Speech

by NATO Secretary General
at the Microsoft-BBC-NATO - Defence Leaders forum Noordwijk aan zee 23 april 2007

Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This forum is a “first” for NATO.  And it is an acknowledgement of the growing role of Private/Public Partnerships.  Traditionally, the private and public domains have been kept separate.  But the challenges we face today are increasingly relevant to both the private and the public spheres, and dealing with these challenges offers potential for finding common, or coordinated, solutions.  And this is equally true for the challenges faced by Allies in the security environment.

Our conference here is co-sponsored by three organisations, Microsoft, the BBC and NATO.  All three are the world leaders in their particular field.  And I think these three co-sponsors are highly appropriate for today’s discussion, because our security environment is now influenced not just by traditional military powers and nation states, but more and more by non-state actors, individuals, information and the media.

I see a clear example of this when I listen to the BBC’s Global Conversation series of radio programmes.  This series highlights the increased importance in the media of the vox populi and public’s immediate perceptions.  And it reinforces for me the idea that individuals are now not just far better informed and have access to more and more means – blogs, e-mails, text messages and talk radio – but they are also able to make their voice heard and shape events.

Another driving force behind modern society is change.  It is “adapt or die”. 
And just as this rule applies to the multinationals and the media corporations, it also applies to security organisations.  For the Alliance, this is not just a simple metaphor and a theoretical discussion.  Adapting to change, and in particular achieving information dominance, makes the difference between success and failure.  And for our forces in the field, it makes the difference between life and death.

We must also take into account that economically, technically and politically, everything and everyone has become interdependent. 
Activities that were separate and discrete are now integrated.  Activities that were performed sequentially are now performed concurrently.  And this is equally true for security.  When I look at Afghanistan, I see a wide range of military activities that are also now being performed concurrently – combat, peacekeeping, reconstruction and redevelopment, and even humanitarian aid.  In previous operations these activities had been carried out one after another.  What we now have is a “blurring of edges”, making it difficult to clearly identify where one activity starts and another finishes.  

For example, the same channels that allow money and information to be transferred instantly anywhere across the globe, can also be used by criminal networks to traffic virtually any commodity – people, missile components, laundered finance, weapons and fissile materials. 

This rapidly changing and interdependent environment poses a number of demanding security challenges.  Let me highlight just three.  Nuclear proliferation, which for the past thirty years appeared to be a secondary problem, is now centre stage again. 
Failing states, once considered a concern only for their immediate neighbours, can have truly global implications.  And of course there is a new breed of terrorism – a terrorism that has perverted the benefits of Globalisation and the Information Age to import radicalism, religious fanaticism and new terrorist techniques into the very heart of our own societies.  Some of our very own citizens are now able to live, via the internet, in a virtual universe, with no contact with the real world, but living in a distorted universe of radical propaganda. 

It is this new environment, with its demanding security challenges, that a new NATO is required.  And that new NATO is well on the way to being constructed.

Of course, we have not done away with NATO’s unique features.  We have kept collective defence as a core purpose.  We have preserved, and even strengthened, our exceptional political consultation mechanism, as well as our integrated, multinational military structure.  We have also substantially enhanced our military capabilities. 
We now have a fully operational reaction force that is able to deploy at short notice and over a great distance if required.  And we are fielding new technologies, especially in the areas of information superiority, command and control, and network centric capabilities. 

But what has changed fundamentally at NATO, is the way we think about security.  We understand that the threat of military force, and even its use, is no longer enough on its own to safeguard and promote our security. 
This philosophy is clearly demonstrated in the Alliance’s concept on defence against terrorism, which emphasises the best chance of success will come from, and I quote from this document: “an overarching international strategy that integrates political, military economic, legal and social initiatives” and “fully conforms to the relevant provisions of the UN Charter and all relevant international norms, including those concerned with human rights and humanitarian requirements”.

To deliver this new approach requires first and foremost enhanced political dialogue among Allies.  This is an essential prerequisite for arriving at a common understanding of the problem, and then for agreeing on a common approach to deal with it.  And the best way to deal with today’s challenges is through active engagement.  Rather than waiting until problems turn up on our doorstep, we are prepared to take decisive action when and where those problems first emerge.  This new strategy of active engagement is clearly demonstrated by the wide array of current Alliance operations.

