Undersøgelse af NATO PA udført i 2014

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Société coopérative, 400 Route d’Esch, B.P. 1443, L-1014 Luxembourg
T : +352 494848 1, F : +352 494848 2900, www.pwc.lu
Cabinet de révision agréé. Expert-comptable (autorisation gouvernementale n°10028256)
R.C.S. Luxembourg B 65 477 - TVA LU25482518
Quantitative
research among
members of the
NPA at the
General Assembly
in Dubrovnik
11-14 October 2013
Final Report
Market Research Institute
November 2013
NATO's Parlamentariske Forsamling 2013-14
NPA Alm.del Bilag 5
Offentligt (01)
Contents
Executive Summary........................................................... 1
Main Findings ...................................................................3
NATO’s Reputation.......................................................................................................3
Communication............................................................................................................. 7
NATO Post 2014...........................................................................................................15
The Parliamentary Assembly.......................................................................................17
Conclusions & Recommendations.................................... 19
Appendix I.......................................................................20
Appendix II......................................................................25
1
Executive Summary
NATO has commissioned PwC to carry out a qualitative assessment that evaluates
the perceptions of parliamentarians who attended the Annual Session of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly (NPA) held in Dubrovnik, Croatia, 11-14 October 2013. In
particular, NATO aims to ascertain the following:
 NATO’s reputation among delegates and the general public;
 The effectiveness of NATO’s communication with delegates and the general
public;
 Parliamentarians’ views regarding the purpose of NATO post 2014, including
defense spending;
 The perception delegates have about the NPA in Dubrovnik.
For this study, PwC gathered the views of 29 parliamentarians via face-to-face
interviews and 50 parliamentarians via a paper questionnaire distributed during the
NPA session in Dubrovnik. These interviews, combined, represent the answers of
30.9% of the parliamentarians who attended the session.
Articulate a Clear Mission
The majority of parliamentarians from member countries have a highly favorable
perception of NATO, but they believe citizens in their countries are more mitigated.
To improve the status quo, parliamentarians overwhelmingly suggest the use of
media. Specifically, the media should be used to articulate the organization’s mission
and objectives, to highlight its achievements and inform the public about the benefits
it offers. “NATO needs to project a clearer mission,” said one delegate. “After the fall
of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, NATO must focus on more than
justifying its existence.”
Raise Awareness
Member parliamentarians said the majority of people in their countries have heard
of NATO, but only a minority understands what NATO does. Those from non-
member countries said few people are acquainted with NATO. To enhance public
awareness, the vast majority of both groups believes NATO should invest more in
communication, specifically through the use of media, educational programs, youth
outreach, social media and local ambassadors.
Define Priorities
With regard to the effect of the end of the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) operation will have on the organization, most member country delegates
agree that “NATO needs this break to rest and recuperate.” As one delegate said,
“exits are as important as entries.”
However, although ending the ISAF operation is considered a positive change for
NATO, member parliamentarians believe combating terrorism should be the main
priority for the Alliance in the future. Cyber security (in conjunction with military
Reputation
Communication
Purpose
“Perception of NATO is
linked to the Cold War.
A transformation is
needed.”
“NATO should use
new communication
technologies, the more
advanced the better.”
“We cannot leave
Afghanistan in one
day—it should be a
transition. We need to
help the country after
2014.”
2
operations) is also perceived as a key strategic priority for NATO in the coming years.
Additionally, all non-member parliamentarians interviewed feel NATO should
maintain a presence in Afghanistan. “They should organize some permanent
cooperation to help local authorities,” said one delegate, who pointed out the
country’s poverty and lack of structure. “It would not be good to just leave.”
Integration of the Assembly
The majority of parliamentarians, both from member and non-member countries
said that they will integrate the content of what they learned at the Dubrovnik
Parliamentary Assembly into their work when they returned home. About half said
they always do this, and the other half said they sometimes do so. Very few rarely
apply the information gathered at the assembly to their work.
Overall, the majority of parliamentarians were very satisfied with the NPA in
Dubrovnik. Additionally, there is a complete consensus on satisfaction regarding the
timeframe of the closing session, the panels and the reports discussion. All were
deemed to have been just right. The majority of parliamentarians said that they will
integrate the content of the NPA into their work when they return to their countries.
Conclusions
Overall, parliamentarians have a very high view of NATO. That said, they seem to be
convinced that the citizens in their countries do not share that perspective because
they do not know enough about the Alliance to appreciate its value. To reach
broader demographics, NATO should use an array of media ranging from radio to
the internet to press releases and television. Also, establishing representatives in
individual countries would give an authenticity and immediacy to NATO
communication and would bring the organization into closer proximity with “real
people.”
Although the year 2014 will bring the end of the ISAF operation, parliamentarians do
not see this as a revolutionary change. In retrospect, people view NATO’s
involvement in Afghanistan as a positive experience that has borne fruit. In light of
this, the post 2014 period should be seen as an opportunity to reflect on the past
decade and consider what capabilities acquired in Afghanistan can be deployed in
future missions. That said, NATO continues to be vital to ensuring the collective
defense. Terrorism, cyber terrorism and future conflicts (e.g. Syria) should
remain high on the agenda.
NPA
The majority of
parliamentarians
said they will
integrate the content
of what they learned
at the PA into their
work.
3
Main Findings
NATO’s Reputation
NATO as a Peace-Keeping Entity
Member Countries: NATO fulfils its duty to maintain peace,
to a large extent.
Just over half of the parliamentarians from member countries think that NATO
totally fulfils its duty to maintain peace, and another 40% said it somewhat fulfils its
duty. Only one parliamentarian thinks that NATO is not at all useful.
Most parliamentarians declared that citizens of their country share their opinions. In
a minority of cases, parliamentarians consider the citizens of their country to be
more critical than they are (Belgium, Germany and Spain, for instance).
Those who answered that NATO totally fulfils its duty to maintain peace described
NATO as “a very powerful organization” and “a strong union among like-minded
people that has the capabilities and capacity of engagement to keep the peace.” They
also feel the organization is useful in the prevention of conflicts.
However, regardless of these opinions, all participants offered recommendations on
how NATO could do a better job of maintaining peace. Among their suggestions, a
series of common suggestions emerged:
 Communication towards citizens should be improved in a way that convinces
people of NATO’s usefulness and relevance to them. An enhanced image of NATO
would enable the organization to better fulfil its duty. For instance, favourable
communication could amplify national leaders’ ability to raise funds for defense.
 Because NATO cannot and should not intervene in every global conflict, it should
define “zones of intervention”. Furthermore, the organization should not decide
to intervene solely on the basis of moral or legal considerations, but rather on the
more practical basis of efficiency.
 NATO should focus more on the development of its partnerships and cooperation
with non-member countries.
 NATO should work more on conflict prevention. In particular, it should
emphasize political solutions (through increased dialogue), not only military
solutions, to current problems.
 Decisions should be made faster and more easily. On this point, Syria was
mentioned as an example of inefficient decision making processes.
 NATO should redefine itself. The organization made sense during the Cold War,
but now it needs a new “strategic concept”. People have moved beyond the idea of
NATO as a necessary entity, which reflects negatively on the organization’s image.
This sentiment was mentioned mostly by Western Europeans.
 NATO needs to increase its staff, budget and logistics. As a result, some countries
should provide more support.
4
Non-Member Countries: NATO partially fulfils its duty to
maintain peace.
One-quarter of the delegates said that NATO totally fulfils its duty to maintain peace,
while the remaining three-fourths said it somewhat fulfils this duty.
The parliamentarian from Switzerland said that, in his country, NATO is seen as a
war organization, not as a peace keeping organization. “The Swiss are very critical
toward NATO,” he said.
The parliamentarian from Afghanistan said that NATO “brought a good security
system” to the country, but its mistakes have delayed operations and, after almost
12 years, the mission has not been accomplished.”
Although the parliamentarian from Bosnia and Herzegovina said that NATO only
somewhat fulfils its mission, he added, “more than 60% are faithful to NATO and the
stability it provides.”
Parliamentarians from non-member countries offered the following
recommendations on how NATO could do a better job of maintaining peace:
 “NATO should deal strongly and broadly with neighbouring countries, such as
Pakistan,” said the parliamentarian from Afghanistan. “If we don't stop terrorism
at the root (in Pakistan), Afghanistan will never be safe”;
 NATO should maintain an open-door policy through new memberships (Balkans
and Georgia). “If Georgia were a member country,” said the parliamentarian from
Georgia, “NATO would not have 80% support, but 100% support”.
Parliamentarians’ Perceptions of NATO
Member Countries: Most parliamentarians say NATO plays
an essential role in ensuring the collective defense of
member countries.
Three-quarters of delegates and more than half of their political parties have a very
favorable opinion of the NATO, while they believe that only one-fourth of the
citizens in their countries share this view. According to parliamentarians, citizens
tend to have only a somewhat favorable opinion of NATO.
Attitudes about NATO, in general, correlate strongly to perceptions regarding
NATO’s role in ensuring the collective defense of its member states. This is true both
for delegates and their national political parties, who see NATO’s role as essential.
However, parliamentarians declared that citizens of their countries are less
optimistic, reporting that half of them regard the role of NATO on this matter only as
somewhat important.
The vast majority of respondents (85%) see NATO as a crucial player on the global
stage. One parliamentarian echoed this perception by saying, “It is the only
organization with real power, capabilities and rules of engagement that can allow a
true and effective intervention.” Additionally, almost all of the parliamentarians
interviewed believe that NATO represents the needs of its member nations well
(49%) or at least partially (49%). On this question, the most positive answers were
given by Conservatives and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, while Socialists
predominately think that the Alliance only partially represents the countries’ needs.
5
NATO is clearly considered the most useful organization in ensuring international
peace and stability. In fact, NATO ranks first in front of other supranational
institutions, such as the United Nations, the EU institutions, the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe.
Non-member countries: More than half of Parliamentarians
say NATO plays an essential role in ensuring the collective
defense of member states.
Only half of the delegates from non-member countries have a very favourable
perception of NATO, while the remainder are somewhat favourable or neutral. They
feel that this trend is also valid for the citizens and political parties in their countries.
The role of NATO as an essential actor in ensuring the collective defense is perceived
as such by the majority of the delegates. More than half of non-member delegates
believe that NATO plays a crucial role on the global stage—compared with their
more optimistic counterparts from member countries. The exception is non-member
delegates from the Liberal party, who share the optimism of their member country
counterparts. That said, only half of non-member delegates think the national parties
and citizens in their countries agree.
There is a good alignment on the fact that NATO represents the needs of its member
nations well or at least partially. This view is strongly supported by Conservatives
and Liberals—all agreed that needs are well represented. But only half of the
Socialists interviewed share this opinion.
Public Perceptions of NATO
Member Countries: NATO is well known, but few
understand what NATO actually does.
Parliamentarians said the majority of people in their countries have heard of NATO,
but only a minority understand what NATO actually does. Countries where citizens
cannot correctly identify NATO include: Italy, France and Bulgaria. In Italy and
France, most people have only heard about NATO in the context of the Cold War.
Knowledge of NATO is age-specific: younger generations know less about NATO
than older generations do. As one delegate said, “Young people have difficulty
understanding the necessity of NATO.”
In terms of understanding what NATO does, results vary. Most of the
parliamentarians said that the citizens in their countries know only very partially
what NATO does. For instance, in France and the UK, according to delegates, citizens
do not know what the acronym NATO stands for or who the member countries are.
In general, delegates said that their citizens have a vague idea of what NATO is, but
nothing precise. Citizens tend to confuse it with other organizations (ISAF, for
instance, in the UK).
NATO is also perceived differently in varying countries depending on national
history. In Portugal, NATO is linked to democracy. In Lithuania, the presence of
NATO within the country has contributed to a favourable opinion held by its citizens.
In France and Germany, NATO has an old image linked to the Cold War and people
are not interested in the present-day NATO. Finally, it seems that Eastern Europe
has a more informed view of NATO than Western Europe does. The history of these
countries could explain this disparity.
6
Non-Member Countries: NATO is not well known
Countries where citizens cannot correctly identify NATO include Afghanistan and
Switzerland. Only one parliamentarian, from Bosnia, said that a majority of the
people in his country are familiar with NATO. “We have different attitudes
depending on the geographical area,” he added. “But we need NATO and the
Federation supports NATO. We think NATO is our future.”
 In Afghanistan, “all NATO soldiers are perceived as American” and a minority
understands NATO as an international force. “Only educated people know
NATO,” the parliamentarian said.
