4 February 2011
“Building security in an
age of austerity”
Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
at the 2011 Munich Security Conference
Ambassador Ischinger,
Excellencies,
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
For many years, the Munich Security Conference has
occupied a central place on the international calendar. Let me start by
saying how pleased and honoured I am with the opportunity to kick off this 2011
edition.
Far too often, the conference has been dominated by
apparent divisions between NATO Allies and Russia. This year, I am
delighted that it is no longer the case. And I welcome the presence here
at this conference of both US Secretary of State Clinton and Russian foreign
minister Lavrov. The ratification of the New START treaty by the US
and Russia wilal, I am sure, give fresh momentum to cooperation between all NATO
Allies and Russia. And it will pave the way for a better security climate
in the Euro-Atlantic Area. This is good news.
What is less good news is that we continue to face
the effects of the financial crisis. And this years’ conference focuses on
dealing with a major challenge – how to build security in an age of
austerity. Despite signs of a recovery, not least here in Germany, the
effects of the financial crisis will be felt for some time in all our
nations. And governments face tough decisions to bring their economies
back into balance.
As a former Prime Minister, I fully understand this –
and I also understand that defence cannot be exempt. But when deciding
what to cut, governments need to choose wisely – because if the cuts are too
deep we won’t be able to defend the security on which our democratic societies
and prosperous economies depend.
In my remarks this afternoon I wish to focus on
two areas. First, I wish to emphasise how the crisis confronts Europe with
some stark choices if it is to remain a credible security actor, and preserve
the ability of the transatlantic community to act as one. And second, I
want to highlight the importance of what I call Smart Defence – how NATO can
help nations to build greater security with fewer resources but more
coordination and coherence, so that together we can avoid the financial crisis
from becoming a security crisis.
Over the past two years,
defence spending by NATO’s European member nations has shrunk by some 45 billion
dollars – that is the equivalent of Germany’s entire annual defence
budget. Indeed, NATO Allies are starting the new decade further apart than
ever before in terms of defence investment. Ten years ago, the United
States accounted for just under half of NATO members’ total defence
spending. Today the American share is closer to 75 percent – and it will
continue to grow, even with the new cuts in the Pentagon’s spending that
Secretary Gates announced last month.
Some here in Europe are not so worried. They
maintain that Europe is consolidating its place as one of the world’s top
providers of humanitarian and development aid. And they suggest a division
of labour within NATO – with the United States providing hard power, while its
European Allies increasingly turn to soft power assignments like training and
institution-building.
As a committed European – and a staunch
Atlanticist -- I find this suggestion at best naïve, and, at worst,
dangerous. It is completely out of touch with today’s increasingly complex
security environment. According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, China has tripled its defence expenditure over the past
decade. And India has increased its defence spending by almost 60 per cent
in the same period.
As I
speak, fast-moving events are unfolding in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the
Middle East and North Africa. The outcome of this turmoil remains unclear, its
long-term consequences unpredictable. But one thing we know: old certainties no
longer hold, tectonic plates are shifting.
At
stake today is not just the world economy, but the world order. So why, now of
all times, should Europe conclude that it no longer needs to invest in
defence?
This trend has long-term consequences – and they are not
hard to imagine.
First, we risk a divided Europe. Just a few
big European nations would become the continent’s main security providers while
other countries would lag further and further behind. Taken to its logical
conclusion, that division could eventually undermine the very principles of
collective defence and allied solidarity that underpin the North-Atlantic
Alliance.
Second, we risk a weaker Europe. Without the
hardware to back up its soft power, Europe’s potential to prevent and manage
crises would be seriously diminished. And so would its credibility in
upholding the principles and values that we hold dear: individual liberty,
democracy, free trade, and the rule of law. These principles and values
underpin our open societies and form the foundation of the global order.
And third, we risk a Europe increasingly adrift
from the United States. If Europe becomes unable to make an appropriate
contribution to global security, then the United States might look elsewhere for
reliable defence partners.
