Speech
by
Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General
at the MAP Defence Ministers Conference
Ministers,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity
to address the MAP Defence Ministers Conference.
Personally, I find any gathering of Defence
Ministers to be a very pleasant event, full
of very wise people with bright futures. So
I am indeed very happy to be here.
I also think that this is an opportune moment
for us to be here in Bulgaria -- because this
country borders on a state that is today going
through a historic period of transition.
For the first time in a decade, the people of
Yugoslavia have made it clear beyond any reasonable
doubt that they want a change of government
-- and a change from the policies of ethnic
hatred; of violent repression and of xenophobia.
Through their courageous vote last month --
and despite the crudest efforts by Milosevic
to manipulate the electoral process -- the people
of Yugoslavia have decided that their country
should start to join the European family of
nations in the 21st century. We look forward
to the day when a newly democratic Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia will again take its place alongside
its neighbours in the Euro-Atlantic community.
In the meantime, we look forward to new policies
being enacted by the new government to strengthen
democracy and build cooperation with the international
community, including on the issue of war criminals.
And we look forward to exploring with the new
government opportunities for enhanced cooperation
-- enhanced cooperation in Bosnia and in Kosovo.
The situation is still evolving, yet one thing
is already clear: The net result of these sweeping
changes will not only be felt in Yugoslavia.
All countries of Southeast Europe, with the
assistance of the international community, will
be able to make giant steps forward in building
a more peaceful and prosperous region.
When that happens -- and I say it will happen
soon -- much of the credit will go to many of
the countries represented here today. You have
all contributed to the international community's
efforts to bring an end to the destabilising
effects of the Milosevic regime.
You all stood shoulder to shoulder with the
international community as we worked to reverse
Milosevic's campaign to rid Kosovo of most of
its citizens. For many of you, that was an enormous
sacrifice. You faced real domestic divisions
as a result of your courageous stand. Some of
you were forced to accommodate some of the hundreds
of thousands of refugees that were expelled
by Serbian security forces. You faced real military
risks. And some of you continue to have to deal
with the economic effects of the Kosovo campaign.
But despite these many hurdles, you all stood
firm and I commend you for it. You stood up
for the Euro-Atlantic values that you have chosen
to embrace: peace, democracy, fundamental human
rights, and a determination to solve issues
through cooperation, not conflict. And you have
continued to demonstrate your commitment to
those values by contributing to the peacekeeping
operations in Kosovo, either by sending troops,
or as the essential staging ground and transit
area for the operation.
The entire international community recognises
and appreciates these contributions. You have
all demonstrated, through trial by fire, that
you are willing to contribute to international
efforts to build peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic
area. And in so doing, you have burnished your
credentials in another great challenge that
you have set yourselves: achieving membership
in NATO.
Let me state for the record: through your
response to the Kosovo crisis, your have demonstrated
as clearly as possible your commitment to Euro-Atlantic
values and security. That, in and of itself,
is one of the essential standards of membership
in the Alliance, and all nine participants to
the MAP are meeting that standard today. For
that, I congratulate you.
But of course, NATO is not just a political
club of like-minded nations -- it is also a
defence organisation with an operational focus.
Ultimately, NATO's credibility, and its ability
to build security and stability, depend on the
Alliance's military competence -- the ability
to maintain and field modern, combat-capable
forces, designed, trained and equipped for 21st
century operations.
Collective defence remains the Alliance's
central mission and our forces need the robust
capabilities required for that task. But even
before the end of the Cold War, in part because
of the revolution in military technology, force
capabilities for collective defence were changing.
Large, immobile and heavy forces designed for
territorial defence are simply not what we need
today. As Minister Noev once succinctly put
it: "Cold War forces are a waste of
money."
Today, we face new challenges and new missions
-- regional or civil wars, humanitarian emergencies
and peacekeeping operations. And these problems
sometimes take place far from home, and require
deployments that last months, if not years.
These challenges further accelerate the need
for change. Today's militaries must be smaller
and more mobile, able to deploy quickly to trouble
spots and then have the logistical support and
appropriately trained personnel to stay in theatre
for extended periods of time.
If that isn't enough, today's military must
also have one other vital characteristic: they
must be able to operate in a multinational command
and force structure. This places an increasing
premium on interoperability, possibly exceeding
that required during the Cold War. In modern
operations, militaries from around the world
must work together seamlessly. We can see this
in the Balkans, where troops from Europe, North
America, Africa, Latin America and even Asia
-- almost every continent -- are operating under
the same command. In today's operations, then,
interoperability is key.
Every one of our nations, Allied and Partner
alike, are undergoing fundamental defence and
military reform to meet these challenges and
changing requirements. NATO itself is reforming
as well to meet its collective defence and new
mission requirements. We have a new command
structure already in place, and our force structure
is now under review. And we have Partnership
for Peace which places increased emphasis on
new missions and multinational operations involving
Allies and Partner forces.
This fundamental defence reform, whether it
be at the Alliance level or national level,
is the essential foundation for building the
modern forces and defence capabilities that
we need.
Defence reform, in my view, carries very special
and significant importance for your countries.
First and foremost, defence reform is about
meeting your national defence and security needs,
it is a national interest. Secondly, it is about
strengthening your Partnership with the Alliance
through PfP. And thirdly, it is about prospective
membership and your ability to contribute to
the security of the Alliance. I believe you
will all be well-served to keep this broad perspective
on defence reform in mind. To do otherwise could
risk the solid foundation that is required.
