Multinational Crisis Response
in the Asia-Pacific Region:
The Multinational Planning Augmentation Team Model

Abstract

In 1999, the Chiefs of Defense of several Asia-Pacific militaries established a program called the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT) with the purpose of improving multinational military response in unforeseen rapidly developing small scale contingencies (i.e. limited-intensity combat operations of short duration) and military operations other than war. The MPAT program is a cooperative effort among 33 nations with interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The effort has developed a cadre of personnel skilled in developing multinational military plans in a crisis. The MPAT is supported by commonly developed pre-crisis standing operating procedures and numerous events conducted each year that support improvements in the capability
and capacity of militaries, working with civil organizations, to respond to crises.

Multinational Crisis Response in the Asia-Pacific Region: The Multinational Planning Augmentation Team Model

In the late 1990s, the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command began hosting conferences attended by the Chiefs of Defense of Asia-Pacific militaries to find ways to improve military-to-military relations in the region. Following the United Nations (UN)-authorized multinational military operations to restore peace in East Timor, the Chiefs of the participating militaries recognized that there was room for improvement in multinational military responses for rapidly developing small scale contingencies (i.e. limited-intensity, combat operations of short duration) and military operations other than war. That recognition led the Chiefs to establish a program in 1999 called the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team (MPAT) with the purpose of improving multinational military response for these crises.

Multinational Military Crisis Response Options

A crisis is a rapidly developing situation “in which a decisive change is impending, especially one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2005). In the international arena, nations are able to respond to crises in various ways. The response options are primarily determined by the magnitude of the crisis and the impact on the interests of the nations affected.

Nations can experience a crisis internally or be affected by crises external to their borders. In either instance, multinational efforts may be required if the response exceeds a nation’s ability to initially deal with the effects of the situation or if the international community determines a collective response is required. Nations may voluntarily seek assistance during initial crisis response, such as the requests for international assistance made by several nations when responding to large-scale natural disasters like the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunamis in December 2004. Conversely, multinational responses may be required to address a crisis when warranted by the interests of an externally affected nation, regional security organization, or the international community at large.

Regardless of the reason, nations have several response options during a crisis. Nations may respond with actions that leverage any of the following elements of national power or, more likely, a combination of these elements: diplomacy, informational responses, military force, and economic measures.

National responses can also be grouped into three broad categories of action: policy-level actions, operational actions that translate policy into plans, and the execution of those plans. These levels of action may be known by several different titles but are most frequently referred to as strategic, operational, and tactical actions when referring to military operations.

While multinational military operations require coordination of policy, development of operational plans, and tactical action among nations, this article primarily focuses on multinational military cooperation at the operational level. It is at this level that multinational responses must effectively meld broad national policy guidance into collective military plans; it is frequently the critical level (assuming national strategies are sound) for coordinating military operations into effective multinational action at the tactical level. That is precisely why it is at the operational level that the Chiefs of Defense of the Asia-Pacific militaries decided to focus efforts on improving multinational military responses in the region.

Development of the MPAT Concept

The current climate of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region is conducive to multilateral dialogue and development of effective responses to meet on-going and emerging challenges. Many of the necessary planning skills and personal relationships used to form effective multilateral partnerships can be found within the MPAT program. The MPAT is made up of experienced personnel, cross-trained in crisis action planning procedures, and capable of producing supportable and feasible military plans within time-constrained parameters.

The impetus for establishing the MPAT program is to continuously improve multinational responses through the development of procedures that facilitate the rapid and effective establishment and/or augmentation of coalition or combined task force headquarters, and to ensure that operations are conducted with improved interoperability, efficiency, and unity of effort.

The primary focus of MPAT is to improve multinational interoperability at the operational level of command. Operational military organizations between the strategic and tactical levels are termed Joint Task Forces (JTFs) for single-nation commands with multiple service (ground, air, and land) components and Coalition or Combined Task Forces (CTFs) for multinational commands. 1

Initial Concept Development

Following the decision in late 1999 to improve multinational military readiness among Asia-Pacific militaries, a series of Concept Development Workshops was held to refine the concept, develop more specific goals, and determine methods of implementation. The first MPAT Concept Development Workshop was held among five nations in May of 2000. The program rapidly expanded over the next four additional workshops to 24 nations in just over a year. These initial workshops were fundamental to creating the program and served to help develop the tenets of the program that have contributed to its success.