This may sound like a very gloomy scenario.
Indeed, I am concerned. If current trends in Europe continue, the gap
between defence capabilities across the Atlantic will continue to widen.
We risk a weak and divided Europe – more than 20 years after the fall of the
Berlin Wall. And a weak and divided Europe would be a loss not just for
the United States, but for the world as a whole.
Let me stress that I perfectly understand nations’
concerns: for them budget deficits come first, defence second. And indeed,
a strong economy is an essential part of security. However, the choice
between dealing with deficits and bolstering defence is a false choice.
Because security is also about military capabilities that allow governments to
defend their populations against new threats, and possibly to engage in crisis
management.
Let me be very clear: Europe simply cannot afford to get
out of the security business. It has to re-vitalise its role as the United
States’ prime security partner and adjust to the new global security
environment.
If we want to avoid the scenario that I have just set
out, then the time to act is now. However, we cannot ensure our security just by
spending more money – because the money simply isn’t there. We need a new
approach: Smart Defence – ensuring greater security, for less money, by working
together with more flexibility.
I know that Allies don’t always find multinational
cooperation the most attractive option. There are lingering concerns about
delayed delivery schedules, inflated overhead costs, and slow
decision-making. And of course, defence is tightly bound with
national sovereignty, industry and jobs.
Yet, the crisis makes cooperation between nations no
longer a choice. It is a necessity. Today, no European Ally on its
own is able to develop the full range of responses to meet all security
challenges. Recently, France and the UK, despite their competitive
relations over centuries, made a fundamental shift towards closer cooperation to
develop and share critical defence capabilities . This new agreement is a real
turning point. And I believe it could show the way forward for other
Allies too..
The era of one-size-fits-all defence cooperation is
over. What matters is to deliver capabilities that allow us to operate
successfully at 28. Smart Defence can do just that. It can help
nations meet two challenges they face today: how to get more security for the
limited resources they devote to defence, and how to invest enough to
prepare for the future.
So first, how to get more security for our resources? I
see three ways: to pool and share capabilities, to set the right
priorities, and to better coordinate our efforts.
Pooling and sharing are vital if we want to develop our
military know-how and capabilities. And NATO is best placed to
identify and connect nations that have similar needs but not enough money to
build a capability on their own.
There are many different ways to achieve
this. It can be the common use of capabilities, such as
the former Soviet- type helicopters that we are upgrading to NATO
standards. It can be pooling through acquisition, such as the C-17
Strategic Airlift Capability based in Hungary. And it can be role sharing,
such as several nations taking turns to patrol the airspace of the Baltic
region, which in turn allows our three Baltic states to invest in deployable
armed forces.
I can mention other examples. French and Belgian jet
pilots use joint training infrastructure , so nations together can maintain
important capacity for less money. Specialised training infrastructures
can also be developed by one nation for the use of all Allies, as the Czech
Republic has done for defence against Chemical, Biological, Radiological and
Nuclear weapons.
And what is true for training is also true for
logistics. Nations that are acquiring new types of helicopters like the
NH90 or the Tiger should already think about multinational maintenance and
logistics in operations.
Moreover, developing a common interface also helps to
provide new responses to new threats, as our approach to missile defence
demonstrates: nations developing their own capabilities but closely
connected to a NATO-wide system.
But pooling is not enough, if we don’t put our money
where the real priorities are. At the NATO Summit in Lisbon last November,
we identified several of these priorities, including cyber defence, and the
fight against terrorism and piracy. We also agreed on ten critical
capabilities for our forces – such as helicopter transport, medical support, and
countering road-side bombs.
We need to reduce structures and slim down our
bureaucracy. NATO’s own structures are not exempt – I am seeing to
that. And we must help nations create financial headroom to fund
real needs – forces that can be deployed quickly to respond to different
kinds of missions.
