"The
six principles of partnership"
Speech
by Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General
at the ATA General Assembly
Mr. President, Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies
and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be here for the General Assembly of the Atlantic
Treaty Organization, for three main reasons. First, because I believe
it is very important for me, as Secretary General, to take every opportunity
possible to meet with you, the members of the ATA. The support of all
the Atlantic Treaty Organizations has been crucial to NATO's health and
success for decades, and that is as true today as ever. So I certainly
welcome the opportunity to speak to you today.
The second reason I am pleased to be here is because the Assembly is
being held here in Hungary, for the first time since this country became
a member of NATO. It has been well over one year since the Czech Republic,
Hungary and Poland formally joined the Alliance, and at NATO Headquarters,
we have already stopped using the term "new members". They are
simply members like all the others, making equal contributions to our
common goals. But at times like this, I must say that I am reminded again
of how historic, how important, and how successful the integration of
these three countries into NATO has been. And I congratulate Hungary for
this success.
The third reason I am pleased that we are meeting here is because I
believe that this is the perfect place to discuss NATO's role in building
Euro-Atlantic security in the 21st century. One look at the map shows
why. At the centre of Europe is Hungary, a NATO member. To the East, a
Former Soviet Republic with which NATO has a distinctive partnership.
To the West, a neutral country that nonetheless has a strong bilateral
security relationship with NATO. All around, new democracies that are
all participating in the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership
Council -- and some of which want to join NATO as full members. And just
to the south lies Yugoslavia -- a country which is now the reluctant host
of a multinational NATO-led peacekeeping mission.
Clearly, NATO is playing a central role in building security, in what
is a very complex environment. And this active and flexible engagement
is founded on one very simple principle: Partnership. Partnership is the
principle that guides almost all of our activities; and it is the foundation
on which true, pan-European peace and stability are being built. Indeed,
from my perspective, Partnership is the key to understanding how our safety
is being preserved today, in a very fluid security environment.
During the Cold War, partnership wasn't exactly the guiding principle
at NATO. Our security agenda was defined for us, and it was, in some ways,
a negative agenda. It was about preventing the "worst case".
In other words, security in the Cold War was essentially about things
we didn't want to happen.
But when the Cold War ended, we stood at a crossroads. We now had to
choose between two security approaches. On the one hand, we could declare
victory, and simply continue with business as usual, focusing on our own
issues at home. Of course, this was a narrow and exclusive, perhaps even
selfish approach-- but at least we knew it had worked until then.
Our other option was to reach out to the rest of Europe. To offer the
hand of assistance, and guidance. And yes, at the same time, to become
more engaged in resolving to the challenges that the newly democratic
states of Central, Southern and Eastern Europe were facing. In a word,
to choose partnership.
NATO went for the cooperative option. Not out of idealism, but out of
realism. Because it was in our security interest to engage. There was
simply no alternative to cooperation, if we were to continue to maintain
our own security.
Why? Because historically, after empires collapse, bad things happen.
Nations and peoples feel alone, and nervous. In an unpredictable environment,
they may make fragile and dangerous security pacts with their immediate
neighbours. The result is often a volatile security system, with no solid
foundation or structure, and a real possibility of violent conflict. Conflict
which leads to tides of refugees and asylum seekers, which spreads the
tension to neighbouring countries. Conflict which spawns ethnic hatred,
instability, corruption, drug-running, human trafficking -- the dark shadows
of our time. Conflict which itself visits our own doorsteps.
To address these challenges, cooperation was the only feasible option.
So NATO reached out to the wider Europe, and in a variety of ways, worked
to build inclusive and flexible ways in which every country in Europe
could contribute to security, in the most appropriate way possible.
In general, there are six main principles guiding NATO's partnerships
-- and each of these principles is translated into concrete arrangements.
