The Middle East did provide a context for discussion. After all, as one guest lecturer, Professor Malcolm Chalmers, noted in a reference to current tensions in the Middle East, "A crisis in the region may involve the military forces of a lot of the countries represented here." In addition, lurking in the background, was the concern -- even in the wake of its air intervention in Libya -- that no matter what it does, NATO will somehow be seen as an anti-Muslim alliance.

The alliance officials hosting the annual Partnership for Peace symposium at the NATO school in Oberammergau, Germany, earlier this month remained silent on the Hormuz issue. After all, although such NATO members as the US, the UK and France all have ships on station in or near the Gulf in the event of any deterioration in the current crisis, they are not operating as part of any NATO-structured operation.

In talking with its partners, NATO adopts an approach that is both open and circumspect. It calls on analysts to expound upon what they think are the problems the alliance faces.

So this year, the Gulf of Hormuz crisis naturally came to the fore, not least the argument as to whether international sanctions might so damage the Iranian economy that it would prompt Iran's government to think it had nothing much more to lose by attempting to close the strait. So, too, did the question of whether the intervention by NATO member states in various global crises--from the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003 through the Kosovo intervention, the war in Afghanistan and the aerial assaults on Colonel Qadhafi's forces In Libya--might be considered anti-Muslim. 

One analyst, Dr. Carlo Masala of the Bundeswehr (German Army) University, specifically appealed to the partner states gathered at Oberammergau, saying: "I would like to hear partners speak up for NATO to dispel the idea that NATO is this Christian alliance that suppresses Muslims."

The symposium drew senior officers and defense officials from around three quarters of the 50-odd members of the Partnership for Peace, including at least 10 Arab League members as well as contingents from Russia, Central Asia and as far afield as Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

There was concern at events in Syria. While there was widespread understanding that it was an issue of key concern to NATO member Turkey, Oberammergau showed there was no NATO appetite to get embroiled in Syrian affairs. As regards a diplomatic approach to the crisis, the most widespread view was that NATO should take its lead from Ankara.

On Hormuz, the partner states present at Oberammergau listened intently to details of tanker traffic through the straits -- 19,368 tankers in 2010 carrying around 17 millions b/d -- and their particular importance for Chinese and Japanese customers. But they asked no questions.

One theme underpinned much of the discussion: the impact of diminishing defense budgets on NATO's operational abilities. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, who heads the British think tank the Royal United Services Institute, said: "We may now be reaching a turning point in US and NATO defense strategy" with defense budgets on both sides of the Atlantic starting to contract. Moreover, Professor Chalmers added, "China's national income could reach the level of the US as early as 2018 if current growth rates continue," indicating that an equivalence in defense spending between the two titans might not be far off.

Already, Chalmers noted, there was a new US military doctrine based on "low cost, innovative and small footprint" interventions. This had implications for NATO's partners, he argued. 

Partnership in prospective future interventions would become ever more crucial, while goals would need to be more limited. "Working with local partners (is) going to be vital, not seeing them as auxiliary forces, as in Iraq and Afghanistan," but as allies in their own right, said Chalmers.

There were military fuel concerns. Basic fuel costs for frontline troops even outside war zones could often reach the $500 a barrel mark, while the final cost for getting gasoline or diesel to outposts in Afghanistan was often a lot higher than that. RUSI has previously addressed both the financial and human cost of fuel deliveries in war: at one stage in Afghanistan, the UK lost some 160 troops in attacks on fuel convoys and delivery vehicles in a two-year period.

But while such energy issues do exercise the minds of the NATO hosts, the issues raised by their partners were somewhat different. Would future wars be fought over water, not oil?  What kind of bilateral arrangements could partner states secure with NATO? Could they gain its assistance in building up their own defenses against cyber attack?

The analysts asked to address the water question were skeptical. They noted that the vexed issue of the sharing of waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers involved one NATO member (Turkey) one NATO partner (Iraq) and one country from whom little might be expected on this issue until its had sorted out its present problems (Syria.) But on the whole they thought this was a matter to be resolved by the countries most directly concerned, rather than a subject in which the alliance should get embroiled.

But cyber security was a different issue. The ability to disrupt infrastructure installations is naturally a matter of interest to energy producers. Cyber attacks are constant, with Oberammergau participants told that Microsoft's systems come under attack literally every single day.

Creative Commons License

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.platts.com