The New NATO and the Greater Middle
East
by R. Nicholas Burns,
U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO
At the Conference on “NATO and the Greater Middle East”
Prague,
Czech Republic, - October 19, 2003
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen
It’s a great pleasure for me to be here and
see so many friends and familiar faces. I want to
thank Michael Zantovsky and Sasha Vondra for having
invited me and for having sponsored this conference.
It is a great pleasure. I have been convinced to
come, really convinced to come, by my very good friend
Craig Stapleton, who I think has been an outstanding
American ambassador to the Czech Republic in every
way. I have great respect for the job that he has
done here. He and I are in a very, very sour mood.
It’s hard to translate baseball to Europeans,
so I won’t really try, except to say that our
team, which is from Boston, has not won the championship
for eighty-five years, and the other night we were
on the verge of beating the Evil Empire, which is
the New York Yankees, and then we lost. We lost gloriously
in the last inning, so I think we deserve credit
just for showing up today, Ambassador.
But let me also say that I very much welcome the
presence of Karel Kovanda, the Czech Republic’s
Ambassador to NATO. Karel is our dean; he is the
longest serving ambassador at NATO, and the dean
has quite substantial powers over all of the rest
of us. I would very much like to thank Karel for
being here today. And finally, Onur Oymen, member
of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, formerly
Turkish ambassador to NATO, one of my best friends
and colleagues, and one of the most effective ambassadors
and spokesmen for Turkey in every job he has had,
and particularly in the NATO job. So it’s great
to be among friends.
I don’t have a prepared speech – a huge
sigh of relief from all of you, since this is the
last event of this conference – but I do have
some things that I want to say briefly, and then
I would like to encourage a discussion and any observations
you want to make; any questions you want to ask me,
I am game, I would like to respond to them.
I am sorry I missed the rest of this conference,
because I understand just from talking here that
it was a very fine conference with very fine speakers,
and I think it’s an aptly named conference, “NATO
and the Greater Middle East”, because it is
towards the Greater Middle East that we in the Bush
administration believe NATO has now to focus its
efforts. And I would put it this way: NATO has been
in existence for fifty-four years. For the great
majority of those fifty-four years, NATO had one
threat – you all know what it was – and
our military and diplomatic strategy was singularly
focused on containing and meeting that threat.
The Prague summit, that was organized so brilliantly
by Sasha, and led so brilliantly by President Havel,
was the fundamental turning point, I think, in NATO’s
fifty-four-year history, because it gave us a new
mission. It gave us an entirely new mission. It gave
us the sense that we have to restructure ourselves
militarily; it gave us seven new members, who are
going to change the Alliance for the better; and
it gave us a strong appreciation that as threats
had changed, we had to change with those threats.
So, everything that we have done in the Bush administration,
led by President Bush and Secretary Powell and Secretary
Rumsfeld since that time, has been to try to implement
the Prague agenda. And I think we will be implementing
the Prague agenda for a decade: that is how substantial
the change was. All of our nineteen NATO leaders
met at the Prague summit – President Havel,
President Bush, President Chirac, Chancellor Schroeder – all
came together conceptually and operationally, and
it’s useful to remember that, on a common transatlantic
agenda. Let me go into that agenda.
The new mission is the most important mission. And
it speaks directly to what you have been talking
about here for the last couple of days. And that
is, that, obviously during the Cold War, we amassed
a huge continental army in Western Europe to defend
Western Europe. NATO’s mandate is still to
defend Europe and North America. But we don’t
believe we can do that by sitting in Western Europe,
or Central Europe, or North America. We have to deploy
our conceptual attention and our military forces
east and south. NATO’s future, we believe,
is east, and is south. It’s in the Greater
Middle East.
NATO’s future is to deter crises and to respond
to crises, whether it’s a combat mission or
a hostage rescue mission or a peacekeeping operation
in that arc of countries where we assume and believe
the great majority of threats to France, and Spain,
and the Czech Republic, and the United States will
come from – in Central and South Asia, in the
Middle East itself, and in North Africa. And the
threat is, as we all know, this juxtaposition of
terrorism – global terrorism – with weapons
of mass destruction. Where President Bush has said,
since September 11, 2001, is the greatest threat
affecting the American people, but we believe also,
all the people of the nineteen, soon to be twenty-six,
countries that embody this alliance.
