Disarmament Documentation
Back to Disarmament Documentation
'[T]he dangerous illusion that the US can, and should, go it
alone when it comes to security', NATO Secretary General Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer, January 29
Address of NATO Secretary General, Jaap de
Hoop Scheffer, National Defense University, January 29
Washington, DC
2004 European Symposium
On NATO and the Challenges of Global Security
29 January 2004
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be here. This is, as you know, my
first visit to the United States as Secretary General of NATO, and
I'm grateful to the NDU for hosting my first speech.
I do not intend to mince words. In the next few minutes, I want
to lay out for you my vision of NATO over the next coming months,
and the coming years. I will set out my priorities as Secretary
General. I will identify what I believe to be the steps we must
take to meet them. And then - in a very reasonable amount of time,
I promise -- I will take your questions.
I accepted my new post because I have great confidence in NATO.
The Atlantic Alliance today is, as it has always been, a unique and
invaluable organisation. It is the place where North America and
Europe come together to discuss the most serious political issues
on our agenda. It is where the countries that share most profoundly
our common values agree on common action. And it is the platform
for the most effective militaries in the world to defend our
security, our values and our interestes, wherever required,
together.
To my mind, the 21st century NATO is an irreplaceable asset for
the transatlantic community. I was certainly grateful to have been
given the opportunity to lead this organisation.
Let me be clear, however. I have come into the job with my eyes
open. I know that NATO has had a bruising year. The Iraq war
sparked very strong debate amongst even the closest friends and
allies, including in the UN and the European Union. And NATO didn't
escape the fallout.
My message is simple: it's time to get back to business. There
are simply too many threats on the horizon, too many challenges for
us to tackle. For us to succeed, there is no alternative to open
security dialogue, and profound security cooperation between the
NATO Allies. And there is no time to waste.
Our first, and immediate priority is to get Afghanistan right.
We cannot afford to fail. My predecessor, Lord Robertson, said that
if we don't go to Afghanistan, Afghanistan will come to us. He was
right. No country knows that more clearly than this one.
NATO's Afghanistan mission may be halfway around the world, but
its success matters to our security right here. If the political
process fails, that country will become, once again, a haven for
the terrorists who threaten us, for the drugs that end up on our
streets.
There is another problem as well. If we fail in Afghanistan - if
we do not meet our commitments to the people of that country to
help them build a better future - then who will have confidence in
us again? Our credibility - as NATO, as the Euro-Atlantic community
- is on the line. And credibility is one of our strongest assets.
To preserve it, we have no choice but to succeed.
Just think of the implications of success, even if we still have
a long way to go. Peace and security for people who have suffered
terribly for decades. A major terrorist haven shut down for good. A
more stable region. And an illustration of the power, and the
potential, of transatlantic cooperation to achieve massive change
for the better.
For all these reasons, Afghanistan is my priority number one.
But going to Afghanistan isn't enough. A simple presence in the
capital, while important, isn't enough. We must do more.
We have to spread security beyond the capital, to the provinces.
We have to buttress the credibility and the authority of the Karzai
Government.
We have to protect and nurture the very fragile political
process, to build on the success of the recent Loya Jirga and lay
the foundation for free and fair elections to be held in the
summer. And as part of that, the international community has to
beat back any attempts by recidivist members of the Taliban to
choke the peace and the progress in Afghanistan that is only now
beginning to take root.
NATO is taking action. The Alliance has decided to take command
of Provincial Reconstruction Teams throughout the country. We have
already take over leadership of one, in Kundoz. We must now move
forward on others.
At NATO headquarters, we are in the process of defining an
overall operational plan. I will be pushing hard for that plan to
be approved for March, in time for the June elections.
And I will make sure NATO's member states are well aware of the
military assets needed to carry out their commitments.
Throughout its long history, NATO has never made empty promises.
We have always backed up our words with deeds. My first priority is
to ensure that that long and honourable tradition continues in
Afghanistan.
My second priority is to ensure that NATO is prepared, if called
upon, to play a greater role in Iraq.
Today, the Alliance is supporting the Polish troops leading a
multinational division in Iraq's central province. NATO is
providing planning, intelligence and logistical assistance. And if
Allies were to decide together that they wish for NATO to do more,
it will.
For that to be the case, NATO must be a forum where Iraq is
discussed, and where our common approaches are shaped. Because I
can guarantee that there will be pressure for the Alliance to do
more in Iraq.
Why? Because NATO has demonstrated over and over again that it
remains the world's most effective organisation at generating,
leading and supporting large, multinational and long-term peace
support operations - in the Balkans since the mid-90s, and today in
Afghanistan.
NATO is also a forum where enhanced outreach to the Greater
Middle East, especially in the security area, will be discussed. It
is too early to say what form this outreach will take, but we have
successful models in the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Partnership
for Peace.
