Lancaster House, London 2 Feb. 2000

"The Expanding Europe and its Relevance for both the British and the Germans" Lord Robertson's Sir Frank Roberts Memorial Lecture Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, For me it is a particular honour and pleasure to deliver this inaugural Sir Frank Roberts Memorial lecture. But I must admit to a tinge of sadness that Sir Frank, who seemed almost immortal, is no longer with us. Sir Frank was a unique diplomat. Given his small stature and industriousness, his colleagues referred to him as the "Pocket Hercules of the Foreign Office". Certainly, his diplomatic achievements were truly "Herculean". For almost half a century, Sir Frank was a key player in building the Europe of today, and until the end of his long and distinguished life, he maintained a keen interest and involvement in the project that is Europe. When Sir Frank's book "Dealing with Dictators" came out, John Lumsden, my long serving friend and personal assistant, asked him to sign a copy as a gift to me. His handwritten note said this: "with the hope it will not be necessary to 'deal with dictators' in the future ". Apparently, his skills as a diplomat exceeded his fortune-telling talent - or maybe it was just optimism. The tragedy of Yugoslavia's collapse was a brutal reminder that the project of Europe is still unfinished. Events in Bosnia and more recently in Kosovo made it utterly clear that parts of this continent remain strangers to the principles of democracy and ethnic tolerance that we hold dear. More than anything else, Kosovo has brought home the imperative of completing the project of Europe. We need to spread further the benefits of integration offered by our key institutions. We need to extend the unique sense of security we have created for ourselves. And we need to improve our own internal capability to carry out these missions. There is no alternative - Europe must continue to widen and deepen. Deepening and widening are terms that are commonly associated with the European Union. But Europe -- as a continent as well as an idea -- is a project that goes beyond the European Union. NATO has been part of the European project from the very beginning and NATO, too, has a key role in the deepening and the widening of Europe. Deepening Europe: A Security and Defence Identity European integration began as an economic project, but, from its very beginning, NATO provided the security umbrella that allowed it to take root. With NATO providing the backbone of "hard" security, the Europeans could focus on other, more promising areas of integration. In the Cold War, this division of labour made sense. It makes much less sense today. In Europe, there is a growing realisation that the European integration process can no longer exclude security and defence. And in the United States, there is a demand and expectation that Europe should shoulder more security responsibilities. On both sides of the Atlantic, therefore, there is a growing awareness of the need for a new transatlantic bargain. For several years, calls for a stronger European role remained largely rhetorical. Today, however, the contours of such a new bargain are becoming visible. In all three key organisations -- NATO, WEU and EU -- there is a new dynamic at work. In all three institutions, preparations are being made to allow Europe to act as a coherent security actor, to finally play a security role commensurate with its economic strength. The WEU has recently concluded its "audit" of the capabilities available for European-led crisis management. The EU has created the post of a High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy -- my predecessor at NATO, Javier Solana. New ideas for EU decision-making and planning are on the table. And, in a crucial decision to turn vision into reality, the EU has defined a Headline Goal to create a force of 50,000 to 60,000 men, rapidly deployable and fully sustainable for one year. These are without doubt ambitious goals. The European Union has put its credibility on the line -- the challenge is now to deliver. This will mean tough decisions. We do not need, and there is no intention to create, a European army, but we do need to adapt our forces to the new security requirements. For Kosovo, Europe could only manage to deploy 2% of the soldiers that it has on paper -- and even that was a stretch! This is simply unacceptable. We need to get more for what we are spending. And, if we can't get what we need through increased efficiencies and better planning, then we will have to face the uncomfortable fact that we need to spend more, as well as more wisely. To support an ESDI, NATO has also done its homework. Our new command structure allows for European-led operations, in cases where the Allies agree that a European response would be more appropriate. Our defence planning takes European requirements into account. And our new Defence Capabilities Initiative is designed to ensure that all Allies not only remain interoperable, but they also improve and update their capabilities to face the new security challenges. The DCI is a clear reminder that we do not only need to improve institutions, but also capabilities. Many problems still remain to be resolved: how can non-EU NATO Allies be adequately involved? How can the