Speech

by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at NATO Parliamentary Assembly held in Madeira

President Lello,
Distinguished members of the NATO Parliamentarian Assembly,
Excellencies, and Ladies and Gentlemen. 

Let me start by congratulating you, Mister José Lello on your appointment as President of the NATO Parliamentarian Assembly.  You are an old friend of the NATO Alliance, with enormous experience both as a parliamentarian and as a government minister.  And I'm sure you're particularly delighted to be hosting the NATO's P.A.'s first session under your own presidency on the beautiful island of Madeira. 

I'm very glad to be here once again in person, following my video link to your annual session in Quebec last November.  As you know, I greatly value the role of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, both as a sounding board, but also as one of the key drivers for NATO's actions and policies. 

With our Riga Summit behind us, another summit on the horizon in Bucharest in the spring of next year, NATO is clearly at a critical junction.  And I want to help, make sure that you as parliamentarians are able to play your full part in supporting NATO through this period. 

I'm saying this because more than ever before public opinion, parliamentary opinion is key for NATO.  An Alliance which has, as we speak, over 50,000 men and women in uniform in its different operations and missions, needs that vital element:  public support.  You are the interlocutors between NATO as an Alliance and your constituency.  And I do not underestimate your role, certainly not your role in this timeframe. 

What I would like to do this afternoon is not go through NATO's entire origin.  That would highlight a few issues that I believe to be particularly significant for the Alliance and which, I know, are the top of you agenda here in Madeira:  Afghanistan, missile defence... and I want to say something about the NATO-Russia relationship.  And I'm mentioning these, not because they're vitally important at the moment.  But also because of the way you handled them will shape many aspects of our future.

It is no secret that from time the going gets tough in Afghanistan, NATO's most important operation.  Especially, in the south of the country many of our forces have been engaged in serious action to counter the Taliban and to pursue our own objectives. 

Throughout the country, there have been a number of violent incidents and tragically, despite our best efforts, innocent civilians have also been killed.  And it goes without saying that we deeply regret these innocent civilian casualties. 

But at the same time, we have to realize that our forces will have to do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties and are doing everything possible to avoid them, while our opponents do not show any hesitation to slaughter or maim the Afghan people or even use them as human shields.  We are simply in different moral categories here. 

I am, Mister President, at the same time optimistic about NATO's continued involvement in Afghanistan and the chances of success.  The political will is there in all of our countries to see the mission through. 

We've made some good progress since the Riga in bolstering our military presence.  There are 7,000 more troops in the country now in comparison to a year ago.  Our total NATO troop strength is close to 40,000.  And that is apart from the strength from the American led coalition forces. 

We are stepping up our efforts to train and equip the Afghan National Army.  Here you have a subject on which we should and could definitely do more.  But we have stepped our efforts.  But I'm not happy and satisfied yet about this.  And I say this because we still have a long way to go. 

And if you discuss Afghanistan with your governments please try to convince them that the Afghan Army needs a lot of people from your nations in the framework of the so-called monitoring and liaison teams to help, to train the Afghan Army which rather tomorrow than the day after tomorrow would like to take responsibilities in their own country into their own hands.  Please convince your government that we are lagging behind and we should do more.

Where we make progress I think is in implementing what we call the comprehensive approach that Afghanistan clearly needs.  What is that jargon of "comprehensive approach"?  In Afghanistan and elsewhere these will survive for long without jobs, without electricity, without roads, without schools and without teachers.

More than ever before, crisis management, reconstruction and development demand a new level of cooperation between nations and between nations and international organizations where military and civilian instruments are applied in a coordinated way.  And rather there is a key role for NATO in promoting this so-called "comprehensive approach" and making sure that it is effective in Afghanistan and elsewhere. 

We should never forget that NATO of course is not a development organization.  All we can do and all we are doing is create the environment in which reconstruction and development is possible and then ask others like the European Union, the World Bank, the G8s and the non-governmental organization to come in and help rebuild the country.  And let me... when I mention all these nations, I should not forget to tell you that not only 26 NATO allies are active in Afghanistan but 11 partners as well, that we have important contributions in the military or the non-military sense from important nations like Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many other, as I said, non-NATO partners sharing the burden with NATO in Afghanistan.

Mister President, Distinguished Members of the NATO P.A., I'm aware that ISAF's mission in Afghanistan has been and will continue to be the subject of some intense parliamentary debate, particularly when you are called upon to renew the mandate for your force contributions which... and that will not come as a surprise to you, I hope you will do, of course, or indeed, when you're asked to make additional contributions. 

But I also urge you to look at the bigger picture.  We have been making progresses.  And there have been some significant successes.  Please remember also the need for Solidarity, written with a capital "S". 

