DEBUNKING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT A CENTRE FOR DEMOCRATIC RESILIENCE
1
NATO is not about democracy
FALSE – NATO’s founding treaty – the 1949 Washington Treaty – makes clear that NATO is a political-military alliance of democracies, determined to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”. Its commitment to democratic shared values is what distinguishes NATO from other military alliances. NATO Allies are experiencing increasing attacks against their democratic institutions, e.g. interference in elections and other political processes and malign disinformation campaigns. These are clear security threats, and NATO has identified them as such.
NATO Heads of State and Government themselves have recognized the centrality of NATO’s shared democratic values. In 2021, they have committed to increase consultations when these values are at risk. They also agreed that NATO should play a more active role in defending the rules-based, values-based international order. Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine highlights why the defence of democracy and of the rules-based order must become an even more important part of NATO’s mission. NATO's new Strategic Concept adopted in Madrid in June 2022 places the Alliance's shared democratic values at the heart of NATO's response to today's threats and challenges.
2
A Centre for Democratic Resilience within NATO would infringe on state sovereignty
FALSE - The services and assistance provided by the Centre would be voluntary. The Centre would serve as a resource for all NATO Allies. The proposal is meant and designed as a voluntary mechanism. It would be a resource, available to members, partners and aspirants upon request – on a voluntary basis. It would in no way infringe upon Allies’ sovereignty. Its main aim would be to act as a clearinghouse of best practices and cross-fertilisation on democratic benchmarks.
3
A voluntary mechanism would be ineffective
FALSE – Informal mechanisms and exchanges of best practices are effective ways to raise awareness and address sensitive issues. Effectiveness should also be measured in terms of the important political signal the Centre would send to the outside world: unlike autocracies, democracies are open to criticism and to recognising and addressing their deficiencies.
4
Other institutions specifically deal with democracy
YES, BUT – While certain international institutions are indeed dedicated to safeguarding democracy and/or have dedicated mechanisms, defending democracy requires a collective effort by all relevant stakeholders, each in their own field: parliaments, governments, civil society and all relevant international institutions. NATO’s mandate includes the defence of democracy. It also serves as the prime forum for security consultations between Europe and North America and thereby brings a unique perspective and a unique added value to efforts to defend democracy. NATO cannot outsource commitments and tasks under the Washington Treaty to other organizations some of its members may also be party to. The commitment to democracy, NATO’s raison d’etre, must not be delegated. NATO must play its part, for the benefit of all its members and within its specific area of responsibility.
5
A centre of excellence would achieve the same goal
FALSE - A founding principle of the Alliance – the commitment to shared democratic values – should not be outsourced to a centre of excellence accredited by NATO but operating outside its command structure. Also, they rarely have all NATO member states as part of their structures. It should be a core function, dealt with by NATO Headquarters.
6
Creating a new structure within NATO is costly
FALSE - The proposal foresees a very small permanent staff complement. The Centre for Democratic Resilience should not become a big, additional bureaucratic structure in Brussels. Locating it at NATO HQ would allow it to become a focal point inside NATO HQ and reach into a broad network of governmental and non-governmental experts to capitalize on synergies. Existing resources within NATO HQ can facilitate the establishment of the Centre in ways that align with ongoing initiatives and structures and minimize costs. For instance, NATO's Building Integrity Programme is a voluntary program that NATO members and partners can sign up to. It is currently focused on combatting corruption in the defence and security sector. It is demand driven and tailored to national needs. This program could be expanded to support the strengthening of democratic institutions.
7
Exposing challenges to democracy within the Alliance would weaken NATO
FALSE - Transparency is a strength, not a weakness. Transparency allows democracies to adapt more effectively to challenges by better facilitating an open consideration of many options and positions.
8
Democratic resilience is already covered by a NATO baseline resilience requirement on continuity of government and critical government services
FALSE - Continuity of government and critical government services is a very important aspect of resilience. But it has little to do with democratic resilience. Such continuity is critical for any form of government – for democracies just as much as for dictatorships.
SHARE THIS PAGE