Since the efforts are focused primarily on the operational level, most participants are mid-grade officers (majors to colonels), experienced in tactical operations, and usually members of their nations’ various headquarters staffs at either a strategic or operational level. Participants possess familiarity with their nations’ policies and military doctrine but they are focused on identifying procedures to improve multinational cooperation. Thus they ensure that the basic efforts and products of the program are sound from a national perspective yet still able to contribute to building the capability to respond more effectively in multinational operations.

The MPAT program is one of consensus-building, but it is a program that does not have formal agreements or formal policy oversight. Without formal participatory procedures or the bureaucratic oversight that often accompanies other multinational efforts, participants are able to rapidly agree on a solution, or more than one solution, and advance the goals of the program. Almost every decision is made at the various workshops among the members present and thus the overall development of procedures has been very rapid.

A key product of this effort early in the program was quick agreement on the need for a set of standing operating procedures (SOPs) for use by a coalition or combined task force headquarters along with a set of basic “start points” to be used in the development of the procedures and in operations. The initial planners all agreed that the procedures would not be prescriptive or binding (thus not requiring policy-level approval), but serve more as basic guides for planning the conduct of multinational operations. Facilitating this approach to procedural development and their actual use in multinational operations was the adoption of the “lead nation” concept.

Under the lead nation concept, “the selection of a Lead Nation will occur within the international strategic context as a coalition begins to form” and the lead nation provides the overarching organizational framework “with the will and capability, competence, and influence to provide the essential elements of political consultation and military leadership to coordinate the planning, mounting, and execution of a coalition military operation” (Multinational Interoperability Council [MIC], 2005). 2

The lead nation concept was adopted from another organization aimed at improving multinational military operations – the Multinational Interoperability Council (MIC). MIC serves as a senior-level, executive body for member nations to address and resolve interoperability issues, mostly at the strategic level, whereas MPAT is focused at the operational level. MIC membership includes representation by militaries from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The MPAT program includes the 7 MIC nations, plus 26 nations from the Asia-Pacific region. 3

By applying the lead nation concept as one of the five basic start points for multinational efforts, the MPAT nations have agreed that the basic procedures for a coalition effort will then be refined by the lead nation. During operations, the lead nation can modify the procedures to suit the particular requirements of the situation. While there may be a tendency to dismiss consensus-developed products as generally possessing only rudimentary capability, the inclusive nature of the program has actually fostered a cooperative effort that is strongly supported by all the nations. That effort has developed some very advanced procedures, and is capable of being organized under the framework of the lead nation into a highly effective coalition response with a firm strategic foundation for the operation. The main reason these procedures have been advanced beyond a basic level of agreement is that none of the procedures is viewed as binding.

Program Implementation

The MPAT program established a Secretariat, staffed by personnel from U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), but is charged with representing all the MPAT nations in the development and implementation of the program. The MPAT program leveraged lessons learned from another USPACOM initiative – the Joint Mission Force (JMF) concept. JMF was initiated to improve the USPACOM’s command and control of joint operations (i.e. involving multiple departments of the U.S. Armed Forces) and solve the challenges encountered in joint operations.

Recognizing that a set of standing operating procedures was required, MPAT Secretariat personnel participated in some of the initial work accomplished in the JMF program, and benefited from close collaboration with JMF planners at the command. While the USPACOM, its service components, and joint task force headquarters personnel developed a common Joint Task Force SOP for use in U.S joint operations in the region, the MPAT nations undertook the development of a separate and distinct Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP). A program manager is responsible for conducting initial research and drafting base documents. To ensure the soundness of procedures in the MNF SOP, initial research efforts are focused on identifying current doctrinal guidance from not only the United States, but as many other sources as possible. Capstone and keystone publications, as well as tactics, techniques, and procedures, not only from the joint community, but from the individual services of the Armed Forces, and from nonmilitary organizations, are studied and condensed into a working first draft for subsequent refinement in multinational SOP Development Workshops and eventual publication.

