THE BUCHAREST CONFERENCE -Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Keynote Speech
(Check against delivery)
KENNEDY: … that is going to be introduced by our good friend, the
secretary general of NATO. I’m especially pleased that he’s also joined
today by his wife, Janine (ph). Where are you sitting?
SCHEFFER: Yes, yes.
KENNEDY: There we go. And we really appreciate it. The secretary
general has participated in just about every big conference GMF has done
going back to the Istanbul summit. Well, he has participated in every
one. His remarks are always interesting and always important.
Two weeks ago at our Brussels forum he gave a very compelling and
provocative speech on the future of NATO and the issues facing NATO.
And if you’re interested, we have copies available for you to take a
look at it.
He has been a very strong supporter of this kind of parallel
intellectual conference at each of the summits. Rather than seeing it
as competing, he sees this as something that complements and adds to the
work of the summit. And we are very, very pleased for the help that
he’s given us in making this possible.
It’s a great pleasure to turn the podium over to the secretary
general of NATO.
Please, Mr. Secretary?
SCHEFFER: Thank you very much, Craig, for the introduction. Mr.
President Karzai, Mr. Prime Minister Harper, ministers from Afghanistan
and from elsewhere, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, this is
the second time in just a matter of weeks that I’m delivering a speech,
as Craig was saying, at a major conference organized by the German
Marshall Fund. But there are certain experiences in life, not all of
them, that one is happy to repeat.
Indeed, a GMF conference at a NATO summit is now a tradition that
no secretary general of NATO would ever want or dare to miss. So I
welcome the opportunity to be here this afternoon to help to frame your
debates and give you my assessment of what Bucharest is all about, or
some would perhaps say what it should be all about.
First, once again, Craig, Ronald (ph), (inaudible), thank you for
all the hard work you have put into organizing the conference and for
once again attracting, I can say as usual, such an impressive group of
summit participants and well-known policy experts. In strictly
bureaucratic terms, the rationale of a NATO summit is clear. It
provides highest level political guidance for the further development of
our alliance, and it also creates public visibility for our many activities.
But how do we measure whether the summit was a success? By the
size of our meetings, by the amount of paper we produce, by the number
of photo ops? Certainly, not. The Bucharest summit will have been
successful if it provides us with concrete answers to the key security
challenges of today and tomorrow.
So let me give you my reasons why the Bucharest score card will be
a positive one. First and foremost, Mr. President, Afghanistan, which
is NATO’s key operational priority – Bucharest will not only allow us to
reaffirm our long-term commitments to this essential mission, but even
more importantly, allow us to resource ISAF better and pool all our
efforts together more effectively. We must demonstrate to our often
critical publics that helping Afghanistan is not only for the benefit of
Afghans, but also for their security benefit. And that is a mission
that is successful with the right strategy and the right level of effort
by all of us.
Tomorrow for the first time ever, the leaders of 40 nations, four, zero,
in the NATO-led force in Afghanistan will meet with you, President
Karzai, with the secretary general of the United Nations, and top
officials from the European Union, President Barroso, the European
Commission, Javier Solana, the high representative secretary general,
and representatives of other major international organizations. And
this meeting will not just emphasize the need for a comprehensive
approach by the entire international community. It will also have to
show that this comprehensive approach is finally moving from theory to
practice.
But this meeting will do even more. It will set out the path to a
new phase in our Afghanistan engagement. What used to be a
predominantly military effort will begin to shift towards a more
balanced approach with a stronger emphasis on civilian efforts and on
Afghan ownership. The task of providing security, which up to now had
to be performed largely by international forces, will shift more and
more to the Afghans themselves.
The Afghan National Army, in particular, Minister Vordach (ph),
General Vordach (ph), has demonstrated convincingly that it can take on
greater responsibilities. And this should allow ISAF to gradually move
into a supporting and mentoring role.
To avoid misunderstandings, I’m not suggesting here today that this
shift will happen overnight. Of course not. For the foreseeable
future, ISAF will remain indispensable. Nor does it change the need for
L.S. to do more.
For example, we can and will do better to lift the remaining
national caveats and fill the shortfalls so that ISAF can operate at
maximum effectiveness. But the new approach will put increasing
emphasis on where it belongs, on the civilian efforts on the one hand
and on a growing Afghan responsibility on the other.
To lay out the way ahead we have been working with those other
countries that contribute to our ISAF mission on what we call a vision
statement that sets out the progress that we have already made but also
defines the challenges that NATO, the international community, and the
Afghans themselves will need to overcome and how we intend to meet those
challenges together. We’re also finalizing a comprehensive political
military plan that we also have developed with our partners in ISAF and
with our Afghan friends, of course.