Defence reform is a long-term project. Our challenge
over the next several years is help you set
the proper course, to set the right vectors
for change. We need to be realistic; the defence
reform required cannot and will not happen overnight.
And it will not be easy or without pain.
In the eighteen months since the MAP's launching,
all nine MAP countries have made real progress
in meeting their targets, and I congratulate
you all on your progress so far. But let me
be very blunt: much more needs to be done.
What do I mean? First and foremost, I mean
that defence restructuring has to take place,
and the time to start is now. Real and realistic
restructuring is the basis for creating a sound
defence establishment. Just as in NATO countries
- MAP countries which have over-large armed
forces need to downsize them to an appropriate
and affordable size and introduce new capabilities.
Others need to build up their armed forces --
and all MAP countries need to structure, train
and equip their forces so that they can perform
modern missions, including joint and combined
crisis management operations.
To do so aspirants will have to ensure the
efficiency of a defence planning system which
can prioritise tasks, meet the requirements
within existing resources and ensure proper
coordination among, and sometimes even within,
various ministries and relevant institutions.
Let me be clear: Without a proper defence
planning system you will be building on sand.
You may still acquire capabilities, and you
may continue to seek interoperability. But without
the basis of an efficient defence planning system,
these efforts would be more difficult and possibly
short-lived.
That is why you must take full advantage of
the Planning and Review Process (PARP). That
is why you must invest in a defence planning
capability. That is why you must have security
legislation and structures compatible with NATO
requirements in place. That is why you must
introduce transparent procurement and contracting
systems so that corruption is rooted out. And
that is why you should take full advantage of
NATO and Allied assistance.
As you are aware, the Alliance is also working
with your countries to improve defence capabilities.
For example, NATO has provided details on the
types of capabilities each aspirant country
needs, in areas such as combat effectiveness,
sustainability, mobility, deployability and
survivability. And it is no coincidence that
these are very similar to the improvements NATO
forces are themselves making under the Defence
Capabilities Initiative. Your PARP Partnership
Goals already address these issues. As you meet
your PARP planning targets, you are coming closer
and closer to the standards that NATO members
have set for themselves, and are working to
meet.
I know that all of this is easier said than
done. I understand that we are talking about
serious, structural changes to very large, and
very expensive organisations. And I realise
that defence reform carries with it both political
and social implications. Indeed, as the UK Secretary
of Defence, I led an exhaustive review of defence
requirements. When we figured out what we needed,
I had to find the people, the equipment and
the money to meet those requirements, within
a seriously constrained budget. And I had to
deal with the consequences of our action: the
need to take care of surplus service members,
for example.
This was no easy task -- and I know that the
challenges you face are similar, or indeed greater.
You all work under resource constraints, and
there are many competing demands on your state
budgets. You have however to spend to make real
savings. Delay just adds to the cost.
NATO is certainly not calling for any MAP
country to break the bank, or to sacrifice essential
domestic programs for defence spending. On the
contrary -- defence planning should be realistic
and affordable, taking full account of national
priorities. No one would expect anything different
-- not least because public support is vital
if defence reform is to succeed, and the public
will only support defence expenditure if it
is seen to be reasonable and well thought out.
There are many innovative ways to finance
defence. Rescheduling expenditures; reprioritising
purchases; even privatising certain non-essential
support services -- these are all ways in which
NATO countries have found new resources within
existing budgets. The key, of course, is spending
wisely: rather than buying fancy expensive airplanes,
get the basics, the foundations right. But it
is also true that, in many cases, existing budgets
will not be enough -- and where that is the
case, I urge your governments, as governments
of countries aspiring to NATO membership, to
make the necessary expenditures on defence.
The MAP will help you in these efforts. From
the outset, the MAP has aimed at setting membership
preparations on a broad basis. For example,
its inter-agency approach has ensured that the
Finance Ministers are involved. And it is equally
crucial to involve Parliaments. Because important
legislation needs to be passed. And because
the Parliaments as well as the public need to
be convinced that the efforts made are in each
country's best national interest.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Ultimately, the responsibility of thorough
preparation remains with the aspirant countries
themselves. You must be ready to make the reforms
which are needed. You must tackle the crucial
issues, such as defence reform, without delay.
You must not shy away from taking tough and
painful decisions, and you must allocate sufficient
resources to reforms.
Fine words are not enough. They must be backed
by action. Then, and only then, can aspirant
countries self-confidently step forward and
say "we are ready for membership"
-- because they will be able to support their
commitment to Euro-Atlantic values with the
capability to act.
You all know that NATO's Heads of State and
Government will review the enlargement process
at their next Summit meeting which will be held
no later than 2002. Clearly, any decision on
the "who" and "when" of
the next round of enlargement will be based
on many factors.
The Alliance will enlarge again when NATO is
ready, when those nations aspiring to membership
are ready, and when their membership will contribute
to security and stability in Europe as a whole.
In other words, entry into NATO is not automatic
and the decision to invite new members will
still be, in the end, a political one as well.
But a country's performance in the MAP will
be a critically important part of this overall
assessment. It is an indication and the evidence
of an aspirant's ability to both understand
and undertake the measures necessary to make
it an ever better candidate for membership.
Since Washington, you all have come a long
way, you all have made real, significant progress.
I applaud you for your success and, at the same
time, I encourage you to redouble your efforts.
The rewards are obvious: more effective national
forces to meet your defence needs; better cooperation
with Allies in multinational operations; and,
very clearly, deeper integration into the Euro-Atlantic
community.
Thank you.
|