 In Switzerland, a minority has heard of NATO. Those familiar with NATO see it as
a war organization and are not familiar with its peace keeping missions.
According to the parliamentarian interviewed, “The Swiss are proud to be
neutral”.
 A parliamentarian from the Republic of Moldova estimated that 40% of the
people in his country know NATO as a military institution and perceive it in
contrast to the Russian Federation.
To improve the perception people have of NATO, parliamentarians, both member
and non-member, overwhelmingly suggest the use of media. Specifically, the media
should be used to articulate the organization’s mission and objectives, to highlight its
achievements and inform the public about the benefits it offers. “NATO needs to
project a clearer mission,” said one delegate. “After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the
end of the Cold War, NATO focuses only on justifying its existence.” Other
suggestions included use of social media, involvement in universities and schools
(including seminars for teachers), limiting participation in missions outside of
member areas.
7
Communication
Enhancing Public Awareness
Member Countries: Communication is key to enhancing
public awareness about NATO.
A large majority of respondents believe that NATO should invest more in
communication. Several areas of improvement were suggested:
 Most delegates think NATO should be more present in the mass media, such as
TV, radio and the press as most people are in tune with these channels.
Documentaries and commercials are also channels to reach people and convince
them of NATO’s importance.
 In reaching out to the younger generation, NATO should use the internet, social
media and the most innovative technologies. To reach the world’s youth and
become popular with them, NATO should also develop more partnerships with
universities, and be more present in the job market. Some participants even
suggested NATO should become part of national school programs in order to
reach younger demographics.
 Messages should be clear, short and simple. NATO “should speak to the hearts of
people.”
 A majority of delegates said being local is crucial: communication should not
come only from Brussels, but needs to be “outsourced” nationally. To this end,
NATO should develop its relations with national representatives. One
parliamentarian suggested “a national representative in every country, as people
listen to them and trust them more.”
 In terms of content, NATO should communicate its mission, emphasize its
political role (not only its military role) and talk more about its efforts to secure
human rights. Because NATO is not considered a necessity (mainly in Western
Europe: France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands), this would
demonstrate its relevance to people.
A minority said that NATO should change its behaviour in order to increase
awareness. For instance, two delegates think NATO should be more active not only
by putting more effort into conflict prevention, but also by increasing its intervention
in humanitarian disasters. Three delegates mentioned that NATO “does not always
tell the truth” and one of them simply said that NATO should be “more frank, more
open and fairer.”
Non-Member Countries: Solutions for enhanced public
awareness involved action more than communication.
While delegates from non-member countries agree that communication efforts are
essential to improving public awareness of NATO, many suggested concrete action
points, as well:
 In the Republic of Moldova, there are NATO Training Centres (e.g. the Pro
Marshall Centre) where NGOs meet—they are open to everyone. More of these
could be established. Also, the TV channel "Freedom Europe" explains a lot about
8
Europe and NATO; more of these types of channels could inform the public about
NATO.
 With respect to Afghanistan, NATO should take into account the fact that most
people are not well educated. According to the parliamentarian interviewed, 85%
of men there are not educated. Therefore, a focus on local education would make
a big difference. For instance, “If the mullah can explain the role of NATO, people
will understand—they see the mullah 5 times a day.” This delegate suggested a
program where NATO supports local mullahs through protection and moderate
funding in order to gain their loyalty. “It is a long process,” he said. “It needs
people and time, but it works. With this incentive, they will be loyal to the
government. Mullahs would say, ‘God save the international soldiers.’”
 According to the Swiss parliamentarian, NATO should provide more information
and implement discussions in Switzerland. The Alliance should also “get more
resources and money to be able to ensure that missions will have a good end.”
Communication with Parliamentarians
Parliamentarians were asked to evaluate NATO’s communication with them in terms
of frequency, quality, scope and transparency. They answered using a scale of 1 to
10, 1 being not well at all and 10 being very well.
Member Countries: Communication is overall satisfactory.
Frequency
Overall, parliamentarians from member countries are moderately satisfied (5.3) with
NATO’s frequency of communication with them, although answers differ
significantly among members. Liberals and Socialists are slightly more satisfied with
the frequency of communication than are Conservatives. Men are more satisfied than
women with the frequency of communication. And, with respect to age,
parliamentarians 35-65 years old are more satisfied than the youngest (under 35)
and the oldest (over 65) delegates.
Quality
Overall, parliamentarians rated the quality of communication directed toward them
at a sufficient level (6.1). Again, Liberals and Socialists offered higher scores than
Conservatives did. Satisfaction with the quality of the content is highest for
intermediate age parliamentarians (35-49 years) and older parliamentarians (over
65 years).
Scope
For the delegates, the scope of the content is sufficient (6.0). Once again, Liberals
and Socialists offered higher scores than Conservatives did. Women are more
satisfied than men with the scope of content. Finally, satisfaction with the scope of
the content corresponds to age: the intermediate (35-49 years) and oldest (over 60
years) age groups are the ones who most appreciate the work of NATO in this
context.
Transparency
Delegates are somewhat satisfied with the transparency of communication (5.6).
Liberals are, as usual, are more satisfied than other political groups. This time, they
are followed by Conservatives and Socialists. Men are more satisfied than women,
however the difference is minimal. Satisfaction with the transparency of
9
communication corresponds with age: the younger the delegate, the less satisfied
he/she is.
Non-Member Countries: Satisfaction level is slightly higher
than for member countries.
Frequency
Parliamentarians from non-member countries gave a satisfactory rating to NATO
regarding the frequency of communication to them. This score was slightly higher
than that of member country respondents (6.6). Looking at the breakdown by
political parties, Socialists attributed the highest score. Interestingly, with concern to
age, the frequency of NATO communication was given the highest rating by younger
parliamentarians (under 35) and the score decreased with age. Those over 65 years
old gave the lowest score.
Quality
According to respondents from non-member countries, there is an overall
satisfaction with the quality of the content of NATO communications (7.1). Also,
Liberals and Socialists attributed high scores. However, Socialists of non-member
countries are more satisfied than their counterparts in member countries. This time,
satisfaction declined with age—the “under 35” category is the most satisfied.
Scope
The scope of NATO’s communication content is sufficient, according to
parliamentarians from non-member countries. They gave the Alliance a higher score
in this area than delegates from member countries did (6.6). Socialists are among the
most satisfied with the scope of NATO’s communication. The youngest age group
(under 35 years) gave NATO the highest score in this area.
Transparency
Parliamentarians from non-member countries are satisfied with the transparency of
the communication they receive from NATO. In fact, they assigned noticeably higher
scores than the ones given by delegates from member countries (7.3). Liberals and
Socialists tend to have a high opinion of NATO’s transparency in communication. All
of the age categories gave NATO high scores in this area with the exception of the
over 65 group, who gave a score of 4.0 in strong disagreement.
Communication with the General Public
Parliamentarians were asked to rate NATO’s communication with the general public
in terms of frequency, quality, scope and transparency. They answered using a scale
of 1 to 10, 1 being not well at all and 10 being very well.
Member Countries: There is room for improvement in terms
of communication with the general public.
Frequency
In general, respondents feel that NATO’s frequency of communication with the
general public is below average (4.4). Liberals rank NATO’s communication
frequency higher than Socialists and Conservatives do. Women tend to rank NATO’s
communication frequency higher than men rank it. And parliamentarians between
ages 50-65 years old gave NATO the highest score in this area.
10
Quality
Overall, parliamentarians rank the quality of NATO’s communication with the
general public as adequate (5.1). Liberals have a higher opinion of the quality of
NATO’s communication toward the public than do Socialists and Conservatives.
Women are less critical then men in this area—they gave the organization a
6.4 ranking, while men gave it a 4.9.
Scope
Overall, parliamentarians think that the scope of NATO’s communication with the
general public warrants an almost sufficient ranking (4.8). Liberals gave NATO the
highest ranking, while Conservatives and Socialists give it a lower score.
Transparency
Overall, parliamentarians ranked NATO’s transparency with the general public at a
little bit lower than satisfactory (4.6). Once again, Liberals gave NATO the highest
ranking. Socialists and Conservatives followed. Older Parliamentarians (over 65)
have a higher opinion of NATO’s transparency with the general public, while their
intermediate aged counterparts are more critical.
Non-Member Countries: Although ratings are higher than
they are for member countries, more effort should be put
into communication with the general public.
Frequency
Delegates from non-member countries scored the frequency of communication with
the general public at below average, which is slightly higher than the score given by
member countries (4.0). Liberals gave the highest score, and Conservatives gave the
lowest score. A reversed pattern was observed for communication with the public.
Unlike communication with parliamentarians, where the score decreased with the
interviewee’s age, scores increased for older delegates.
Quality
Parliamentarians said NATO delivers a higher quality of communication to them
than it does to the general public. Parliamentarians of non-member countries align
with those of member countries on this matter, providing similar scores (5.3). The
most satisfied age group is the “over 65”, whilst the most sceptical is the intermediate
age-range (35-65 years).
Scope
Non-member countries gave a higher score than did member countries regarding the
scope of communication content where the general public is concerned (5.1). Liberals
and Socialists gave the highest scores, while Conservatives gave NATO a considerably
lower score. Age demographics for this category played out with the younger
delegates giving NATO lower scores and the older delegates giving higher scores.
Transparency
Parliamentarians tend to be less convinced of NATO’s transparency with the general
public than with themselves. In this area, they gave NATO a higher score than the
one given by delegates from member countries (5.2). Liberals and Socialists have a
favourable view of NATO on this matter, but Conservatives disagree. The oldest
generations are the most approving of NATO’s transparency in communication.
11
Suggestions for Improvement
Member and non-member parliamentarians are in agreement concerning
recommendations for improving NATO’s communication efforts. The following
suggestions emerged:
 Focus more on informing students, the media, and political party activists
regarding NATO values and benefits of national participation, including
membership (for non-member countries).
 Adopt a policy by which information should be shared by default with the public
and only to keep things secret only when there is a security reason to do so.
 Demonstrate in detail the procedures of decision-making and control within
NATO.
 Show the results of NATO’s work and decisions (At most, the public knows the
results of the NATO summits, but nothing about the organization’s activities on
cyber security, education in Afghanistan, Libya, etc.)
12
Member Countries: Email is the preferred means of
communication, followed by conferences and assemblies.
Communication with Parliamentarians
It should be noted that the percentages on the table below represent methods
parliamentarians think NATO should use to communicate with Parliamentarians
(not the actual means they are using).
Preferences are ranked in order of their frequency.
Communication with Parliamentarians
Email 89%
Conferences and Assemblies 53%
NATO Website 39%
Social Media 26%
Press Releases 16%
Telephone 11%
Ordinary Media: Newspapers, Radio 3%
Parliamentarians overwhelmingly prefer email as a means of communication. Asked
what means would be most effective for NATO to use in order to improve its
communication strategy, nearly all of those interviewed suggested email. This
response was given in reference to communication both with parliamentarians and
with the general public.
Parliamentarians from the Liberal party prefer communication through conferences
and assemblies more than Conservatives and Socialists do. Liberals also use the
NATO website considerably more than parliamentarians affiliated with other parties
do. Half of the Liberals surveyed visit the NATO website, while only 40% of Socialists
and 35% of Conservatives do so. The same is true regarding press releases. One-
fourth of Liberals suggested the use of press releases to convey information, while
few Conservatives and Socialists did.
Conservatives were the only group that mentioned the telephone as a means of
communicating with them. Interestingly, all of the respondents who suggested use of
the telephone are men.
All of the female delegates said e-mail is their preferred mode of communication,
while only 83% of men did. Women also suggested the use of social media
considerably more than men did: 67% recommended this technology, compared with
19% of men. With respect to social media, Liberals suggested using this channel the
most.
13
Communication with the General Public
Preferences are ranked in order of their frequency.
Communication with the General Public
Television 85%
Local Press 69%
Social Media 44%
NATO Website 51%
Radio 36%
International Press 23%
Education programs for teachers
and schools
3%
All Socialists and the vast majority of Conservatives and Liberals suggested the
television platform for strengthening NATO’s communication strategy. There is a
broad consensus here, independent of political affiliation.
Roughly half of Liberals and Socialists suggested using radio as a means of
disseminating information, and all but one of those who suggested using the
International Press are men.
Men also suggested using the NATO website more than twice as often as women did.
That said, notably more women (67%) suggested the use of social media than did
men (39%). This is consistent with our findings regarding women who use social
media as a means of gathering information about NATO.
Non-Member Countries: Email is the most effective means
of communication; conferences and the website are also
important.
Communication with Parliamentarians
The answers are ranked in order of their frequency.
