Urgent tweet to NATO: Social media is no substitute for a disclosure policy

In a recent article Stefanie Babst, NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, sets out how the growing use of social media—such as Twitter, Facebook and You Tube—is impacting on conflict and security. She also makes the case for NATO embracing the power of social media: “The Alliance engages thousands in discussions on defence and security and these open, online debates have already borne fruit. Transatlantic policy is no longer the realm of an isolated elite: all citizens now have a chance to make an impact”, she writes.

The article has much merit in its evaluation of the growing use of social media, especially in the context of the Arab Spring, while acknowledging that it can also be used—inadvertently or maliciously—to disseminate false or misleading information. The recent Twitter exchanges between Taliban and NATO spokesmen further illustrate the importance of the new digital information battle-space to all sides in a conflict. When evaluating NATO’s own role in the digital world, however, the public relations spin goes into overdrive: “Nowadays nobody can claim that NATO hides behind diplomatic brick walls. What we are doing, what we are thinking and with whom we are doing business – it is all out there. Online. Accessible to anyone who has the time and the interest to follow us”, writes Ms Babst.  Really?

Speaking as someone who has both the time and interest, I can categorically state that this is not the case. Despite NATO’s almost daily bombardment of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube with press statements, news stories and background videos, the ‘diplomatic brick walls’ remain intact. And as for trying to secure copies of the documentation that might allow an independent evaluation of what NATO officials are thinking and with whom they are doing business – forget it.

For example, Defence Ministers at their October meeting discussed the initial findings of a task force to promote Smart Defence led by the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation General Abrial (SACT). I approached NATO, more in hope than expectation, for a list of the members of the Task Force, its terms of reference and a copy of the initial findings. A NATO press officer curtly informed me that this was an “internal task force” operating at the “working level”: in other words, outside of the public purview. A request to SACT has drawn a similar blank – and, surprise, surprise, there is no mention of it on the SACT Facebook page. This very basic information would normally be supplied about any task force operating within a defence ministry at the national level, either as a matter of course or following a Freedom of Information request.

But here’s the rub. NATO is the only major intergovernmental body not to have even a basic information disclosure policy. And despite a number of interesting developments in the 'right to know' field in recent years, including a new information disclosure policy adopted by the World Bank, NATO continues to operate within a culture of opacity.

Even when the NATO policy development process moves beyond the ‘operational working level’ to an agreed policy across the alliance, the default position remains to withhold information. For example, at their June meeting NATO Defence Ministers adopted a new cyber defence policy and Action Plan. According to a press release, the policy clarifies political and operational mechanisms of NATO’s response to cyber attacks, and integrates cyber defence into NATO’s Defence Planning Process. The policy also sets the principles on NATO’s cyber defence cooperation with partner countries, international organisations, the private sector and academia. The Action Plan “will serve as the tool to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the policy”. Neither document has been released to the public and a request by NATO Watch for copies was politely refused.

Ironically, NATO has since launched a competition asking the cyber experts and the public to comment on how the Alliance's role in cyber defence contributes to security. Winning entrants will be invited to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, “where they will be given the chance to meet with NATO officials for an exclusive exchange of views on the Alliance’s role in cyber defence”. No mention as to whether this includes exclusive access to the policy documents setting out that role, however.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Indeed, in a few cases NATO has adopted more openness. In September, for example, in a move to enhance transparency and effectiveness of its work with other national, regional and international counterparts, the alliance authorised the declassification and release of the NATO political guidance on ways to improve its involvement in stabilisation and reconstruction. The guidance was officially approved by NATO Defence Ministers in October 2010 and sets out the principles on which NATO can plan for, employ, and coordinate civilian and military crisis management capabilities that nations provide for Alliance missions. Of course, it should have been a ‘no brainer’ to make this an ‘open access’ document from the outset.

Being transparent implies that NATO and member governments make available, either at their own initiative or in response to access to information requests, certain classes of information which are essential for evaluating how public power is being exercised and how public funds are being spent. The right of access to information includes two dimensions, the right of the public to present requests for information and receive answers to their questions, and the obligation on public bodies to publish information proactively. With a few exceptions, NATO leaders and officials promote neither.

Unfortunately, it will take more than social media networks to broaden transatlantic policy beyond the realm of ‘an isolated elite’. Without the eradication of excessive secrecy, the promotion of openness and the adoption of a disclosure policy consistent with the access to information laws already in place across the 28-member alliance, NATO will remain an organisation for insiders.