planning processes in NATO and EU be harmonised in future? How can a viable link between NATO and EU be established? Some of these questions cannot be debated in the abstract, but only once the stage of implementation is reached. As the saying goes, we will cross the bridge when we reach it. But what is clear already now is that the Europeans have moved ESDI issues out of the abstract and into the concrete, from theories into capabilities. And, as you all know, it was the British who gave a major impulse for these developments. This latter point should also reassure those in the United States who still observe these developments with a little scepticism. ESDI is not about separation, but about re-juvenation. It is not about ending the transatlantic relationship, but about modernising it and strengthening it. North America has been part of the project of Europe from its very beginning. Ever since the Marshall Plan and NATO helped launch Europe's post-war reconstruction, Europe and North America have tackled the project of Europe together. This will not change. What will change, however, is the expression of this partnership. More and more Americans will ask why a European Union, with a GDP roughly equal of that of the United States, remains so poorly visible as a security actor and as a contributor to the NATO Alliance. Europe must come up with a good answer to this question. In my view, there can only be one answer: We will do better. We must do better. ESDI is thus about broadening our military and political options in responding to crises, about relieving the US from the burden of having to lead in each and every contingency. It is not about Europe "going it alone", but about Europe doing more. A Europe that deepens and a Europe with more clout in security and defence will be a more valuable Partner for the United States in managing security in Europe and beyond. Widening Europe: NATO Enlargement NATO's contribution to the widening of Europe is even more direct: it consists of widening NATO itself. The accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland last March was perhaps the most visible demonstration since the Berlin Wall came down that Europe is no longer divided. In a few years' time, the European Union will also open its doors for nations from Europe's East. Security and stability in Europe remain a twin project, with the Atlantic Alliance and the European Union working in tandem. This logic worked in the immediate post-war years, when NATO and the Marshall Plan together jump-started Western Europe's recovery. It will work again today, as the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are returning as free and self-confident players on the scene. Sir Frank Roberts was a staunch supporter of NATO's enlargement. He recognised that the Alliance could not deny the prospect of membership to the new democracies. During the debates on NATO enlargement he was one of the voices of his senior generation in the UK who openly and wholeheartedly supported it. He urged my predecessor to ignore the critics, for in a few years' time everyone would see that opening NATO's doors was the right decision. He was so right. I deeply regret that he died a year before the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to NATO and I wish he could have witnessed the historic moment. It marked the ultimate fulfilment of his dream: the overcoming of Yalta, and a fresh start for an undivided Europe. Since Frank was there in person at Yalta, I know how profound that dream was to him. NATO's willingness to open its doors has become a key element in advancing the project of widening Europe. It is the ultimate proof that the dividing lines are fading from the European map. The mere prospect of membership in NATO and EU has led many nations in Central and Eastern Europe to conclude bilateral treaties in order to solve many contentious issues. To maintain this positive momentum NATO leaders have made it clear that the Alliance's doors remain open. We have launched the Membership Action Plan to bring aspirant countries closer to the Alliance and prepare themselves for possible future membership. Widening Europe: Partnership and Cooperation Of course, NATO's contribution to the widening of Europe is not confined to enlargement. The group of nations we deal with is far greater than could be handled by simply expanding institutional memberships. We also need other means of engagement -- to enable all nations on this continent to feel part of the greater whole; to give everyone a stake in the great project of re-shaping Europe; to let each nation, irrespective of its size, location or security tradition, make its contribution to our common security. NATO has created such links. Just as the EU has associated many nations from the wider Europe, so NATO has developed political and military ties across the continent. In Partnership for Peace, 25 nations, from Ireland to Sweden, and from Romania to Kazakhstan, are engaging with the 19 Allies in military cooperation: on defence planning, on joint peace support, on humanitarian operations, on civil emergency planning. In the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the same nations consult and cooperate on the political level: on regional security in the Balkans, on defence conversion, on