This is a fundamental change. I don’t think
there’s much of a partisan difference in my
own country, in the United States. If I can just
use Ron Asmus, my good friend, as an example – who
is a Democrat – has just written an article
in Foreign Affairs, which I think everyone should
read. If you take out the first couple of pages,
with which I profoundly disagree, where he criticized
the Bush administration’s policies, and take
out his conclusion, with which I also disagree, criticizing
my administration’s policies, in the middle,
the great core of Ron’s argument is an argument
that NATO needs this changed mission. It has to be
in the Greater Middle East. I think there’s
a lot of resonance in our country that Democrats
and Republicans can come together on.
How have we proceeded since Prague? In the middle
of the Iraq crisis, when France, Germany and the
United States had the most difficult crisis in our
relationships, well, in memory, we agreed – France,
Germany, the United States, the Czech Republic and
all the other NATO allies – that NATO should
go into Afghanistan, and take over the UN mandate
for the peacekeeping force: which we did on August
11. We now have nearly six thousand soldiers there,
and we are now debating an expansion of that force
from Kabul – where it’s been for two
years – out to the provinces where everyone
believes we must be. There’s no chance for
a long-term peace in Afghanistan without an international
peacekeeping force, which encompasses a region larger
than greater Kabul. The German government took the
lead in this debate, which is also significant. It
wanted to lead NATO in this great change, and Germany
is prepared within 30 days to put troops in Konduz
to establish a small provincial reconstruction team,
which we believe should be the model for how we act
in Afghanistan in the future.
So, Afghanistan was the first example: not just
that we were ending the transatlantic crisis, or
beginning to repair it, I should say to be more accurate,
caused by the Iraq war, but that we had a common
conceptual strategy for how we had to act in the
world. Second was in Iraq. Eighteen of the twenty-six
NATO countries, if you include the seven countries
invited to become members next year, have soldiers
on the ground in Iraq. More will come. I think we’ll
be over twenty countries in a couple of months. NATO
also agreed, collectively, to support Poland and
Spain, as they set up their new division at the end
of August. We’ve given them logistical support,
intelligence support, communications support, and
we generated the force for this mission. If you look
at all the divisions in Iraq, they’re all led
by NATO countries: the United Kingdom, the United
States, Poland, Spain, and Turkey has just decided,
very importantly, that it will contribute a division
of troops to Iraq, as well. We’re very pleased,
and we congratulate the Turkish government, and National
Assembly on that decision.
I think that these are true concrete expressions
that NATO has recognized that, in addition to dealing
with the problems of Europe and the remaining problems
of security in Bosnia and in Kosovo and Macedonia,
we have to be out on the front lines where the problems
are. I don’t think this is a momentary tactical
decision on NATO’s part. It’s a long-term
strategic decision, which is being forced on us because
of the change in security, but which we gladly accept
and embrace. All of us are together on this.
The other dimension of this strategy in the Greater
Middle East is the following: NATO has had a program
called “The Mediterranean Dialogue” since
1995, where we engage Israel and six Arab countries,
from North Africa as well as Egypt and Jordan. There’s
a lot of talk that we ought to expand that program;
that we ought to have a greater concentration to
seek political dialogue with the Arab countries,
and with Israel. We certainly want to strengthen
the Mediterranean dialogue, and perhaps to make more
of the military content, in terms of training and
exercises, with those countries. I know there’s
been some discussion of that just at this conference.
We haven’t made any decisions at NATO as to
whether or not we should do this, but it’s
a very live issue. I think we’ll have a lot
of debate on it in the next couple of months, as
well, as we focus on the Istanbul summit, NATO’s
next summit, which will be held in the spring in
Turkey.
