Small Wars Journal

Conference Report: PKSOI and AUSA Spotlight on NATO Partnerships Engaged in Projecting Stability

Conference Report: PKSOI and AUSA Spotlight on NATO Partnerships Engaged in Projecting Stability by Robert Martin - US Army War College

A daylong conference on “Projecting Stability” provided the stage for U.S. Government agencies, the international community, non-governmental organizations, and academics to discuss principles and ongoing NATO efforts to define and integrate the concept across its members.

The Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute with the Association of the U.S. Army sponsored the Projecting Stability conference at the Gordon R. Sullivan Conference & Event Center in Washington D.C., Sep. 17, 2018. The event was live-streamed and, now, the video presentations can be viewed at

Read on.


From a -- 2001 I believe -- NATO document: 


Cold War security thinking focused on stability. The best one could hope for was the maintenance of the status quo. On a macro level, this meant balance between the superpowers; on a micro level, that existing peace agreements were kept. In this connection, containment became a buzzword during this era. Given the alternative, an all-out breakdown in the balance of power system and superpower confrontation, it could hardly have been otherwise.

Today, security thinking has moved on. Rather than maintaining the status quo, the keywords now are transition, enlargement and integration -- all dynamic rather than static concepts. The dynamics of change are affecting peacekeeping, too. The classical task of serving as a "neutral" buffer between consenting parties has evolved into operations geared towards managing political, economic and social change, often under difficult circumstances -- a trend fueled by the fact that most modern peacekeeping operations are responses to intra-state, rather than interstate, conflicts.



If the purpose of "peacekeeping" today has morphed, post-the Old Cold War, into -- from our NATO item above -- "managing political, economic and social change,"

(I.E., "modernizing" other states and societies; this, so as to better provide for globalism, globalization, the global economy?) 

Then how exactly does this contribute to "peacekeeping?"  

This, given that attempting to alter the numerous and diverse ways of life, ways of governance, etc., of innumerable populations -- and, indeed, attempting to alter the equally numerous and diverse values, attitudes and beliefs which underpin same -- this would seem to be a formula for bringing about conflict -- indeed on a global scale -- this, rather than peace. 

Thus, today:

a.  Not only do we see individuals and groups in the Greater Middle East revolting against these attempted political, economic, social and value "change" requirements (associated with, shall we say, the demands of globalism, globalization, the global economy?) but -- likewise today -- 

a.  Do we see individuals and groups in the U.S./the West now revolting against same.  (The recent Brexit, and indeed the election of President Trump; these being clear rejections of the political, economic, social -- and especially the value -- "changes" being demanded of, in this case, our very own populations?)