Communication with Parliamentarians
E-mail 80%
Conferences and Assemblies 40%
NATO Website 40%
Social Media 20%
Press Releases 10%
All of Liberals and Socialists consider e-mail to be the most appropriate means of
strengthening communication with parliamentarians. Conferences and assemblies
are also better means of communicating with Liberals and Socialists than to
Conservatives. That said, Conservatives indicated that they to refer to a broader set
of communications than did their political counterparts.
14
Communication with the General Public
The answers are ranked in order of their frequency.
Communication means to the
General Public
Television 100%
Local Press 80%
Social Media 50%
Radio 50%
NATO website 10%
International Press 10%
Dedicated Events 10%
All parties agree on the use of television for improving communication with the
general public. There is also a 100% consensus among Liberals on the use of radio, as
well. However, this is not shared by other political parties.
Local press is the preferred means of communication for Conservatives, together
with television. Liberals and Socialists also support this method, but to a lesser
extent. More than half of those surveyed think social media is a good way to
communicate with the public. Finally, the age category of 50- 65 are more open to
various means of communication, as they chose a broader set of communication
tools than the other age groups did.
15
NATO Post 2014
The End of ISAF
Member Countries: The end of ISAF is necessary.
Regarding the effect that the end of the ISAF operation will have on NATO, most
delegates agree that it will play to the organization’s best interest since “NATO needs
this break to rest and recuperate.” As one delegate said, “exits are as important as
entries.” However, most parliamentarians also said that NATO needs to continue
cooperating with Afghanistan in an advisory role in order to prevent further
instability, as “NATO did not manage to build a democracy there.”
Still, the experience gained in Afghanistan has been positive. Many declared that it
has been an opportunity for NATO to learn. Members from Europe and the US have
worked “shoulder to shoulder” and have become more efficient in terms of
operations. Some would like NATO to remember the lessons of this experience for
future operations in order to be able to draw on them when preparing future
missions.
Leaving Afghanistan is seen as positive overall and as an opportunity to free up more
resources to deploy to other regions. Parliamentarians think it is important for
NATO to play an active role in other regions. Respondents mentioned that the future
of NATO will mainly depend on how it is involved in conflicts in places like Syria, the
Sahel, the MENA countries (such as Libya) and the African coast.
Aside from possible conflicts, some delegates think that NATO should begin a period
of reflection about areas of improvement, focus more on prevention of instability and
increase humanitarian initiatives. According to four parliamentarians, the fact that
the US is rebalancing its commitment around the world creates an opportunity for
Europe to play a major role in NATO.
That said, many parliamentarians say NATO should not simply leave Afghanistan
without continuing support to the country. “We cannot leave Afghanistan in one
day,” said a member delegate. “It should be a transition. We need to help the country
after 2014. There are still problems: 80% of the worldwide supply of heroin comes
from Afghanistan. We need to help the police and the army to create a stable
country.”
Although ending the ISAF program is considered a positive change for NATO,
parliamentarians believe combating terrorism should be the main priority for the
Alliance in the future. Cyber security and military operations are also perceived as a
key strategic priority for NATO in the coming years.
Non-Member Countries: NATO should maintain a presence
in Afghanistan after the end of ISAF
All parliamentarians from non-member countries who were interviewed feel NATO
should maintain a presence in Afghanistan. “They should organize some permanent
cooperation to help local authorities,” said one delegate, who pointed out the
country’s poverty and lack of structure. “It would not be good to just leave.”
Strong terrorist threats from MENA countries remain, according to one
parliamentarian, and a lot still needs to be done about human rights and the
implementation of democratic procedures.
The parliamentarian from Afghanistan mentioned efforts to sign a bilateral security
agreement as well as the fact that troops will remain in Afghanistan until 2020.
“Some countries are waiting for NATO to leave,” he said, referring specifically to Iran
16
and Pakistan. “They think that nobody will be there, so they can take over the
country. But it won't be like after Russia left. Intelligence forces are in Afghanistan—
their presence will send a message, and the international community will be able to
see what is going on to testify against their interference.”
The top 10 priorities parliamentarians think NATO should have for the
future are shown below in order of importance:
Rank NATO Priority
1 Combating Terrorism
2 Cyber Security
3 Military Operations
4 Capabilities
5 Energy Security
6 Transatlantic Bond
7 Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative
8 Maritime Security
9 NATO-Russia Relations
10 Open Door Policy
Defense Spending
Member Countries: About half of parliamentarians think 2%
of GDP is sufficient to ensure security.
Slightly more than half (56%) of the member parliamentarians surveyed think that
the current target amount of 2% of national GDP allocated to defense is sufficient to
ensure security.
 56% think that amount is about right;
 31% think that amount is somewhat high or too high;
 13% think that amount is somewhat low or too low.
Non-Member Countries: The majority of parliamentarians
think 2% of GDP is sufficient to ensure security.
Parliamentarians from non-member countries are more willing to increase the 2%
allocation of GDP devoted to the defense budget.
 70% think the amount is about right;
 20% think that amount is somewhat low or too low;
 10% think that amount is somewhat high or too high.
Why most member countries don’t contribute 2%
Parliamentarians from both member and non-member countries agree on the
reasons most member countries don’t contribute their burden share to NATO.
Overwhelmingly, the reason cited for low contributions was the economic crisis and
the resulting budget reductions which leave fewer funds for defense. Other reasons
given were lack of political will, a heavy reliance on the US for protection and
negative public opinion toward defense spending.
17
The Parliamentary Assembly
Integration of NPA into Parliamentary Work
Member Countries: The majority of parliamentarians
integrate their activities at the NPA into their work.
About half (46%) said they always do so, and most of the other half said they
sometimes do (46%) so. Very few rarely do so (8%).
When communicating information about the NPA to others, parliamentarians
address the following:
Recipients of communication
The Parliament 77%
Their Political Parties 62%
The General Public 54%
The Press 31%
The Government 36%
Militaries and Former Soldiers 3%
Non-Member Countries: Communication of NPA
information is strong.
The majority of non-member parliamentarians always integrate NPA activities into
their home country parliamentary work.
About one-third do it only sometimes.
All non-member parliamentarians communicate the content of the NPA sessions to
other parties. In particular, they do it towards:
Recipients of communication
The Parliament 91%
Their Political Parties 82%
The Press 73%
The General Public 64%
The Government 27%
Satisfaction with NPA
Member Countries: Parliamentarians were very satisfied
with the conference.
Overall, parliamentarians were very satisfied with the NPA.
The vast majority of parliamentarians felt the timeframe of the NPA was just right,
including opening sessions, panels, reports and the closing sessions.
The vast majority of parliamentarians felt the debate was adequately moderated,
giving delegates an opportunity to discuss the draft reports.
18
Non-Member Countries: Parliamentarians were very
satisfied with the conference.
Overall, the majority of parliamentarians (64%) were very satisfied with the NPA in
Dubrovnik. The rest were at least somewhat satisfied.
There is a complete consensus on satisfaction regarding the timeframe of the closing
session, the panels and the reports discussion. All were deemed to have been just
right.
82% of parliamentarians judged the timeframe for the opening session as just right,
while 18% considered it to be somewhat long.
Overall, there was a positive consensus on the role of the moderator—nearly all
agreed that the debate was adequately moderated.
19
Conclusions &
Recommendations
Enhancements for NATO’s reputation
NATO should make better use of the media to define itself in the public arena. Many
people, including those from member countries, still have no idea what NATO does
in a present-day context. The Alliance is perceived by many as an artefact of the Cold
War or a strictly military organization. The suggestion of engaging the public
through local channels is a good one. Establishing NATO representatives in
individual countries would give an authenticity and immediacy to NATO
communication and would bring the organization into closer proximity with “real
people.” Also, the use of social media, universities and schools should be considered
to reach the Post-Cold War generation. Young people, who are in the process of
forming lifelong opinions, are an important demographic for NATO. As future
leaders, they should have a solid understanding of the Alliance and its mission.
NATO should make a concerted effort to broadcast about its policies and efforts to a
broader audience. Both member and non-member parliamentarians agree that
efforts at conflict prevention, humanitarian aid and partnership with non-member
countries would also help.
Enhancements for NATO’s Communication
While few parliamentarians said that NATO should change its communication
approach to increase its visibility, most agreed that its communication strategy can
be improved. As mentioned earlier, one suggested way was to have a more aggressive
and tactical use of mass media. To reach broader demographics, the Alliance should
use an array of media tools ranging from radio to the internet to press releases and
television.
In addition to technological solutions, NATO can partner with local political groups,
NGOs and educational institutions to promote its work at the national level.
Messages should be contextualized to local cultures: e.g. in Afghanistan, NATO
should communicate with the mullahs, in France with young academics and in the
United States with Democrats and Republicans.
Enhancements for NATO Post 2014
Although in the year 2014 there will be the end of the ISAF operation,
parliamentarians do not see this as a revolutionary change. In retrospect, people
view NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan as a positive experience that has borne
fruit. In light of this, the post 2014 period should be seen as an opportunity to reflect
on the past decade and consider what capabilities acquired in Afghanistan can be
deployed in future missions. That said, NATO continues to be vital to ensuring the
collective defense in its Member States. Terrorism, cyber terrorism and future
conflicts (e.g. Syria) should remain high on the agenda. Finally, especially in non-
member countries, there is the belief that NATO should establish permanent
cooperation with local governments in order to help them maintain stability.
20
Appendix I
Methodology
Quantitative study
The paper questionnaire, distributed to the parliamentarians at the beginning of the
NPA, aims at answering the following general research questions:
 What are parliamentarians’ general perceptions of NATO?
 How well does NATO communicate with them?
 What are their views on NATO post-2014 and on the funding of NATO?
 How satisfied were the participants with the NPA in Dubrovnik?
We aligned a final list of questions with NATO’s specifications in order to guarantee
that all of the required topics were covered. However, we received only 57 completed
questionnaires by the end of the NPA. In order to increase the representativeness of
the sample, a second round of telephone calls was done with the secretaries of
Delegations. We have asked if it was possible to chase the Delegates once again to get
answers to the questionnaire. From this second round, we gathered two new
responses.
During the telephone calls with the secretaries of Delegation, we received some
comments that we can point to as explanations for the lower response rates to the
quantitative survey. A number of secretariats specified that Delegates did not feel
confident in completing the questionnaire because of language barriers. Others told
us that Delegates are already over-loaded with surveys on a daily basis, and they
suggested that a way to increase the response rate would be to propose the survey a
second time during one of the upcoming events organized by NATO.
Furthermore, there is the possibility that one Delegate has decided to answer as a
representative of the entire delegation, especially for small countries. In fact, the
Secretary from the Swiss Delegation told us that although we received only one
response, it could be counted for the whole delegation since the delegates had agreed
to answer the questionnaire as a group.
To constitute a representative sample of the 256 parliamentarians who attended the
conference, we should have had a sample of 70 delegates. However, we were able to
collect only 59 responses. Of those, 9 were discarded due to missing information
regarding their countries, leaving us with 50 relevant questionnaires.
Qualitative study
In addition to the quantitative study, we have conducted a qualitative assessment by
carrying out face-to-face interviews with 29 parliamentarians. The resulting
information was used to complement the findings delivered through the
questionnaire.
The questionnaire for the face-to-face interviews complemented the first
questionnaire in that it asked parliamentarians to expand on their views previously
expressed. Specifically, the following themes were discussed:
 NATO’s reputation
 Perception about NATO post 2014
 NATO’ communication efforts
21
The interviewees asked mainly open ended questions to give interviewees an
opportunity to further elaborate their answers. This provided a deeper
understanding of the findings related to the quantitative study.
The final list of questions was also aligned with NATO’s specifications in order to
guarantee that all of the required topics were covered.
Interviews were conducted in Dubrovnik during the NPA. All interviews lasted
approximately 10 minutes.
Analysis
 Each question has been analysed both separately and within the overall context of
the questionnaire.
 We present the results per type of country (members vs. non-members), political
party and gender, when relevant. These findings are not generalizable to the
whole population of parliamentarians as the sample is still not representative (for
that, we need 70 completed questionnaires).
 Answers from the face-to-face interviews provide more insight on distinct topics,
but they cannot be understood as generalisations. Our findings explicitly identify
answers that came from the face-to-face interviews.
 We adapted the data analysis methodology according to the type of question:
- Close-ended questions require the interviewee to select one answer among a
pre-defined list. For instance, this may be a yes/no answer or a 1 to 5 answer.
In this case, we performed quantitative analysis, using mainly frequencies and
averages.
