“Reinventing NATO – Does the Alliance reflect the changing nature of Transatlantic Security?”

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to start by thanking the “New Defence Agenda” and the “KonradAdenauer Stiftung” for inviting me. I also want to commend them forputting together a programme that raises a number of very pertinentquestions about NATO – about where the Alliance is, and about where itshould be heading. It is sometimes said that asking the right questionsis the first step towards answering them. And that bodes very well forthe success of this meeting.

Let me immediately tacklewhat has been posted as the main question for this morning’s session –Should NATO be reinvented, reinvigorated or just revamped? I do notwish to dwell on semantics here. It is clear that the new, 21 stcentury security environment requires the Alliance to transform. We areon the job already, delivering concrete results, and determined to pushahead.

NATO has been around for more than half acentury. It is perceived wisdom that you cannot teach an old dog newtricks. But I submit that the main reason for NATO’s resilience anddurability is that it has been able to adjust its repertoire. Indeed,the Alliance has been able to deliver effective multilateralism throughvery different – and sometimes very difficult – circumstances.

Of course, institutions don’t have a life of their own. They can helpdeliver effective multilateralism only if nations hold common views ona problem. But institutions can be “agenda-setters”. In other words,they can instil in their members a certain sense of group discipline –a sense of “corporate identity”, if you will. And that will often makeconsensus on new challenges easier to achieve.

Thissense of identity is clearly present in the European Union -- a projectthat relies on member nations to surrender a degree of sovereignty forthe sake of the common good. The current debate on the EU constitution– whatever your position may be on the document itself -- underlinesthe extent to which the Union has become an “agenda-setter” for itsmember states.

But I believe that NATO has a “corporateidentity” too. Of course, NATO nations remain fully sovereign, and therange of issues that the Alliance covers is more focussed than theagenda of the EU. NATO remains unique as a permanent, institutionalisedforum for transatlantic security consultation, coordination and commonaction. It thus plays a key role in bolstering the broadertransatlantic partnership. And since this partnership remains thefoundation of global stability, NATO remains a very powerful“agenda-setter”.

I want to demonstrate thisagenda-setting function of NATO by addressing five dimensions of theAlliance’s current transformation. One dimension is intellectual;another is military; a third is institutional; a fourth is geographic,and a fifth is political.

The first area oftransformation is, as I said, intellectual. It concerns the way wethink about security challenges, and about how we use NATO to addressthem. Clearly, a large-scale invasion of our territory is no longer ourdominant concern. Today, as Henry Kissinger has put it so aptly, thesurvival of our countries can be put at risk by developments thathappen entirely within the borders of another country. This is as truefor the kind of terrorism that was allowed to breed in Afghanistan asit is for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In light ofsuch challenges, a passive, reactive approach will not do. Thesethreats need to be confronted when and where they emerge.

NATO has drawn the right conclusion from this new reality. Simply put,we have moved away from the narrow, geographical approach to securitythat characterised NATO for almost five decades. We demonstrate thiswith our operation in Afghanistan, and with our training mission inIraq. And we may demonstrate it again soon by offering logistic support– not troops on the ground – to the African Union’s peacekeepingmission in Darfur. Presient Konaré, the Chairperson of the Commissionof the African Union, met with the NATO Council last week. And I willbe in Addis Ababa later this week to discuss how NATO can add value tothe assistance offered by the United Nations, the European Union, aswell as by a number of individual nations.

All these areclear demonstrations that NATO is no longer a “eurocentric” Alliance.But we are not turning into a world policeman – NATO has neither theambition nor the capability to deal with emergencies all over theglobe. However we do now all look at NATO as an instrument that we canuse wherever our common security interests demand it. This is a seachange in the way we think about – and employ – the Alliance. And itoffers new, unprecedented opportunities for transatlantic securitycooperation well beyond this continent.

The second areaof transformation is military. I think the fundamental point to makehere is that no country can still afford to maintain forces just fornational territorial defence. Each NATO member must be able to make acontribution to the full spectrum of operations. What we need,therefore, are forces that can react quickly, that can be deployed overlong distances, and then sustained over extended periods of time. Andwe need a mix of forces capable of performing high intensity combattasks and post-conflict reconstruction work.

WithinNATO, we have made good progress in developing such capabilities. Wehave streamlined our military command structure and stood up the NATOResponse Force. We have moved away from purely individual nationalefforts and achieved much greater coordination across the Alliance.There have been significant improvements to our capabilities, and weare looking to make sure that future missions can be better planned,equipped, and paid for. In sum, while we still have work to do, theAlliance’s military transformation is well on track.

Intoday’s security environment, however, military competence is notenough. The real challenge is to apply military, political and economicinstruments in a well-coordinated way, and that means that NATO willincreasingly act in concert with other institutions. That is why thethird area of NATO’s transformation is to reach out and develop closerrelations with other institutions. On the ground, this cooperation isalready a reality. In the Balkans, NATO cooperates with the UN, theOSCE and the European Union. Similar links have been established inAfghanistan.