Early on, the participants recognized that the program should only be focused on the conduct of operations upon which all the nations could agree to undertake. Thus the program and the procedures have been developed to improve the planning and execution of operations for small-scale contingencies (i.e. limited-intensity, combat operations of short duration) and military operations other than war. Examples of these missions include peace operations (ranging from peace keeping to peace enforcement), humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, military-assisted non-combatant evacuation operations, and consequence management. 4

While the MNF SOP has well-developed multinational procedures for limited-intensity combat and military operations other than war, it is by no means restricted in application. The bulk of the SOP contains the procedures for use by the commander and staff of a Coalition or Combined Task Force in the planning and direction of operations. At the very heart of these headquarters procedures is a planning process, slightly modified by the MPAT nations, yet basically common to all military planning efforts, that is flexible enough to plan significant military operations. The procedures may be modified by the lead nation to suit the particulars of the crisis and response.

The MNF SOP is the basic set of procedures that will be utilized by any operational-level U.S. command serving as the core of a U.S.-led multinational effort and reporting to the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command. For any procedures not specifically contained in the MNF SOP, the U.S. Pacific Command JTF Headquarters SOP will serve as a supplementary publication. Both sets of these procedures can be tailored by the Commander, Joint Task Force to the particular mission.

There have been seven major MNF SOP Development Workshops since starting in March 2002, with normally two workshops occurring per calendar year. In very short order, the MNF SOP is now a highly developed set of procedures ready for use. However, refinement of current procedures and development of new procedures will continue. The MNF SOP is unclassified and distribution is unlimited. It may be found on the World Wide Web at: http://www2.apan-info.net/mnfsop/.

While the development of standing procedures has been crucial to helping improve multinational efforts in the region, of equal importance has been the development of a cadre of planners able to rapidly augment a coalition or combined task force for planning and directing the execution of multinational operations.

There are two main sets of events to assist in the development of multinational planners. The first, hosted by nations on a rotating basis, are events organized and run primarily by the MPAT Secretariat called MPAT TEMPEST EXPRESS Staff Planning Workshops. These workshops are generally held twice a year. Staff personnel from the participating nations come together, as a simulated multinational task force headquarters, to become familiar and practice the procedures contained in the MNF SOP and improve their skills in crisis action planning. The scenarios are complicated, require a high degree of multinational cooperation and planning skills, and are tailored to focus on emerging mission areas. There have been eight staff planning workshops since the program started, each involving approximately 80 military planners from most of the MPAT nations.

The second set of events that is available to build the cadre of MPAT planners consists of multinational exercises executed each year. The COBRA GOLD series, held annually in Thailand and hosted by the Royal Thai Armed Forces and the U.S. Pacific Command, has the most robust MPAT participation. These exercises test the ability of either the U.S. I Corps or III Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters to deploy and function with a Royal Thai Army Corps Headquarters as the core of a multinational combined task force headquarters. The MNF SOP provides primary procedures for the command post exercise 5 portion of the event and the COBRA GOLD CTF Headquarters is normally augmented by approximately 20 planners from the MPAT nations. These MPAT planners are typically assigned to headquarters positions in the command to lend their expertise in refining basic plans to better coordinate multinational operations and facilitate planning the transition of the main multinational operation to follow-on peace operations forces or civilian authorities.

The MPAT program is supported by an unclassified information-sharing network called the Asia-Pacific Area Network (APAN). APAN does more than just support MPAT, it is a key MPAT enabler, providing web-hosting of the MNF SOP and MPAT (http://www2.apan-info/mpat/) websites and unclassified email service to the Secretariat. APAN provides secure, internet-based communications and the ability for the region’s armed forces and civilian organizations that participate in multinational operations to share sensitive, but unclassified, information. APAN also provides collaborative tools and is able to support multinational military and non-governmental planning efforts.

