Åre, Sweden 25 May 2005

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Security Forum Introductory remarks by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to open this first ever EAPC Security Forum by extending a warm welcome to all of you gathered in this room today: The Foreign Ministers, Heads of Delegation and senior officials from NATO and Partner countries; our specially invited guests who have kindly agreed to come as speakers and discussants; the many representatives of civil society, including distinguished Parliamentarians; and the representatives of the press and media. This Forum is the first of its kind – a first effort by NATO to engage Allies and Partners in a high-level, yet informal debate on the key challenges and policy choices that we face. More than that – it is a first, unprecedented effort to engage in this debate governments as well as the public. Managing security requires more than meetings in military compounds and closed conference rooms. It also requires the involvement of civil society – from the academic community to the media. The format of this Forum reflects this broader understanding of security today. Let me also thank our Swedish hosts for inviting us all to come here to Åre in this beautiful setting. The excellent Swedish hospitality we are enjoying has helped to establish the openness and the informality which are so essential to a lively and productive debate. Let me therefore once again express our gratitude to the Government of Sweden and the Swedish Foreign Minister, Laila Freivalds, for hosting our meeting. As Secretary General of NATO and Chairman of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council it is my honour to be the first speaker today. In just a few moments I will open our discussions by giving you my views on the theme of our discussion: “Managing Security – Our Common Challenge”. Before I do so however, allow me to introduce the two other keynote speakers for this plenary session. First, the Foreign Minister of Sweden, our host, Laila Freivalds. She has had an impressive and diverse career involving senior positions in politics as well as in civil society. A lawyer by training, Laila Freivalds has been Minister of Justice twice here in Sweden as well as the Director of the Swedish Performing Arts Society and the Director-General of the National Board for Consumer Policies and Consumer Ombudsman. This testifies to her broad range of experience and interests. She has been the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden since 2003. Our third keynote speaker this morning is Kemal Dervi ş , who is the Administrator-Designate of the UN Development Programme. Mr Dervi ş has also had a distinguished career; in his case he has been Minister of Economic Affairs of Turkey where he was the architect of Turkey’s economic reforms. For many years he was a senior official at the World Bank, rising to the position of Vice President. Mr Dervi ş is well-known on the Brussels scene as someone who has worked hard and successfully to bring Turkey closer to the European Union. On behalf of NATO and the EAPC I would like to thank my two fellow keynote speakers for being with us here today and I know that everybody is looking forward to what they are going to say. “Managing Security – Our Common Challenge” Keynote speech by NATO Secretary General at the Opening Plenary Session of the EAPC Security Forum Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me now set the scene by offering my own reflections on the theme of this Forum. What are the key security challenges of our age – the age of globalisation? And what are the key elements of an effective approach to manage security today and tomorrow? I would like to start with a general observation. The American humorist Kim Hubbard once said that “The world gets better every day – then worse again in the evening”. That seems to be the mindset of many people today. Some seem to be under the impression that our modern societies are overwhelmed by the powers that they themselves have unleashed: whether the issue is economic globalisation, genetic engineering, terrorism, computer viruses or regional conflicts. And they consider themselves victims of events that are beyond their control. I want to take issue with that rather pessimist view of the world. Our societies can shape events and not be their victims. We have learned from history. We have created instruments that our predecessors lacked. Above all, we have understood that for security to last, one must move from safeguarding it to actively promoting it. So when I talk of challenges, I do not want to imply that our future is a gloomy one. At NATO, at least, we are not in the business of scaremongering. If I am now going to list certain challenges, I will do so as an analytical exercise: because identifying problems is the first step towards solving them. What, then, are the security challenges posed by globalisation? And, equally importantly, how can we meet them? The first challenge that comes to mind is the relentless spread of technology and information. This is not negative in itself. But if it brings the specter of more countries and non-state actors gaining access to weapons of mass destruction, it becomes a major security challenge. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will be one of the greatest security challenges of this century. The changing nature of terrorism is another major threat – and one where globalisation adds to the problem. Terrorists organise themselves in international networks. The damage they try to inflict is indiscriminate. They oppose globalisation, but they are quite astute in using the means offered by globalisation to foster their aims. This new century also confronts us with more traditional challenges that, unfortunately, have not disappeared along with the end of the Cold War. And here I am thinking in particular about regional conflicts. Regional conflicts are to a large extent the result of a fundamental lack of democracy, of human rights, and of economic opportunities. Moreover, as most of these conflicts are within states rather than between them, they expose the limits of international law, as this is based on sovereign nations. In some parts of the world, we see conflicts arising from unfinished nation-building and the pressures brought about by modernisation. In many states economic development goes much faster than societal change – which may cause tensions and occasionally violence. Matching political liberty with civil liberty remains a challenge that many of the world’s nations have yet to master. As we move further into this century, the increasing demand for resources will also become a security challenge in its own right. The economic growth of countries such as China and India has already put pressure on the world’s oil reserves. It is obvious to me that the breadth and diversity of these challenges can only be addressed properly if we use a broad concept of security, a concept that includes political, military, economic, and social elements. Without such a broad approach we would never be able to move beyond dealing with the symptoms. So what are the elements of such a comprehensive approach? The overriding element is democracy. Because Immanuel Kant was right: democracies are less prone to violence. Indeed, most of the conflicts we see today are between or within states that lack the fundamentals of democratic societies or statehood. Democracies remain far better equipped to deal with the challenges of