Speech by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
“Today’s NATO, and why it matters”
LloydÂ’s City Dinner
London,
5 September
2007
Lord Levene, Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me begin by thanking you for the invitation to speak here this
evening, and for your very kind introductory
remarks.
Lord Levene, in your introductory
remarks, you quite rightly raised the question of why a NATO Secretary General
should address a dinner hosted by a world-renowned insurance company. I think the answer is pretty clear to us
all.
Like LloydÂ’s, NATO is in the insurance
business. Like LloydÂ’s, we spend a
lot of time assessing global risks – political, military, even
environmental. We invest heavily in
diminishing risk, for Allies but also for our global partners. And, like with LloydÂ’s, when disaster
does strike, somewhere in the world, often the first call is made to NATO to
deal with the consequences.
Also like LloydÂ’s, most people in the
world know our name. Unfortunately,
not as many really have any idea of what we do in the Atlantic Alliance these
days, and I suspect that applies to some of you sitting here tonight. So IÂ’m glad to have the opportunity to
explain, not just what NATO does today, but what more I think NATO can do
together with the people here in the this room – because we have more in common
than you might think.
LetÂ’s use the City as an example of what
I mean. The City of
London is one of the greatest instruments of wealth
creation in human history. I
believe the 335,000 people working here create almost nine percent of the GDP of
the United
Kingdom. In
fact, I suspect that the annual bonuses from a few successful City bankers,
added together, would come to more than the entire NATO Civil Budget.
But the CityÂ’s future prosperity, and
continued ability to stimulate investment worldwide, rest on some critical
foundations: stability, predictability and transparency, not just here in the
UK, but in the international environment more
broadly.
It is a cliché to say that we live in a
globalised world. No one lives that
more than the people working here.
It is equally a cliché to say that there is a dark side to globalization:
increased vulnerability to problems that seem far away on the map, but hit home
in our back yards. Those of you
feeling the effects of the US sub-prime mortgage problems know that the ripples
are being felt in every part of the markets, and in every part of the
world.
The September 11th attacks,
almost 6 years ago today, were another clear example. Three buildings were hit in the
US. Beyond
the tragedy of the lives lost, what were the costs? I saw one assessment for the US alone
which looked at property damage, lost production of goods and services, and the
loss of stock market wealth, and put the price tag at 2 trillion dollars. Again, for the
US alone.
And that doesnÂ’t include the costs to the global airline and tourism
industries, the investments in security infrastructure, etc etc. I wonÂ’t go on, but you get the
point.
Managing that dark side of globalization
is become harder every day – whether you are a City fund manager, a Lloyd’s
underwriter, and certainly if you are the Secretary General of NATO. I can tell you, it was a lot simpler
when I was, as Peter mentioned, a young second secretary at NATO in the
1970Â’s. One opponent. One clear threat. A clear plan to follow to defend
ourselves.
Today, the threats have mutated, in ways
that are difficult to predict and even more difficult to manage. They have gone from visible to
invisible. Terrorism is the most
obvious example.
From localized risks, they have become
global dangers that respect no borders.
Look at Afghanistan. Until
2001, it seemed to many of us to be farther away than the other side of the
world. It was the classic “faraway
place about which we knew little”, to paraphrase a former
UK Prime Minister. But the cancer growing there, in the
shadows, metastised into a terror organization that planned in
Germany, trained in Africa, and struck in the
US, and has struck around the world since.
I could also mention the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. AQ
Khan, in Pakistan, was like a nuclear Tesco with a home delivery
service. By the time he was
stopped, nuclear technology was in hands that should not have it, most obviously
North
Korea.
The range of threats has also expanded,
from classic military challenges to new ones. Peter mentioned cyber-attacks. He was right to.
Estonia put up a stout and skilled defence of its IT
infrastructure, and weathered the storm.
IÂ’m not sure every NATO country could defend itself so
well.
Cyber attacks can take out a power grid, a banking system, and government
services. While the attacks take
place in cyber-space, the effects are very real. And while they are not military
in the traditional sense, they have a clear security dimension, along with -- and linked to - -their economic
impact.
I am sure that all of you here have, in
one way or another, taken steps to adapt to this new world, in your business
lives. Almost every company
has beefed up its IT defences.
Business continuity planning – what to do in case we lose access to what
we need every day to work – is now essential. Needless to say, the insurance business
has had to make major adjustments.
I know that some companies even avoid certain hotels, or minimize air
travel, to protect their staff from possible terrorist
threats.
NATO, too, has transformed fundamentally to meet these new security
challenges. Going into this new
century, we had a rock-solid foundation:
members that included some of the most influential countries in the
world; half a century of commitment to one anotherÂ’s defence; a forum for 24/7
political consultation between Europe and North America on security matters; and an unmatched ability to
generate military power.
We have built on that foundation: first and foremost, by recognizing that
static defence is no defence at all anymore. Of course, beefing up
homeland security is essential:
intelligence services, police, border monitoring, security cameras. But we also need sometimes to go to the
problem before it comes to us.