First and foremost, Partnership should be as broad and inclusive as
possible. That principle is what guides NATO's Partnership for Peace Programme,
and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Through these, NATO is today
the dynamo at the hub of a new set of profound security relationships
across the continent. Forty six countries -- NATO members, former Warsaw
Pact countries, ex-Soviet Republics, and neutrals, including Switzerland
which is not even in the United Nations -- now train and exercise together,
discuss security issues together and even carry out peacekeeping operations
together.
The value of this inclusive framework is very clear. Every country in
Europe has a structure through which they can enhance their security interests.
No small, rigid regional alliances are necessary. No unilateral solutions
are required. Through PfP and EAPC, security across Europe has been structured
towards inclusion and cooperation. European countries who chose a new
path are included in Euro-Atlantic institutions. That alone is a massive
change from the past, and another major contribution to the stability
of the continent.
The second principle of Partnership is that it should be flexible. With
so many countries in Europe -- some old democracies, some new, and all
with different security traditions and backgrounds -- nothing else could
succeed.
PfP and EAPC are designed to accommodate these different needs and different
speeds. Indeed, Partnership has evolved dramatically form its early days,
when it was essentially a one-way street whereby NATO would help its former
adversaries with their post-communist transition. That soon changed. More
and more countries came in, many of which would bring tremendously valuable
peacekeeping experience to the table. So Partnership evolved into a two-way
street. Partner countries would gain from NATO experience in defence planning,
defence budgeting, or establishing sound civil-military relations. NATO
would benefit by spreading the burden of managing European security on
more shoulders.
And as our cooperative mechanisms have evolved over the course of one
decade, the opportunities for Partner countries to influence and shape
this evolution has constantly increased. We are a long way from the early
days, when NATO would offer a menu of activities from which Partner countries
could choose. Today, Partner countries know that it is they who decide
how far and how deep co-operation can and should go. It is they who share
the responsibility for the future of these endeavours. That is why they
have remained interested -- and active.
The third principle of Partnership is that it should be targeted. Successful
partnership with some countries required special relationships, because
of their political importance, or the extent of the cooperation both parties
wanted.
That is why NATO has special relationships with Russia and Ukraine.
Both countries occupy important strategic positions in Europe. Their evolution
affects European security and stability in profound ways. So NATO entered
into more focused partnerships with these two countries, to work more
closely with them, and to help them with their post-Communist transition
as effectively as possible.
The NATO-Russia relationship is clearly the
most challenging of our Partnerships. Today,
after the Kosovo "ice age", our cooperation
is picking up momentum again. But getting back
to the status quo before Kosovo is not enough.
We should aim higher. We should aim for a relationship
where disagreement in one area does not lead
to a breakdown of our entire cooperation. The
NATO-Russia Council should be seen as a forum
where differences can be aired. It should not
merely be a consultative body for use in fair
weather. Such a "crisis-resilient"
relationship would not only befit the strategic
importance of Russia and NATO. It would be a
strategic advantage for all of Europe. And,
in my view, such a relationship -- a true Partnership
-- can be achieved.
The fourth principle of Partnership is that it should be practical.
It must be more than a talk shop. It must also prepare all participants
to work together when it counts, and where it counts -- on the ground,
managing crises.
This principle has paid off in spades in the Balkans. Indeed, if anything
has demonstrated the real value of Partnership beyond any doubt, it has
been Bosnia and Kosovo. In early 1994, after observing one of the first
PfP exercises, a British journalist heavily criticised PfP as being a
showpiece. In his view, the entire set-up of the exercise was unrealistic:
American and Central European soldiers working together as peacekeepers
in Europe -- what an absurd notion! Well, less then two years later, IFOR
deployed into Bosnia -- with troops from NATO and from many Partner nations.
While some were still scoffing at Partnership as a cheap public relations
trick, the realities in the Balkans were already giving us the answer:
not only is Partnership necessary, but indispensable. It has acquired
a strategic value of its own.
