From the event

Ohrid, the former
Yugoslav
Republic
of Macedonia1

29 June 2007

Remarks

at the Closing plenary meeting of the EAPC Security Forum

AMBASSADOR ALESSANDRO MINUTO RIZZO (Deputy Secretary General, NATO): So can I have your attention please? We have come to the turning point of our meeting.

So Your Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, I trust that we all had a very interesting discussion this afternoon.  And I would like to ask the Chairman of the three panels, as we did this morning we'll repeat more or less the same thing, of course on different topics.

And I would like to ask the chairmen to brief us on their respective panels and I would give the floor in turn to Deputy Assistant Secretary General... Ambassador Jochems who is there, panel chairman of Afghanistan: Winning the Peace. He will be followed by the Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, Ambassador Erdman. He will report on the Prospects for the Euro-Atlantic Integration of the Balkans. And finally, the last panel chairman will be Deputy Assistant Secretary General Hardouin of political affairs. He will speak about energy security. He will report on what role for NATO and other international organizations.

After that I will ask our host to make the remarks he feels appropriate at this point and then I will say a few concluding words.

So Ambassador Jochems please. You have the floor. Actually you can also do the (inaudible).

Ambassador Maurits Jochems (NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General): Thank you Deputy Secretary General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. It's always difficult to do just this to a panel which lasts for two hours, to give a short summary. I will do my best. As a second preliminary remark I will say that looking at the program earlier I thought how do you distinguish the subject winning the peace from winning the conflict. It was therefore not surprising that it was a bit of a continuum of the discussion earlier this morning.

So let me try to be brief. There are not too many new elements. But let me... I would be amiss not to thank the three panellists we had who all came practically from far away - two of them from Afghanistan, another one also from far away - for a very expert contribution.

First remark, I would like to say is that if I would like to define winning the peace, it was clear that we focused more this afternoon than this morning on governance capabilities of the Afghan authorities on reconstruction and on development and all what is related to that.

Secondly I would like to say that I would not be fair in reporting on the panel if I would not say that there was quite some concern about the security situation at the moment in Afghanistan. Not to the extent that, as one panellist at one point formulated are we losing the peace, but there is reason for concern. No misunderstanding: the overall progress in Afghanistan made since 2001 is dramatic in the positive sense, but still there's a lot to be desired.

Focusing on the role for the Afghan authorities I would like to make a few quick points. One was that indeed there was seen to be a need for more effort from the side of the Afghan authorities. One was on information activities. It should not only be left to the international community or to NATO more in particular to explain what it is that the international community or NATO in particular is doing there. That also goes for the regions.

The second point which came back more than once, not surprisingly perhaps, was the reputation of some of the Afghan government officials and the word of "corrupt officials" was dropped a couple of times by the panellists.

Another element which was remarkable was the wish expressed at least by two of the panellists perhaps to focus a bit more on the possibility to bring in the moderate Taliban into the political process. That was seen as a missed opportunity a few years ago, but I took it from their intervention that they would still seriously consider such possibilities.

And last but not least, talking about the government of Afghanistan as I picked it up, a more positive attitude toward Pakistan. We all know that there is communication, that there are talks going on now, but that's not the same as doing that with a very positive attitude.

Then on the international community, what was said about the role of the international community, not surprisingly after this morning's debate, an appeal for better co-ordination and if you'll allow me to say so, it's important of course to focus on the what. What is the problem? The what question. If you think about solutions you come to the how. It was not as detailed as, for example, the proposal by the Norwegian State Secretary this morning. There were no very concrete proposals like having a UN Special Envoy. But if the colleague of the World Bank acknowledged that there was a role for the UN in this co-ordinating role there.

A second point I would like to make is that certainly from the colleague of the World Bank, he encouraged some moderation in planting flags, visible flags. If we want to encourage ownership of the Afghan government, bilateral and international donors have to be cautious with planting flags.

Also on the point of construction in Afghanistan it was said let's try to do more by the Afghans themselves. Let's facilitate them, but let's try to do more by themselves because it has also the added value - we see that with schools and I'll come back to schools as an example - that Afghan communities are ready to protect schools once they are built with their full knowledge and with their own input.

And the reconstruction work, as I picked it up, has to become even more output-oriented. Example: school. It's not enough - we heard at least one panellist say - to have schools built in Afghanistan, but we have to be sure that we have the teachers there, and even more importantly (I've become to sound like a management guru) that we become output-oriented and wonder what it is that is being taught at the schools et cetera.

