NATO HQ 13 June 2003

Possible Roles for Operational Partnership Speech by Mrs Leni Bjorklund, Minister for Defence of Sweden at the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Defence Ministers session Mr. Chairman, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the invitation to take part in this Panel. This is my first visit to the NATO Headquarters. I am very pleased to be here, having the possibility to meet with so many of my colleagues. Sweden has participated in PfP since its beginning in 1994. Since then, PfP has evolved into an essential component of European security co-operation and has become a central instrument in enhancing Swedish capability to contribute to international security co-operation. Since 1994 we have come a long way. NATO is enlarging. At the same time, NATO is changing. Along with it, the Partnership also has to change. By participating in PfP, Sweden is developing its capability to contribute to international crisis management operations. Given the complexity of such operations, it is important that PfP can support such efforts and that it develops the means to do so. Sweden is strongly committed to the long-term relevance and reinforcement of PfP and the EAPC. We exclude no international security co-operation except collective security guarantees. Let me now outline some views on Possible Roles for Operational Partnership. Participation in international operations is a main priority for the Swedish Armed Forces. This fact is clearly illustrated in Kosovo. Since the beginning of this year, a Swedish unit is responsible for daily security in Pristina. In November, Sweden is preparing to take responsibility for one of the four multinational brigades. We are looking forward to continuing our close co-operation with Allies and Partners in Afghanistan, as NATO now takes the leading role for ISAF. To us, PfP will remain crucial as we seek to further enhance our ability to participate in international Peace Support Operations, be it under EU, NATO, or UN leadership. A close and transparent co-operation between NATO and the EU is central also to the development of the crisis management capability of the European Union. This goes for the military as well as for the civilian field. Efforts made by the EU and NATO are mutually reinforcing. Therefore, also for us as EU members, the PfP and all the interoperability tools within the PfP, such as the PARP, OCC and TEEP, will remain vital for Sweden. It goes without saying that exercises are an absolute precondition for an operational Partnership. Sweden stresses further development of scenarios and exercises, which account for the complex nature of Peace Support Operations. We welcome recent signals that NATO is opening up more advanced and complex exercises to Partners. We look forward to participating in such exercises together with NATO and other PfP-countries. This is even more important, as the EU does not intend to conduct exercises at unit level. Mr Chairman, co-operation on Rapid Reaction Capabilities is also of relevance for an operational Partnership. The extended operation under the UN in the Democratic Republic of Congo, illustrates the need for rapid military crisis management capabilities. Therefore, it is natural that both NATO and the EU develop their capabilities in this regard. Sweden looks forward to learning more about how NATO intends to develop the NATO Response Force, not least regarding its relation to the EU and the involvement of non-allied countries, also when it comes to exercises. Transformation is of utmost importance to NATO and to Partner countries. If the PfP is to remain operational, and in order to retain a capability to co-operate with NATO units in the future, Partners should be as involved as possible in all relevant aspects of the transformation work going on within NATO. The establishment of the new Command structure is now a fact. Partner presence and contributions within NATO structures are important aspects of an operational partnership. The concepts for Partner participation should be updated and adjusted accordingly, in order to ensure adequate Partner presence and participation in NATO's command structure in the future. In this context, it will also be important to find more flexible ways of ensuring adequate Partner involvement in areas where they actively co-operate with NATO. With the Prague decisions we have the necessary concepts, now we will have to implement them. Finally, I would like to stress co-operation regarding NEC, which could be considered a relatively unexplored area of operational co-operation, which has development potential. These are some thoughts on the Operational Partnership from a Swedish perspective. I would be pleased to share views with you during this panel. Thank you!