Now, if we have a new mission, then we have to have
a new military doctrine, and we have to have a different
set of military capabilities to be successful in
this new mission. We were successful in the Cold
War because France and Germany and the United States
and Britain, and all the other members of the old
Alliance, were willing to pay the political price
to keep several hundred thousand soldiers in Western
Europe. But that was a heavy, tank-based, conventional
force, backed up by the nuclear umbrella of NATO
itself.
If we’re going to be successful in peacekeeping
in Afghanistan, or war fighting in a potential crisis
somewhere in this arc of countries, or in a hostage
rescue mission somewhere in the future, we have to
have an entirely different set of military capabilities.
At the Prague summit we agreed on what they are.
We need strategic lift, because the possible deployments
are thousands of kilometers from Germany and from
France, and from the heart of Europe. By and large,
while the United States has this ability, the great
majority of our European allies do not. At Prague
we decided that we must go out and achieve that capability.
Second, we said that we’ve got to have air-to-air
refueling, in order to allow missions of the type
we’ve seen over Afghanistan and Iraq during
the last two years. One example of this: I talked
to a Norwegian F-16 pilot – female pilot – who
flew air missions from Kyrgyzstan down into Afghanistan
and back during the war in her F-16. She told me
she was refueled five times on that round trip in
combat missions. If we don’t have the air-to-air
refueling capacities that the United States and some
other countries have, we cannot be successful as
an alliance across the board in waging, in vast expeditionary
missions, long-term strategic military missions for
the future. We said that we had to have secure communications,
which we lacked during the Kosovo war, when the Serb
army listened in to ground-to-air communications
in NATO aircraft. We’ve said that we have to
have precision-guided munitions – more of them,
because that made the difference in limiting civilian
casualties during the Iraq and Afghan campaigns.
We’ve said that we have to have more and better
special forces, because of the type of fighting,
and peacekeeping, which we are likely to embrace
in the future.
All this costs money. It means that European countries
especially have to think through transformation,
defense spending, and spending more wisely to be
effective in the future. So, we have a new mission;
we are going to have new military capabilities, led
by countries like France, the UK, and the U.S., which,
I would argue, are the countries that have done the
most to transform their militaries and to achieve
this kind of expeditionary capability.
And we have new members: going back to 1999, ten
new members, led by the Czech Republic, and Hungary
and Poland; and now seven to add to those three.
We in the United States government look upon these
new members, as President Bush said here in Prague,
during the summit, we believe they will refresh the
spirit of the alliance. We think the center of gravity
of our efforts is moving eastward, because of these
ten countries. And when the seven countries come
in at Istanbul, 40% of our members will be formerly
Communist countries. That’s going to change
us. Their history, their shared perception of the
world and how to confront security challenges is
going to change us, and is going to change us for
the better.
We believe very profoundly in my government in Washington
that these countries must also be part of the European
Union, and that we should not ask them to choose
between those two institutions. We should not ask
for loyalty tests between NATO and the EU. They ought
to be part of both. They will strengthen both. Together,
that twin enlargement will make a critical historic
difference in solidifying democracy in all of Europe.
In addition to new members, we have new partners.
If the strategic objective that Chancellor Kohl,
President Mitterand, President George H.W. Bush and
Prime Minister Thatcher articulated back in 1989,
1990 and 1991 is to be achieved – one Europe,
whole, free, at peace, stable and united – then
we have to have Russia, Ukraine, and the states of
the Central Asia region and the Caucasus as part
of that strategic whole. These countries are not
likely to be members of NATO any time soon. But,
you can’t construct a durable peace in Europe
that will last without them. And so, in addition
to the Prague summit, we made another strategic decision
to embrace Russia in our creation of the NATO-Russia
Council; and to embrace Ukraine, which has been,
frankly, a more gradual, and sometimes fitful, process.
Russia has been much more open to a long-term engagement
on a constructive basis with NATO.
In my government, we believe we need to take a step
further, and this year, as we look toward Istanbul – and
Istanbul is an apt place for our summit – we
need to think about not only an extension of NATO
influence with the Mediterranean Dialogue, but in
the Caucasus region, and in Central Asia. These countries
have been very important for the efforts in Afghanistan.
