No. 8. (02/04/2004)

The meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's Standing Committee
(27-28. March 2004., Oslo)

1. The Secretary General's 'Priorities and Activities' has been updated to reflect decisions agreed in Orlando and also recent developments in the international situation. However, preparations for the forthcoming NATO Summit in Istanbul, 28-29 June, which suggest that Alliance leaders will agree an initiative outlining a role for the Alliance in the region known as the "Greater Middle East" (GME), suggest that further reflection and adjustment to the Assembly's work programme may be in order.

2. During the meeting of the Assembly's Bureau in Brussels on February 15th, members discussed the possibility of an Alliance GME Initiative. The Bureau agreed that this issue and its potential consequences for the work of the Assembly should be discussed by the Standing Committee during its meeting in Oslo.

3. At the time of the drafting of this document, it is too early to say what sort of approach will emerge in Istanbul or how comprehensive it will be. However, statements from various Alliance leaders and officials suggest that something significant will emerge.

4. The following are some initial reflections as a basis for discussions by the Standing Committee in Oslo.

5. The GME is hardly a homogenous region, rather the term is being used to cover several countries and regions - Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue - with a degree of overlap in the various definitions. Each entity has its own characteristics and problems which make the development of a comprehensive approach difficult. Furthermore, NATO is already involved in various ways with the several entities in the region - the command of ISAF in Afghanistan, assistance and possibly eventually a formal role in Iraq, the already well-established Mediterranean Dialogue, and membership of the Caucasus and Central Asian states in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). All constitute areas of existing activity on which to build an Initiative.

6. It is also important to remember that NATO is only one of the organisations that would be involved in a comprehensive GME Initiative.

7. In terms of an Alliance Initiative that focuses on extending partnership and co-operation, thus far, discussions have suggested building on the existing Mediterranean dialogue, using the experience of the highly successful PfP program to offer assistance to specific countries particularly in areas such as defence reform, interoperability of forces, military to military contacts and democratic control of armed forces, and extending co-operation to countries such as Libya and the Gulf States. It remains to be seen what other ideas will emerge and how they will be packaged. Nor can the reactions of the recipient states be taken for granted.

8. In considering the consequences of a GME Initiative for the agenda of the Assembly, it is important to note work already in hand by existing Assembly groups which is relevant to the region:

• Events in Afghanistan and Iraq are under consideration by the Political Committee and Defence and Security Committee
• The CC has recently decided to adjust its mandate to focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia
• The work of the Mediterranean Special Group is being upgraded on the lines agreed in Orlando.
• The NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee has agreed to look at Central Asia as a region of interest to all parties.
• The Russian delegation will be presenting a paper at the next meeting.

9. The Standing Committee should consider whether these arrangements are sufficient or whether an Alliance initiative would require a more comprehensive approach and a more fundamental structural adjustment through the creation of new Assembly bodies or changes to existing ones. Are the current trends which are driving the development of a GME Initiative sufficiently new to demand a serious reassessment by the Assembly of its existing agenda and structure?

10. In looking at potential options for the Assembly, a few practical considerations are in order. Past experience would suggest that it is difficult to move away from the existing five Committee structure and practical reasons argue against the creation of a sixth Committee. Likewise, the creation of special groups causes a variety of complications concerning balanced memberships, reporting procedures and additional meetings. Finally, the Assembly's existing work agenda is already very full.

11. These practical considerations would suggest any new approach should use existing structures, if possible.