CBI’s recent webinar on NATO and International Models of Emergency Management attracted a large number of participants. This corresponds to a greatly enhanced public and professional interest regarding what governments and international organisations have (and have not)done in addressing the COVID pandemic. As a result, our webinar series has benefitted from the participation of many subject matter experts, students, and professionals, leading to fascinating (and challenging) discussions and questions. 

We had the opportunity to host a representative from the NATO Centre of Excellence (COE), Col. Dimitar Dimitrov, who joined our academic director, Dr. Erik Benson, and international advisor, Dr. Manlio Silvestri, in presenting on the topic. Dr. Benson opened with a brief history of NATO’s involvement in emergency management activities. While few would associate NATO with such, in fact it has a history of responding to crises and disasters, beginning with the BerlinBlockade of 1948 through to the present. As a political-military alliance premised on collective security, it has evolved through time, leading to it having a role in crisis response and disaster management.This role is not primary, yet with its capacities, NATO can provide vital support to civilian emergency response efforts, and thus it has developed protocols for using its resources in such efforts.    

Col. Dimitrov followed with a wide-ranging overview of the NATO Crisis Response Process, including its component mechanisms, processes and activities. This process is used to respond to any type of crisis, from human-caused (e.g.conflicts) to natural disasters, such as earthquakes or pandemics. It is triggered when a call for international assistance is received from a country in need. The process involves a number of steps, or phases, to determine the course of action NATO will take.   

Dr. Silvestri then focused on the links between NATO’s “Alliance 2030” goals to possible trends in emergency management at NATO. The alliance’s top two goals for the next decade, strengthening its military capabilities and enhancing its political dialogue, are especially germane. Considering the extensive use of military assetsin almost any emergency scenario, any improvement in their capability, while aimed at collective defence, will certainly increase their usefulness in relief operations. Furthermore, enhancing the political dialogue among governments will enhance the exchange of information among them in emergency scenarios, a definite coordination multiplier.  

These presentations resulted in a number of shrewd questions from the participants. For example, Col. Dimitrov’s wide-ranging overview prompted one attendee, who seemed quite familiar with the European Union Civil Protection mechanism, to enquire about cooperation between the EU and NATO, which have similar crisismonitoring structures. The panellists remarked that the two organizations have a long history of cooperation, and while it has ebbed and flowed through time, it recently has been increasing in the face of new threats ranging from terrorism to climate change to hybrid warfare. This has resulted in an emphasis on coordination in developing a robust response to crises, leading to such steps as staff-to-staff engagement in field exercises beginning in 2018. Of course, the COVID crisis has given further impetus to this. One of the participants is connected with theNATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre, and related that the EU and NATO have coordinated closely since the beginning of the pandemic, engaging in weekly calls to address matters from global supply chains to the repatriation of citizens. Another area of common interest concerns online disinformation practices, which have found fertile ground in the crisis, thus necessitating that the strategic communication steams in the EU and NATO join forces in response. 

Another interesting question that came up concerned the last goal stated in the Alliance 2030, “a more global role for NATO.” The participant asked whether the Alliance could be involved in providing assistance and relief in such distant countries as Bangladesh. Indeed, an improved global role for NATO as an international security organisation would certainly expand the cooperation among different countries inside and outside the geographical North Atlantic area and, therefore, promote better coordination during an emergency intervention among involved countries and international organisations. In short, why not intervene in places outside of the immediate North-Atlantic area? While NATO is not a humanitarian institution, but rather a collective defence organisation, its member countries will not ignore a desperate request for assistance as they did on the occasion of Pakistani earthquake in 2005. Still, the issue remains balancing contemporary collective defence effectiveness and disaster response intervention, meaning addressing both needs at the same time. An old Italian proverb says that an innkeeper cannot have a drunk wife and a barrel full of wine at the same time. Ultimately, this goes back to the need to improve the response capabilities and overall resilience of nations, which remain the primary actors in international emergency management. NATO can stand ready to aid as needed, both in enhancing these qualities and in times of immediate emergency.