establishing sound civil-military relations. The clearest proof of this is the NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Many of our Partners contribute to SFOR and KFOR, and it is no exaggeration to say that these operations could not have succeeded without Partner involvement. At the beginning of the 20th century, the "Balkan powderkeg" was setting Europe on fire. Today, at the start of the 21st, the nations of the Euro-Atlantic community are acting together -- on the side of peace. This is widening of Europe at its very best! Widening Europe: Russia Widening Europe also means engaging Russia. Because Russia too is a part of Europe. In Russia, some may be uncertain about where their country really belongs. But we should not be uncertain about it. We should be clear: Russia belongs to Europe, it belongs with us. And that makes the question of how Russia can settle herself in this new Europe one of the most important questions we face in the years ahead. But what role can NATO play in this difficult aspect of Europe's widening? What can this Alliance do to help bring Russia into the European mainstream? My answer is simple: persistent engagement. To claim a leading role for NATO is clearly not realistic. Other institutions may well be able to offer more to Russia at this stage of Russia's difficult transition. But neither can NATO afford to simply play the role of the innocent bystander. Even if the future of Russia lies within the hands of Russia herself -and it does - Russia is too important to be left to her own fate. If Russia's successful transition is in our interest, we must help that transition succeed. We had made a good start. The NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Permanent Joint Council were clear indications that NATO and Russia were determined to cooperate. Then came Kosovo, and our relationship cooled off. This situation cannot last. Yes, we work together on the ground in Kosovo and Bosnia, and successfully so. But if the project of Europe is to mature, we need more than Russia's grudging recognition of NATO's actions. We need genuine cooperation across the full spectrum of issues of common concern -- from managing regional crises to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In short, we need a true partnership. A partnership with Russia should not be mistaken for a love affair. To expect a relationship with no disagreements would be naïve. To let occasional disagreements wreck our wider common security agenda would be foolish. I am not known to be either. That is why I am determined to get the NATO-Russia relationship back on track. We need a fresh start and I am certain that many in Russia see things the same way. We cannot afford to ignore each other. Widening Europe: Stability for Southeastern Europe Russia's current difficulties are a strong reminder that in Europe things will not fall into place by themselves. Completing the project of Europe requires a sustained effort. It can't be switched on "autopilot." If we let things slide, we will squander the gains we have made. No, we must do more than build Europe. We must also defend this project when it is threatened. In Bosnia, and even more so in Kosovo, the project of Europe was at stake. What happened in Kosovo was, as Tony Blair has put it, "a throwback to the worst memories of the 20th century". For the first time since 1945, deportation trains were again running through Europe. For the first time since 1945, ethnicity decided whether one was going to live or die. If we had allowed this to continue, if we had remained passive in the face of this barbarity, we would have killed the project of Europe. We would have sent the message that ethnic cleansing can happen with impunity in the immediate neighbourhood of NATO and EU. The message would have been - that the project of Europe is really just about the well-being of some Europeans, but not of the Europeans of the Balkans. We decided to send a different message: the message that ethnic cleansing and mass deportations have no place in the new Europe. And we sent that message decisively. In doing so, we did more then help people in an emergency. We did more than stop the violence and reverse ethnic cleansing. We also helped the project of Europe leap forward. And let me make this point very clearly: NATO took the lead -- and the heat -- in all this. NATO emerged from the conflict as the key institution that prevented the project of Europe from being derailed by the crisis over Kosovo. I hope that people keep this in mind. Clearly, the challenges we face in Kosovo are enormous. As the UN Representative Dr Kouchner has aptly put it, Kosovo suffered forty years of communism, ten years of apartheid, and then over a year of brutal ethnic murder and cleansing. Given this history, no one should harbour any illusions that reconciliation between ethnic groups could be achieved within a few years -- even if parts of our press seem to think so. The key is that we stay the course. Bosnia shows the potential of patient engagement. Bosnia has made real progress since NATO deployed in 1995, and it continues to improve. There is no law of nature preventing us from achieving similar progress in Kosovo. In Kosovo, we have defended Europe as a community of values, not just as a community of