- Open-ended questions require the interviewee to use his/her own words to
explain the answers. In this case, we classified the answers by key messages,
measured the iteration of similar answers and put the key messages into
context in order to infer the main findings.
22
Interviewee profile for the quantitative study
The sample is composed of 50 respondents from the following countries and is
characterised as follows:
Type of country Country
Number of
responses
Member countries Belgium 3
Bulgaria 1
Canada 1
Croatia 1
Czech Republic 2
France 6
Greece 1
Italy 6
Latvia 3
Lithuania 2
Luxembourg 1
Netherlands 1
Norway 1
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Slovenia 1
Spain 2
Turkey 1
United Kingdom 4
Non-member countries Armenia 1
Austria 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
Georgia 1
Morocco 1
Republic of Moldova 2
Serbia 2
Switzerland 1
Ukraine 1
TOTAL 50
Age Total
Member
countries
Non-
member
countries
Under 35 3 2 1
35 -49 14 10 4
50-65 26 21 5
Over 65 6 5 1
No answer 1 1 -
TOTAL 50 39 11
23
Political group affiliation Total
Member
countries
Non-
member
countries
Conservatives, Christian
Democrats and Associates
24 20 4
Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats
10 7 3
Socialist 14 11 3
Other 1 - -
No answer 2 1 1
TOTAL 50 39 11
Gender Total
Member
countries
Non-
member
countries
Female 6 6 -
Male 44 33 11
TOTAL 50 39 11
Interviewee profile for the qualitative study
The group of respondents for the face-to-face interviews is composed of 29
respondents from the following countries and is characterised as follows:
Country Total
Afghanistan 1
Albania 1
Belgium 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
Bulgaria 1
Canada 2
France 3
Georgia 1
Germany 1
Hungary 1
Iceland 2
Italy 2
Lithuania 1
Luxembourg 1
Netherlands 1
Poland 1
Portugal 1
Republic of Moldova 1
Spain 1
Switzerland 1
Turkey 2
United Kingdom 2
TOTAL 29
24
Type of country Total
Member countries 24
Associate countries 4
Partner countries and guests 1
Total 29
Political group affiliation Total
Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Associates 13
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats 8
Socialist 6
Other 2
TOTAL 29
Gender Total
Female 5
Male 24
Total 29
25
Appendix II
Questionnaire used for the quantitative
study
Respondent name (optional):
Gender: □ Female
□ Male
Country:
Political Group Affiliation:
□ Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Associates
□ Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
□ Socialist
□ Other
Age:
□ Under 35
□ 35 -49
□ 50-65
□ Over 65
I. NATO’S REPUTATION
Q1 Please rate the perceptions the groups listed below have of NATO.
Tick only one answer per column.
Yourself Your national
political party
The citizens in
your country
Very favourable
Somewhat favourable
Neutral
Not very favourable
Not favourable at all
Q2 What measures would you recommend NATO take to improve the
perception your country’s citizens have of the organization?
Please explain.
Q3 How do the groups listed below perceive the role of NATO in ensuring the
collective defense of its member states?
Tick only one answer per column.
Yourself Your national
political party
The citizens in
your country
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not important
26
Q4 Please rank the following institutions according to their usefulness in
ensuring international peace and stability.
Please use a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being the most useful and 5 being the least
useful.
NATO
United Nations (UN)
European Institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament)
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Council of Europe
Other: please specify
Q5a Do you see NATO as a crucial player on the global stage?
Tick one answer only.
□ Yes, totally
□ Somewhat
□ Not very much
□ Not at all
Q5b Why or why not?
Please explain.
Q6 How well does NATO represent the needs of its member nations?
Tick one answer only.
□ Well
□ Partially
□ Not very well
□ Not at all well
27
II. COMMUNICATION
Q7a How well does NATO communicate with you in the following areas?
Please use a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being not well at all and 10 being very well.
Tick only one answer per row.
1
Not well
at all
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very
well
Frequency
Quality
Scope
Transparency
Q7b What means would be most effective for NATO in improving its
communication with you?
Tick all that apply.
□ E-mail
□ Telephone
□ Press release
□ NATO website
□ Social media
□ Conferences and assemblies
□ Other: please specify
Q8a How does NATO communicate with the general public in your country?
Please use a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being not well at all and 10 being very well.
Tick only one answer per row.
1
Not well
at all
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Very
well
Frequency
Quality
Scope
Transparency
Q8b How should NATO improve its communication strategy towards the general
public in your country?
Please explain.
Q8c What means would be most effective for NATO in improving its
communication with the general public in your country?
Tick all that apply.
□ NATO website
□ Local press
□ International press
□ Television
□ Radio
□ Social media
□ Other: please specify
28
Q8d What measures should NATO take to further enhance its transparency
towards the general public in your country?
Please explain.
III. PERCEPTIONS OF NATO POST 2014
Q9 According to you, how should NATO rank its priorities for the future?
Please use a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being the most important and 10 being the
least important.
Military Operations
Capabilities
NATO-Russia relations
Open Door Policy
Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative
Combating terrorism
Cyber security
Maritime Security
Energy Security
Transatlantic Bond
Other: please specify
Q10 According to you, what should NATO not do in the future?
Please explain.
Q11 Overall, do you believe the current target amount of 2% of national GDP
allocated to defense is sufficient to ensure security?
Tick one answer only.
□ It is too high
□ It is somewhat high
□ It is about right
□ It is somewhat low
□ It is too low
Q12 Why do you believe that most member countries do not contribute 2% of
their GDP to defense?
Please explain.
29
IV. NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
Q13a Do you integrate your activities at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA)
into your work in the National Parliament?
Tick one answer only.
□ Always
□ Sometimes
□ Rarely
□ Never
Q13b If so, how?
Please explain.
Q14 To whom do you communicate the content of the NPA sessions?
Tick all that apply.
□ Government
□ Parliament
□ Political party
□ General public
□ Press
□ Other: please specify
□ I do not communicate this information to other parties
Q15 Overall, how satisfied were you with the Dubrovnik session of the NPA?
Tick one answer only.
□ Very satisfied
□ Somewhat satisfied
□ Neutral
□ Somewhat dissatisfied
□ Very dissatisfied
Q16 Overall, how satisfied were you with the timeframe of the sessions?
Tick only one answer per row.
Too short Somewhat
short
Just right Somewhat
long
Too long
Opening
sessions
Panels
Reports
Closing sessions
Q17 Overall, do you think that the debate was adequately moderated, giving
delegates an opportunity to discuss the draft reports?
Tick one answer only.
□ Yes
□ Neutral
□ No
30
Discussion guide used for the qualitative
study
Respondent name (optional):
Gender:
□ Female
□ Male
Country:
Political Group Affiliation:
□ Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Associates
□ Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
□ Socialist
□ Other
I. NATO’S REPUTATION
Q1. Do you think NATO fulfils its duty to maintain peace?
□ Yes, totally
□ Somewhat
□ Not very much
□ Not at all
Q2. If not totally, what measures should it take in order to do so?
II. PERCEPTIONS OF NATO POST 2014
Q3. How will the end of the ISAF mission affect NATO?
III. COMMUNICATION
Q4a. Do you think most people have heard about NATO?
Q4b. Do you think most people understand what NATO does?
□ Yes, totally
□ Somewhat
□ Not very much
□ Not at all
Q5. What measures could NATO take to enhance public awareness about the
organization?
Q6. Other comments:
PwC Luxembourg (www.pwc.lu) is the largest professional services firm in
Luxembourg with 2,300 people employed from 57 different countries. It provides
audit, tax and advisory services including management consulting, transaction,
financing and regulatory advice to a wide variety of clients from local and middle
market entrepreneurs to large multinational companies operating from Luxembourg
and the Greater Region. It helps its clients create the value they are looking for by
giving comfort to the capital markets and providing advice through an industry
focused approach.
The global PwC network is the largest provider of professional services in audit, tax
and advisory. We’re a network of independent firms in 158 countries and employ
more than 180,000 people. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting
us at www.pwc.com and www.pwc.lu.


1
Assistant Secretary General Kolinda Grabar: Remarks to the NPA
Getting the Message Across: NATO’s Narrative Challenge
February 16, 2014 ¦ Brussels
Good afternoon, President Bayley, distinguished members of Delegations, Parliamentary
guests, colleagues and friends,
I am honored to be part of this event today, and thank you for the kind introduction. I am
the last speaker of the day and I hope to get your attention in this busy day, while I wrap
up what has been discussed so far.
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly plays an essential role as the link between the
Alliance and our parliaments, and – through them – our publics. As Assistant Secretary
General for Public Diplomacy, I am grateful for your essential work in engaging with
your constituents and your peers on the importance of NATO. The Alliance has a
compelling story to tell during this Summit year, and your work has been indispensable
in ensuring that our publics hear it loud and clear.
For all of these contributions to this work, I am here to say thank you. But I should add
that I also am here today to push a bit of an agenda. (I hope you will indulge me!) And
that agenda is simple: NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division and the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly can and should do more together. With your help, we want to hear more from
constituents about where they believe the Alliance is headed. I am here to seek your
feedback on how we can improve our ties and work together during this pivotal year for
the Alliance.
With that not-so-hidden agenda in mind, I would like to begin with a few comments
about the year ahead for NATO, as well as a brief summary of the Alliance’s public
narrative as we approach the NATO Summit in September. I will outline some of the key
NATO's Parlamentariske Forsamling 2013-14
NPA Alm.del Bilag 5
Offentligt (01)
2
themes that will guide our programs this year, but I will be brief, as you will continue to
hear a great deal about these at tomorrow’s Council meeting.
Instead, as the subject of our panel suggests, I’d like to focus our talk on how the NPA
and NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division can coordinate more effectively and support
each other’s efforts to get the message across. It is essential that we hear your views as
we begin our Summit planning. And I assure you, we are listening to your views which
are very important to us: Many of you may recall that we commissioned Price
Waterhouse Cooper to conduct a survey during the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
session in Dubrovnik last October and at the NATO PA Transatlantic Forum in
Washington in December. I will cite a few of the surveys’ key findings a bit later, and I
look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you again for your help in working with
PWC on your views.
But first, a bit of context on 2014: This is an important time for NATO. 2014 is a
Summit year. When Heads of State and Government gather in Wales, we will, in effect,
be writing a new chapter in NATO’s story.
Throughout the year, we mark significant anniversaries of the great conflicts which
shaped our world; the enlargements which have helped heal the divisions in Europe; and
our ever-widening network of partners as we tackle global security challenges. We will
also mark the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Washington Treaty, NATO’s
founding document.
In addition, NATO’s longest combat operation -- the ISAF mission in Afghanistan – will
come to an end, and we will continue to prepare for a follow-on mission.
These milestones mark an inflection point for the Alliance in 2014, one that we will
discuss, debate, and celebrate throughout the year as we approach the Summit. The
3
Summit will represent an opportunity for our national leadership to reflect on these
milestones – with the aim of moving the Alliance forward.
And we have a strong case to make. We live in a security environment that is complex –
and is only growing more complex. Threats are multiplying and instability is growing.
But NATO has demonstrated it is strong, adaptable, and ready to provide security today
and tomorrow.
The Alliance has taken on new missions, developed new capabilities, welcomed new
members and engaged with new partners. Each time we faced new threats, we have risen
to the challenge, learned from the experience, and moved forward.
These elements comprise our Summit narrative that we continue to develop as we
approach the Summit.
As we approach the Summit, our publics will be increasingly asking difficult questions
about the role that NATO will play after 2014, after Afghanistan, and as we continue to
feel the effects of fiscal austerity.
So the stakes are high, and the media environment is daunting: We live at a time in
which events unfold in real time. We are operating amid the competitive din of social
media. Official voices are sometimes not the most exciting -- and not always perceived
as the most credible. But despite these challenges, we have to be a part of that
conversation.
Let me briefly lay out the core themes we plan to deliver as part of our Summit narrative.
Then I will get back to the issue of what we can do together in order to advance these
core messages.
4
The first core theme you will be hearing quite a lot about as we approach the Summit
boils down to a simple phrase: “Future NATO” – a term that captures the idea of an
Alliance that is rebalancing and adapting to lessons learned over the past 20 years of
NATO operations. These lessons break down into three broad categories:
 First, Partnerships: We will point to NATO’s experience in Afghanistan as a
vivid illustration of how partnerships make the Alliance more capable, flexible,
and better-connected.
 Second, Connectivity: As our largest combat operation winds down in 2014, it
will be essential to remain connected as Allies and with partners so we retain the
edge and experience acquired through over 20 years of operations.