In the region, it will not surprise you, there was once again an appeal to the Pakistani government to become positive, a bit the mirror face... the mirror image of what I said earlier about the Afghani government. To talk alone is not enough. It should result oriented.

And last but not least, perhaps I should make an observation about NATO. We were not as specific as we were this morning about military activities, understandably so, but it was quite clear that the commitment of the international community and also NATO is one indeed for the long haul. That was illustrated by theories of insurgency and counter-insurgency which I will spare you the details of today, but it will be for at least 10 years.

I would like to leave it at that Deputy Secretary General. Thank you very much.

RIZZO: Thank you very much for your report, quite an exhaustive one. I call now on Ambassador Erdmann.

Ambassador Martin Erdman (Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs & Security Policy, NATO): Deputy Secretary General thank you very much. I had again the privilege and the pleasure of chairing another Balkans panel this afternoon. The working title of our meeting was The Prospects for the Euro-Atlantic Integration of the Balkans. And if we have discovered this morning the more cloudy side of the issue, namely Kosovo, we had a look at the bright side this afternoon of the developments in the region.

We had a very lively debate even though 3:00 o'clock or 2:15 is usually the graveyard slot normally for discussions like that, but it turned out to be not the case. The overall trends in the Balkans were considered positive despite big challenges, the countries in the Western Balkans today represent stronger democracies and stronger economies today than let's say five years ago and that was substantiated by impressive figures by one of the panellists.

The main challenges to reform are quite similar across the region and let me address a few of them, namely the need to move away from a "winner takes it all" mentality in politics and over-heated political debates to a more healthy political climate. Second, the need to develop smaller, but more competent bureaucracies. The need to strengthen the rule of law in all its aspects and as examples were mentioned fighting corruption and organized crime. Strengthen the judiciary and the security sector as a whole. The need to deal with the scars left behind by the conflicts that have taken place. Rebuild ties among ethnic communities and prosecute war crimes. In other words, ICTY co-operation was mentioned several times. And the need to rebuild forms of regional co-operation.

And another but very important soft security issue was mentioned as well; namely the need to rebuild trust and confidence among human beings in the region after the many years of war and devastation.

Another point I would like to raise with you to NATO accession is that each of the countries of the western Balkans is in a different stage of its reforms, which reflects different historical circumstances and different degrees to which they have been able to reform their political and economic systems. NATO decisions on further Euro-Atlantic integration should be based on individual assessments therefore. So the performance based approach based on individual assessments.

The process Euro-Atlantic integration was considered crucial for lasting stability in the entire Balkans. This is a subject that we have discussed this morning already. The perspective of eventual EU and NATO membership is considered crucial to complete the painful era marked by the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. The magnetic pull of Brussels is necessary to overcome opposition by vested interests to the much needed reforms. Even for Kosovo, although not a state, a process towards Euro-Atlantic norms and standards is considered a crucial ingredient to any successful recipe to solve the issue.

Furthermore steps towards full integration of the western Balkans into NATO are felt to be a crucial part of NATO's eventual exit strategy in the region. And finally, there were high expectations to the Bucharest Summit expressed by Ministers that we had on the panel. Although decisions on enlargement are not a done deal, as the Secretary General said this morning there are no tickets printed yet, indeed the genuine debate on this within NATO still needs to start. And on the other hand, the applicant countries have some 10 months to go to improve their performance. Many officials from the region expected at the Bucharest Summit will bring historic decisions for the region.

Deputy Secretary General that concludes my report. Thank you.

RIZZO: Thank you very much Ambassador Erdman. Martin, thank you very much.

I call now on Mr. Hardouin.

Dr. Patrick Hardouin (NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General): Thank you Secretary General. The discussion on energy security raised very strong interest and it was a really lively discussion. We raised three questions: How to assess the risk with an international coordinated effort and promote energy infrastructure security?  What should be NATO's role?  And we refer specifically to the Secretary General's proposal as far as security assistance in this time... in times of crisis.  Maritime surveillance and twinning and exercise with partners in critical infrastructure were concerned.  And the third question was what should be the role of the organization.

Regarding the first question "How to assess the risk?" we've been in an international coordinated effort and to promote energy infrastructure security.  It appears that it was... We had a strong developing a dialogue on energy between all kinds of countries, members of the Alliance, partners and contact countries, between producers, transit countries and consumers in the EAPC format or in other format. In the EAPC format it appears to be highly relevant to have dialogue on this issue.

It was stated that among the EAPC format we have 15 transit countries and 9 potential countries.  More, we have 11 producers.  That all countries, 49 are consumers.

