At the NATO Information Seminar Sarajevo, 2 July 1998

"NATO and its Current Political Agenda" Ambassador Klaus-Peter Klaiber Assistant Secretary General, Political Affairs Division, International Staff Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to address this NATO Information Seminar on the political agenda of the new NATO. As a relative newcomer to NATO, this is my first visit to your country and its capital. I will be very keen to use this opportunity to hear what you have to say about the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. But I also want to offer you a wider perspective about the new NATO and its role in helping consolidate peace and security across the Euro-Atlantic region. NATO - let me state at the outset - is not just SFOR, which you see around you on a daily basis. NATO is more than that. But we can readily use the example of SFOR to help explain NATO's political agenda. For it is in SFOR - its composition, organisation and tasks - that we see all the major elements of the Alliance's approach to cooperative security. And to build cooperative security in Europe, we need to have effective instruments for crisis management. Let me look in particular at three aspects of SFOR which reveal the new NATO's approach to cooperative security and crisis management. First, SFOR shows that security is a cooperative endeavour, involving many non-NATO nations and other organisations working towards shared goals. Second, SFOR shows that maintaining stability in Europe requires effective military backing for political diplomacy. Third and finally, SFOR also shows that security in Europe remains transatlantic security. A word or two first about the cooperative approach to security. Practical cooperation, not confrontation, is the key strategic instrument for shaping our security environment. This key judgement was made by the Alliance at the 1990 London Summit, just after the Cold War ended. Today, the logic of cooperation extends both to organisations and to individual nations. Organisations need to work together, because no single institution provides the full range of instruments -- political, economic, military -- required to manage security in the new Europe. NATO, the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union and the Western European Union are among the organisations with a role to play in European security. But it is cooperation between nations that is the defining characteristic of the new security order in Europe. Only by developing new patterns of interaction in security affairs could we tap the potential that was released following the end of the Cold War. Only by bringing together former adversaries into new cooperative arrangements could we fashion the means to respond to new security risks arising in some parts of Europe. The answer of the Alliance to this requirement is the Partnership for Peace, launched in early 1994. The Partnership for Peace has given us new ways of cooperating across the Euro-Atlantic area. Its major focus is to enhance the ability of Allies and non-Allied countries to work together - be it on humanitarian or peacekeeping missions. The result so far? NATO now has 27 Partner countries. Each brings with it different security policies and traditions. They include neutral and non-aligned states, such as Austria, Sweden and Finland, and newly independent states such as Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic states. Through PfP, the pool of resources on which we can draw in managing crises in Europe is growing. But more than that. PfP is the first step towards a wider security culture on this continent. A wider cooperative security culture needs the appropriate political body in which to reflect the desire to work together, to consult and cooperate on a host of security issues. To meet this requirement, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was created a year ago. The EAPC brings together all NATO and Partner countries. Its Action Plan covers a wide array of issues ranging from peacekeeping to terrorism to regional cooperation. Together, these two instruments - PfP and the EAPC - are already demonstrating their value in crisis management. For example, in the Kosovo crisis, both Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have made use of the consultation opportunities provided by PfP. Enhanced PfP exercises will be held in the near future in both countries. Through their Individual Partnership Programmes, the Alliance has been able to assist them on such pertinent security issues as border control and coping with the influx of refugees. Meanwhile, the EAPC's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre is supporting the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in bringing humanitarian aid to the region in and around Kosovo. PfP and EAPC may be NATO's most visible multinational instruments to shape the evolution of Euro-Atlantic security. But they are not the only ones. NATO's dialogue with Southern Mediterranean countries is helping to foster new relationships in this vital region. And the Alliance's distinct partnership with Ukraine offers new avenues for cooperation with a country of crucial importance for stability and security in Europe. But there is another instrument that we need to develop further if our goal of a comprehensive Euro-Atlantic security architecture is to become a reality - NATO's