As we meet here today, more than 50,000 troops are deployed under NATO command in operations and missions on three different continents.  In Europe, NATO is keeping the peace in the Balkans, notably in Kosovo where we are facing a particularly challenging period.  In the Mediterranean, we are conducting naval anti-terrorist patrols.  In Iraq, NATO is training Iraqi security forces.  And in Africa, NATO is airlifting African Union peacekeeping troops to the crisis region of Darfur. 

But it is in Afghanistan that we are conducting what is probably the most important, and difficult, mission in the Alliance’s history. 

The NATO-led, UN-mandated, International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, or ISAF as it is known, is made up of some 36,000 personnel from every one of the 26 NATO Allies, as well as contributions from 11 NATO partner countries.  The principal task is to assist the Government of Afghanistan in creating a safe and secure environment, where the Government is able to assert and expand its authority, and where other organisations are able to do their work. 
ISAF also supports the development and equipment of the Afghan National Army and Police.  And, through the 25 joint civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams at strategic locations throughout the country, ISAF also has a role promoting security and development.

NATO’s active engagement has led to a lot of progress in Afghanistan.  Today, less than four years after the Alliance took control of ISAF, there have been free elections;
President Karzai enjoys considerable respect; and there is a functioning parliament as well as several other new institutions.  Well over 4 million refugees have returned home; 80 per cent of the population has access to health care; and 6 million children are in school.  A quarter of the parliament are women, about a third of teachers are women, and the same proportion of schoolchildren are girls.  There has been significant reconstruction and development, especially in the north of the country, and Afghanistan’s Gross National Product has tripled over the past few years.

By any standard, this is significant progress, if you realise and see where the country came from and achieved, as I said, thanks in no small part to NATO’s active engagement.  But it is also fragile progress – progress which must be sustained and reinforced or it could begin to unravel.  That is why the Alliance has already stepped up its own contribution.  We have increased the number of our troops in the country.  Allies have lifted a number of the restrictions that some of them placed on the use of their forces in Afghanistan.  And, to complement the military cooperation we have already established, we have started the process of building a political relationship with Pakistan.  Indeed, I shall visit Pakistan next month to continue this process. 

But sustaining the progress in Afghanistan cannot be done by NATO Allies alone.  A broader, concerted international effort by the whole of the international community is required.  And this is what we, in NATO, mean when we talk about a comprehensive approach.  But what are the implications of such an approach?

For NATO, this points first of all to closer engagement with non-member nations. 
During the Cold War, NATO did not need other countries to fulfil its essential security mission of self defence.  Allied solidarity was enough.  But today, as we send our forces to Afghanistan and on other complex missions well away from our traditional area of operations, we realise full well just how much the success of these missions depends on the contribution by other nations, and notably our partners.  Some partners help us with military bases, air fields and transit rights.  Some provide forces to our missions, and some provide us with intelligence and expertise.

Let me stress, however, that this is not a one-way relationship that only benefits the Alliance.  Our partners benefit too.  The many NATO partnership programmes provide partner countries with material help and expertise in taking care of their own security problems, reforming their military forces, and increasing their interoperability with those of the Alliance.

Over the past few years, we have already broadened our partnership policy by reaching out to countries in Northern Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf region. 
And we are now opening a new chapter by deepening our ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region.  This is a timely development.  Australia and New Zealand are already involved with us in Afghanistan, and Japan and the Republic of Korea have also shown a willingness to shoulder a greater share of the international security burden.  Prime Minister Abe of Japan made that very clear when he met with the NATO Council in January. 
And just last month, Japan showed a very clear, and welcome demonstration of that willingness by agreeing to work more closely together with NATO in providing aid to the civilian population of Afghanistan, using the Provincial Reconstruction Team for that purpose.