Many Allies are making major efforts, and wherever they are deployed in the country, they face danger.  I need to feel that the Allies are fully behind them.  We suffered fatalities and casualties last weekend.  Today, we see a Portuguese soldier wounded.  We saw German soldiers killed, other soldiers killed very recently.  We need Solidarity in the Alliance:  all 26 Allies.  And we must guard against cause for increased civilian activity how necessary and legitimate these cause are become an alibi for reducing military efforts.  After all, the reconstruction of Afghanistan cannot take place if ISAF does not succeed. 

There is no stability without development but the opposite is also true.  There is no development without creating stability first.

For all these reasons, I repeat it there is a vital role for you to play as parliamentarians.  Because we need you in making sure that we have the necessary military forces and other tools and instruments to fulfill what is arguably a most demanding mission ever. 

But you can be instrumental also in encouraging greater cooperation and complimentary between international organizations:  NATO, the European Union, United Nations and others both in the field and at the institutional level.  I must add in the field it is usually easier than on the institutional level to work together.  But if I have to dwell on that I would need 25 more minutes so I'm not doing that this afternoon at least.  I now go into French...

Passons maintenant à la défense anti-missile.  Tous les Alliés, je dis bien tous les Alliés s'accordent à dire que les missiles balistiques représentent bel et bien une menace.  Cette menace et le moyen d'y faire face ont été examinés aux deux sommets qu'a tenus l'OTAN à Prague et à Riga.  À Prague, en 2002, les dirigeants de l'Alliance ont lancé l'étude de la faisabilité de la défense anti-missile de l'OTAN qui a permis de conclure sans équivoque que la défense anti-missile est techniquement faisable et de mettre en évidence plusieurs possibilités. Ces possibilités varient dans leur degré d'ambition et donc également en termes de capacités offertes et bien sûr de coûts.

À Riga, l'année dernière, faisant fond sur l'étude de faisabilité de la défense anti-missile, les chefs d'État et du gouvernement ont demandé que des travaux supplémentaires sur certains points techniques, politiques et militaires soient réalisés, notamment une réévaluation de la menace.

Toutefois, au moment du Sommet de Riga, les pays de l'Alliance ne pourraient encore avoir pleinement connaissance des projets des États-Unis portant sur l'implantation en Europe d'un troisième site dans le cadre de leur système national de défense anti-missile.

L'OTAN doit donc évaluer d'urgence les incidences de l'implantation d'un troisième site dans le cadre du système américain.  Et cette question a été au coeur et est encore au coeur de nos débats cette année.  Je ne doute pas que les ministres de la Défense décideront à la réunion qu'ils tiendront le mois prochain à Bruxelles de demander qu'il soit procédé à une évaluation des incidences qu'aurait le projet de système américain sur les travaux actuellement menés par l'OTAN dans le domaine de la défense anti-missile.

Cela permettra, j'espère, alors de disposer avant le Sommet de Bucarest prévu pour le printemps prochain des résultats des divers travaux menés sur cette question.

Ça va sans dire, Monsieur le Président, qu'il s'agit là d'une question sur laquelle les États d'Amérique du Nord, les États-Unis, le Canada,  et d'Europe ont un intérêt commun.  Et que l'OTAN est donc l'enceinte idéale pour en discuter. 

Notre Alliance est fondée sur le principe de l'indivisibilité de la sécurité.  Et ce principe doit donc s'appliquer également aux domaines de la défense anti-missile. 

C'est pourquoi nous ne pouvons accepter que notre système de défense anti-missile n'assure pas la protection de l'ensemble de notre territoire.  Un principe très important, je crois. 

Dans ce processus, la transparence restera un élément essentiel.  Les consultations politiques et les exposés techniques entre Alliés se poursuivront à l'OTAN.  J'espère que ces échanges trouveront un écho au niveau parlementaire.  Je solliciterais, du reste, votre appui à ce niveau pour insister sur la gravité de cet enjeu, et sur l'importance de trouver une solution dans le cadre de l'OTAN.

Il nous faudra, en outre, poursuivre nos discussions avec la Russie qui, pour le formuler d'une façon diplomatique, n'a pas la même analyse que l'OTAN sur ce dossier.  Ce qui m'amène à un autre volet de mon discours: notre relation avec la Russie.

Que de chemins parcourus par l'OTAN et la Russie depuis la signature il y a dix ans de l'Acte fondateur et la création il y a cinq ans du côté OTAN-Russie.  La coopération entre nos forces militaires s'est accrue.  Nous avons adopté un plan d'action contre le terrorisme très complet, ainsi que des programmes ambitieux de coopération technique dans les domaines de la gestion de l'espace aérien et de la défense contre les missiles de théâtre.  Et nous avons uni nos efforts pour mettre sur pied des capacités de lutte contre la drogue en Afghanistan et en Asie centrale.  Ensemble alors, l'OTAN et la Russie ont fait beaucoup pour relever les nombreux défis auxquels elles sont confrontées.

