Remarks by NATO Secretary General, Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer
At the “Security and defence agenda”
conference
Brussels -- 8 June 2007
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
It gives me always a particular pleasure to be back amongst friends here
at the Security and Defence Agenda.
Under Giles MerrittÂ’s excellent leadership, the SDA has become one of the
most influential think-tanks and contributors to the debate of security and
defence issues. It has and is still
playing a valuable role in bringing NATO and the European Union closer together
and starting a broad NATO-EU dialogue at the informal level which, I hope, will
one day be fully elevated to the institutional level as well. Indeed, in some respects, the SDA is
actually ahead of the field -- your forward-thinking work on cyber issues,
missile defence and counter-terrorism are good
examples.
With the Riga Summit behind us, and another
Summit on the horizon in Bucharest in the Spring of next year, the NATO
Alliance is clearly in a most important phase. NATO, and NATO issues, have frequently
been put under scrutiny here. And
that is why I greatly appreciate the role of the SDA also as a sounding board
for NATOÂ’s actions and policies.
What I would like to do this morning is not go through NATOÂ’s entire
agenda, but highlight two issues that I believe to be important for the
Alliance today. First of all,
Afghanistan.
And secondly, the NATO/Russia relationship. I have chosen these two issues not just
because they pose some major challenges for the
Alliance; but also because I am convinced that
they hold real opportunities for us as well.
You do not need me to tell you that in
Afghanistan, NATOÂ’s most important operation, we have
had some difficult, testing months, and some bad press as well. Especially in the south of the country,
many of our forces have been engaged and are as we speak, in serious combat to
counter the Taliban and to provide greater security, carrying out our
UN-mandated mission. Tragically, despite our best efforts, innocent civilians
have been killed – by Taliban suicide bombs and roadside bombs, but I should
add, also by international forces.
Let us be clear: there is no equivalency here. While our opponents do not
show any hesitation to slaughter or maim the Afghan people with their
indiscriminate attacks – NATO has done, and will continue to do, everything
possible to avoid civilian casualties.
We are quite simply dealing with different moral categories
here.
That being said any loss of innocent civilian life, and damage to
civilian property, risks eroding the support that we continue to receive from
the vast majority of people in Afghanistan, as well as from their government and
parliament. It also raises real and justified concern in our countries as well.
That is why I hope that Alliance Defence Ministers, at their meeting here in
Brussels next week, will discuss concrete measures
to lessen the negative humanitarian impact of some aspects of our security
operations.
First, we are improving the procedures within the existing rules of
engagement and we are also looking at what measures can be taken to enhance
coordination between ISAF and the US-led coalition, but most importantly of
course also coordination with the Afghans. One example: in October last year,
some nomads got caught up in fighting in Kandahar. The Afghans knew they were there. We
didnÂ’t. We can, and will, do better.
In addition, it is vital that any future incident is investigated
promptly to establish the cause and prevent similar occurrences in the
future. In the interests of
confidence and transparency, we need quickly to bring in the right people to
investigate; deliver results; and make those results known.
Finally, I believe nations, all of us, not only NATO nations, need to
invest more in existing humanitarian funds, to help families and communities
affected by conflict. These funds exist. I hope we can put more into them, soon.
We must.
Let me however state here once again that I remain optimistic about
NATOÂ’s continued involvement in Afghanistan. We are seeing success. The political will is there in all our
countries to see the mission through.
We have made good progress since the Riga Summit in bolstering our
military presence: there are over seven thousand more troops in the country now
in comparison to last year and our total NATO troop strength is close to forty
thousand – not counting the substantial American-led coalition forces. All 26
NATO Allies are engaged in the International Security Assistance Force, as well
as 11 partner nations. And we have
important military as well as non-military contributions from nations such as
Japan, the
Republic of
Korea,
Australia and
New
Zealand.
We are now stepping up
our efforts to train
and equip the Afghan National Army. The Afghan authorities would like to assume
full responsibility in their own country, as soon as possible, and if we are to
help them to achieve this goal quickly, then we shall have to do even more, much
more in this respect. More Afghan
army and police forces will help us to hold territory for reconstruction and
show the Afghan population that their own forces are playing a more important
role. This subject will, I am sure,
also feature prominently in the discussions of Alliance Defence Ministers next
week, and I shall use that opportunity to call on all Allies to fully resource
all aspects of ISAF, including in this vital area of training. We are by far not
doing enough in training and equipping the Afghan National
Army.