NATO's success depends on open consultation and on trusting
cooperation. But it also relies, as an essential foundation, on
modern, effective military capabilities. And there is urgent work
that must be done, starting right now, if we are to have the forces
we need, when we need them, to go where we need them.
As a transatlantic community, and as an Alliance, we face a real
and urgent shortfall in useable military forces. The US military
faces a daunting array of challenges and its commitments in Iraq
and Afghanistan will not be over tomorrow. European and Canadian
forces are heavily deployed as well. Germany has some ten thousand
troops deployed outside of its borders, including in Afghanistan.
France has thirty thousand troops deployed, including some in all
NATO missions. And in taking command of ISAF in Afghanistan, Canada
has over ten percent of its total army across the oceans.
All of these commitments should, first and foremost,
demonstrates that America's Allies are determined to pull their
weight when it comes to security. But these operations also
illustrate a broader trend - that we are close to the point where,
as an Alliance, we are going to be unable to meet new commitments.
And this would have very negative repercussions indeed.
Look at Afghanistan. I will be honest - we are not flooded with
offers of troop contributions to expand into the provinces. Not
because NATO members don't want to. But because they are having
real trouble coming up with deployable forces to take on this new
task.
This is already a real problem today. But what about tomorrow? I
can guarantee you that Afghanistan will not be the last crisis we
face. We need to make the necessary improvements now, to be able to
handle the crises and challenges that certainly wait around the
corner. Improving the capability and usability of our forces is
critical and I will be as persistent as my predecessor on this
issue.
We are already making progress. The NATO Response Force, which
Secretary Rumsfeld proposed only two years ago, is already up and
running with an initial capability. It will be fully operational no
later than 2006. The NRF will not only give us a fast-moving and
hard-hitting force. It will also ensure that all the Allies can
engage together at the sharp end of military operations, so there
is no division of labour between those who do the dirty work and
those who do the dishes.
Together, the NRF and our new Allied Command Transformation will
play another vital role as well -- as a transmission belt for the
latest technology, the latest doctrine, the latest thinking on
defence. We cannot let technology divide us. We cannot afford a
world where the US is forced to act alone simply for technical
reasons. That would make US unilateralism in military affairs
inevitable - and I guarantee you that that is not healthy for this
country, for NATO, or for international relations. My third
priority, as Secretary General, is to ensure that transformation
happens.
My fourth priority builds directly from this. I intend to work
hard to put transatlantic security cooperation back on a more
pragmatic, realistic and trusting footing.
Over the past few months and years, some pernicious myths have
started to become a little too popular. Myths that are undermining
the foundation of our cooperation - trust. And I fully intend to
make my voice heard in dispelling them.
The first myth is of a Europe that might rival the US. Let us be
clear: such a Europe is politically impossible, militarily
unrealistic and financially unaffordable. Europe wants to stand
together as a partner to America.
Europe, as Europe, can only be a partner to the US. There cannot
be, and there will never be, a rivalry between Europe and the
United States in the security arena. In this context I want to
underline NATO's commitment to build a strategic partnership with
the European Union. We have successfully worked together in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1), and NATO is prepared to
support a possible new EU mission in Bosnia.
The second myth is the flip side of the first: the dangerous
illusion that the US can, and should, go it alone when it comes to
security. Iraq should demonstrate the impossibility of that
approach.
Pushing the US down a unilateralist road serves no one's
interest, least of all America's. President Bush said, just a few
days ago in the State of Union address, that the US must never
forget the vital contribution of its international partners, or
dismiss their sacrifices. I couldn't agree more. And I will
continue to make that case, loudly and clearly.
With its NATO Allies, the US is part of the world's most
effective permanent coalition. A group of countries that share
values; who share a determination to defend them; and who share the
capability to defend them, wherever and whenever required. In an
increasingly volatile world, that mutual commitment and robust
capability is something precious. It must never be taken for
granted. It must be preserved. It must be strengthened. It is at
the very heart of the "effective multilateralism" that President
Bush has talked about.
That means having open debates, in the Alliance, on all the key
security issues on the agenda today, so we can shape true
cooperative approaches to the threats and challenges we all face.
It means enhancing and modernising NATO's military capabilities, so
the US doesn't have to act alone. And it means using NATO, not as a
tool-box, but as the most effective and most reliable tool of
transatlantic security cooperation.
We have a broad and important agenda to complete together:
bringing peace to troubled areas; welcoming new democracies into
the NATO family; engaging with Russia, and with Ukraine; building
our partnerships with countries across Europe, through the
Caucasus, and into Central Asia; strengthening our bridges to
countries of North Africa and the Middle East; and building a true
and trusting Strategic Partnership with the European Union. We have
no more time to brood over past disagreements. As I said when I
began, it's time to get back to business.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today's NATO has taken on new missions, in part of the world
that had never before appeared on the Alliance horizon. It is
tackling the threats we face today - terrorism, weapons of mass
destruction, failed states. It is building security through
dialogue and cooperation. And it is sparking and guiding the
transformation of the military capabilities that we, the
transatlantic community, need to preserve our common security,
today and into the future.