They don’t share all the democratic values
that we share – we in the Atlantic Alliance – but
they share a strategic perspective that they want
to be part of peacekeeping, and they want to be part
of conflict prevention. And so, they’re our
partners, and we ought to work to build that up.
So, if you put all this together – new partners,
new members, new military capabilities, and a new
strategic mission – we have a new NATO. At
least figuratively, we’ve retired the old NATO,
in honored glory, with thanks for the job it did
during the Cold War, but we’re constructing
a new NATO for a very different time, with very different
threats.
I’d just like to conclude my remarks by posing
some challenges for all of us as Europeans and Americans,
as we construct this new NATO. What I just reviewed
were the accomplishments of the Prague summit and
accomplishments since the Prague summit – this
vast transformation that we’ve undertaken.
But, I think there are three great challenges that
remain for us, in order to complete the vision of
the Prague summit leaders. I would take them as follows:
First, we have got to complete the military transformation
of the alliance. We’ve done a lot. Just last
Wednesday, we launched the NATO Response Force that
was created less than a year ago, on November 21,
here in Prague. We launched it in Brunssum, in the
Netherlands. It does not have a full capability,
but if General Jones is asked by the NATO Council
to deploy it tomorrow, he will be able to. That is
a dramatic expansion of NATO’s military capabilities,
one we’ve never had in fifty-four years – the
ability to react very quickly, within a matter of
days, with substantial force in a crisis.
We created a new Transformation Command in Norfolk,
Virginia, to plug the European countries into the
transformation process in the United States military.
We’ve taken a number of steps to strengthen
ourselves with new capabilities.
But what hasn’t happened are two things militarily.
There hasn’t been, I think, a strategic decision
by the European allies to either increase spending
on defense, or, if that is not possible, to spend
differently, and to spend more wisely, so that Europe
can have a greater capacity to act, whether it’s
in NATO or whether it’s through the European
Union – a process which we very much support.
Let me give you two figures. President Bush has
received $376 billion from the U.S. Congress for
our defense budget in 2003. Our eighteen allies combined
this year will spend $140 billion. Now, that huge
capabilities gap in spending has existed in the Alliance
since 1949. It’s not new. But what’s
new is that the premium in military capability is
now with advanced technology. It costs more. So,
the actual gap in capabilities is expanding greater
than the defense-spending gap. That’s a true
crisis in the alliance. It has to be closed. And
here, Marc de Brichambaut is here – I should
have recognized him at the beginning – France
has been a leader. Britain has been a leader. Norway
has been a leader, and Turkey has been a leader,
along with the United States, in making a national
commitment to greater defense spending. It’s
a difficult choice, if you’re a member of parliament,
to make that decision between domestic and foreign
priorities. President Chirac has made it, and we
thank him for that. Prime Minister Blair has made
it. But a great number of other allies have not made
it. In fact, Germany and the Netherlands have their
defense budgets capped until 2007. I think that’s
an issue that, with respect, our European allies
need to look at it.
The second issue is this. It’s what Lord Robertson
is calling a “usability gap.” There are
2.4 million Europeans in uniform that belong to NATO
countries. Fifty-five thousand of them today are
deployed outside of Europe and their own countries,
in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Africa, and other parts of the world, where countries
have responsibilities. Our European allies are telling
us that they are maxed-out: they can’t contribute
any more forces to expeditionary missions. If that’s
the case, then about 3% of Europe’s soldiers
can be deployed overseas. That’s a terrific
problem to contemplate. If we have to assume that
the threat to all of us will require long-term expeditionary
missions in the future, then the Europeans need to
increase the percentage of their soldiers who are
physically fit, equipped, trained and ready to go
to places like West Africa, where the French are,
or Afghanistan and Iraq, where many of us are: a
true problem to contemplate. That’s the first
challenge for NATO.
The second is this: to build stronger ties between
the European Union and NATO. I don’t think
any of us are satisfied with the present state of
relations between the two organizations. Let me say
some positive things about the European Union, because
sometimes the Europeans say that we Americans don’t
say enough that is positive. President Bush and our
administration support the European Union. We support
its development and strengthening. We support a European
security and defense policy. We have supported the
European Union taking over the peacekeeping mission
in Macedonia, and it’s been a great success.
