Colloquy on "The European Security and Defense Identity" Madrid, 6 May 1998

Speech by Mr. Anders Bjrck, Member of Parliament, former Defence Minister, Sweden. The expression "European security" was before 1989 rather easy to define. We had two well defined military, political and economical blocks against each other. A war meant a total confrontation, escalation was unavoidable. Most likely the result could be a third world war. But this is history. Old Threats to Europe has disappeared, new has emerged. Some besserwissers claims that there are no more threats to Europe at all. We have heard it before, many, many times. History is full of people who know everything about the future. It's interesting to go back and read old forecast about the future. Nearly all of them are completely wrong, whether they forecast hell or heaven. To make it clear: I don't think the most immediate threat is a cold war confrontation between east and west. But we should at least have learnt something from what has happened after 1989. Hundred of thousands of people have killed in a conventional war in ex-Yugoslavia, just to mention one thing which was not foreseen the night the Berlin wall was opened. Nothing is more dangerous than a false feeling of security. So, when you ask me to define the threats I can see to Europe in the future, I must be honest and say, I don't know. And if I gave you examples, some of you may say. This is unthinkable. And that's the problem. People don't want to think, or even can think about the unthinkable. But the problem is that the unthinkable often happens. In the northern part of Europe we never has clear division into two blocks which we had in central Europe. Denmark and Norway was and is member of NATO, Sweden neutral with a strong defence. Finland had - that is not the case more - a treaty about their security with the Soviet Union. Still we can see split today. Norway and Denmark are still NATO members. Denmark was already a member of the European Union, it has now been joined by Sweden and Finland. Norway has decided not to join. Finland has decided to join the EMU, the others are waiting. I will not be surprised if Sweden would join NATO within the foreseeable future. This is still as controversial in Sweden as it is in Sweden. But despite the different solution, there is no doubt about the direction. The Nordic countries are going European. What complicates things is that we have around the Baltic Sea also countries, earlier being part of the Soviet Union, now free and independent. They are eager to join EU and NATO. The question is the timetable - and the Russian reaction. And there we have the crux of the matter. When creating a security structure for the Nordic area, still it is very much a question of the reaction from Russia. But let me make one think clear. It's not a question of "permission" from Russia. It's the opposite, namely solutions which can in the long run also integrate Russia into European structures. Because you can't create a European security order without having in mind Russia. You may like it, dislike it, but you can't neglect it. How do we then look upon a European security order from a northern perspective? Well, let's face it. Europe is still very dependent on US views on the situation in Europe. No major decision about military activities in Europe can be taken without the approval and support from USA. That counts for two world wars as well as Yugoslavia. If Europe want's too dependent on outside forces, then we should do the following: Create a decision making progress where all decisions should be taken unanimously. A military system where the commanders should ask their national governments how to act also in concrete situations. Maintaining national command systems. Having no European communication and transport system. All this is the experience we have got from the example the Balkans. European power and influence can only be exercised if there in Europe are co-ordinated military power and an European political decision making process which is quick. The question is in principle not to create more European resources in the military field but to co-ordinate them better. In some areas as intelligence, transport and communication there are special need for improvements which could give us better possibilities to act quickly and more efficient. The main problem is though the political decision making progress. Until this is streamlined, Europe will remain an economic giant and a political dwarf. The ironic thing is that in the security field there are already enormous resources in Europe. The military potential is indeed in most areas impressive. The industrial capacity is also first class. In general terms we don't need to add a lot of resources. It's a question to co-ordinate what we already have. With my background as an ex. Defence minister and active on the parliamentary level in Europe, I must say that we have only our selves in Europe to blame if we have problem and are not satisfied with the present situation. Nothing is stopping us from doing whatever we think should do the trick for a joint European security. We have neither used the carrot or the stick enough. Perhaps to some extent the stick to create mergers and cooperation in the defence industry field. Those mergers and cooperation in the defence industry field. Those mergers and cooperation programmes have more often been designed to please political leaders ambitions than the real need in the military forces. There must be better solutions, which can give substantial results. If we already at the planning level coordinate the different countries needs than we can achieve positive results. We shouldn't as today happens, facing them with politically motivated projects, which is not giving best value for money. Since 1989 there have been thousands of meetings about how to create a European security structure. Well, a lot of things have indeed been achieved but still we are in the beginning of the process. I'm not nave enough to think that this is a quick affair. There have been success stories like the German unification, there have been tragedies as Yugoslavia. There has been the enlargement of EU, there has been the NATO-enlargement. But still there is no creation of an efficient European Army, a project which was discussed already in the fifties and also buried at that time. What we need is more political momentum, not more study groups about military details. If we can't unite on a political and military European structure which can handle both the traditional - today unlikely but though potential threats of a massive invasion - as well as regional security in Europe - than it is in the European capitals, it's not in Brussels, it's somewhere in the US Midwest, among the US voters which a US president and administration always must care more about than European decision makers. Is this acceptable? Clearly not. But we have only ourselves to blame. The only question is: For how long? My answer is: It is not necessary to wait. We can if we want build up a European security structure. We should do it.