 And finally, capabilities: We need to persuade our publics of the importance of
investing in the capabilities we need to ensure that the Alliance has the right tools
to confront tomorrow’s challenges.
Another key theme we will address in Wales is our experience in Afghanistan. It will be
vitally important for NATO to explain ISAF’s legacy to our publics.
Finally, we will stress that the transatlantic bond remains a pillar of the Alliance.
Speaking more broadly, the Summit is an opportunity to communicate persuasively with
citizens who are questioning NATO’s relevance -- particularly with the end of the ISAF
mission. Many people question why we need defence at all. We need to make the case
that the preservation of our security and values is not given.
Now, this is not the end of our discussion on Summit themes – on the contrary, I am
looking forward to questions today and to continuing this conversation over the next six
5
months. But this is also a good time to examine how the NPA and NATO’s Public
Diplomacy Division can better coordinate our efforts.
Much has already been achieved. Our staffs are in close contact here in Brussels. We
work together on briefings – sometimes we bring groups to you and sometimes you bring
groups to us. This is incredibly valuable – last May the NPA organized a visit for a group
of Russian parliamentarians – something that would not have been possible if we were
working alone. We also worked very closely together during the recent NPA visit to
Kyiv. At the same time, I believe that we can do even more in our joint efforts to reach
out to national legislative bodies.
It is no secret that involving members of national legislative bodies in both Allied and
partner countries is one of our most critical priorities. The role of the NATO
Parliamentary assembly in this respect is absolutely crucial. We rely on you and your
colleagues to help us reach out to parliamentarians who are not necessarily as engaged in
security and defence issues as you are.
I’ve mentioned the challenging media environment in which we operate. Right now, we
live in a world where facts and opinions are exchanged and disseminated with the click of
a button. In this environment, the ability of elected officials, governments, and
multilateral organizations to engage and facilitate dialogue has never been greater – but at
the same time, we have never faced more competition. We can have more of an impact if
we are working together.
And as I mentioned, we are listening to your feedback. We commissioned the PWC
surveys last year to take a close look at how we can communicate with you more
effectively. We worked in close cooperation with the NATO PA Secretariat on the
surveys, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the NPA staff for its superb
work and excellent support.
6
The surveys sought your views on the way in which NATO communicates with you and
on your perceptions of NATO more broadly. Let me share with you some of the
conclusions of the survey, which is based on the views of 97 parliamentarians, from both
member and non-member countries:
 NATO PA Delegates have a very favourable perception of NATO, with 51% of
respondents saying that the Alliance totally fulfils its goals and 40% that it
somewhat fulfils them.
 Delegates believe that more than half of their parties have similarly positive views
of NATO, but only 25% of their constituencies share these views.
 Respondents recommended that outreach towards constituents, especially youth,
should be improved to convince them of NATO’s value and relevance. Some
expressed the view that citizens have moved beyond the idea of NATO as a
necessary entity.
 92% of respondents reported that they integrate their NATO PA activities into
their national work either sometimes or always.
 Delegates indicated that they are satisfied with the frequency and quality of NATO
outreach and that more person-to-person contact would be useful.
These findings point to a positive picture of how we are communicating with each other.
However, I believe they also point to areas in which we can do more – and move forward
together. I will mention three areas in particular, but this is just a beginning -- I welcome
your ideas on how to build on this list:
7
1. First, I believe there is more we can do to compare notes on target audiences. You
know your constituents – you know the issues they follow and those they don’t.
You know what will appeal to them and what won’t. And you may be the primary
conduit through which they gather information to form their opinions about a
range of subjects, NATO included. So you are well-placed to carry the message of
NATO’s relevance. To the extent possible, we’d like to build on that good
foundation. We can do this only with your feedback.
2. Secondly, the PWC survey emphasized one of those audiences in particular: the
younger generation. We should do more to combine our efforts in engaging
younger audiences, ideally through increased cooperation with universities and
schools. We need to explore ways in which NATO can contribute – in terms of
substance, contacts, and technology – to your own youth outreach.
3. Thirdly, NATO should increasingly look to the NPA to help amplify our outreach
towards next-generation policymakers. We would be grateful for your advice and
expertise on how best to build on your existing partnerships with local political
groups and policy organizations.
4. Fourth, we should collaborate with you more closely on increasing our regular
contacts with parliamentarians – beyond existing mechanisms. Your suggestions
in this respect would be more than welcome.
5. Finally, and more broadly, we should improve our channels of communication and
coordinate our efforts in systematic, concrete ways – perhaps through targeted
distribution lists and working groups.
These ideas are, of course, simply proposals, but I believe they represent a practical way
forward. And I hope they will help steer our discussion today. We hope that this is just
8
the beginning of the conversation. We look forward to staying in touch with you to
continue this dialogue, and to share ideas.
As you can see, NATO has its work cut out for all of us this year. The road ahead to the
Summit will be challenging. It will require unity of purpose among our Allies. It will
require political resolve in NATO capitals to help our publics understand why defence
matters, and why NATO matters.
Once again, thanks very much for your tireless support of our outreach efforts, and now I
look forward to taking your questions.


PricewaterhouseCoopers, Société coopérative, 400 Route d’Esch, B.P. 1443, L-1014 Luxembourg
T : +352 494848 1, F : +352 494848 2900, www.pwc.lu
Cabinet de révision agréé. Expert-comptable (autorisation gouvernementale n°10028256)
R.C.S. Luxembourg B 65 477 - TVA LU25482518
Follow-up
Qualitative Study:
The NATO
Parliamentary
Transatlantic Forum,
Washington D.C.
2-3 December 2013
Final Report
Market Research Institute
December 2013
NATO's Parlamentariske Forsamling 2013-14
NPA Alm.del Bilag 5
Offentligt (01)
3
Contents
Executive Summary........................................................... 1
Articulate a Clear Mission ........................................................................................1
Justify Defence Spending........................................................................................2
NATO will remain relevant after 2014 ...................................................................2
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................3
Main Findings ...................................................................4
Interviewee Profile........................................................................................................4
Communication with delegates....................................................................................4
NATO should improve its communication efforts with non-Americans..............4
Improvements in NATO’s communication strategy have been suggested by
the interviewees ....................................................................................................... 5
NATO’s communication efforts in the delegates’ country are somewhat
effective but could be further improved .................................................................6
Only few understand what NATO actually does .................................................... 7
Suggestions for improving public awareness of NATO’s role and duties.............8
Suggestions for improving NATO’s communication strategy towards the
general public...........................................................................................................9
Defence Spending ....................................................................................................... 10
The general public is sceptical about spending money on defence .................... 10
The economic crisis is, according to the delegates, one of the main reasons
for not reaching the contribution level of 2% of the GDP ....................................11
NATO must convince Non-American member countries to invest in defence .. 13
NATO Post 2014.......................................................................................................... 14
NATO has the capabilities to remain relevant ..................................................... 14
The end of ISAF: How will it affect NATO? ..........................................................15
Both non-American and American delegates interviewed agree that NATO
will remain relevant post 2014.............................................................................. 16
NATO’s priority should be to focus on developing its capabilities ......................17
Conclusions & Recommendations....................................20
Communication...........................................................................................................20
Defence Spending .......................................................................................................20
NATO Post 2014..........................................................................................................20
Appendix I....................................................................... 21
Appendix II......................................................................24
4
Executive Summary
As a follow up study to the “Quantitative research among members of the NPA at the
General Assembly in Dubrovnik”, NATO has commissioned PwC to carry out a
qualitative assessment that evaluates the perceptions of 18 parliamentarians
(hereafter “delegates”) of the NATO Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in
Washington, D.C. The results have been presented in two categories: non-Americans
(who accounted for 14 interviews) and Americans (who accounted for 4 interviews).
The objective of this study is to obtain an extensive picture of the delegate’s attitudes
as well as to complement and complete the findings which have emerged from the
Dubrovnik study. In fact, this research aims at ascertaining the:
 Effectiveness of NATO’s communication with delegates and the general public;
 Measures NATO should take to enhance its communication strategy;
 Attitudes of delegates regarding defence spending;
 Perceptions of NATO’s relevance post 2014.
The findings in this study echo those resulting from the previous study conducted
with parliamentarians in Dubrovnik, Croatia where delegates suggested NATO
should increase the use of the media, raise awareness among the general public and
define its priorities for the future. It should be noted that delegates in Croatia were
generally more satisfied with NATO.
Articulate a Clear Mission
Asked what NATO should do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties on
the global stage, particularly at a national level, delegates suggested projecting a
clearer and more targeted message as well as making use of local militaries to
enhance communication.
When asked to what extent the general public understands what NATO does, only a
small minority of non-American delegates reported that the general public in their
countries has a basic understanding of the Alliance and its missions. The remaining
non-Americans as well as all the American delegates mentioned that the citizens of
their countries do not understand NATO. According to the delegates interviewed, in
order to improve its communication strategy, NATO should use the media more
effectively, target young audiences, enhance its website, increase transparency and
connect with local militaries to disseminate messages.
Some of these suggestions emerged previously in the Dubrovnik study in which
parliamentarians suggested NATO should make use of the media to articulate its
mission and objectives as well as to highlight its achievements in order to raise
awareness. The previous study also highlighted a lack in understanding about what
NATO does, which has been confirmed in this study. Delegates, in fact, suggested in
that first study that NATO should invest more in communication specifically through
the use of media, educational programs, youth outreach, social media and local
ambassadors. Most of these points, such as the use of general and social media as
well as youth outreach, also emerged in this study and, thus, appear to be of
particular interest to the delegates.
Communication
“NATO should explain in
more clear terms what the
Alliance is doing to
enhance security in the 21st
century.”
2
Justify Defence Spending
Both non-Americans and Americans are sceptical about spending money on defence.
The economic crisis has been identified as one of the reasons behind hostility toward
defence spending. When asked to describe the general mood in their countries
regarding this issue, delegates said citizens believe the faltering economy is one of
the reasons member countries do not contribute more. The lack of a perceived threat,
the lack of political will and other more pressing fiscal priorities are also behind the
reluctance of non-American member countries to increase their burden share. All of
the Americans interviewed said financial constraints are the source of most
countries’ failure to contribute 2% GDP towards defence. In order to rectify the
situation, delegates suggest NATO must convince people through its words and
actions that the cost is justified.
These results confirm the findings of the Dubrovnik study where the reason cited for
low contributions was the economic crisis and the resulting budget reductions which
leave fewer funds for defence. Other reasons given by the parliamentarians in that
study were the lack of political will, a heavy reliance on the US for protection and
negative public opinion toward defence spending. The current study confirms these
findings. In order to increase the willingness of countries to invest more in defence,
delegates in the previous study suggested NATO should use the media to inform the
public about the benefits the Alliance offers. This view has been echoed by the views
of the delegates in the current study who report that NATO should present a clearer
argument in order to convince countries to invest more in defence.
NATO will remain relevant after 2014
Both non-American and American delegates think that, while NATO has the
capabilities to remain relevant, it will have to make adjustments. Interoperability,
deployability and deterrence were listed as areas that should be enhanced in the
future. While non-Americans are somewhat cautious in their conviction that the
Alliance will remain relevant after 2014, Americans feel very strongly that NATO will
play an important role going forward. Reasons given for this include the persistence
of international terrorism, cyber issues and the on-going need for global security.
Concerning the end of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), non-
Americans are mixed in their outlooks. Some feel that with no clear mission, public
support for NATO will wane. Others see this as an opportunity for the Alliance to
return to its original mission of pursuing national security. Still others think this will
give the Alliance space to engage in civil diplomacy and humanitarian efforts. The
American delegates are unanimously supportive of the ISAF mission, declaring it
greatly beneficial. The Alliance’s priorities for the future, they say, should be to hold
on to the ground they have gained, both politically and in terms of internal
capabilities, through ISAF. In that way, the mission will have been a success.
In the previous study, delegates considered the end of ISAF to be a positive change
for NATO—although most feel NATO should maintain its presence in Afghanistan in
order to facilitate a smoother transition and support the country beyond 2014.
Although, the previous study suggested that the end of ISAF will allow NATO to “rest
and recuperate”, member parliamentarians believed combating terrorism should be
the main priority for the Alliance in the future. Cyber security (in conjunction with
military operations) is also perceived as a key strategic priority. While these points
were also mentioned in this study, the highest priorities for the future, according to
the delegates in Washington D.C., are developing specific capabilities, strengthening
relationships and cooperating with other partners.
Defense
Spending
Post 2014
“NATO could increase
willingness to invest
more by explaining the
purpose and benefits of
the Alliance.”