new partnership with Russia. One cannot build such an architecture without Russia, let alone against it. Bosnia and Kosovo have made it crystal clear: if the international community is to act effectively in European crises, Russia must be on board. We now have the mechanism to have Russia on board - the Permanent Joint Council. It gives NATO and Russia a unique forum to consult on all issues affecting their security: peacekeeping, nuclear safety, NATO-Russia cooperation in SFOR, armaments-related cooperation, terrorism, the retraining of retired military personnel. These are just some of the areas of our work. And we are enhancing military-to-military contacts, adding to our very successful cooperation in the Stabilisation Force in Bosnia. All these new initiatives and mechanisms have changed NATO profoundly. It no longer resembles the organisation it once was during the Cold War. But amidst all these changes, two things remain the same: NATO's military effectiveness and NATO's transatlantic link. Let me say a few words about each. When the Cold War came to an end, there was no longer a need to maintain the same high level of forces. Accordingly, NATO downsized its forces substantially, as a reflection of the new strategic environment in Europe. But the need for military competence remains. Europe does not become more stable by rhetorical commitments to common values alone. We also must be able to uphold and protect these values when they are threatened. This requires more than military means, of course, but without military capabilities diplomacy in a crisis is far less effective. For these reasons, NATO has changed its strategies and force structures in order to be better able to respond to the new security challenges, such as crisis management and peacekeeping. Our forces are being made more flexible. Our command structure now features elements that can be deployed rapidly into a crisis area. Equally importantly, our Partners now have the opportunity to involve themselves more closely in NATO's command structure and force planning process. This will facilitate the planning and preparation of future joint missions. All these changes are so complex and demanding that some have compared it to "painting a moving train". But our militaries are very good at doing the next-to-impossible. Almost 50 years of an integrated military structure and the close cooperation that goes with it have resulted in a unique ability for Allied forces to work together, to coordinate their action, to depend on one another. It is this integrated structure that is a defining characteristic of NATO. Our mutual commitment and mutual reliance mean that no Ally has to pursue a national route for its security. This is something we will preserve. Indeed, the three countries invited to join NATO - Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland - have stated unequivocally that they wish to participate in and uphold the Alliance's integrated military structure. Something else that will not change is NATO's transatlantic dimension. The transatlantic link remains at the heart of the Alliance. We have seen it right here in Bosnia: when European and North American Allies were divided, progress was impossible. When we united, things got moving. To keep the transatlantic relationship healthy is thus one of the most fundamental tasks NATO is facing. But how can we ensure that the United States and Canada will remain engaged in European security in the future? One way is to bring about a new balance of responsibilities on both sides of the Atlantic. The United States remains a unique international actor, both politically and militarily. But we Europeans should not expect the US to take the lead in each and every crisis that may occur on this continent. Indeed, there may be situations where the US will want to play a supporting role for a European-led coalition. We need to create the basis for such European coalitions. And indeed we are making rapid progress in creating these new political and military options. In future, NATO's command structures will include arrangements that enable the European Allies to lead a crisis management operation, drawing on NATO's support. As a result, we will have set the stage for Europe to play a security role more in line with its economic and political strength. It will be NATO's contribution to a new transatlantic bargain, a bargain that better corresponds to the political, military and economic realities of the 21st century. Ladies and Gentlemen, Europe has entered a new security era. Most nations on this continent are displaying a remarkable sense of common direction and common purpose. Integration has become a defining characteristic of today's security environment. Institutions are opening up to embrace new members. New mechanisms of cooperation enable all countries to have a seat at the Euro-Atlantic security table. A common security space from Vancouver to Vladivostok is no longer a distant goal -- it's a work in progress. NATO has played a major part in bringing these developments about. For the Atlantic Alliance offers many of the crucial instruments we need to make Europe a safer place: partnership and cooperation, military effectiveness, and transatlantic solidarity. This is a formidable combination. It has made a difference for Bosnia. It will hopefully make a difference for the entire European continent. Thank You.