In Kosovo, the value of Partnership became even more obvious. The political
support of Partner countries was absolutely crucial. And Partner countries
gave us the support we asked of them -- despite the fact that some of
them faced considerable political risks and economic hardships. In the
most critical moment of NATO's history, Partner countries were there.
They demonstrated that they were ready, willing and able to stand shoulder
to shoulder with NATO, and make a real contribution to Euro-Atlantic security.
And the fact that some countries are more and more ready and willing
to make a contribution to Euro-Atlantic security lies at the heart of
the fifth principle of partnership: that partnership must not only broaden,
but also deepen. In other words, Partnership must offer, for some, the
road to full membership in the NATO.
The rationale is very clear. Enlargement is Partnership at its deepest
level. Where security is shared completely. Where defence planning is
fully integrated among members. Where joint exercises are routine. Where
all security issues are discussed together as a matter of course, and
common solutions are the preferred option.
If democratic states want to join NATO; if they are able and willing
to contribute to the security of the Alliance; and if their membership
in NATO enhances Euro-Atlantic security; then the Alliance must remain
flexible enough to consider their membership. Indeed, for these countries,
membership is simply the logical conclusion of ever-deeper partnership.
Nine countries are currently asking for NATO membership -- nine countries
eager to emulate the successful path chosen by our three most recent members.
We cannot promise them a timetable for accession, nor guarantee them membership.
But we will not keep one half of Europe at arm's length forever. That
is why keeping NATO's door open remains a strategic imperative. Why some
Partner countries will become members. And why we are helping them to
better prepare themselves for eventual membership. Because in this new
Europe, geography is no longer destiny.
I have mentioned five principles for Partnership. Let me conclude with
the sixth - that partnership should be fair.
Of course, this applies to all of NATO's relationships, but today, it
is most relevant to the Partnership within NATO: the transatlantic relationship.
This is truly the foundation of Euro-Atlantic security. Europe and North
America together remain the foundation of global stability, the engine
of the world's economy, and the nexus of technological innovation. North
America and Europe represent the world's strongest community of like minded
nations: not only successful democracies, but also outward-looking nations
with a culture of pragmatic problem-solving.
But for this relationship to remain healthy, it has to be fair. And
this means that a secure and prosperous Europe has to assume a greater
share of the burden of maintaining Euro-Atlantic peace and security.
Kosovo made it very clear to everyone that Europe might be an economic
giant, and it might have real political influence -- but when it comes
to doing the heavy lifting on issues of peace and security, Europe still
isn't pulling its weight. When push comes to shove, the United States
still has to carry a disproportionate share of the burden.
That is why the European Union and NATO are now working together to
enhance European capabilities. As Europe becomes more capable, the burden
on North America will ease, for two reasons: first, because Europe will
be able to contribute more to NATO operations; and second, because Europe
will be able to take the lead in crisis management operations when NATO
does not wish to.
Will this help enhance Euro-Atlantic security? Definitely. The relationship
between North America and Europe will remain balanced, and therefore more
healthy, over the long term, on the most fundamental issue of all: peace
and security. We can have all the transatlantic arguments we want over
bananas -- but we have to get the security relationship right. Because
only a Partnership that is perceived as fair by both sides will last.
And a healthy transatlantic relationship is the foundation for the success
of NATO's entire agenda of building security across the Euro-Atlantic
area.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
If anything is clear from my comments today,
it is that over the past decade, NATO has taken
on a dizzying array of new roles, new partnerships,
new structures and new missions. And as a result,
it has been increasingly difficult for our publics
to understand what we do, and why.
The ATA is playing an important role in bridging
this gap. You helped explain why the Alliance
took on the Kosovo mission; you help maintain
general awareness of the Alliance and its activities;
and when it comes time for governments to discuss
spending, you help remind them why they must
spend better, and spend more on defence, if
we are to have the capability to preserve our
security in future. For all of this, I say congratulations.
Your contribution makes a difference. And I
encourage you to continue in future.
Thank you.
|
