NATO's
New Agenda:
More Progress than Meets the Eye
Remarks
by The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Secretary General of NATO
Mr. Minister, Ambassadors, Admirals, Generals,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me begin by extending my thanks to our hosts, the Icelandic Government
and the City of Reykjavik, a city I have come to admire a great deal over
the years.
I must admit that the first time I came to Iceland, I had some concerns
when I was told that visitors are offered such delicacies as six-month-old
shark meat and a liqueur called "Black Death." At first, I thought
they were the same thing. But I know from experience that the food and
drink here are nothing short of delicious.
A predecessor of mine once described being in the middle of the Atlantic
as being very cold, very wet, and very lonely. But he wasn't describing
Iceland. He was describing my job as Secretary General. And he was right.
As I flew over the Atlantic Ocean on Monday, I looked through some of
the newspapers. The International Herald Tribune made passing reference
to NATO in three articles.
One mentioned how indicted Serb war criminals had escaped from prison
in
Kosovo and then eluded NATO-led peacekeepers.
Another mentioned how some European Allies opposed U S efforts to develop
a national missile defence system.
And a third article noted how the Russians were seeking to drive a wedge
between Europe and North America over the national missile defence issue.
An article in Le Monde, while supporting NATO's action in Kosovo, made
the argument that it didn't matter that NATO might have got the body count
wrong last year
And finally, USA Today had no mention of NATO at all.
Go back a few weeks and months, and you would have seen articles about
Russia being slow to take up NATO s offer to assist in the effort to rescue
the crew of the Kursk; about ethnic Albanians continuing to attack Serbs
in Kosovo; and about how the European defence identity could cause a de-coupling
of the United States and Europe.
Now, part of my job is to strengthen NATO-Russia relations, keep the
Allies united on trans-Atlantic security issues, and build long-term peace
and stability in the Balkans. You might think that running an organisation
that gets this kind of press can be very cold, wet and lonely indeed.
But the truth is that what gets reported about NATO is far from the whole
story. Indeed, progress on NATO's agenda has been far more extensive than
most people realise.
And when I say that, I will leave aside the remarkable developments of
my predecessor's four years: the successful Kosovo air campaign; the biggest
enlargement in NATO's history; the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding
Act and the NATO-Ukraine Charter, the new Strategic Concept, and the putting
in place of a modernised military command structure. That's quite an agenda
for a fifty-year old Cold War horse.
Let us go through the current NATO agenda, starting with Kosovo. If we
stand back for a moment to look at the overall picture, it is actually
very positive
Just two years ago, most people in Kosovo feared for their lives and
their property. At the height of the crisis, 80 percent of the population
had fled their homes to avoid wanton ethnic violence.
Today, the vast majority live in peace, and have renewed hope for the
future. Today, for the first time in at least a decade, there are administrative
structures in place that include all ethnic groups, not one. And in just
a few weeks, there will be truly free elections in Kosovo for the first
time in collective memory.
Refugees have gone back and rebuilt their homes. Schools - even those
flattened by Serb paramilitaries - have come back to life. Trains are
running. Farmers are bringing in the harvest. Imagine what the situation
could have become, and look at what it is today.
Of course, there is much work to be done, and it will not be easy. There
will be more violence, more accusations of discrimination, more boycotts
and more standoffs.
But the real news story is not the protest outside a mine, or the tragic
and regrettable killing of an ethnic Serb. The news story is that in Kosovo,
NATO, the other KFOR contributors, and the UN Administration are building
hope and the rule of law out of what had been the rule of terror.
Our goal is still to build a Kosovo that allows all of its people to
share in the peace, freedom and democracy that we, and they, consider
to be their right. And we are making progress. It is an opportunity we
don't intend to miss.
Just as we are making visible progress in Kosovo, we can already look
back on considerable achievement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As we approach
the 11 November elections there, we're truly turning a corner.
Already in the robustly contested local elections earlier this year,
more moderate politicians were elected to office than ever before - and
the trend is set to continue this autumn.
Refugees are returning in record numbers, and several municipalities
- previously hostile to such returns - are now working with the international
community to accept the returnees.
Defence budgets and the Entity Armed Forces are being cut, as they should
be. Bosnia-Herzegovina is even sending a multi-ethnic Olympic team to
the Games in Sydney.
The headlines of five years ago in Bosnia-Herzegovina were surely not
these.
And I would add that all of this is being done together with NATO's Partners.
Over five years after its creation, the Partnership for Peace continues
to prove its worth every day, in the Balkans, and in the capitals of Central
and Eastern Europe, right through to Central Asia.
We are also making good headway on improving NATO-Russia relations.
Eighteen months ago, Russia suspended its relations with NATO when the
Kosovo air campaign began. But - and less noticed - we resumed our relations
earlier this year following my February visit to Moscow and meeting with
President Putin.
We have a full agenda and workplan with Russia. Cooperation among our
troops in Kosovo is excellent. Russian liaison officers continue to work
with NATO officers at SHAPE.
Instead of rekindling old NATO-Russia suspicions, the tragic story of
the submarine Kursk actually showed the positive development in NATO-Russia
relations over the past several months.
Immediately after hearing of the incident, I offered NATO s assistance,
and several Allies also made direct, bilateral offers of help. Russia
took up the Norwegian and British offers, and made use of facilities at
NATO for consultations with other allies as well.
In the end, as we discovered, nothing could be done to save the crew
of the Kursk. But NATO, the Allied nations, and Russia acted together
in a spirit of cooperation that no one would have foreseen at this time
last year
We have to take advantage of the opportunity that NATO-Russia cooperation
offers. Now is the time to do so.
We have moved beyond the sharp emotions of the air campaign, and we are
back to where we should be in a forward-looking dialogue based on mutual
interest, and, increasingly, better understanding.