A bill provides clear and realistic benchmarks to help us focus on
the priorities such as training and equipping the Afghan National Army
as well as to measure our progress. And we will reiterate our resolve
to continue our security assistance to the government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. I look forward to discussing Afghanistan in
more depth with President Karzai and Prime Minister Harper during our
panel in just a few moments.
(inaudible) the international meeting on Afghanistan tomorrow
afternoon is arguably the major innovation of this summit. It reflects
the centrality of Afghanistan on NATO’s current agenda. But Bucharest
will be more, more than a summit on Afghanistan. NATO has to deal with
a number of other critical challenges which may not play in so much
daily media attention, but which will nonetheless be important in
determining the shape of security in the 21st century.
One key security challenge is Euro/Atlantic integration. As much
as we need to focus on Kosovo during this critical phase, it is equally
important that we maintain the momentum of the entire Balkans region
towards Euro-Atlantic integration. And that is why I expect that
tomorrow allies will open NATO’s door to new members from the Western
Balkans. I am hopeful that this will be a significant enlargement,
significant enough to give the Balkans region the boost of stability and
confidence that it needs.
I also expect this summit to reach out to new partners such as
Montenegro and Bosnia Herzegovina who have made it clear that they, too,
do not want to be left behind. And, yes, NATO will also do its part to
engage Serbia and make it not only a partner in theory, but in practice
as well. Our message to Serbia will be that it, too, has its place in
the process of Euro/Atlantic integration if it resolves to turn its back
on a sullen nationalism which has brought it no benefits and is willing
to take fully up the offer of cooperation that we all put on the table
in Bucharest.
So tomorrow’s decisions will clearly advance Euro/Atlantic
integration, and Europe will be a safer place as a result. But let me
be clear. NATO’s enlargement docea (ph) will not be closed after
Bucharest. Ukraine and Georgia have both expressed their aspiration to
be part of the Euro/Atlantic family and part of NATO.
Whatever decision we take tomorrow on their request to be granted the
membership action plan – and that will certainly be one of the topics
for the dinner tonight and for the North Atlantic Council tomorrow –
whatever decision we’ll take, our message will be positive and
unambiguous. Yes, both countries have their place in Euro/Atlantic
integration. Our door is open. And provided they meet our standards,
one day they’ll pass through it if they so wish.
Another question that the summit needs to answer is whether after a
difficult period NATO and Russia are toning down the level of rhetoric
in our relationship and engaging each other in a more businesslike and
constructive way. The NATO Russia council meeting on Friday will
provide us with the answer. Obviously much will depend on President
Putin’s stance at the summit.
I don’t expect him to stay silent on those issues on which we
disagree. And he should not, such as Kosovo, CFE or missile defense.
And if President Putin comes to Bucharest with an open mind, it should
be possible for us to advance the broader NATO, Russia relationship.
The stage for such progress is set. With respect to Afghanistan,
Russia and NATO are discussing how Russia can support ISAF through
transit and transport arrangements which would facilitate NATO’s lines
of communication. Moreover, we already conduct joint training of Afghan
and Central Asian counter narcotics officers. Other positive elements
of our cooperation are Russia’s support to Operation Active Endeavor,
our naval operation in the Mediterranean, our cooperation to fight
against terrorism on theater missile defense, and search and rescue at sea.
What has been missing is a political push to give this cooperation
a much-needed strategic quality again. I would hope at the very least
that Bucharest can demonstrate two things in this regard, that NATO and
Russia are able to discuss difficult issues in an open, constructive
manner, there is concern to identify real solutions than simply score
points, and that notwithstanding those difficult issues, we are able to
move our practical cooperation forward in areas such as Afghanistan
where we really have identified common interests.
Mr. President, Prime Minister, ministers, another question to be
answered by the summit is whether the alliance is really shaping up as
an institution that can handle the 21st century security challenges.
Concretely, how can NATO contribute to our defense against cyber
attacks, proliferation, and the protection of our critical energy
infrastructure? Again, I am confident that Bucharest will mark a
much-needed step forward. The summit will provide at least some initial
answers to these emerging security threats.
Let me be clear. We are not focusing on these issues out of a
false belief that NATO could or should handle everything. In a sense,
these issues have chosen us.
The cyber attack on Estonia last year was real. The proliferation
of ballistic missiles is real. And where we can identify a common
security interest and NATO’s ability to add value to other international
efforts it will be to my mind not acceptable for NATO not to develop
joint approaches. Because NATO cannot provide everything does not mean
that it has nothing to contribute.
