NATO HQ 10 Dec. 2004 Hebrew PDF/132kb Arabic PDF/92kb

Video interview with Nicola de Santis, Coordinator for Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative Multimedia Audio file .MP3/8202Kb Video interview Mr de Santis you are the Coordinator for Mediterranean Dialogue and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative in the NATO Public Diplomacy Division. Can you tell us about the two initiatives launched at the Istanbul Summit? NATO's Heads of State and Government at their Istanbul Summit launched two complementary and yet distinct initiatives: a more ambitious and expanded framework for the seven Mediterranean Dialogue partner countries who with NATO had a security dialogue for ten years; and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative which is a brand new initiative, it reaches out to interested countries in the broader region of the Middle East, beginning with individual members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Can you explain what is the Mediterranean Dialogue and what are its aims and content? For the last decade NATO has undergone a major post Cold War transformation, to manage successfully unpredictable crises and to build new partnerships through a new cooperative approach to security, which means projecting security and stability through dialogue and cooperation in the security field. Part of this new cooperative approach to security has been the decision by NATO Foreign Ministers in December 1994 to launch the Mediterranean Dialogue with countries willing and able to contribute to security and stability in the Mediterranean region as a whole. The Mediterranean Dialogue reflects the Alliance’s view that security in Europe is closely linked to security and stability in the Mediterranean. The MD indeed aims at: contributing to regional security and stability; achieve better mutual understanding between NATO and its Mediterranean Partners; dispel misperceptions about the Alliance among participating countries; and promote good and friendly relations across the region. It also complements other international efforts towards the region such as for example: the EU’s Barcelona Process the OSCE Mediterranean Initiative, or the "Five plus Five" Initiative. How many countries are part of the Mediterranean Dialogue and what is its content? In December 1994, five countries were initially invited to participate in the MD, they were: Egypt, Israel, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. But since its inception NATO nations decided that the Mediterranean Dialogue would be progressive in terms of participation and substance. Such flexibility has allowed the number of Dialogue partners to grow over time: Jordan joined in November 1995 and Algeria in March 2000 - and the content of the Dialogue has evolved over time. The structure of the MD is conducted on what we define as a multi-bilateral basis: it allows for a bilateral (26+1) that is to say the 26 NATO nations and each of the Mediterranean Dialogue countries and also a multilateral dimension, which we define as 26+7, that is to say the 26 NATO nations and the 7 Mediterranean Dialogue countries. It also allows for regional cooperation through the formula: 26+n. That is to say that two or more countries from the Mediterranean Dialogue could come together for a cooperative projects with NATO. At the same time, all Mediterranean partners are offered the same basis for cooperation activities and discussion with NATO. Within this non-discriminatory framework, Dialogue countries are also free to choose the extent and intensity of their participation. Since 1997, measures of practical cooperation between NATO and Mediterranean Dialogue countries are laid down in an annual Work Programme, this Work Programme aims at building confidence through cooperation in a number of activities: Information and Press activities, Civil Emergency Planning, Air Space Management, Science and the Environment, Small Arms and Light Weapons, Crisis Management and Military activities. Over the years NATO's MD has been gradually strengthened, and this has happened in line with its progressive character. In particular, at their Summit in Madrid in July 1997 NATO's Heads of State and Government decided to establish the Mediterranean Cooperation Group, operating under the authority of the North Atlantic Council. In 2002, the North Atlantic Council agreed that the strengthening and deepening of relations between NATO and Mediterranean Dialogue countries was among the highest priorities for the Alliance. The NAC also agreed to a series of measures aimed at strengthening the MD in the aftermath of 11 September, including consultations between NATO and MD countries on terrorism. And in November 2002 at the Prague Summit NATO's Heads of State and Government decided to upgrade the MD, adopting an inventory of substantially new areas of practical cooperation. At the Istanbul Summit last June NATO's Heads of State and Government decided to enhance the Mediterranean Dialogue. But these decisions were preceded by a considerable preparatory work. Can you tell us about it? In December 2003, taking into account today's fast changing security environment, NATO Foreign Ministers decided to look for additional progress beyond the measures adopted at the Prague Summit and tasked the North Atlantic Council to look into developing by the 2004 Istanbul Summit, what they called a more ambitious and expanded framework for the Mediterranean Dialogue. An internal discussion took place inside the Alliance. And the Deputy Secretary General of NATO, Ambassador Minuto Rizzo travelled to the capitals of MD countries in order to consult, before the Istanbul Summit, the highest political authorities of those countries, on the ideas being discussed at NATO for the enhancement of the Dialogue. He also met in Brussels the Ministers of the six individual members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to consult also with them on the ideas being discussed at NATO for the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Since the outset NATO nations decided that the concept of joint ownership would be essential for the enhancement of the MD and the launching of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative to the broader region of the Middle East, also requiring for the success of the two initiatives the active participation of the countries involved in both initiatives. A number of principles guided the Alliance work for the enhancement of the Mediterranean Dialogue: the need to take forward the process in close consultation with MD countries; the importance of being responsive to MD countries’ interests and needs; the possibility of self-differentiation, while preserving the unity of the MD and its non-discriminatory character; the need to focus on practical cooperation in areas where NATO can bring an added value; the need to ensure complementarity of the MD enhancement with