And here in Munich, I particularly wish to commend
Minister zu Guttenberg and the German Government for undertaking the reform of
the Bundeswehr, to make it leaner and more agile. In taking this tough
decision, the German Government has demonstrated strong political leadership and
a willingness to embrace change. It is something we all need to
do.
Of course, not all nations can afford or need all
capabilities. After all, NATO's foundation is collective defence – an attack on
one Ally is considered an attack against all. In times of need, we help each
other. The reassurance of solidarity should encourage some nations to focus on
certain capabilities – either alone or working together with a few other
Allies. And NATO can help identify those options.
What we also need is overall coherence. Again, NATO can
provide the bigger picture of what Allies need and want. This is the time to
make better use of NATO as an adviser and an honest broker -- to ensure a degree
of coherence in any cuts which nations may consider, and to minimise their
impact on the overall effectiveness of the Alliance.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this is how we get greater
security for the money we invest in defence: pool and share capabilities,
prioritise and coordinate better.
Now, how can we better prepare for the future?
Here, I see two priorities: investing in science and technology, and
creating greater coherence within Europe.
Given
that science and technology are the foundation for all our defence capabilities,
our investment in Research and Development is incredibly small. Here in
Europe, Britain and France are the biggest spenders on Research &
Development. Yet put together, their share is no more than 12 per cent of what
the United States spends.
So even big European nations have difficulty in keeping
the edge, for example on drone technology. At a time when challenges
are global, 80 per cent of European Research and Development continues to be
spent on national programmes. We need to do better. If nations devote a
greater share of their Research and Development spending to multinational
projects, that will make a difference. For example, smaller nations who
can’t necessarily develop their own responses to cyber threats could join
together. NATO can help and advise them on how to protect their critical
information infrastructures.
To prepare for the future, let us also build closer
links with the private sector – and I am pleased to see several representatives
from industry at our meeting today. In the past, military Research and
Development put defence at the cutting edge of technology, with the civilian
sector eventually taking advantage of those innovations. Now, in many
areas, the situation has reversed. Industry has a wealth of expertise,
including on cyber defence, fuel cell energy and light logistics. We must
find better ways through public-private partnerships to explore the military
potential of emerging technologies, and to involve industry sooner and more
closely.
Finally, a strong, strategic NATO-EU partnership would
deliver many benefits, in political and operational terms, as well as
financially. It makes sense for us in Europe. It also makes sense
for our North American Allies. And that is why I will continue to do all I
can to make it happen. As we try to overcome the remaining political
obstacles, I sincerely hope that NATO and the EU will intensify their practical
cooperation. After all, NATO and the EU share 21 members – but each of
those nations has only one set of armed forces and one set of
capabilities. Let us get the most out of it.
Let me make one final point. Smart Defence is not about
NATO imposing anything on nations. It is about enabling them to work better more
effectively and efficiently together. NATO’s role is to set the
strategic direction, to identify possible areas of cooperation, to act as
a clearing house, and to share best practices.
Ultimately, it is all about making it easier for nations
to develop and acquire capabilities – alone, together as Allies, or even
involving non-NATO countries, in NATO or in the EU. And indeed, European
efforts are particularly welcome, because they strengthen both the EU and
NATO. All frameworks are good, as long as they deliver the capabilities
that nations need to protect their population, and make Europe stronger and more
secure.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have set out a number of ways in which NATO can help
nations to build greater security with fewer resources. I see Smart Defence as a
vital priority for the Alliance, and a key objective of my tenure as its
Secretary General. By the time of NATO’s next summit in 2012, I shall be looking
for concrete progress and clear evidence that we continue to invest in our
defence.
For over 60 years, the North-Atlantic Alliance has
provided greater security for its members than they could ever achieve on their
own. I am confident that this age of austerity can bring us even closer
together, in order to prevent the financial crisis from becoming a security
crisis. That we cannot afford. NATO is determined to continue playing its
vital role -- as an anchor of stability, solidarity and cooperation – to help
keep our nations safe through the crisis.
Thank you.
End of mail