We are also making progress in implementing the comprehensive approach
that Afghanistan
clearly needs. In
Afghanistan and elsewhere, peace
will not survive for long without jobs, electricity, roads, schools, or
teachers. More than ever before,
crisis management, reconstruction and development demand a new level of
cooperation between nations, and between nations and international
organisations, where military and civilian instruments are applied in a
coordinated way.
Clearly, there is a key role for NATO in promoting this so-called
comprehensive approach, and in making sure that it is effective, whether it be
in Afghanistan or
elsewhere. Quite simply, we need this to work, for our mission to
succeed. But we should never forget
that NATO is not, of course, a development organisation. What the
Alliance can
do is create the environment in which reconstruction and development is
possible. But it is up to others,
like the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, the G8 and other
civilian agencies, to help rebuild the country. That is a call you will not stop
hearing from me.
At the same time - and this is a further point that I will be making with
NATO Defence Ministers next week - we
must guard against calls, in NATO that is, for increased civilian activity becoming
an alibi for reducing our military efforts. After all, the reconstruction and
development of Afghanistan
cannot take place if ISAF does not succeed in providing security and
stability. ISAF will continue its
strong efforts in this regard. And
we expect AfghanistanÂ’s
neighbours – and especially Pakistan
and Iran
-- to play their part in ensuring the security and stability of
Afghanistan
as well.
You will not be surprised to hear me say
that the challenge of Afghanistan
also requires NATO and the European Union to redouble their efforts at forging a
true strategic partnership. I
firmly believe that NATO and the EU carry a special responsibility, not only
with respect to Afghanistan,
but in advancing a comprehensive approach towards crisis management and
stabilisation more generally. On
the ground, in the
Balkans, NATO and the EU have worked together very effectively, and I am
optimistic about our ability to do so again in Kosovo once its status has been
decided rather sooner than later, I hope.
NATO also very much appreciates the EUÂ’s preparedness to play its part in
Afghanistan,
including with a police mission, and I am confident we will cooperate
effectively there as well.
Clearly, however, at the
institutional level, more needs to be done to establish a more structured,
strategic partnership between us.
With the right relations in place
between NATO and the EU, both organisations will be better able to find, and
deploy, the right solutions to todayÂ’s security and defence
challenges. And so I will
continue to do what I can as NATO Secretary General – and I know that my friend
Javier Solana does exactly the same in the EU - to promote such a genuine,
strategic partnership.
In addition to our strategic partnership
with the EU, NATO also enjoys partnerships with a broad range of individual
nations. And this brings me on to
the second subject I wish to raise with you today -- NATOÂ’s
relationship with Russia. Ever since the end of the Cold War, NATO has taken a
very open, inclusive approach vis-Ã -vis
Russia.
We have recognized RussiaÂ’s legitimate national security interests,
and has shown a strong determination to build a new European security order
together with Russia.
We are also cooperating well, concretely,
with one country in particular when it comes to
Afghanistan. That country is
Russia.
Afghanistan is a clear example that todayÂ’s headlines
– and some of the overheated rhetoric – do not reflect fully relations between
Russia and the West. NATO and
Russia have come a long way together in the ten
years since we signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and the five years since we
established the NATO-Russia Council.
There has been more and more cooperation between our military
forces. We have agreed a
comprehensive Action Plan on Terrorism, and ambitious programmes of technical
cooperation in airspace management and theatre missile defence. As I mentioned,
we have joined forces to build counter-narcotics capabilities in
Afghanistan and Central Asia. Just
last month the State Duma in Moscow ratified the Partnership for Peace Status of Forces
Agreement between NATO and Russia, a step that will allow even closer
practical cooperation.
Because I know where we have been, and how far we have come, I am
disappointed when I hear comments by President Putin and other senior Russian
officials which suggest a tendency to look at todayÂ’s challenges through the
lens of the past. I understand that there are Russian concerns – about MD, about
NATO enlargement, about arms control. But I think the way in which these
concerns are being aired and handled could frankly be
better.