the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, as well as with other international efforts, especially those of the EU, OSCE and the G-8 and the possibility of expanding the MD to other interested countries in the Mediterranean region on a case-by-case basis. What was decided at the Istanbul Summit? NATO's' Heads of State and Government in Istanbul offered to elevate the MD to a genuine partnership with the overall objective to contribute to: regional security and stability, complement other international efforts through enhanced practical cooperation, and whose objectives would include: achieving interoperability; developing defence reform; contributing to the fight against terrorism. They also indicated that these objectives could be achieved by enhancing both the political and practical dimensions of the Mediterranean Dialogue. The enhancement of the MD's political dimension will comprise increased consultations at working and Ambassadorial levels in multilateral (26+7) and bilateral format (26+1); the organisation of ad-hoc meetings at Ministerial level or even that of Heads of State and Government level. For example: the first ever meeting of NATO and MD countries' Ministers, took place on 8 December, to on one hand celebrate the Tenth Anniversary of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and on the other hand to have a frank discussion on the way forward to their political and practical cooperation. Also in the context of the strengthening of the political dimension, the Secretary General of NATO has started to travel to MD capitals. This has never happened before. And he did so after preparatory visits to those countries had been conducted by the Deputy Secretary General. But at the Istanbul Summit NATO leaders also decided to enhance the practical dimension of the MD and they did so by putting into action a number of measures, a joint public diplomacy effort aimed at better explaining NATO's transformation and its cooperative efforts; promoting military-to-military cooperation to achieve interoperability, for example: through active participation in selected military exercises to improve the ability of Mediterranean partners’ forces to operate with those of the Alliance in contributing to NATO-led operations consistent with the UN Charter; or participate in non-Article 5 crisis response operations such as disaster relief, humanitarian relief, search and rescue, peace support operations; combating terrorism: including through effective intelligence sharing and maritime cooperation for example in the framework of Operation Active Endeavour, the Alliance's maritime mission to detect, deter and disrupt terrorist activity in the Mediterranean; promoting democratic control of armed forces and facilitating transparency in national defence planning and defence budgeting in support of defence reform; contributing to the work of the Alliance on threats posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery; enhancing cooperation in the area of civil emergency planning including the possibility for Mediterranean partners to request assistance from the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre. A further enhancement of the practical component decided, includes also the possibility: to use NATO Trust Funds; to agree together with MD partners action plans covering a wide range of practical issue-specific cooperative activities; individual cooperation programmes allowing for self-differentiation; the use of existing PfP activities and tools to improve the ability of Alliance and Mediterranean Partners' forces to operate together in future NATO-led operations; enhanced participation in appropriate PfP exercises; and enhanced cooperation in scientific and environmental fields. In addition, NATO also offered to establish appropriate liaison arrangements at NATO HQ in Brussels and also the Partnership Coordination Cell at Mons, in order to enhance coordination of activities, especially in the military field among the countries involved. But I would like to stress that all of the activities proposed by NATO represent an offer of cooperation. There is no imposition. NATO does not wish to impose anything on anyone. The Alliance is offering NATO's expertise in the security field to our partners and to interested countries in the broader region of the Middle East, willing to join the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Both the MD partnership and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiatives are two-way initiatives in which NATO seeks the participating countries' contribution through a consultation process. Can you tell us what are the aims and content of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative? At the Istanbul Summit NATO launched the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. This is a new initiative, based on a series of mutually beneficial bilateral relationships reaching out to countries in the broader Middle East region. Its main aim is to enhance security and regional stability through a new transatlantic engagement with the region. This aim would be achieved by actively promoting NATO’s cooperation with interested countries in the field of security, particularly through practical activities where NATO can add value to develop the ability of interested countries’ forces to operate with those of the Alliance including by contributing to NATO-led operations, fight against terrorism, stem the flow of WMD materials and illegal trafficking in arms, and improve countries’ capabilities to address common challenges and threats with NATO. I also would like to clarify, that the Istanbul Cooperation initiative is based upon a number of principles: the importance of taking into account ideas and proposals originating from the countries of the region or regional organisations; the need to stress that the NATO initiative is a cooperative initiative, based on joint ownership and the mutual interests of NATO and the countries of the region, taking into account their diversity and specific needs; the need to focus on practical cooperation in areas where NATO can add value, particularly in the security field. Participating countries in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative will chose the pace and extent of their cooperation with NATO depending on their individual interest. What is NATO offering on a practical level, through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, to the countries of the broader region of the Middle East? Basically something quite similar to what we are offering to the countries in the MD: providing tailored advice on defence reform, defence budgeting, defence planning and civil-military relations; promoting military-to-military cooperation to contribute to interoperability through participation in selected military exercises and related education and training activities that could improve the ability of participating countries' forces to operate with