A comprehensive approach also requires NATO to work more closely with other international organisations.  It is clear that to achieve lasting progress in Afghanistan, security improvements in the country must be accompanied by improvements in other fields, such as job opportunities, power supply, transport infrastructure, medical facilities and education services. 
Although the NATO-led Provincial Reconstruction teams can provide some help in this regard, it really does require a broader, concerted international effort by the international community, including civilian reconstruction agencies and NGOs, and international aid money.

However, for me, there is another vitally important element that needs to be involved.  When I look at the needs of a country like Afghanistan, I can see tremendous scope for including the private sector in a comprehensive approach. 
If we are to make Afghanistan into a stable democratic country, then it will also need to be able to participate fully in the modern world.  That is why Microsoft’s citizenship programme in Afghanistan, focussing on IT training and capacity building, is so important.  Equally, the BBC’s role in training professional journalists and supporting the development of a free media is vital.  But one of the major challenges that faces us is how to decrease Afghanistan’s dependence on the narcotics economy.

The poppy is resilient to drought; it grows well; and it’s easy to store. 
For any alternative crops to be viable, they need irrigation, they also require harvesting equipment, processing plants and refrigerated storage facilities.  And then they need to be distributed across a reliable transport infrastructure.  To my mind, providing all these capabilities is not something that NATO and the international community can do easily – but it is an area where there are clear opportunities for the private sector. 
That is why, over the past few years, NATO’s operational commander, SACEUR, has taken a number of Chief Executive Officers from the private sector with him on his frequent visits to Afghanistan.  They have represented companies in fields as diverse as housing, health, education, construction, banking, electricity, information technology, radio and television. 
Now, I fully understand that ultimately, for business, the involvement must be commercially viable, but I don’t believe the private sector can ignore Afghanistan with its potential market of 36 million people, the majority of whom are under twenty-five years old and eager to be brought into the modern world. 

Let me add, that when I speak of the private sector, I also include philanthropy.  It is remarkable to see the contribution made across the globe by philanthropists such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Aga Khan Development Network. 
And I find it difficult not to ask how could their good work, and NATO’s, be combined?

So, for me, a comprehensive approach is one that fosters cooperation and coordination between international organisations, individual states, agencies and NGOs, as well as the private sector.  And achieving this now in Afghanistan represents the major challenge.  This is where I see the United Nations playing a vital role.  The United Nations has the main role to play in coordinating the necessary military and civilian aspects of peace building in Afghanistan.  Of course, I hasten to add under full Afghan ownership. It is their nation, their reconstruction, their development.

If we are serious about achieving this necessary degree of cooperation and coordination across the international community – a true comprehensive approach - then as a first step it is vital for NATO, the UN, the EU to develop more structured relations between their organisations.  I acknowledge that developing such a culture of cooperation is not going to be easy.  We are all attached to our own ways. 
We must therefore arrive at an honest appraisal of the particular strengths and limitations of each of our organisations, and how we can best complement each other’s efforts.  And to do this is going to require a combination of pragmatism, vision, and political will.

But if we can do this, and I believe we can, then it will bring considerable benefits.  And the benefits will stretch well beyond Afghanistan.  A comprehensive approach will allow us all to be more proactive and less reactive in future contingencies. 
With the right relations in place across the international community and the private sector, and supported by modern information technology that allows the necessary information sharing and coordination among all the relevant actors, we will be better able to apply the appropriate mix of political, military, economic, legal and social initiatives.  And this will reduce the motivating factors that are behind many of today’s security challenges. 

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude.  Globalisation and the Information Age have raised new sets of challenges for all of us, Microsoft, the BBC and NATO alike.  And we have all had to adapt to meet these challenges.  For NATO, this has led to an understanding that active engagement is the only way to safeguard Allies’ security, and that the Alliance’s military dimension needs to be accompanied by enhanced political dialogue. 
But that engagement needs to be part of a comprehensive approach that encompasses not just international organisations and other countries, but also the private sector.

Once again, let me say how much I value the role of Microsoft and BBC in Afghanistan.  Both are playing an important part in a comprehensive approach there, although perhaps at the moment it is unwittingly. 
I hope that by the end of today’s conference we shall have produced a number of concrete ideas for pursuing a comprehensive approach and identifying scope for further involvement of the private sector.