going to increase. II. Perspectives. These challenges can possibly be met at two different levels. 1. At the technical level, studies are being carried out in order to define a comprehensive approach. A German expert, Heiko Borchert argues that the overall approach needed to address comprehensively this problem can be found in the concept of “transformation” developed to advance the effectiveness of the armed forces. Here, transformation can be understood as a strategic multilevel and prospective interagency process which also has an international dimension. It must be effect-based. It should, for example, prevent serious risks from arising through the fight against the proliferation of WMD, the protection of critical infrastructure or the stockpiling of vaccines. This requires different things. First, that the decision-makers have a clear idea of the capability they have at their disposal (it must be capability-based”); Second, that all security relevant actors are involved (consequently, operations must be “network-centric”). Third, that strategies be tested in advance (Here a “concept development and experimentation” approach is needed) And fourth that they rely on a “common relevant operational picture”. In effect, conducting joint operations requires joint situational understanding. 2. At the political and institutional level. Here I will develop two points which will possibly prove the interest to rely on the “Nordic approach” if we want to progress further in the integration process needed to face the new security challenges. We have to distinguish between the theory and the practice. a) The theory.
  • 4. First point. The Nordic countries offer us a comprehensive conceptual framework perfectly adapted to the new requirements. It is the modern concept of “Societal Security”. It must be recalled that a number of European countries developed a “ Total Defence” concept with roots going back to World War II and its immediate aftermath. This concept was originally geared to the physical survival of the Nation and its people in the case of major war and was premised on the notion of territorial integrity. The new concept of “Societal Security” retains the core principle of Total Defence, ie the need for a comprehensive societal effort including all the elements of the society, while widening the notion to embrace a broader, all- hazards approach to risks and threats. Second point. Total defence focused on comprehensive mobilization of society’s resources to support the Military in case of a traditional conflict with a foreign enemy. Instead of mobilizing civil society to assist the Military in the face of external attack, the Military is now one element to be mobilized as part of an overall response to major societal disruptions. b )The practice. This policy is starting to be implemented in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark although with differences and some difficulties. In Finland, the armed forces are integrated in the process. In Norway, a Royal decree passed in 2003 provides for the armed forces to assist the police in certain circumstances (accidents, disasters, arrest dangerous people, protect major societal values). In that case, the armed forces would be under police command. Nevertheless, actions involving the armed forces only are not excluded in exceptional circumstances. Sweden is adapting its legislation. A 1931 law is forbidding the use of armed forces on the territory. But this problem should be overcome. Finally, homeland security civil-military cooperation has been intensified in 2004 in Denmark. DEMA (Danish Emergency Management Agency) has been transferred from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Defence. But this has raised critics: some people saw in this decision a militarization of the system. Moreover a compromise had to be found with the Police which retain some responsibilities in some defined cases.
  • 5. To sum up, the political orientation taken by these countries seems to be the good one, even if there are hurdles to overcome and even if things are not evolving everywhere as quickly as wished III. Conclusion. a) First point. The use of the armed forces will probably be more and more necessary in Homeland Security operations. The armed forces are preparing themselves to face this possibility and some Governments are ready to let them operate independently in exceptional circumstances.Parallel to this development, a global approach based on the concepts of “Transformation” and of “Societal Security” is being promoted by academics in the first case and by Governments in the second. This approach obviously offers big technical advantages. It also allows a better control on the armed forces and consequently provides more guarantees for liberties. b) Second point. Daniel Hamilton believes that the USA could benefit from this “Nordic” integrated approach. In fact, some examples of ill functioning crisis management in the USA are given in these publications which support this choice. -The September 11 Commission has documented how the rescue effort in the Towers of the World Trade Centre was hampered by the absence of coordination, unity of command and a common situational picture. - Coordination of the rescue effort in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina involving Federal, State level and local personnel was hampered by the existence of 3 parallel chains of command instead of one. -Slow relief effort in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina was not due to a shortage of personnel – the US was eventually able to muster 70000 troops, 21 military vessels and 215 aircraft in the region hit by Katrina but due to reluctance on part of civilian actors to request this help. c) Third point. At the end of last year, the US Government decided that John Hopkins University would lead a national consortium that will investigate how the Nation can best prepare for and respond to large scale incidents and disasters. The Centre for Transatlantic relations will lead international dimensions of the Consortium work. It would probably be useful for the Commission and for the Member-States to follow this work which would certainly take into account the “Nordic” approach.
  • 6. d) One more word. We usually believe that the US-European relationship is a one way-street. We have here an example of a two-way street and of how Europeans can influence US thinking./ . R.Narich