Aussi, quand j'entends certains commentaires émanant de la Russie sur la défense anti-missile, sur l'élargissement de l'OTAN et sur d'autres questions comme le traité FCE, je constate qu'on y a encore tendance à analyser ces défis selon des critères du passé et à les laisser faire obstacle à une véritable coopération.  Et je peux vous dire, je le regrette.  Car, je suis convaincu que la Russie et les pays membres de l'OTAN ne pourront jamais faire face à l'environnement de sécurité actuelle sans s'appuyer mutuellement sur leurs capacités et sur leurs expériences et sans échanger leurs points de vue. 

I believe Russia and NATO could do much more in operations in making our forces interoperable in peace support missions, in supporting each other in disasters and emergency situations, in fighting terrorism and in consulting in new challenges such as defence against proliferation. 

Next month will mark two anniversaries in the NATO-Russia relationship that I just mentioned.  I sincerely hope that this will not be just an opportunity for a high level ceremonial meeting but an encouragement to establish these clear priorities for our cooperation I just mentioned; and to make a bigger and better effort to make this cooperation visible to our public; and I believe as key role for members of Parliament, including in Russia, in the State Duma, to help define and implement such a common agenda for the 21st Century. 

And Allies have noted with satisfaction, Mister President, that a few days the State Duma in Moscow ratified the Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement between NATO and Russia. And if we have the time, we could have a long discussion on the letter I saw you received from the State Duma about certain foreign policy tendencies in the NATO Allies.  But that will take some time.  And that letter has a certain number of elements I'm taking issue with.  But again, in our friendly relationship with our Russian friends we should not only discuss subjects on which we do agree, we should also perhaps more important continue discussing the issues on we do not agree.

Mister President, I have highlighted for you certain challenges as I see in front of our NATO Alliance.  But, clearly, NATO Alliance is much wider than that.  We face mounting operation demands.  We need to push ahead with defence transformation.  And in my opinion, we should take a serious look at how we resource our operations and other activities. 

We need to consider, and will, next steps in the process of NATO enlargement.  I also greet Prime Minister Gruevski.  NATO enlargement is not a threat to anybody.  NATO enlargement means more democracy, more stability, more security, more rule of law, more democratic control on the armed forces.  Who could be worried about NATO enlargement?  I'm not.

 (APPLAUSE)

And we all know, Mister President, that NATO enlargement is a performance based process, that the NATO bar is high because NATO is democracy.  We always defend values.  And we're not going to lower the bar.  The bar is high.  The ambition is high and the bar is high.  No tickets are being punched for next year's summit in Bucharest.  There's not automatic door into NATO.  But if I look at the candidates, I tell them:  "Do everything you can... do everything you can in your reform process to make it happen.  Because I say again:  "To join this unique Alliance, this family of democracy, this family of democratic nations is indeed a great privilege." 

Mister President, ever since I became NATO Secretary General I have emphasized the need for enhanced political dialogue among the Allies in order to build consensus on how to tackle the many issues before us and a bit more complicated and difficult:  where to prioritize. 

I'm glad that over the last few years, we've had more regular and increasingly constructive political discussions in NATO on a wider range of issues.  I will continue to stress this vital, political function of the Alliance.  And I will continue to highlight the important role that parliamentarians can play in this political debate. 

And I gave you the reason:  We have to win and to keep the support of the hearts and minds in Afghanistan.  But as vital it is to keep the hearts and minds in the support in the NATO and partner nations from which our men and women in uniform come.  And it's all about them.  They are in Afghanistan in arms way.  We should give them the best we have and we should give them the best support we have.

(APPLAUSE)

Mister President Lello, to finish, it will not come as a surprise to you that the remarks that you just made on the subject of the discussion of a new NATO strategic concept were pleasant to hear from you.  Because in Munich, some months ago, at the conference there, I also made some remarks about the need for a new NATO strategic concept. 

We all know that this is not yet a consensual position between the 26 NATO Allies.  We have to realize that.  And we have to work on that.  And we have to see how it develops.  I can only tell you that I'm glad with your support.  And I'm eager to hear the discussion in your NATO Parliamentary Assembly how it will evolve and when.  And at the same time, of course, it is on the agenda.  Where it will end, we do not know yet.  It is on the agenda.  And we'll see developments. 

Mister President, Distinguished Members of Parliament, I started my remarks with congratulating you, Mister President, and telling you Distinguished Members that it is really a pleasure and a privilege for me to be here again with you in person.  And I promise you, video links will be the exception.  Physical presence will be... will be the rule. 

I hope, and I say this once again that in a time where public support and parliamentary support is more important than ever, I stress again more than 50,000 men and women in uniform, it is vital.  And that is why also I'm glad that the NAC, the NATO ambassadors are on a regular basis in our midst and are discussing and debating with you.  That we need to support each other.  That doesn't mean that we always have to agree.  I've been a Member of Parliament for 16 years and I know that a Member of Parliament should definitely not always agree with the executive.  But it does mean that we can have a very fruitful debate.  Mister President, Distinguished Members, it was a pleasure to be here again.