those of the Alliance in contributing to NATO-led operations consistent with the UN Charter: invite interested countries to observe and/or participate in selected NATO/PfP exercise activities; encourage additional participation by interested countries in NATO-led peace-support operations on a case-by-case basis; fighting against terrorism including through information sharing and maritime cooperation: invite interested countries, in accordance with the procedures set out by the Council for contributory support from non-NATO nations, to join Operation Active Endeavour (OAE) ; contributing to the work of the Alliance on threats posed by weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery; promoting cooperation in the field of border security, particularly in connection with terrorism, small arms and light weapons, and the fight against illegal trafficking; countries may also take advantage of NATO-sponsored programmes and training centres developed in the framework of the Partnership for Peace, including courses on civil-emergency planning. What are the differences with the Mediterranean Dialogue? The ICI is based upon the principle of inclusiveness. It is open to all interested countries in the region who subscribe to the aim and content of this initiative, including the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Each interested party would be considered by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis and on its own merit. NATO will decide according to the principle of consensus, which is the way NATO decisions are taken at the political level in the North Atlantic Council. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative is also complementary to other international initiatives undertaken for the region including the ones of the G8, the EU or the OSCE. Furthermore, the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative apply lessons learned and, as appropriate, mechanisms and tools derived from other NATO initiatives such as the Partnership for Peace Programme and the Mediterranean Dialogue, taking advantage of the experience gained in these two NATO initiatives. In principle, the Mediterranean Dialogue is open to countries in the Mediterranean area or directly involved in Mediterranean-related processes. Mediterranean Dialogue countries could, in principle, join the ICI if they so wish. In terms of practical cooperation, however, this would not be very different from what is already offered within the MD framework. Some wonder whether the Palestinian authority could join? As I said NATO decisions are taken at the political level by the North Atlantic Council according to the principle of consensus. ICI is opened to all interested countries in the region, which subscribe to the aim and content of this initiative, including the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Each interested party, would be considered by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis and on its own merit - this would not exclude the Palestinian Authority. Many also ask whether in light of NATO's outreach to the region, the Alliance will play a future role in the Middle East Peace Process. The Middle East peace process is not an item currently on the NATO agenda. The position of NATO nations on this issue is also very clear. NATO’s Heads of State and Government at their June 2004 Summit stated in the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative document that they attach the utmost importance to reaching a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They also stated that this should remain a priority for the countries of the region and the international community as a whole, and for the success of the security and stability objectives of the Mediterranean Dialogue and of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Full and speedy implementation of the Quartet Road Map is a key element in international efforts to promote a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace and security. The Secretary General of NATO has also been very clear in public statements on this issue. After stressing that NATO is not involved in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict he also mentioned three "Big Ifs". If the two parties in conflict should come to an agreement and If they requested some sort of NATO involvement to help them implement that agreement, and If there was a UN mandate, then NATO would need to discuss such a request. So, as I said, the position of NATO on this issue is very clear. One final question: At the beginning of its cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Russia, in the early 90s NATO was involved in a major outreach effort. Is there a role for NATO's public diplomacy in the Mediterranean and the broader region of the Middle East? Both NATO nations and countries in the Mediterranean Dialogue and in the broader region have underlined the need for a public diplomacy effort towards the publics of the region. The challenges that NATO faces in the Mediterranean and the broader Middle East are very different but by no means less difficult and complex than those the Alliance faced at the beginning of its cooperative relationship with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, the transformation of the adversarial relationship that existed during the Cold War into the far-reaching integration of countries in that region into Euro-Atlantic structures is an outstanding achievement by any standards. From the outset, that task in Eastern Europe involved a major effort to overcome prejudice, tackle misperceptions and build mutual trust and understanding by means of a concerted public-diplomacy campaign, working with governmental agencies as well as helping to develop, civil society organisations and a security community able to take the lead in the discussion at home, while building ties with their counter-parts in NATO member countries. A similar effort is needed today in the Mediterranean and in the broader region of the Middle East, based upon the recognition that building bridges with the Mediterranean and the Middle East deserves the same degree of NATO attention as did overcoming the legacy of division between East and West in the early 1990s. The objectives of NATO's Public Diplomacy to this end are very clear: provide the publics in the Mediterranean and in the broader Middle East with a better mutual understanding of NATO's transformation, its policies and goals, particularly the aim and content of the MD and ICI; achieve a better mutual understanding and dispel any misconceptions about NATO; and increase the awareness of the positive elements that a partnership with NATO can offer. NATO's message is very simple: no country can address alone the security challenges of today's complex world; through cooperation we can achieve together results that no one would be able to achieve alone, in order to promote international security, stability and ultimately peace.