“NATO must increase
capabilities and
decrease expenses to
remain relevant.”
3
Conclusions
Both studies conducted among members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
raised important points:
 There is a lack of understanding regarding what NATO does: the general
public needs to know more about the role of NATO in order to appreciate its
value;
 A more efficient use of the media is needed: both General Media and Social
Media should be employed as essential communication tools to raise
awareness among the general public;
 NATO needs to build personal relationships with the delegates and establish
a closer proximity to the “real people” through local representatives in
countries.
In conclusion, both studies suggest strong efforts need to be made in terms of
communication. In particular, this study found that a clear and targeted message
should be communicated in order to reach a broader audience and further increase
awareness. Explaining the role, activities and benefits of the Alliance would be
helpful to convince the public of its usefulness and could increase the willingness of
certain member countries to invest more. NATO continues to be vital to ensuring the
collective defence and will continue to be relevant post 2014, especially if it develops
specific capabilities. NATO should translate the experience acquired in Afghanistan
with ISAF into future missions.
4
Main Findings
Interviewee Profile
PwC interviewed 18 parliamentarians (delegates), 14 were Non-American and 4 were
American1. The sample was composed of individuals representing various political
parties: there were 6 Conservatives, 1 member of the Alliance of Liberals and
Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 member of the Freedom and Democracy Party and 5 non-
Americans from unidentified political parties. Three of the Americans interviewed
identify with the Democratic Party, while one did not state his party allegiance.
Because only two of the delegates interviewed were women, there is an under
representation of women in the sample.
The following countries were represented: the US, The Netherlands, France,
Denmark, Germany, the UK, Greece, Canada, Croatia, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia.
For a complete listing of the interviewee demographics, see appendix 1.
Communication with delegates
NATO should improve its communication efforts
with non-Americans.
Satisfaction of non-American delegates with NATO’s communication
efforts is quite low, especially when it comes to the transparency of
information provided.
More than 40% of those surveyed (6/14) said they are satisfied with NATO’s
frequency of communication toward them. While three said they are “somewhat
satisfied”, five reported being “dissatisfied” with the frequency of the Alliance’s
communication. Those who are dissatisfied said they almost never receive
information from NATO.
In terms of quality, just under 30% of the delegates interviewed (4/14) said they
consider NATO’s communication efforts to be of high-quality. An equal number said
the quality of communication could afford to be improved, two said they consider
NATO’s communication to be of low-quality, and four did not comment. Reasons for
the criticisms were the impression that NATO “always focuses on the big topics, like
ISAF”, “the Alliance needs to be more relevant for today—e.g. explain why NATO still
matters” and “people only know about NATO because of military operations and
invasions.”
Impressions concerning the scope of NATO’s communication are mixed. Half of the
delegates (7/14) are at least somewhat satisfied with the scope of information they
receive. Three said they are “not very satisfied”, one said he is “not at all satisfied”,
and three did not register an opinion. The basic criticism offered by those who are
dissatisfied with the scope of communication is NATO’s overarching focus on issues
like Afghanistan and other missions. These individuals suggested NATO should
broaden its message.
Concerning the transparency of NATO’s communication efforts, delegates were
more critical. Only one reported being “very satisfied”, while three said they are
“somewhat satisfied”. Four of the delegates are “not very satisfied”, three are “not at
1 Of which one is the Secretary of the US delegation
5
all satisfied”, and three declined to comment. Those who are satisfied with NATO’s
transparency are really satisfied: “Very, very, very good reports—good flow, good
quality, good information,” reported one delegate. Others offered a more critical view
saying they are unsure where and how NATO formulates decisions, they want to hear
more “real stories” and they feel there is little or no transparency.
All of the American delegates interviewed are satisfied with NATO’s
communication efforts.
The four Americans interviewed said they are unanimously pleased with the
frequency, quality, scope and transparency of information they receive from NATO.
Each answered all four questions with the same response: one said NATO’s efforts in
these areas are “excellent”, one said he is “very satisfied”, one said the Alliance does
“a good job”, and one said, “I get what I need.”
Improvements in NATO’s communication strategy
have been suggested by the delegates.
While non-Americans provided suggestions to improve NATO’s
communication with them…
Several themes emerged concerning suggestions for improving NATO’s
communication strategy:
Build personal relationships
Two of the delegates interviewed specifically mentioned building “personal
relationships” as a means for improving NATO’s communication strategy—others
alluded to this notion, but used different language to express their ideas. “NATO
should not be an ‘ivory tower’,” said one delegate. Another added, “With so much
content in the mail and email, the most effective [means of communication] is one-
to-one relationships.”
Use Social Media
Two delegates specifically recommended the use of social media as a means of
enhancing communication efforts. “NATO should use all available tools,” said one
delegate, who was satisfied with communication. “They have done well at being
visible with social media.” Another added, “Using social media more is good.
Following [NATO] on Twitter and good links—this might be a good feature to have.”
Use the General Media
Two delegates mentioned specific initiatives NATO could take to leverage on the
media. “NATO should have public campaigns to explain their purpose and build
awareness through media relations,” said one. The other made suggestions
concerning content: “Provide more context. Don't only talk about the Alliance, but
talk about events around the world. Find a way through the media—we want
knowledgeable and authentic communication.”
Connect with Members of Parliament
Two delegates took issue with the flow of NATO’s communication, suggesting that
direct contact with MPs will improve things. “There is no easy way of doing it. They
have to identify MPs and develop relationships with them,” said one delegate.
Another expanded on this idea, “Communication should go to the MP, not the
Secretary of NATO’s association.”
6
… most of the Americans interviewed said NATO does not need to
improve its communication efforts with them.
All of the Americans interviewed are satisfied with NATO’s communication efforts
and three of them have no suggestions for improving it. One delegate, however,
offered this insight: “NATO should help us to better understand what the purpose of
their engagements is. Also, they could improve the transition between members of
the Delegation.”
NATO’s communication efforts in the delegates’
countries are somewhat effective, but could be
further improved.
Half of non-Americans say NATO’s communication efforts are not
effective and the Alliance should improve its communication to the
general public in terms of frequency and definition of its role.
When asked to comment on how effective NATO’s communication efforts are in their
countries, half of the delegates said “not very effective.” Two consider NATO’s
communication to be “effective”, three said it is “not at all effective”, and one
remained neutral.
The primary criticism is that the general public does not receive communications
from NATO. Next is the perceived lack of a defined role. The following comments
encapsulate the spirit of opinions offered by delegates:
 “NATO needs to reach more young people (schools, universities and other
groups) to clear up what are NATO's missions for the 21st Century.”
 “NATO has lost trust with people. They need to hold events to engage the
people. It’s essential to reach these groups in East Germany.”
 “It’s not good. 50% of the population doesn't know what NATO does –99%
don't know what the NPA does. It's a relic from the Cold War. The ‘strategic
concept’ hasn't been well communicated.”
 “They are doing the best that they can. The public is just not interested in
NATO. NGOs are the best way to convey messages. Peers are better than
military officers.”
 “It’s quite effective, but the Secretary General is Danish, which means that
the Danes are paying more attention. Denmark is also making a significant
contribution to ISAF, which gets attention.”
Although half of the American delegates interviewed are satisfied with
NATO’s communication to the general public in the US, NATO should
consider increasing its visibility and communication effectiveness.
While two of the American delegates interviewed said NATO’s communication
efforts in the US are “fine”, the other two offered suggestions for improvement:
 “NATO needs to be more visible with people other than immediate
stakeholders. Members of Defence & Foreign Affairs committees understand
the importance of NATO, but not every Congressman or Senator does.”
 “They could be more effective with Key Leader Engagements, Congressman
and other congressional committees (that are relevant, Foreign
Affairs/Defence etc.).”
7
Only few understand what NATO actually does
Only a minority of non-Americans understand what NATO does.
When asked to what extent people in delegates’ countries understand what NATO
does, responses were evenly mixed. About 20% of the respondents (3/14) said that
people in their country had at least a basic understanding of the Alliance and its
mission—two were effusive in their praise. This is the case among Eastern European
States as these countries still consider Russia to be a risk and citizens have memories
of the Soviet occupation. On the other hand, the remaining 80% (11/14) said that the
people in their countries do not understand NATO—four insisted that people actually
have no idea what the Alliance does.
Those who responded positively to the question offered the following insights:
 “People understand what NATO does. The referendum in Spain was recent
so the new generation is clear on why we joined NATO—the referendum had
the effect of educating the Spanish about NATO's activities.”
 “They understand the threat of Russia, which has exercises to attack NATO.
The communication is working and Estonians know that they are being
heard. Estonia's priority is Article Five.”
 “Six out of 10 will say that NATO is a collective defence organization.”
The remainder suggested the general lack of understanding can be attributed to the
impression that the Alliance is a Cold War relic, assumptions that NATO is solely a
military entity and limited knowledge.
 “People understand NATO's role during the Cold War and its ties to the
West. But the East Germans need to understand why NATO is important to
them.”
 “Perceptions of NATO are old! NATO doesn't explain what it does now (other
than Afghanistan).”
 “Not many understand—especially young people. They understand NATO
only as a military or political organization, but not about [its involvement in]
natural disasters, floods and emergency response.”
 “They understand more of the fundamental philosophy behind NATO and
international security, but they don't understand the military alliance’s
importance and why they have to pay the price—that they can't take security
for granted.”
 “Greeks believe NATO interferes with countries. They do not understand
NATO beyond that.”
 “Croats understand NATO through tanks, bombs and missions. They do not
hear about civil missions or other initiatives.”
 “They understand that NATO will protect them from Russia. Outside of that,
there are no threats.”
The same trend is noticeable among Americans.
The four Americans agreed that people in the United States do not have a clear
understanding of what NATO does. They offered the following comments:
8
 “NATO is not good with the general population, which doesn't understand
and doesn't really seem to care.”
 “It's not high on the list of priorities for most Americans. The Summit in
Chicago brought it to attention briefly.”
 “It’s hard to say. There's a generational divide. Baby boomers and their
parents are acutely aware. But today's young adults: not as much.”
 “I think people have forgotten what NATO stands for outside ISAF.”
Suggestions for improving public awareness of
NATO’s role and duties
According to non-Americans, NATO should have a more precise message
and intermediary to be used in its communication.
Asked what NATO should do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties on
the global stage, particularly on a national level, delegates suggested:
Projecting a clearer and more targeted message
 “Try to have a clear concept of what kind of security they are providing:
What global role does instability play and what would the consequences be
for the work without NATO? Why is it important today? Who is the enemy?
Once they had the USSR on the rise, but now what? How does it look today?
Will the alliance be able to deal with major conflicts around the world?
NATO is a ‘stronger alliance’ than ‘a coalition of the willing.’”
 “Go to the younger people and open discussions. Explain why it's still
relevant.”
 “Make a bigger effort to communicate in the traditional media. Answer the
question, ‘What does NATO stand for?’ NATO relies too much on its existing
supporters without looking for new ones.”
 “Establish a program for youth in schools. The youth in Lithuania
understands what the EU is, but not what NATO is.”
 “Countries need to see that doors are open and to know what they must do to
enter. NATO membership must be available to the Middle East and Africa.
Libya was not a great example in terms of unity. NATO needs to better
coordinate its strategy.”
Making use of local militaries to enhance its communication
 “NATO should collaborate with the Greek military and politicians to enhance
public awareness on a national level.”
 “NATO should speak through the Spanish military forces, which is highly
regarded by the population. Don't send messages via politicians who are
loathed!”
 “Try to use spokespersons in those countries, people who are local and will
advocate on NATO's behalf. This is better than the use of social media—
military officials engaging the public.”
Finally, one delegate suggested that NATO could enhance public awareness by using
the Parliamentary Assembly more effectively.
9
Americans also believe NATO should improve its communication and
outreach.
The four Americans pointed to improved communication and broader outreach as
measures the Alliance could take to enhance public awareness of its role and duties
on the global stage.
 “Better communication, including more outreach and stories in the media,
and news that reports the progress of the Alliance through stories.”
 “More outreach on the part of national stakeholders.”
 “NATO should have more public outreach to institutions like universities.
Perhaps host a speaker series of NATO officials at schools with international
relations programs.”
Suggestions for improving NATO’s communication
strategy towards the general public
Non-Americans say NATO should focus on five key areas to increase
public awareness.
Suggestions for improving communication towards the general public focused on five
areas:
Making use of traditional media
 “Use the [traditional] media more; be more direct and precise in
communications.”
 “More coverage in the traditional media; more energy creating own stories
beyond the regular news channels; become more open; emphasize the
political alliance and its core values.”