So I hope that this discussion will be based on pragmatism and
practicality rather than on preconceived notions about what NATO’s role
should be. Fortunately we have made progress since the Riga summit in
putting the flesh on the bones. I think we have a good package ready
for agreement here in Bucharest, and we can build on it.
All in all, I believe that the stage is now set for a truly
successful summit. But even a summit as far-reaching as Bucharest
cannot tackle all the issues. And there are finally two in particular
that are close to my heart and where we may well need the impetus of the
next summit to come up with satisfactory answers.
The first issue, and you know my mantra, is about the relationship
between the European integration process and the Atlantic Alliance. In
essence, the question is this. What must an effective NATO, E.U.
relationship look like? Admittedly, it is not a new question.
I’m raising it here because we still haven’t answered it. In the
Balkans and Afghanistan NATO and the European Union have a clear stake
in each other’s success. And yet our institutional relationship remains
nervous and hesitant.
I am not suggesting that we could fundamentally change this
relationship overnight. And certainly, my purpose here today is not to
name and shame anybody who participates in this debate in good faith but
also has national positions to defend. That is not helpful.
What I do suggest is that both institutions will suffer if we
cannot bring them closer together. I would like to see the North
Atlantic Council and the Political Security Committee of the European
Union meet far more often to share analyses and perspectives on the
world’s crisis areas. I would also like to see NATO and the European
Union support each other’s operations much more substantially.
I would like to see much more pooling of our capabilities,
especially in areas such as transport and helicopters or in research and
development or in harmonizing our force structures and training methods.
That is why we must use every opportunity to make the two institutions
more at ease with each other.
President Sarkozy of France has made it clear on many occasions and
most recently in London a few days ago that he sees the NATO, E.U.
relationship as a complementary one in which both institutions have an
interest to work together, and therefore, a pragmatic interest and
removing obstacles to greater cooperation. This should be our central
focus as the European Union develops its ESVP and NATO also has to look
ahead at its 60th anniversary summit next year in 2009 and beyond.
The second big picture issue we need to look at is the debate about
global partnerships. This debate is necessary because it is an illusion
to believe that in the age of global challenges NATO could succeed
entirely on its own. Just as we need the support of other institutions,
we need the support of like-minded countries.
However, this debate has been over-burdened with unrealistic
expectations and with unwarranted anxieties. Some have championed
global partnerships as a means to build a global NATO and have suggested
adding Israel, Australia, and Japan as full members. I’ve even seen
other countries which have not been on NATO’s radar screen in the past,
such as Columbia or India, brought into this discussion.
Indeed, some think tankers would like to bring into NATO pretty
much every country with democratic credentials. Take your pick.
But does NATO’s future really lie in becoming an organization that
spans half the globe? Is this the finite politique (ph) of NATO, to
become the institutional core of a worldwide community of democracies?
Frankly, I find that hard to imagine.
The transatlantic relationship remains unique. It simply cannot be
projected wholesale to other regions. Equally importantly, none of the
countries that are sometimes mentioned as future members have even asked
for membership. What these countries seek, what they do seek is a
different relationship with NATO and that is strong and trustful enough
to allow them to participate fully in common operations but on the other
hand, pragmatic and low-key enough not to raise eyebrows at home or in
their respective regions.
It is this kind of partnership, in my opinion, that we need to work
towards. We must build security relationships that are more structured
and less ad hoc. Make no mistake, global partnerships are going to be a
permanent feature of the new security environment. And that is exactly
the reason why NATO must nourish them, not through grandiose rhetoric,
but pragmatically as befits a pragmatic alliance.
Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, for me, and I hope for all
of you, the task for NATO’s leaders here in Bucharest and over the next
two days is clear. I very much want this summit in Bucharest to give
answers to the most pressing issues on our transatlantic security
agenda. I very much wanted to show the allies firmly united, not just
in rhetoric, but in action.
That said, I also want this summit to look ahead. Just two weeks
ago at the GMF Brussels forum – Craig mentioned it – I called for an
Atlantic declaration to be drawn up as the centerpiece of our 60th
anniversary summit next year. I believe that our nations now prefer to
call what I called in Brussels Atlantic charter, an Atlantic
declaration, that the name is less important than the substance, that
such a document must contain in providing the beginning of the
conceptual clarity that we need on the challenges that are confronting
NATO today and tomorrow.
I’m pleased to see that this idea has now gained support. But
there is no time to lose. The end of one summit is but the beginning of
the next. We’ll have to get down to some serious work. And this will
not only mean those of us working inside NATO headquarters, but also you
very much, the strategic community.
We need your constructive criticisms, and we need your imaginative
proposals. The alliance, ladies and gentlemen, is worth the effort and
will be even stronger for it.
Thank you so much for your attention.