We then went still on this item, to the assessment of the situation.  It appears it was very difficult doing the discussion to safe way, to assessment, to precise risk, to critical physical infrastructure, to assessment of the global energy situation.

Indeed, a lot of the members of the panel and in the audience focussed on Russia and its situation with Europe.  It has been stated that Russia has declared gas as a tool for its foreign policy without any challenge of this statement. 

Others, in particular the representative of the International Energy Agency insisted on the global views, the role of India, the role of China... and China, Secretary General, has been very often mentioned during this panel...the role of OPEC and the fact that at the end of the day the reserve for oil in the Middle East and for gas in the Middle East and in Russia. 

The assessment of the situation among... showed a strong divergence of vision I would say among the participants.  For them, it's a very global issue and even connected to climate changes... and this is not so much relevant to NATO Partnership.  For others, it's a geopolitical matter and has to be seen within the glasses of geopolitics.  And for others, energy and energy security is a business issue.  And what is important are the rules of the game.  And it is a way to deal and to solve concerns... to deal problems and to solve concern if there are concern.

Coming, as for the NATO's role, the first debate was on "Should NATO be involved in the broader picture of energy security and in the definition of the work on the rulers' game.  The example was taken.  NATO is doing a lot for defence reform and for the broader environment of defence reform.  So NATO... Should NATO do a lot in this participation format for energy security and the broader picture of competition, transparency, market economy and so on regarding energy security?  For some, it's clear that the answer was a no.  This is not a NATO field of expertise; but others think that there are matter of progress in this area.

Secondly, regarding more concrete role related to the core business of the Alliance, the military activities, I think there is strong agreement between the participant.  That physical protection of infrastructure was definitely a matter of possible role for NATO.  It was related to its core business.  And one participant stated that maybe it was easy to do it, based on his experience at pipeline, checkpoints, maybe it was easy to go ahead and to develop NATO role on that. 

As far as pure military protection is concerned, I think that the panel agreed and the audience that assistance in case of terrorist attack or natural disaster was highly relevant for NATO.  And that maritime protection was also something highly relevant for NATO.  This was a topic suggested by the Secretary General this morning.

It has been suggested that it was time to go... to look in depth to the work program of the EAPC as far as this topic was concerned, that maybe progress could be achieved to work on that.

Regarding the role of international organization, we did on deal with the other international organization.  Kazakhstan, I know the speakers, highlighted the role of the EU for energy security indeed.  In particular, it was mentioned nuclear fuel.  The International Energy Agency was there.  But it has been mentioned by other speakers in the sense of sharing expertise and contacts with NATO, a coordinated approach.  And the Energy Chapter has also been mentioned. 

I think the conclusion of the conclusion was debate appear to be highly relevant in the EAPC and helped at least to dispel misperception and possibly to help to get concrete action.  Thank you very much.

RIZZO:  Merci Monsieur Hardouin.  Now, I call the Minister for the host country to take your place.  Take your part.

MINISTER (Host):  Thank you very much, Mister Secretary...  Deputy Secretary General Rizzo, thank you for your participation.  Once again thank for coming.  We were very glad being able to organize with your assistance this Euro Atlantic Partnership Council.  And there is one thing I can put it in the NATO Headquarters that the success of one international conference depends 75% on the good weather.  We have delivered it.  So...  And also I'm sure that you are satisfied with the hospitality offered.  Please take the hospitality criteria in mind, into consideration, when you will decide about the invitations on the next summit.

I'm very glad that we were able to bring closer and in the focus of the international public attention such important issues like Afghanistan, regional challenges related to Kosovo but also energy and security.  I'm glad that panel discussions were fruitful.  And that all of these conversations and ideas will be taken into consideration in the NATO Allies but also in the partner countries. 

Macedonia is a small country.  But we are very glad that from a security recipient several years now we are being able to be a security provider.  We are very proud on the Macedonian soldiers taking part in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, but also taking part in other missions where NATO and EU allies are involved. 

Therefore, we consider this EuroAtlantic Partnership Council here in Ohrid will be an added value to our closer cooperation.  And what we need in the moment in this aspiration to become a full member of NATO we need your friendly advises.  Please, to do not hesitate to tell us where we could do better and how.  And we will try our best in order to be well prepared for the next summit.

I should however apologize for one thing.  Yesterday, we promised a firework after the informal working dinner.  But because of security reasons, because of the windy weather the firework was postponed.  But now we have enough stocks and I think we have enough reasons to keep these stocks for organizing firework in Bucharest 2008.  Thank you very much. 

  1. Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.