Speech by the Secretary General at the
Conference
“After the Bucharest NATO Summit :
European and American
Missile Defense
Perspectives”,
Prague, 5 May 2008
Prime
Minister,
Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be in your midst today – an important
conference, important subject, well-timed conference, important decisions. I am pleased to hear that the
Czech Republic has completed negotiations with the
United States of
America on the establishment of a radar site for the
so-called US Ballistic Missile Defence system. The signing of that agreement in the
near future will be a major step forward I think in the process of building a
missile defence architecture in Europe. It
will also be a major step for the bilateral relationship between the
Czech Republic and the
United
States. But it
is also a major development for NATO.
Because I think it opens a new chapter for the
Alliance in meeting the new threats of the
21st century.
When people think of NATO, they usually think of responding to immediate
challenges – a crisis in the Balkans, the 9/11 attacks, or creating security in
Afghanistan.
This view of NATO as a kind of fire brigade is only natural: after all,
NATO has unique capabilities that it can bring to bear in responding to
immediate problems. And, hence, it
is no surprise that the North Atlantic Alliance is very much in
demand.
But the image of NATO as a mere fire brigade is too narrow. Yes, of course, we must remain capable
of responding to imminent threats.
But we must also look ahead – we must scan the strategic horizon for
potential new challenges, and we must develop common approaches to deal with
them – making sure we take into account the time needed to develop those
solutions. People sometimes tend to
neglect this dimension
of NATO.
And yet it is precisely this pro-active dimension of the
Alliance that will
be
increasingly important as we enter a new strategic environment.
In tomorrow's uncertain world, we
can not wait for threats to mature before deciding how to counter
them.
The nature of this new environment is already beginning to take
shape. It will be an environment
that will be marked by the effects of climate change, such as territorial
conflicts, rising food prices, and migration; it will be characterised by the
scramble for energy resources; by the emergence of new powers; and by non-state
actors trying to gain access to deadly
technologies.
It will also be a security environment characterised by the proliferation
of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The nuclear ambitions of
Iran and
North
Korea threaten to set in motion a “domino effect” that
will be difficult to contain. And
the number of states that possess ballistic missiles is already growing - slowly
but surely.
The threat of a ballistic missile attack touches at the very heart of
NATO’s collective defence commitment.
It touches, in other words, at the very core of our
Alliance.
That is why we must respond to this challenge – and why we must respond
together.
We have been working on the best way forward on missile defence –
bilaterally and within NATO – for a considerable period of time. We have done so against the backdrop of
a political and public debate that had from time to time its share of
irrationality. Too many
participants in that debate allowed ideological considerations to cloud a
political and military judgement.
As the countries that would host elements of the planned
US missile defence system, the
Czech Republic and
Poland have to bear the brunt of that growing
debate. I know that this is not
easy.
Victor Hugo once said that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose
time has come. Perhaps that is why
neither a sometimes erratic debate nor Cold War-style threats could ultimately,
or should ultimately undermine the project. And at NATO’s Bucharest Summit – and the
Prime Minister referred to the Summit more than once – which just took place one month
ago, the Allies made it very clear that missile defence is a collective effort
that will not be derailed.
The specific deployment of the
US “Third Site” may involve only a few
Allies, yet as I said the proliferation of ballistic missiles is a reality that
concerns us all. Our security is
indivisible. And this fundamental
principle will guide our work on missile defence in the months and years
ahead.
So where do we stand now, and where are we
going?
First, it is clear that the US “Third Site” will make a substantial
contribution to the protection of many European Allies. It is also clear, however, that it will
not cover all of them. And that is
why we need to consider options for a more comprehensive coverage. Simply put, we need both the
US missile defence elements and other
sensors and interceptors. And this
means that we need to link the US system with other national systems and
NATO systems. Several architectures
are currently being studied, with a view to inform further debate and potential
decisions at the next NATO Summit in 2009.
Now the question of course is, is such a linking of different systems
feasible? The answer is clearly
“yes”. NATO has a longstanding
experience in promoting interoperability, and in integrating different national
assets into one coherent capability.
First tests have successfully joined NATO’s so-called Active Layered
Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence system (ALTBMD), the
US missile defence, and French and Dutch
assets. And as far as the costs and
performance are concerned, it is clear that an interconnected, NATO-wide system
would be considerably cheaper and more effective than if individual nations were
to develop and field their own territorial missile defence
system.
My second point, we need of course to look at the challenge of
political-military consultations and command and control. An incoming missile will not allow us
enough time to convene a meeting of the North Atlantic Council. We therefore need to develop procedures
that enable us to react quickly.
But here, too, NATO does not need to start from scratch. After all, the
Alliance now has almost 60 years of experience in
crisis management procedures, and this will certainly inform our discussions and
help us to find the right solution.
My third point, we need to engage
Russia.
Russia has made it clear on many occasions that
she remains suspicious of the US “Third Site”. It is therefore essential that we
continue to involve Russia, both in the NATO-Russia Council and in
US-Russian bilateral talks, to explain the system and to alleviate their
concerns. At the NATO Bucharest
Summit, we made it clear that we are willing to go even further – in fact, we
are ready to explore the potential linking of US, NATO and Russian missile
defence systems. Sooner or later,
Moscow will come to realise that
Russia, too, is not immune to the consequences
of proliferation. Once that happens
– and I hope that it won’t take long –
Russia will consider NATO’s offer. And our ongoing cooperation with
Russia on tactical missile defence could then be
expanded to include the strategic level as well.
Prime
Minister,
Foreign
Minister,
Excellencies,
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
Missile defence is not the entire answer to the proliferation
challenge. It has to be seen in the
wider context of arms control and non-proliferation. And, needless to say, our approach to
missile defence will also be determined by the evolution of the threat. For these reasons, the debate about the
right approach to missile defence will certainly not end today. However, the parameters of the debate
have already changed. Instead of
talking about the desirability of missile defence, we are now focussing on how
to make it work.
In other words, we have moved the issue of missile defence out of the
abstract ideological debate and into the real world. And this is where it belongs: In a world where fanaticism and
technological progress can confront us with challenges of unprecedented
magnitude, missile defence is an expression of our political will to defend our
vital strategic interests; of our moral responsibility to protect our
populations; and of our conviction that collective defence in the Alliance
remains the best way to safeguard the security of future generations. I thank you very much for your
attention.