Targeting young generations
 “Focus on the young people—older people already understand NATO.”
Enhancing the NATO website
 “A better website would be a good start—with a clear purpose and easy
access to facts and figures.”
Increasing transparency
 “More transparency and focus on expenses across all NATO states.
Connecting with local militaries to disseminate messages
 “Increased and better relationships with local military and politicians.”
Americans believe NATO should clarify and increase their message in
order to heighten awareness among the general public.
The Americans had little to say in the way of improving the Alliance’s
communication strategy towards the general public. One delegate said NATO should
simply “communicate more.” Another said NATO needs to “explain in clearer terms
what NATO is doing to enhance security in the 21st century.”
10
Defence Spending
The general public is sceptical about spending
money on defence
Most non-Americans are wary of defence spending due to the down
economy.
When asked to describe the general mood in their countries toward defence
spending, delegates offered four basic assessments, the most common related to the
scepticism resulting from the economic crisis.
General attitudes toward defence spending listed according to the
frequency with which they were mentioned
No. of
iterations
General mood in the country towards defence
spending
9 People are opposed to defence spending due to budget
constraints.
4 People are uninformed about the issue.
2 People remain neutral on the issue.
2 People are supportive of defence spending.
Answers do not add up to 14 as some respondents have given multiple answers.
Examples of statements made by the interviewees include:
Budget constraints
 “People are generally sceptical of defence spending. This may be because
they don't understand the importance of defence/security—the current
economic climate affects this. People don't understand why you would spend
money on defence when you are cutting social programs. The public is very
sceptical about the aircraft purchases to replace the F-16.”
 “There’s a general disquiet when defence cuts are announced, but when
[fiscal] waste is uncovered at the Ministry of Defence, there is a lot of
resentment about those kind of ‘domestic mistakes’.”
 “The Cold War is over and they’re always asking for more money that we
don’t have—they have to be more accountable, more responsible [stop
making] false investments and wasteful spending.”
Lack of understanding
 “The transatlantic link is the most important, and it’s under threat because
of defence cuts. People don't understand globalised threat—they only want to
be part of things that impact their own nation.”
 “There is a mixture of thinking in Western Europe—talk about social security
issues vs. hard security. People don’t understand why we are in
Afghanistan—countries closer to Russia think about this differently. The
Economic crisis also affects their ability to pay.”
Supportive of defence spending
 “People understand the need for defence expenditures–they're not against
defence. But in France the choice is always presented as Defence vs.
Education.”
11
 “Greeks want to keep the status quo on defence spending. But Greeks would
understand if defence spending increased because Turkey is a neighbour,
and there are still concerns about Turkey.”
The Americans interviewed say the US public does not support defence
spending due to lack of understanding and an obvious threat.
All of the Americans interviewed indicated that the mood in the US towards defence
spending is not favourable. However, it’s worth noting that at least three of these
delegates are Democrats.
 “It’s an uphill battle. Most people only see big dollar signs and not the value
or what spending means to them and our allies.”
 “It’s difficult. Most Americans don't understand the need for defence
spending since there’s no immediate threat. 2001 was a long time ago in the
minds of many Americans.”
 “It’s terrible. People have forgotten the point of defence spending. Iraq and
Afghanistan [soured] people on the need for defence spending.”
 “The mood is very poor. The public doesn’t understand the need. They ask,
where does the money go? They understand the budget cuts, but not the
effect of those cuts.”
The economic crisis is, according to the delegates,
one of the main reasons for not reaching the
contribution level of 2% of the GDP
For non-Americans, the economic crisis exacerbates issues of diverse
priorities and threat perception.
The issue of financing NATO is a complicated one. There are four main reasons why
member countries don’t contribute 2% of their GDP to defence, according to the non-
American delegates interviewed. While the economic crisis is frequently cited as an
explanation for lack of contributions, we must look beyond a mere financial shortfall
to understand the issue more clearly. The stress created by limited resources only
highlights member countries’ priorities.
Reasons member countries do not contribute 2% of their GDP listed
according to the frequency with which they were mentioned
No. of
iterations
Main reasons for member countries do not contribute
2% of their GDP
4 Lack of perceived threat
4 Distribution of funds
3 The economic crisis
3 Lack of political will
Examples of quotations mentioned by the interviewees include:
Lack of perceived threat
 “Croatians believe that they have enough security. They do not currently feel
endangered. The ‘NATO umbrella’ [the existing protection from NATO] is
the main reason that they don't contribute 2%.”
 “The Spanish believe that ‘freedom is free’. They already have it, so there’s no
need to spend more.”
12
 “People don’t see that there’s a threat, so they don’t want to spend money on
no threat.”
 “NATO doesn’t provide enough [written] evidence on the need for defence
expenditures…but peace dividends expire and it's too soon for that to
happen.”
Distribution of funds
 “The burden sharing system in NATO is wrong. [NATO] should use a system
closer to the UN burden sharing system. For example, operational costs
should be divided equally.”
 “It is different from country to country. The social cost in Denmark is not
reflected in the defence budget (Veteran Care). Contribution to security is
not the only contribution that affects security abroad. Humanitarian
spending is part of it. If we spend more on humanitarian affairs then we can
spend less on defence.”
The economic crisis
 “It is unpopular to give more money during the economic crisis. There is a
reason not to give, so politicians want to be sensitive—they are concerned
that they might be voted out if they give away money.”
 “In the economic crises, budget cuts, salaries, pensions and healthcare are
priorities. Military is a luxury.”
 “Our economy dropped 17-18% last year. This is drastic. Unfortunately, it is
hard to determine where the money should be sent.”
Lack of political will
 “The countries don’t uniformly hold defence spending at the same level. Why
should it be higher? NATO hasn't sufficiently explained why it needs more.”
 “There is no political will. The purpose of having the Army, Air Force and
Navy becomes pointless—there is no rationale.”
 “There is too much reliance on ‘other nations’ to step up and fulfil their
obligations. Politicians blame public opinion, but it's a convenient excuse.
There is a lot of resentment of other NATO nations.”
Americans point to fiscal limitations for the lack of adequate defence
spending.
All of the Americans interviewed said financial constraints are the source of most
countries’ failure to contribute 2% of GDP towards defence.
 “Each nation has its own fiscal priorities.”
 “They are facing the same fiscal crises that are faced by the United States.”
 “The US carries the burden. The non-2% countries may have to step-up
because [the US] is stepping back due to domestic politics.”
13
NATO must convince Non-American member
countries to invest in defence
Non-American countries think NATO should present a clearer argument
in favour of defence investing.
More than half of the delegates (8/14) interviewed said that in order to persuade
member countries to contribute 2% of their GDP, the Alliance has to articulate a
more compelling message. Three delegates took this a step further suggesting NATO
should convince member countries to contribute through its actions—if these
governments see a visible benefit, they will be more likely to support funding.
Finally, one delegate said the Alliance is “too nice” to nations who don’t contribute
their burden share. In his opinion, NATO should be a bit more forceful. Two
delegates did not offer comments on this issue.
Convince countries to invest by presenting a clearer argument
Five delegates mentioned persuasion as a means of garnering financial support for
NATO’s missions.
 “NATO could increase willingness to invest more by explaining the purpose
and benefits of the Alliance.”
 “NATO faces the challenges as to why it exists: What if Iran cooperates?
What is NATO doing to protect us? What can NATO do aside from fighting
wars? We need success stories (focus more on Afghanistan).”
 “This requires good politics after 2014. They have to convince us why it’s still
important to fund those missions, convince the public that it’s worth it.”
Show countries why investment matters
Three delegates suggest the Alliance demonstrate the benefit of investment through
its actions.
 “This is done through procurement—how do you get more bang for the
buck? Focus on interoperability.”
 “They could do more of what they already do: smart defence, pooling,
facilitating more multi-national cooperation, training, exercises and joint
multi-national units. Invest in relevant projects over the improvements of
the security alliance.”
 “More equal burden sharing across all NATO operations. Nations aren't
willing to support an NATO Response Force because of the increased
associated commitments if they're called into action.”
Pressure countries to invest
Two delegates took a harder line, suggesting the Alliance step up pressure on
countries who don’t contribute their burden share.
 “NATO needs to be more outspoken about countries that don't fulfil their
commitments. NATO is too polite when it comes to member nations not
fulfilling their obligations.
14
Americans are unsure about how NATO could increase member
countries’ willingness to invest more in defence.
American delegates are aware that the US carries an unbalanced share of the
financial burden for supporting NATO, but are unsure about how to motivate other
countries to step up and do their part.
One delegate suggested that if the Alliance articulates “a better value proposition”,
member countries may be incited to give. Another surmised, “The US has been
threatening to reduce our spending in Europe and on NATO, but we can’t do that and
then expect to set an example and still want European nations to contribute to
defence.”
NATO Post 2014
NATO has the capabilities to remain relevant
Non-American delegates think that, while NATO has the capabilities to
remain relevant, it will have to make adjustments in the future.
NATO should keep pace with the changing world.
The majority of the delegates (10/14) said NATO has strong capabilities to go
forward.
 “NATO was initially created to deal with issues other than what we are now
facing,” said one delegate. “Are issues like piracy, energy and others to be
discussed in NATO? Perhaps we need to reconsider.”
Opinions of the remaining non-American delegates are mixed: two of the delegates
said that NATO currently has the necessary capabilities to remain relevant in the
future while other two believe the opposite.
The notion that NATO has “great potential” and is becoming more relevant is shared
by at least four of the delegates interviewed.
 “After the Cold War, after the Balkans, after ISAF, we still need an
organization to bring in military alliance,” said one delegate, adding, “They
have a role in developing countries.”
Cybercrime was mentioned twice as a paramount issue the Alliance will
face in the future. Also, more rapid response capabilities (such as
Operation Unified Protector) are needed.
 “It is a field and all the people in the world are victims,” said one delegate.
Thus an increased engagement in cyber-security should be considered.
The issue of future funding for the Alliance was also mentioned by two delegates.
 “NATO must increase capabilities and decrease expenses to remain
relevant”
 “Increase the participation of current members—it should be less about
Washington and Brussels and more about member countries.”
Another was concerned about logistics.
 “Transformation is needed,” he insisted, citing the “necessity for
transportation capabilities to deal with issues in the Middle East, Africa and
the Far East”.
15
Other nations mentioned by delegates were China and Iran—these were mentioned
as countries that will “test NATO’s non-combat capabilities.”
That said, most agree that “a lot of work remains to be done.” A complete review
of Alliance capabilities was suggested: “Especially in Europe, NATO needs to conduct
a capabilities review to determine the differences between what they have and what
they can actually use.” Finally, one delegate suggested that, “NATO would be more
relevant if EU countries could fulfil some of the US capabilities in order to
ensure complete interoperability.”
American delegates put forward three areas NATO should focus on.
Three facilities were put forth by the American delegates as areas NATO should focus
on in order to maintain relevant capabilities in the future:
 Interoperability: Coordination between NATO nations, as seen with
ISAF;
 Deployability: NATO members must develop more flexible and easily
deployable capabilities;
 Deterrence: NATO needs to remain committed to deterrence and security.
The end of ISAF: How will it affect NATO?
Non-American delegates have mixed feelings with regards to the end of
the ISAF mission.
While some delegates are critical, most feel engagement in ISAF has actually
improved NATO in terms of strength, communications and interoperability between
contributing nations. The end of ISAF is perceived by delegates in four ways:
With no clear mission, public support will wane
 “Once ISAF has wound down, what will be the point of NATO? There’s no
sense of urgency, and people will say, ‘we shouldn’t have to pay money since
there’s no operation.’”
 “What does NATO do now? Is it always useful? Where’s the evidence?”
 “It will affect NATO because we have a huge, common, on-the-ground
mission. NATO will need to find a joint project to maintain the experience in
Afghanistan.”
 “When NATO no longer has Afghanistan to justify itself, people won’t
understand why it was there. How do we continue to stay involved there?”
Disengaging from Afghanistan will allow NATO to build relationships
with other nations and focus on other missions
 “It will save money in the short term however we don’t know if we’ll be going
back in the future.”
 “The end of ISAF is not the end of NATO. It will make people think of the
Alliance less through the lens of military ops.”
 “NATO needs to build better relationships with other international
organizations and each nation state to better exercise their elements of
power.”
16
 “It won’t affect NATO as much as it could affect individual forces. They need
more training and more participation in counter-piracy. The military should
be active in the field.”
 “The change will be from ‘NATO engage’ to ‘NATO prepare’—the Alliance
will have to practice and change its political mission.”