Civil-Military Coordination

Another key component of the MPAT program is the recognition that civil-military relations are a particularly demanding challenge that must be improved if any significant benefits in multinational military operations are to be realized. Multinational military planners must be able to work in a cooperative effort with any host nation civil authorities, and with various UN agencies, and international and nongovernmental organizations. In the types of operations on which MPAT focuses, the international humanitarian community is often already present and will remain after the military has terminated operations.

The Center of Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance (COE-DMHA) has been critical to the development of the MPAT program. COE provides personnel with expertise in humanitarian affairs, civil-military relations, medical and public health, and resources from its information network, to MPAT events to improve the quality of the events and provide for more realistic training.
MPAT has invited numerous UN agencies, International Organizations (IOs) such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to participate in its events and multinational exercises. Participation by the UN, IOs, and NGOs is critical to improving the skills of military officers to plan multinational operations.

PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND THE
WAY AHEAD

Operations

The most notable accomplishments of the MPAT program have been the development of a solid core of skilled multinational military planners and the development of a robust set of procedures for planning multinational military operations. The cadre was tested for the first time in the response to the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Upon receiving initial reports of the disaster and quickly ascertaining a degree of the magnitude of the catastrophe, MPAT-experienced members from numerous nations began making preparations to deploy and plan military support operations, if required. The Secretariat quickly inventoried equipment and assembled a cadre of planners from the U.S. Pacific Command that rapidly deployed to augment the III MEF Headquarters that was initially designated JTF 536 and was deploying to the Royal Thai Naval Air Base at Utapao, Thailand.

Recognizing the requirement for a multinational effort, several nations formed a “Core Group” to start initial strategic planning and coordination. Military planners in Hawaii also drew up plans to participate in the disaster under a multinational framework. JTF 536 was re-designated as Combined Support Force 536 (CSF 536) and numerous nations were invited to send military planners to a Combined Coordination Center (CCC), set up as a part of the CSF 536 Headquarters. The function of the CCC was to integrate multinational planners and liaison officers to better orchestrate the efforts of their respective nations in a cooperative effort. The CSF 536 CCC was set up using base procedures developed for Coalition Coordination Centers contained in the MNF SOP.

The civil-military cooperative effort was significant. The Department of State was the lead U.S. federal agency for coordinating the U.S. Government’s efforts and the military was in support of that effort. The Department of State was represented by a Disaster Assessment Response Team (DART) from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). All external requests for U.S military assistance had to be vetted through the USAID DART in Utapao, to ensure compliance with U.S. policy for humanitarian relief, prior to being received for action by the U.S. Commander. The MPAT planners in the CCC helped refine the “Request for Assistance” process used by the CSF, and were a key element in coordinating the most rapid and effective means of military support among the 13 nations that coordinated efforts. 6

The United Nations sent coordinators from several key agencies to help in the civil-military coordination efforts. Representatives from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Food Programme, UN Joint Logistics Centre, and World Health Organization all helped coordinate relief efforts. Civil government representatives from donor nations also converged on the multinational headquarters to coordinate the response.
MPAT planners were well prepared to function in several roles key to the operation: as liaison officers for their respective nations’ militaries, in the civil-military coordination process, and as operational planners for the military operations.

Procedures

The MNF SOP has recently developed multinational procedures in a number of areas such as: Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration; Maritime Security Operations; Personnel Recovery; and Coalition Coordination Centers (recently renamed Multinational Coordination Centers); as well as normal staff procedures for a multinational headquarters. Current efforts to refine and improve the SOP are focused on improving procedures in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief; Logistics; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Toxic Industrial Material defense; planning of transition operations to follow-on militaries’ activities or civil authorities; and development of an “effects-supported” crisis action planning process. Future efforts will be focused on improving procedures for foreign consequence management, and streamlining the SOP.

Expanding Cooperative Efforts

MPAT is seeking to expand cooperative efforts to include a broader spectrum of organizations. Increasing cooperative efforts with the State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization; Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration; and USAID, are critical for better civil-military coordination between the strategic and operational levels.