modernisation and globalisation. Their economies and social systems are better geared to handle the stress of rapidly changing markets. Indeed, I would argue that modernisation and democracy go hand in hand. Open societies are geared towards change and towards pragmatic problem-solving. Open and free media are the best insurance against any tendencies to replace historical facts with self-serving myths. To ensure that democracy and open society take firm root across – and beyond –the Euro-Atlantic area is thus the single most important response to the challenges of the 21 st century. It is the best possible investment that we can make into our future. Wherever we can influence events, be it in the re-building of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in setting criteria for NATO or EU membership, in helping a democratic Iraq to find its feet, or in securing the Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan next fall, we should never lose sight of the importance of democracy as a guiding principle. Security in the 21 st century must be, above all, democratic security. Economics are another key element of a broad security approach. In the era of globalisation all countries become each other’s neighbours. There is thus some truth in the saying that economic support for our neighbours is our first line of defence. To state that political and economic instruments must be given renewed emphasis does not diminish the relevance of effective military instruments. After all, true security cannot be built on long-term political and economic strategies alone. It also requires means to cope with immediate problems – including military problems. Even if many security challenges might be non-military in nature, like economic crises or drug trafficking, others, such as regional conflicts or international terrorism, may require the use of force. Indeed, we have seen in Bosnia or Afghanistan that the use of economic sanctions or moral condemnation helped us little without the backing of concrete, visible military power. Thus, to regard “political” and “military” approaches as irreconcilable opposites would be missing the point. The ability to apply force remains a precondition for safeguarding our security in an age of globalisation. The use of military force is changing considerably, however. With regional conflicts replacing the large-scale scenarios of the Cold War, a strictly territorial understanding of security clearly is no longer viable. Accordingly, we see a shift towards a smaller, flexible, and more mobile military, able to perform in faraway places, and trained to cooperate with civilian institutions. To put such a broad approach to security into practice requires the broadest possible cooperation between nations and organisations. Building these new patterns of cooperation is the great challenge of our age. NATO has proved to be up to the challenge. When the end of Cold War offered us the opportunity to build new partnerships, we seized this opportunity. Ever since, we have been working hard to enhance our relations with countries throughout the Euro-Atlantic area – and indeed beyond. We have put in place a network of security partnerships that is unprecedented in European history. And we will continue to broaden and deepen this cooperation. Today, we not only have special programmes in place to draw our Partners in the Caucasus and Central Asia closer to us. We are also building closer relations with countries in the Broader Middle East. Initially, Partnership was simply a policy NATO offered to others. Today, Partners are taking an active role in the evolution of the Partnership, and they do so with increasing self-confidence. But partnership should not only be a guiding principle for our nations. It should also be a guiding principle for our institutions. After all, institutions are our prime means of shaping the international system in line with our values and interests. That is why we need to connect NATO and the EU in entirely new ways. We need a truly strategic partnership. Following the latest round of enlargement of our organisations last year, we now have 19 members in common. I am confident that that commonality in our membership will also forge stronger institutional relations between us. What we need – and what I believe is within reach – is a strong partnership that recognises the unique contribution that NATO and the EU each make to stability and security. We also need to get NATO and the United Nations closer together. For the past ten years, we have worked effectively on the ground in bringing peace and stability to the Balkans. However, we must be more ambitious, and develop more structured relationships at the institutional level as well – to coordinate strategically, not just cooperate tactically. Kofi Annan’s recent proposals for UN reform provide a further stimulus for fresh thinking. We will soon have a serious discussion at NATO on how to strengthen this cooperation with the UN. We also need closer contacts between NATO and the OSCE. And we need to engage much more systematically with the NGO community, the non-governmental organisations. Last, but certainly not least,we need to continue to develop the EAPC – as an instrument that offers added value to our network of cooperative security. Over the past years, we have given the EAPC an increased role to address common challenges. We discuss many issues of shared interest with our Partners, and we are acting together in the Balkans and Afghanistan. We are also complementing our traditional focus on interoperability with a focus on domestic reform, in particular in the defence field. We are building more efficient and comprehensive mechanisms of cooperation. And we are paying increased attention to our Partners in the Caucasus and Central Asia. And this unique framework of cooperation is meant to promote a partnership that is not only based on shared security perceptions, but also on shared values. All this should serve as an encouragement for us to further exploit all oportunities the EAPC has to offer. The potential for delivering even more substance is there. We must use it. Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, In my remarks this morning, I have given much emphasis to the development of closer relations between nations and between institutions – but I did so for a reason. Individually, each of these relationships may reflect a distinct approach to security. Together, they offer the chance to establish a new quality of security – by offering us the full spectrum of the political, economic, and military instruments that we need. Can such a comprehensive concept of security be implemented? I believe that it can be – and that we are already implementing it. In just a few moments, I will be leaving for Addis Ababa, where I will participate in talks on international support for the African Union’s operation in Darfur. NATO’s contribution will be made in full consultation and transparency with the African Union, the European Union and the United Nations. Because we all have a stake in peace and security. And because we all need each other to succeed. So my conclusion is clear: a broad concept of security, implemented through new patterns of multinational cooperation, remains our best bet for safeguarding and promoting our security. That is why events like today’s EAPC Security Forum are so important. They help a new security culture to take shape. A security culture that should not fear or resist globalisation, but that can wholeheartedly embrace it.