The end of ISAF puts NATO in a tenuous position. The affect will be
determined by how things in Afghanistan play out
 “There is a reputational risk—a risk of roll-back. The general public will
question NATO’s abilities to achieve missions.”
 “Afghanistan helped to strengthen NATO. If there is no war to fight, the
Alliance becomes too excessive. If Afghanistan collapses, it could hurt
NATO’s image.”
 “The end of ISAF could affect NATO’s coordination with military operations,
including modernization (preparation is linked to the Spanish military’s
ISAF mission).”
 “It will depend a lot on what events occur after the end of ISAF. No one
wants another Afghan-like war, but too much tranquillity could cause NATO
to wallow and become complacent.”
NATO should stay in Afghanistan
 “NATO should stay involved in Afghanistan beyond 2014 or loose
operational capabilities.”
American delegates have a high opinion of the ISAF mission.
From the American point of view, ISAF has been a very successful mission for NATO.
Asked how ending it will affect the Alliance, all four delegates suggested NATO
should parlay the valuable lessons learned through this initiative into future
endeavours. The mission has left NATO in a better and stronger position. Going
forward, the Alliance will have to ensure that it does not lose the ground it has gained
through ISAF.
 “With the end of ISAF, NATO will return to its original focus: deterrence.”
 “ISAF has improved the Alliance. Now let’s see how we can capitalize on
those improvements.”
 “ISAF has been very good for coordination and communication across the
Alliance. We must not let those gains slip away.”
Both non-American and American delegates agree
that NATO will remain relevant post 2014
More than half of the Non-American delegates think NATO will remain
relevant after 2014…
More than half of the delegates interviewed (8/14) are convinced that NATO will
continue to remain relevant after 2014. Reasons given included the persistence of
international terrorism, instability in Africa, cyber issues and a need for more
intelligence. “The global security environment is a multipolar world—this will allow
NATO to remain relevant,” said one delegate, who also mentioned China, Middle
East and North Africa (MENA) and capability building by member countries.
17
The others feel the Alliance will remain relevant if it takes certain measures to do so.
Among the actions the Alliance should take to ensure its relevance are
communication, reformation and discovering a new mission.
 “NATO needs to actively work at it…the Parliamentary Assembly is very
necessary and keeps the Alliance relevant.”
 “NATO needs to communicate its value to the nations’ populations—the
value of the transatlantic link. It must also reorganize to EU-ARF (ASEAN
Regional Forum).”
 “NATO should be more forceful as an organization. It must transform its
Fast Action capabilities (like Libya) and Quick Response Force.”
 “NATO needs an active role in global affairs or its influence will decline.”
… and so do all of the American delegates interviewed.
All the American delegates interviewed said that NATO will continue to be relevant
post 2014.
Two of the American delegates said NATO will remain “very relevant” post 2014, and
the other two agreed, although not as effusively.
 “It will remain very relevant. Threats to the US, her allies and NATO
member nations are not going away. NATO may not be at the forefront of
people’s minds, but it is still important to maintain.”
 “NATO must remain committed to deterrence and the defence of member
nations. NATO must complement actions taken by other international
organizations.”
 “ISAF has increased NATO’s credibility, so that will help it to remain
relevant.”
NATO’s priority should be to focus on developing its
capabilities
Non-American delegates listed numerous priorities for the Alliance post
2014.
Suggestions for NATO’s priorities post 2014 were myriad and varied depending on
the demographics of the individual being interviewed. The most prevalent suggestion
offered was development of capabilities (mentioned 11 times). Relationship building
(mentioned 6 times) and enhancing civil solutions (mentioned 5 times) were also
common themes that emerged.
Top priorities parliamentarians think NATO should have for the future
are shown below in order of importance
18
Rank NATO Priority
1 Developing capabilities
2 Building relationships
3 Civil solutions
4 Terrorism
5 Cyber security
6 Humanitarian efforts
7 Nation building
8 Collective security
9 Middle East, Asia, Africa
10 British Military Doctrine
In particular, more details related to the first three priorities are listed below:
NATO should focus on developing capabilities
 Expeditionary capabilities
 C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance)
 Interoperability
 High readiness
 Rapid Response
 Flexibility to respond
 Strategic mobility
 Tactical mobility
 Identification of future threats
NATO should strengthen its relationships
 “Develop relationships that would allow NATO to exercise soft power within
the EU, UN and national governments.”
 “Liaise with UN/EU/AU to create mobile training teams.”
 “Strengthening relationships between members will make a stronger
Alliance.”
 “Continue to improve relations with the EU.”
NATO should pursue civil solutions
 “Priorities should be more of a civil dimension –nation building - conscious
of the strength of states - to counter terrorism.”
 “Develop a new kind of security concept that the public can understand
(post-Balkans, post-Afghanistan). NATO should try to uphold international
law in conflict situations.”
 “Beyond war, what can NATO do? Natural disasters? Humanitarian
disasters? Maybe help with disasters to keep in front of people. The Alliance
needs to find diplomatic situations.”
19
American delegates said the Alliance should focus on training,
enlargement and interoperability post 2014.
While both Non-American and American delegates suggested the development of
specific capabilities as a priority for the Alliance going forward, they seem to focus on
different areas.
Both Non-American and American delegates listed interoperability as an
important priority for NATO. In addition, the Americans stressed more training
exercises, enlargement and defence investment as priorities. One delegate
suggested that NATO’s priority should be to support enlargement by including the
admission of Bosnia and other Balkans countries in the Alliance.
20
Conclusions &
Recommendations
Communication
While Americans are generally satisfied with NATO’s communication towards them,
NATO should improve its communication efforts with non-Americans. In particular
it should consider making better use of the General Media, launching a Social Media
campaign and building one-to-one relationships with the delegates. They should also
connect more regularly with Members of Parliament.
Only a minority of the general public (both non-American and American)
understands what NATO does. To enhance public awareness, NATO should project a
clearer and more targeted message, in particular, by making use of local militaries to
enhance communication. NATO should consider improving its use of traditional
media; targeting young generations and enhancing the NATO website in order to
ramp up its communication strategy and reach a broader audience.
Defence Spending
Both Non-American and American delegates say their countries are sceptical about
spending money on defence. Most are wary of defence spending due to the down
economy, which has motivated them to direct funds toward more pressing needs.
The general lack of a perceived threat has exacerbated this problem.
In keeping with this opinion, delegates said the economic crisis is also one of the
main reasons for the failure of many nations to contribute 2% of their GDP to
defence. In order to bolster contributions, NATO must convince member countries
that their investment is valuable. This can be done through articulating a clearer
message and demonstrating inherent value through action.
NATO Post 2014
The large majority of non-American and American delegates interviewed think
NATO will remain relevant post 2014, with Americans unanimously and strongly
supporting this notion. Both non-Americans and Americans also think NATO
currently possesses the basic capabilities to remain relevant. That said, numerous
suggestions were offered pertaining to adjustments the Alliance will have to make to
ensure relevancy—most apply to further developing specific capabilities.
The end of ISAF is viewed with mixed emotions by non-Americans. Some say that,
with no clear mission, public support will wane. Others believe disengaging from
Afghanistan will allow NATO to build relationships with other international
organisations and focus on other missions. Finally, one respondent thinks that
leaving Afghanistan is a mistake.
Americans, on the other hand, are very clear in their belief that the ISAF mission was
a success that puts NATO in a better position to move forward. The Alliance, they
say, should parlay the valuable lessons learned through this initiative into future
endeavours. NATO’s priority now should be to ensure that it does not lose the
ground it gained through ISAF and to further develop its capabilities with the
knowledge and experience it has developed through the mission.
21
Appendix I
Methodology
Qualitative study
We have conducted a qualitative assessment by carrying out in-depth interviews with
18 parliamentarians (delegates) of the Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum in
Washington, D.C. on December 2nd and 3rd, 2013.
The questionnaire for the interviews was a follow-up to the research study conducted
during the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Dubrovnik. The three areas of focus
were:
 NATO’s Communication
 Defence Spending
 NATO’ Post 2014
The interviewers asked open ended questions to capture as much information as
possible from the interviewees and give them the opportunity to provide in-depth
answers to the questions asked.
The final list of questions was also aligned with NATO’s specifications in order to
guarantee that all of the required topics were covered.
Interviews were conducted in face-to-face meetings in Washington D.C. during the
NATO Parliamentary Transatlantic Forum with the non-American delegates as well
as with the Secretary of the US delegation. The interviews with the three other US
delegates have been conducted over the telephone to facilitate the recruitment
process.
For this study, we put forth considerable effort to connect with as many US
congressmen as possible (members of the NPA), however only two attended the
Washington Transatlantic Forum. We interviewed both and secured interviews with
two others who agreed to be interviewed separately. Concerning the non-American
participants, we intentionally reached out to parliamentarians from countries with
low or no representation in the Dubrovnik study in order to expand our findings.
Note: It has been particularly challenging to interview American delegates as most
of them refused to participate to this research project. Each American delegate,
preselected by the NPA, was called or emailed at least twice, and in some cases up
to four times during the two weeks following the NATO Parliamentary
Transatlantic Forum. It should be taken into consideration for future studies that
this exercise has proven that most US Congressional offices have a “we do not
participate in any surveys/questionnaires for any reason” policy in place which
increases the difficulty to recruit such high-level targets in market research studies.
22
Analysis
 Each question has been analysed both separately and within the overall context of
the questionnaire.
 We present the results per type of country (non-American vs. American) and
political party, when relevant. These findings are not generalizable to the whole
population of parliamentarians as the sample is not representative.
 Answers from the in-depth interviews provide more insight on distinct topics, but
they cannot be understood as generalisations. Our findings explicitly identify
answers that came from the interviews.
 As all questions were open-ended, they required the interviewee to use his/her
own words to explain the answers. In this case, we classified the answers by key
messages, measured the iteration of similar answers and put the key messages
into context in order to infer the main findings.
Interviewee profile
In order to expand the findings of the Dubrovnik study, we have intentionally
reached out to parliamentarians from countries with low or no representation in the
previous study. Additionally, our team spent two weeks reaching out to US Members
of Congress before the Washington Transatlantic Forum and after the event in order
to have a sufficient representation of US delegates in the sample.
The sample interviewed is composed as follows:
Country
United States 4
United Kingdom 2
Germany 2
Canada 1
Croatia 1
Denmark 1
Estonia 1
France 1
Greece 1
Latvia 1
Lithuania 1
Spain 1
The Netherlands 1
Total 18
Political Group Affiliation
Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Associates 6
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats 1
Socialist 1
Freedom and Democracy 1
American Democrat 3
Other 6
Total 18
23
Gender
Female 2
Male 16
Total 18
24
Appendix II
Discussion guide
Respondent name (optional):
Gender: □ Female
□ Male
Country:
Political Group Affiliation: □ Conservatives, Christian Democrats and
Associates
□ Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
□ Socialist
□ Other
I. COMMUNICATION
Q1. How satisfied are you with NATO’s communication towards you in terms of:
Frequency:
Quality:
Scope:
Transparency:
Q2. What should NATO do to improve its communication strategy with you?
Q3. How effective do you think NATO’s communication efforts are in your
country?
Q4. To what extent do you think people in your country understand what NATO
does?
Q5. What should NATO do to enhance public awareness of its role and duties on
the global stage, particularly on a national level?
Q6. What should NATO do to improve its communication strategy towards the
general public?
II. DEFENCE SPENDING & NATO POST 2014
Q7. How would you describe the general mood in your country toward defence
spending?
Q8. Why do you believe that most member countries do not contribute 2% of
their GDP to defence?
Q9. What could NATO do in order to increase member countries’ willingness to
invest more in defence?
Q10. To what extent do you think NATO has the right capabilities to remain
relevant in the future?
Q11. In your opinion, how will the end of ISAF affect NATO?
Q12. To what extent do you believe NATO will remain relevant post 2014?
Q13. What should NATO’s priorities be post 2014?
25
PwC Luxembourg (www.pwc.lu) is the largest professional services firm in
Luxembourg with 2,300 people employed from 57 different countries. It provides
audit, tax and advisory services including management consulting, transaction,
financing and regulatory advice to a wide variety of clients from local and middle
market entrepreneurs to large multinational companies operating from Luxembourg
and the Greater Region. It helps its clients create the value they are looking for by
giving comfort to the capital markets and providing advice through an industry
focused approach.
The global PwC network is the largest provider of professional services in audit, tax
and advisory. We’re a network of independent firms in 158 countries and employ
more than 180,000 people. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting
us at www.pwc.com and www.pwc.lu.