We have great respect for the European people and
their leaders, and that you want to be more active
in a security and defense sense. It makes sense.
If you look back at the arguments we had in the early
nineties concerning Bosnia, Europe ought to have
a greater capacity to act as Europe when NATO is
otherwise not engaged, when NATO h as decided not
to engage.
Europe – the European Union and NATO – with
its twin enlargement, are going to make the crucial
historical difference in the East. We have a common
security threat, and Europe has a security paper
that Mr. Solana floated at the Thessaloniki summit
that is very much in line with what President Bush
and our national leadership have decided is our set
of threats. All of that unites us.
Furthermore, we came together and agreed on seven
specific agreements in March of this year as to how
NATO and the EU would act together. Essentially,
this agreement, which is called “Berlin Plus,” says
that the European Union will be helped by NATO in
developing its own strength and unity as a defensive
and security force. But the deal is, of course, that
the European Union will not seek to duplicate what
we Europeans and Americans have built over five decades:
no new military headquarters to compete with NATO;
no new planning authority to compete with SHAPE,
for instance. Imagine our surprise, then, when a
month later, the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium
and Luxemburg met in Brussels and said that they
want to create a new European Union military headquarters;
they want to create a planning authority; a mutual
defense clause for the European constitution; an
armaments agency, which is not objectionable at all
on the surface, as long as it doesn’t become
a Fortress Europe, vs. a cross-Atlantic defense trade.
This is now the crucial issue in NATO-EU relations
that we’ve got to work through. We have a meeting
on it tomorrow in Brussels. We’ll continue
to discuss it for months on end. I would boil it
down to this, and it’s awfully simplistic – my
apologies to Marc and others for being simplistic
in a short set of remarks. If we can guarantee cooperation
between NATO and the EU, and if that is going to
be the spirit and fact of our relationship, we’ll
be fine. But, if some members of the EU want to turn
this into a competitive relationship, then we’re
going to have a great disagreement, because we Americans
want to preserve NATO. We’re not members of
the European Union, so we don’t want to intrude
on internal decision-making there. But, we want to
preserve NATO as the pre-eminent security institution
in Europe, with first right of refusal as to when
NATO’s engaged. Then, if NATO doesn’t
want to be engaged in a crisis, we will be the strongest
supporter of the European Union, and we’ll
give the European Union all the NATO resources – SHAPE
and NATO resources – needed to do the job.
This is a terribly important discussion that we’re
having. I think we can have it without emotion, and
we should have it without emotion. I think we can
resolve it. Because, I think the great majority of
countries in NATO want to preserve a strong and vital
NATO.
My last point on this would be to say that there’s
a corresponding argument made by some Europeans that
Europe ought to be become a counterweight to the
United States at some point in the future. We Americans
absolutely reject this. We want to maintain an alliance
and partnership in one transatlantic relationship,
with the American military physically present on
this continent, and with the United States fully
engaged, along the lines of the policy that President
Bush articulated when he was here in Prague eleven
months ago. We do not see ourselves as rivals with
Europe. We see ourselves as partners and allies.
If you look at the new threats, we share those threats.
We are threatened by them together. So, we have to
meet them together, not as rivals, but as one alliance
across the Atlantic Ocean.
The third challenge is to rebuild the Transatlantic
relationship after the Iraq crisis. We can do it.
I think it’s already underway: we had a 15-0
vote in the UN Security Council the other day. If
you look at these threats, if you look at the global
challenges that we face with environmental degradation,
international crime and drugs, and trafficking in
women and children, these are threats we can confront
together and we should confront together. I hope
that as we do, we’ll recognize that NATO is
vital, and that a strong partnership based in NATO
remains vital for Americans, as well as Europeans.
I hope that’s a contract that we can agree
on as we move ahead in the future.
Thank you very much for listening to me, and I’m
very happy to take any questions you might have.
|