A key participant strengthening efforts with MPAT is the U.S. Army War College’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute. The strong working relationship with COE will continue, and expansion to other organizations aimed at improving civil-military cooperation, such as with the Center for Civil-Military Relations, is planned.

Improving contacts to educational institutions with curricula focused on stability and support operations, such as the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies has begun and will continue.

Finally, improvements in coordination and cooperation between the various forums aimed at improving multinational military interoperability must occur. The MIC, MPAT, and other organizations must better define the focus of their efforts, minimize any significant overlap, and share information
better to support even greater improvements to interoperability efforts.

While MPAT has remained primarily focused on small scale contingencies and military operations other than war, it has not focused any significant effort at peacekeeping operations, and national leaders have recognized that improvements are also required in peacekeeping operations. The Global Peace Operations Initiative, proposed by President Bush and adopted by the G-8 Leaders at a summit at Sea Island, Georgia, in June 2004, seeks to correct this deficiency. The MPAT Branch at U.S. Pacific Command has been tasked with developing this program for implementation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Secretariat

The MPAT Secretariat must also evolve. The final step for MPAT to become a fully multinational effort involves the incorporation of military officers from nations other than just the United States. While posting of other nations’ officers in the Secretariat at Camp Smith in Hawaii is desired, nations not able to do so could establish their own MPAT office to function as part of an extended Secretariat, linked and supported by the APAN, focused day-to-day on supporting overall program efforts ranging from SOP development to MPAT cadre development.

Conclusion

The MPAT Program has moved from a concept to an operationally validated multinational effort in a very short period of time. It recognizes the existence of shared national interests in the region and seeks to standardize basic concepts and processes that will promote habits of cooperation and increased dialogue, and provide for baseline multinational operational procedures. By improving multinational interoperability, we form a web of relations among the nations of this critical region to address the broad range of security challenges that none can solve alone. MPAT is, and should remain, a key defining effort aimed at improving interoperability and multinational military readiness within the Asia-Pacific region.

References
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2005). Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://www.m-w.com/
cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=crisis.

Multinational Interoperability Council. (2005). Coalition Building Guide. Washington, D.C.

Endnotes
1) Coalition refers to multinational efforts which are ad hoc in nature while combined efforts refer to multinational responses which are based on a treaty or alliance. A notable exception to this was the U.S. Pacific Command’s classification of the multinational effort in Operation UNIFIED ASSISTANCE, the response to the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The U.S. Joint Task Force, organized around the United States’ III Marine Expeditionary Force [III MEF] from Okinawa, Japan, was renamed Combined Support Force 536 to reflect the effort in which the core headquarters did not exercise classic military command and control over participating nations’ forces, but rather functioned in a “cooperative and coordinating” role. According to the technical definition, this was more of a coalition effort than a combined effort (no treaty or alliance) but participation was even less structured than coalition efforts.

2) The potential of a nation to function in a lead-nation role depends greatly on the complexity of the crisis. In small-scale contingencies that respond to localized circumstances, many nations would be capable of undertaking this function. However, in large-scale complex crises, few nations would have the skill set required. In general, the more complex the crisis, the more will, capability, competence, and influence will be required to function as a “lead.” Other than “lead nation,” the only viable approaches are by regional or treaty-based organizations, or by the United Nations. However, even these options require political will, capability, competence, and influence to ensure a viable response. Lacking any of these, crisis response in a multinational fashion would be greatly hindered or ineffective.

3) The 26 other nations (not including MIC nations) from the Asia-Pacific region currently participating in the MPAT program are: Bangladesh, Brunei, East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Philippines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.

4) The term ‘consequence management’ refers to coordinated efforts taken to mitigate the effects of intentional or accidental release of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or toxic industrial materials. This includes weapons of mass destruction.

5) A ‘command post exercise’ is an exercise conducted to train headquarters staff, subordinate, and supporting military planners to plan, coordinate, synchronize, and exercise command and control over military operations during mission.

6) While there were many nations that participated in tsunami relief operations, 13 nations were directly coordinating efforts as part of CSF 536.