Obviously, Afghanistan is the clearest example. There is no mystery about what will
happen in Afghanistan if we do not succeed in helping the elected Government
establish security in that country.
The Taliban will be back. So
will Al Qaeda. And we know what
that means for our security here at home – not to mention what it would mean for
the Afghans.
That is why we must and will carry out the mission assigned by the UN to
NATO in Afghanistan. I will
not spend too much time on this subject in my remarks – if someone wishes to
discuss it further in the question and answer session, I will be happy
to.
But let me commend the work of the
UK troops in the field. I have met them many times in
Afghanistan. I
stood on the Kajaki Dam and spoke to a young Royal Marine who knew exactly why
he was there, and what his role was.
He was also very proud of what the
UK and his NATO Allies were accomplishing there. I left impressed, and encouraged by the
quality of soldiers NATO and our Partners – 37 countries in all - have out in the field.
Yes, every day is tough. The
UK has lost many soldiers, as have
Canada, the US, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and many more countries in the ISAF mission. But we are making progress – in making
development possible, in building legitimate Afghan institutions, in helping
grow the economy.
There could certainly be more progress
in some areas – countering poppy production is one clear example. But the answer cannot be, as some
suggest, to throw up our hands and walk away. Because there is no industry quite as
globalised as the drug industry.
The poppies being grown halfway around the world are being turned into
the heroin that is in LondonÂ’s schools and back streets. The fight in Helmand province is a fight for our childrenÂ’s security
right here and right now.
Terrorism and drugs – new threats that
NATO is fighting, in new ways, in Afghanistan. There
are other new challenges with which we are just starting to come to grips in the
Alliance.
One example: energy security. As some of you know, there are virtual
pipelines of LNG tankers across the high seas. Tokyo, for example, needs one LNG tanker every 8 hours to
keep the lights on. Those virtual
pipelines are vulnerable. Could
NATO, with its maritime fleets, add value, in times of crisis, to protect
them? Personally, I think so. I also think NATO might play a role in
protecting critical energy infrastructure when there is a specific, high level
threat. Again, only where NATO can
add value.
Maritime security, more generally, is an
area where the Alliance might have a greater role to play. As we speak, one NATO naval force is
patrolling the Mediterranean to deter terrorism. Another NATO naval force is
circumnavigating Africa, conducting training, and demonstrating NATO capability
to uphold security and international law on the high seas – in areas, such as
the Niger Delta, that enjoy neither.
I also mentioned cyber defence. In 2004, NATO set up a centre focused
precisely on cyber defence. When
Estonia was hit by cyber attacks, that NATO centre sent
personnel to help. As the military
has had years of learning how to protect IT infrastructure, and because there is
clearly an advantage to sharing best practices, I believe you will see more of a
role for NATO in this area as well.
Let me mention, finally, missile
defence. There is quite a debate
underway across the Euro-Atlantic area about whether to build defences against
possible missile attack; if so, how and where; and what role NATO might play. It
is a highly political and politicized discussion, I can tell you.
My bottom line is this. There is a growing threat from missiles
– look at Iran. In
fact, in the last thirty years, the number of countries possessing ballistic
missiles has almost tripled. We
simply cannot afford not to have a
discussion about missile defence – amongst Allies, and with the Russians
too. The Cold War is long
over. We shouldnÂ’t be hobbled by
Cold War thinking when it comes to this issue.
In all these ways – through constant
consultation between Europe and North America; pro-active military operations; and new defences
and against new threats – NATO is helping to maintain the stable, predictable
international environment you need to do business. And because we know that security has
globalised, NATO has taken in new members, and built partnerships with countries
around the globe, from Sweden to Ukraine to Morocco to Australia and Japan – about 60 countries in all. As my illustrious predecessor, Lord
Robertson, used to say, “This ain’t your daddy’s NATO”.
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
I said, at the beginning of my remarks,
that I would mention not only what NATO does, but what we can do together. Let me make two final
points.
First:
Afghanistan needs investment. The TalibanÂ’s best recruiting sergeant
is the economy – they pay unemployed young men to fight for them. If those boys
had a job that paid them a reasonable amount, they would not risk dying for 10
dollars a day. Coca Cola has a
major bottling plant in Afghanistan. I
doubt very much if the Taliban recruits well among the staff.
Second, let your voices be heard, here
in the UK, in support of your military, in support of defence
spending, in support of NATO. I
firmly believe that these support you, every day, by creating a climate in which
you can work effectively. But they
need your support too. With
security, as with so many other things, you get what you pay for. It cannot be bought on the
cheap.
Lord Levene, Peter, a former UK Prime
Minister once said, “I’m an optimist, but I carry an umbrella”. For many, many people, Lloyd’s is their
umbrella. In a sense, I see NATO,
too, as an umbrella: for the people of this country, of all the 26 Allies, and
for the international community more broadly. One that we need more than ever, in this
very challenging new century.
Once again, thank you for the
invitation. I look forward to your
questions.