Brussels 25 Nov. 2003

Closing remarks by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, at the 2nd European Parliament meetings on Defence Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased with the opportunity to make some closing remarks at this important meeting. I wish I could have attended more of your discussions today, but you will understand I am a little busy these days as I prepare to hand over my responsibilities as NATO Secretary General. One key priority for Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will be to drive forward the NATO-EU relationship. With our successful cooperation in the Balkans and the groundbreaking Berlin+ agreements achievements for which I pay a genuine tribute to Javier Solana my successor will have a solid base to build on. This year's handover to the EU of NATO's operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1 has worked well, and we are making good progress to doing the same in Bosnia. And we just completed today the first ever joint NATO-EU crisis management exercise. Once upon a time we were two organisations that were based in the same city, yet living on different planets. That era of benign neglect is well and truly over. But that being said, we still have some way to go before we achieve the real strategic partnership between NATO and the EU that our Governments have agreed upon. At the moment, our institutions remain further apart than is good for them -- or for European security. There is, quite clearly, nervousness in some Alliance circles about competition from a more assertive EU. But it is matched by nervousness in the EU about being overshadowed by NATO. And with all this angst, how could our relationship be anything else than a nervous one? So how can we get rid of this anxiety in the NATO-EU relationship? How can we inject real life in it, and perhaps even some passion? What I believe we need, first and foremost, is a change in mindsets, on both sides. And I believe this change must be fed by a healthy dose of realism. Realism, first of all, regarding NATO. I have never liked Americans bad-mouthing NATO as war by committee. I have made that quite clear throughout my tenure, including when I visited Washington two weeks ago. But I have never cared much either for those Europeans who view NATO simply as a pawn of the US. Because the reality is so very clearly different. Like no other institution, the Alliance is able to translate the military and political potential of Europe and North America into concrete action. Like no other institution, NATO is able to square the circle of multilateralism and effectiveness. We have proved it in the Balkans, we are proving it in Afghanistan, and who can say we may well be called upon to prove it in Iraq as well. I am not saying NATO must be used for each and every crisis. Some problems might be better addressed by the EU, or by a coalition of the willing. In some cases, a division of labour will turn out to be the most practical solution. Berlin+ is meant to facilitate such options, and it should be respected. But I concede that we in NATO could also be more positive about the EU doing more. And we must certainly recognise it is not merely an international organisation, but a very special animal. I have been a convinced and active European long before I became Defence Secretary in the UK, or NATO Secretary General. ESDP is a strategic imperative and I have done my share to make it a reality. When I was Defence Secretary, my ministry started what became the St. Malo initiative. But we all must be realistic about ESDP. It cannot work as an alternative to NATO, or a counterweight to the United States. An EU that rivals the US is militarily impossible, financially unaffordable, and politically unsustainable. The EU cannot, and should not try, to unify in opposition to the US. Too many countries in Europe feel a strong and lasting bond with America for that to happen. What we do need is a partnership in which Europe can pull its weight, which encourages common approaches to new challenges, and which can handle occasional differences without relapsing into gloomy fantasies about mutual estrangement. We must be realistic, furthermore, about the scope for NATO-EU cooperation. I realise that both our institutions are going through a profound transformation, and that we cannot formulate an end state of our relationship. But what we can do is to pragmatically broaden our cooperation in areas where our interests clearly coincide, and where we can complement each other. And I believe there are many such areas: managing crises, combating terrorism, preventing proliferation and above all improving military capabilities. Which is, in fact, the fourth area where a greater degree of realism is clearly needed. NATO and the EU do not have exactly the same missions and mechanisms. But nations in both organisations do rely largely on a single set of forces and capabilities. Money is tight in all our countries. All the more reason for spending the scarce resources that we do have available for defence in the right way not on wiring diagrams or duplicative headquarters, but on real capabilities that we can deploy when and where they are needed. We have made good progress in NATO with the development of our Response Force. Our members are generally doing well in making the capability improvements that they agreed to at our Summit in Prague last year. And NATO's new command structure includes a new Allied Command Transformation, aimed specifically at ensuring that all Allies participate in the transformation of our forces. I am aware that this house, the European Parliament, has long promoted the competitiveness of European industry, and that it has suggested the elaboration of a European defence equipment policy. I have also welcomed the decision by EU Defence Ministers last week to create a European Armaments Agency. I welcome these initiatives, provided, of course, that they contribute to a rationalisation of resources and not a more protectionist Europe. We don't want fortresses on either side of the Atlantic. In the US two weeks ago, I warned my interlocutors of the dangers of the buy-US legislation that was recently passed in Congress. I am confident that the US Administration also recognises these dangers, and that the legislation will not be implemented. We need transparency and complementarity in transatlantic defence trade, just as much as we need it in the NATO-EU relationship. NATO and the EU have agreed that their capability initiatives should be coherent and mutually reinforcing, and we have worked together very constructively in this area. That should continue. I also very much welcome the initiative by Commissioners Liikanen and Busquin to examine defence and security research issues for the EU. I hope that this will open another opportunity for pragmatic and effective cooperation between our organisations. For the US, NATO is the proven forum for exchanging sensitive information in the defence field with its European partners. And hence NATO can help EU efforts to promote more equitable transatlantic technology transfer and risk-sharing provided, of course, that the Alliance is used. Ladies and Gentlemen, There has been a lot of talk this year about Americans being from Venus and European from Mars. As someone pointed out to me lately, according to Roman mythology, Venus and Mars did actually have a very long love affair. Now that may be reassuring to some, but when it comes to managing transatlantic security, I prefer something a little less emotional and a little more tangible. The time has come to put realism over rhetoric again. Realism that makes full use of the possibilities offered by a NATO that is very much alive. Realism regarding the inevitability and intrinsic value of ESDP. Realism that fully exploits the potential of NATO-EU cooperation. And realism that faces the challenge of military transformation head-on. Your role in generating that kind of realism, and sustaining it, is crucial. Thank you. Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.