However, we need to raise our sights beyondad hoc cooperation on the ground. We need structured relationships atthe institutional level as well – to coordinate strategically, not justcooperate tactically. We need to establish such relationships with theUN – and the opportunity I had to address the UN Security Council lastyear was an important step in this regard. Kofi Annan’s recentproposals for UN reform provide further opportunities for freshthinking. We also need closer institutional relations with the OSCE.

Above all, however, we need to strengthen the strategic partnershipbetween NATO and the EU. The entire transatlantic community must cometo terms with the reality of the European Union as a genuine securityactor. Our American friends understand that this is about making theUnion a stronger partner, not a counterweight, asdemonstrated by President Bush’s visit to the European Unioninstitutions in February following our NATO Summit meeting. Here inEurope, we understand that we must be realistic about our securityrole, and aware of what NATO already offers.

I sincerelyhope that greater realism will translate in a much closer NATO-EUrelationship – one that goes well beyond crisis management in theBalkans. We need a partnership that covers all aspects of modernsecurity policy: combating terrorism, preventing the spread of weaponsof mass destruction, and dealing with “failed states”. And we need tobetter coordinate our policies for dealing with the world’s pivotalregions.

And this brings me to the fourth area of NATO’stransformation, the geopolitical dimension. Simply put, we need to lookat certain regions of the world through a common transatlantic lens.This is true for the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as for theBroader Middle East. Finding ways to influence positive developments inthese regions has to be a joint transatlantic effort – or it will notstand much chance of success.

Again, we are using NATOto promote this transatlantic approach. We are deepening relations withour Partners in the Caucasus and Central Asia. We are enhancing ourdialogue with counties in Northern Africa and the Middle East, andbuilding new ties of cooperation with interested countries from theGulf region. And I will get on the plane in just a few hours to chairthe first EAPC Security Forum in Sweden. This is a new initiative toengage our Partners in free-flowing discussion of the many commonchallenges before us. And a further demonstration of NATO’s role as an“agenda-setter” not just for the transatlantic Allies, but the entireEuro-Atlantic community of nations.

These key areas ofNATO’s transformation – intellectual, military, institutional,geographic – all underscore the comprehensive approach to security thatNATO has adopted. But there is a fifth, essential aspect of NATO’stransformation that I wish to highlight before you this morning. It isan aspect that in fact cuts across all other areas of NATO’s evolution:The challenge of making NATO more political.

Simply put,we need to understand NATO not only as a forum for action. We must alsounderstand it as a forum for debate. During the Iraq controversy, NATOwas manifestly under-utilised as a consultative forum. (Not only NATOby the way). And we paid a high price for that. I am confident that welearned our lesson. If we want to preserve and strengthen NATO as acentral framework for effective multilateralism, we must engage inmultilateral debate.

Let us be honest. If the members ofthe EU argue about a certain course of action, or if the United Nationsbecomes the stage of a major policy debate, people accept this as asign of the vitality of these institutions. Try the same at NATO, andyou’ll get a string of headlines saying NATO is “in turmoil” or even“terminal decline”. Somehow, people look at debate in NATO differently.It must have to do with the Cold War, when the Alliance had todemonstrate unity at any cost.

But what was perhapslogical during the Cold War may no longer be opportune today. Today,terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and “failedstates” pose new challenges. New security players, such as the EU, arefinding their role. Other parts of the world are growing in relevance.We must adapt deterrence and established non-proliferation regimes tothe new circumstances. And we must discuss new approaches to thebroader Middle East, the Caucasus and other regions.

Inthe face of such enormous challenges, how could we avoid debate – andmore importantly, why would we? NATO is the forum where Europe andNorth America come together to shape a common approach to these newchallenges, including, yes, through the occasional disagreement. Thatis an essential role – one that we should encourage, not shy away from.Because it will ultimately strengthen our political cohesion, reinforceour operational effectiveness, and enhance our credibility in the eyesof our publics.

I believe that this is what ChancellorSchroeder was getting at in his speech at the Munich SecurityConference in February. It is something that I have been saying almostsince I took over this post in January of last year. I am pleased thatthe Allies now underscore the need for greater political dialogue inNATO. I am encouraged by the very good debates that we have recentlyhad on such issues as the Middle East, Darfur, the Balkans and NATO-EUrelations. And I am confident, and NATO leaders are committed, tofurther enhance this vital political role of NATO in the future. Theserious security challenges before us demand nothing less.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, NATO is no longer a solo-player in security. Ever since ourengagement in the Balkans, we have been acting in concert with otheractors – with our Partners, as well as with other internationalorganisations. We have worked hard to reflect the lessons of thosecritical years in NATO’s policies and structures. And we are workinghard now to make NATO even more relevant to the 21 st century securityenvironment.

Cultivating political dialogue will be thecrown jewel in NATO’s transformation – a transformation that willenable the transatlantic allies to make an even more effectivecontribution to the international community’s efforts to protect and topromote security and stability. Because a “culture of dialogue” willunderpin this transformation with a broad strategic consensus on how totackle the great challenges of our age.

Thank you.