Take the issue of missile defence.
The proliferation of missile technology is not a development that should
concern only the members of NATO.
As Secretary General, I have not only emphasised the indivisibility of
Allied security, but also the need to have a frank and transparent debate with
our Russian friends on this issue, aimed at concrete cooperation. We have done
that, often in the NRC. And under the NATO-Russia Council, we have developed
close cooperation on theatre missile defence. I saw recent comments from Foreign
Minister S. Lavrov about broadening that cooperation, which I welcome. Against
that background, however let me say clearly that warnings that Russian missiles
might once again be targeted at Europe are unhelpful, unwelcome and frankly anachronistic.
I hope that what we hear from Heiligendamm indeed means that they are talking
about these issues. The NATO Allies and the
US have been very frank and open on third
site issues. LetÂ’s talk, letÂ’s engage.
Or take the CFE Treaty.
Russia has raised concerns about the Treaty, and
so have the NATO Allies. These are
complex political and legal issues, that will not be easy to resolve. But NATO Allies are committed to
discussing them, in the NATO-Russia Council as well as at the OSCE in
Vienna. But
NATOÂ’s basic approach is clear: this agreement has underpinned European security
for the past 15 years, and provides a degree of predictability and transparency
that is to everyoneÂ’s benefit. LetÂ’s do what is necessary to have it ratified as
soon as possible.
Or take the old chestnut of NATO enlargement being directed against
RussiaÂ’s interests. Like every country,
Russia stands to benefit from a
Europe that is whole, free and at peace – with more
democracy, more stability, more security, more rule of law and more democratic
control of the armed forces. A key
criterion for admitting new member countries into NATO has been, and will
remain, that their inclusion should enhance security for all on this continent,
including Russia.
And, needless to say, no matter how many members it may have, NATO will
continue to honour its commitments to
Russia. Again, I can understand that NATO
enlargement might cause concern to some in
Russia. My answer is: NATO today, at 14, 16, 26
or 29, is RussiaÂ’s partner. ItÂ’s as simple as that.
Looking ahead, I believe that Russia and NATO need to do more to intensify our
cooperation in those areas where we largely share a strategic vision, such as
bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan, while finding ways to manage issues that
are obviously more difficult, such as missile defence. There clearly is a lot more that we can
do together – in making our forces interoperable on peace support missions; in
supporting each other in disasters and emergency situations; in fighting
terrorism; and in consulting on new challenges such as defence against
proliferation. And NATO, for its
part, is very much open to such enhanced cooperation. We have never deviated from our policy
towards Russia -- it is a policy of engagement and of
being a reliable, predictable partner.
In a couple of weeks, we will mark the two important anniversaries in the
NATO-Russia relationship that I just mentioned. I sincerely hope that this will not be
an occasion wasted, but an opportunity to reaffirm our strong mutual interest in
a solid NATO-Russia relationship, and to establish clearer priorities for our
cooperation in areas such as those I have just mentioned. We need to get on with addressing
together the 21st century security challenges rather than
resurrecting those from the past, that is of no
use.
Ladies and
Gentlemen,
I have highlighted for you two key challenges before the NATO
Alliance. A fundamental element of
addressing these challenges successfully will be political dialogue. Ever since I became NATO Secretary
General, I have emphasised the need for enhanced political dialogue among the
Allies. And I am glad that, over
the last few years, weÂ’ve had more regular, and increasingly constructive,
political discussions in NATO on a wider range of
issues.
As we prepare for the NATO Summit in
Bucharest next April, we will need to further
intensify our political dialogue, and to further extend it. Clearly, dialogue only between the NATO
Allies is not enough. We also need
enhanced dialogue with our partner nations, as well as with other international
institutions. First and foremost with the European Union. And we definitely also
need a continuing dialogue with the forward-leaning, intellectual, broader
strategic community, such as the Security and Defence Agenda. That is why I have valued being with you
here this morning and why, to use a famous phrase by the current Governor of
California, but without the Austrian accent, “I’ll be back”.
Thank you.