I hope that this improved understanding will also help with the issue
of future NATO enlargement.
The Alliance will enlarge again, when those nations aspiring to membership
are ready, and when their membership will contribute to security and stability
in Europe as a whole. An enlarged NATO will threaten no one; and our job
at NATO is to make sure that this is well understood.
When the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined the Alliance, many
analysts saw it as a test case - that if they didn't fit in immediately,
or if their integration was too difficult, then later rounds of invitation
might suffer.
Even had that assumption been correct, the results tell a very different
story.
NATO has benefited from the experience of their accession, and can learn
from the previous enlargement process when considering any further invitations.
As we approach 2002, when NATO's Heads of State and Government will gather
to look at the next steps in the enlargement process, NATO will do so
with even greater confidence than it did at Madrid in 1997.
Our confidence is also growing on another major element of NATO s evolution
-- the growing cooperation between NATO and the EU in strengthening the
European defence
Not long ago, the headlines about this issue were about de-coupling.
Some Americans feared that Europe would either go its own way or - even
worse - claim the leading political role in defence, without providing
real capabilities.
Non-EU European Allies fear they could be left out of EU-based defence
discussions.
Many Europeans, meanwhile, feared that the United States would seek to
block any efforts to strengthen the EU's defence role
These fears have proven to be misplaced. Already, NATO and the EU are
working together closely - meeting together to decide on how to share
classified information and drawing on NATO s experience to help the EU
flesh out the requirements of its headline goal
The two councils - the North Atlantic Council of NATO and the Political
and Security Committee of the EU - are due to meet jointly in just two
weeks time. Who would have predicted this even at the beginning of this
year?
Certainly, not all the work has been done. It is important that we still
address the issue of how non-EU Allies are to be involved in European
defence.
But put simply, NATO-friendly European defence is finally taking shape
- and it is taking the right shape. It will not be long before we look
back on this period as one looks back at any birth: a little painful,
a little messy, but definitely worth it.
Overall, this is a very positive agenda for the future. Bosnia and Kosovo
are getting better. Relations with Russia are back on track, and deepening.
Our Partnerships are deepening. We are looking forward to the next round
of enlargement. And ESDI is taking shape the way it should.
There is one more essential element of our agenda, however - and here,
we are simply not making as much progress as we should. I am referring
to making the needed improvements in NATO's defence capabilities.
Today is a very appropriate day to discuss Defence Capabilities, for
two reasons. First, because it is the anniversary of a rather famous incident
where defence capabilities were sorely lacking.
In 1914 French forces were unable to get to the front because they had
no transportation - no lift, as we might say today. So on September 6th,
1914, the French General Gallieni came up with an ingenious solution.
He called together one thousand two hundred taxi drivers, and hired them
to drive the troops to the front.
My favourite part of the story is that the taxi drivers refused to go
for a flat rate. They finally drove their forces to the defence of France
only when the General agreed to pay the rate on the meter!
Now, this event took place a long time ago, but it illustrates a very
clear and important lesson: that military capability must be maintained,
if it is going to be there when we need it That lesson is as true today
as it has ever been.
Which brings me to the second reason that today is an appropriate day
to discuss capabilities.
In just a few hours, in New York, Secretary General Kofi Annan will present
to the United Nations Millennium Assembly the new "Report of the
Panel on United Nations Peace Operations". This is an exhaustive
study of peacekeeping and peacemaking in the modern world, and what it
takes to do it right.
The Report deals with a variety of issues and capabilities relating to
peacekeeping in great depth, but a crucial line appears very early on
in the Executive Summary. It states, and I quote: "no amount of good
intentions can substitute for the fundamental ability to project credible
force if complex peacekeeping, in particular, is to succeed "
This statement bears repeating. "No amount of good intentions can
substitute for the fundamental ability to project credible force if complex
peacekeeping, in particular, is to succeed."
This is as true for NATO as it is for the United Nations. Indeed, NATO
is not mentioned in the report, despite leading two UN-sanctioned peacekeeping
operations - and we run them exactly because NATO has shown its ability
to project force In some ways, NATO can be a model for peacekeeping based
on real capabilities in other continents.
NATO's credibility rests, above all, on its military effectiveness. No
one can seriously dispute that. And that credibility is important across
the range of NATO's agenda - from enlargement, to relations with Russia
and Ukraine, to Partnership for Peace and EAPC, to our peace operations.
But to maintain NATO's military credibility, we need effective forces
- and we know what that means.
It means air forces and navies with precision guided munitions. It means
command and control systems that allow for efficient and effective operations.
It means forces that can move fast, hit hard and then stay in the field
as long as necessary. And it means that these capabilities are shared
across the Alliance, not just in one or two of the most advanced members.
Developing these capabilities takes money - and here, again, there is
good news. I believe we have turned the corner on the cuts in defence
spending that NATO saw in the 1990's. Now, nearly all NATO member defence
budgets are either holding steady or rising. We need to keep up the pressure
in order to keep them rising.
I have recently seen an analysis of how much progress NATO's members
have made in meeting our DCI commitments. There has certainly been improvement
- but still not enough.
In my opinion, it is incumbent on all of us here to remind our Governments
- and the people who elect them - of the importance of these promises,
and the potential costs of not meeting them.
This, too, is a challenge we must meet, if we are to achieve the full
potential of NATO's broad agenda.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have given you a long list of good news stories about NATO - concerning
Kosovo Bosnia-Herzegovina, relations with Russia, European defence, and
defence capabilities. There are many more such stories I have not mentioned.
Don't expect them to be reported in the newspapers. But know that they
are the real stories about the progress being made on NATO's new agenda.
Thank you.
|