prosperity. Indeed, the support of our Partner nations from the region throughout the campaign demonstrated that these nations, too, share these values. Amidst all the tragedies surrounding the conflict, this support by our Partners was one of the most heartening developments. But values alone don't feed people. So now is the time to create prosperity for all South Eastern Europe. Now is the time to bring all nations of this region finally back into the European mainstream. It is where they belong. We have made a promising start. The EU's Stability Pact and NATO's Southeast European Initiative will work in tandem to create the basis for security and economic progress. Security and economic progress go together. That was the logic that underpinned the Marshall Plan and NATO back in the late forties. The same logic should -- and will -- now be applied to the Balkans. Europe, Britain and Germany In past debates on the future shape of Europe, Britain and Germany were often singled out as representing the opposing ends of the integration spectrum. Britain was said to play the hesitant part, the Euro-sceptic. Germany was said to be the Euro-enthusiast, having turned its commitment to ever-deeper integration into its very raison d'être. No doubt, there is a kernel of truth in these characterisations. The term "federalism" will continue to send chills down the spine of many Britons, and the Germans will never quite understand why. But there is today a far greater convergence of views. The Blair-Schröder paper was one indication. But it is in the area of security and defence where this convergence has become most visible. With the Franco-British decisions at Saint Malo, Britain took a leading role in moving ESDI forward -- and in focussing the debate not only on institutions, but also on capabilities. Britain has moved from the fringes of the ESDI debate into the centre -- making sure that ESDI evolves in line with its own interests and that of NATO. Germany, too, has undergone a significant change in its security policy. After decades of self-imposed restraint, Germany is today one of the key military contributors to our joint operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Germany has understood that the lessons of its history lie not in cultivating international abstinence, but in multinational engagement. This shift has been engineered with great political skill. And, as with unification, NATO has acted as the benign framework that made such a new role possible -- and indeed widely welcomed. In short, both countries have re-evaluated their roles in this new Europe. Britain has understood that the self-image of a semi-detached island, of Europe but not quite in Europe, is no longer viable. "Fog in Channel -- Continent isolated!" is no longer a likely headline in British papers today. It is just as obsolete as Germany's idea of herself as a country that can contribute economically to the project of Europe, but not make a substantial military contribution. Either form of exceptionalism is a luxury we no longer can afford. Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, The project of expanding Europe, of widening and deepening, is far from over. There is still a gap between a prosperous Western Europe and a less prosperous East. There is still a gap between democratic ideals and real-life obstacles. There is still a gap between our aspirations of a peaceful Europe and the harsh reality of conflict. No one should harbour any illusions about the time it will take to narrow these gaps, let alone overcome them. But if we have a compass, if we have a sense of direction, the project of Europe will be completed. We have such a compass: our values. The project of European integration derives its strength not only from the economic prosperity it generates, but also from the values it represents. These values of democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and ethnic tolerance are our best insurance against a return to Europe's darker past. That is why promoting these values -- and protecting them -- is a key strategic interest. That is why we faced up to the Kosovo challenge -- and why we prevailed. In doing so, we created the basis for Southeastern Europe's full return into Europe. We demonstrated that the project of Europe is more than a fair-weather project. Europe can stand up and be counted rather than lie down and be counted out. Kosovo was far more than a demonstration of European and transatlantic solidarity. It was a genuine investment in the safety and security of future generations. We could achieve all this only because of men such as Sir Frank Roberts. He and many of his generation lived through Europe's darkest days. Yet they did not lose faith in this project. They gave us new institutional frameworks such as NATO -- frameworks which have proven indispensable for achieving our aims. They have also given us the moral basis of our policies. And they have demonstrated by their personal example that persistence and perseverance can pay off. Sir Frank Roberts lived a long life -- long enough to see some of the fruits of his tireless work. He was a fortunate man. And we, in turn, can consider ourselves fortunate that he left us with such an impressive legacy on which to continue our project called "Europe". Thank You.