But amidst all of this transformation, some things do not
change. America still needs reliable friends - and it has them in
its NATO Allies. NATO remains the world's most effective security
coalition. And NATO still delivers security when it is needed, and
where it is needed, even in a radically new security
environment.
That is the NATO which I took over a few weeks ago. It is a NATO
in which I am very confident. And I intend to do my utmost, leading
up the Istanbul Summit this summer and beyond, to ensure that our
great Alliance continues to deliver on its enormous potential.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
'What we're interested in are,
perhaps, forward operating locations', Powell on US realignment of
forces, January 29
'Powell, de Hoop Scheffer Discuss Expanded NATO Role',
January 29, 2004.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
January 29, 2004
REMARKS
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN L. POWELL AND NATO SECRETARY GENERAL
JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER AFTER THEIR MEETING
January 29, 2004
C Street Entrance
Washington, D.C.
(3:33 p.m. EST)
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, good afternoon. It is my great pleasure
to welcome the new Secretary General of NATO to the State
Department for the first time. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is new as
Secretary General, but not really new to the State Department,
because I have gotten to know him very well during the time he
served as the distinguished Foreign Minister of the Netherlands,
and we got a lot of work done.
And so, Jaap, I congratulate you on assumption of office of the
greatest alliance the world has ever known, NATO, an alliance that
is continuing to grow, as we will see later this year with the
accession of more members of the alliance, an alliance that has
found a new mission, a new vision.
And in our conversation today, we talked about what the alliance
is doing in Afghanistan, which is a major priority for the
alliance, and which we all are working hard to make sure we get it
right and serve the needs of the Afghan people. But NATO is doing
many other things: looking at Mediterranean dialogue with nations
along the Mediterranean, following our efforts in Afghanistan
closely to see if perhaps there might be -- excuse me -- in Iraq,
to see if there might be an area of cooperation there later in the
year.
And so the Secretary General is most welcome here. He'll be
seeing the President tomorrow. And, Jaap, it's a pleasure to
receive you this afternoon. I would invite you to say a word or
two.
SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you, Colin. It was a
pleasure to be here again now in my new capacity, indeed, as
Secretary General of an alliance which is second to none, which is
the unique political and also security organization in the world,
at the moment, expanding and enlarging its responsibility in
Afghanistan.
So we discussed the ambition NATO has to have the responsibility
for more so-called provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan,
which I have labeled priority number one for the alliance. We'll
soon see the operational plans being prepared by the military now.
So that's what we discussed.
We touched upon the takeover by the European Union of SFOR, the
stabilization force, on the Balkans; discussed, of course,
extensively the summit, the most important event for NATO this year
at the end of June; NATO-Russia relationships.
So we have had -- and I have a full plate -- and I'm looking
very much forward to, after Secretary Powell, Colin Powell, to see
many other people, leading people in the U.S. Administration, and
then go back to Brussels and continue my work in NATO.
So thank you very much.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the Cold War is over. Is it time to
reduce American bases in Germany? And should the troops be brought
home or sent to other bases in Germany?
SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Cold --
QUESTION: I welcome, of course, opinions of both of you, but I
was asking the Secretary now.
SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you.
QUESTION: No problem.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: I don't want to lose his though.
QUESTION: You can answer yourself, Barry.
(Laughter.)
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, you know, I was Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff when the Cold War came to an end and under the
leadership of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, we withdrew
almost 200,000 troops from Europe, many of whom came out of
Germany, of course, and England and many other places. And now
another eight or nine years, ten years have gone by and it's
appropriate to take another look at our force structure and that's
what Secretary Rumsfeld is doing.
It's important to take note of the fact that most of the
reductions that will take place, the realignments that will take
place will be bringing troops back to the United States so our
overall troop level in Europe will go down. And how the rest of
those troops are distributed and what -- where they might be
located is what Secretary Rumsfeld is doing and doing it in full
consultation with our NATO colleagues, with our European Union
colleagues, with the Russian Federation.
And it is a sensible analysis of the situation and we are not
looking to move bases, per se, of the kind we used to have during
the Cold War, closer to Russia just to put a base closer to Russia.
What we're interested in are, perhaps, forward operating locations
that we could train at temporarily or we can have access agreements
at particular airfields that make it easier for us to deploy to
particular areas of potential crisis. That's what this is
about.
But it's important to remember that this will result in a net
reduction in the number of troops in Europe and the number of bases
that we have in Europe.
I don't know if you'd like to add anything, Jaap.
SECRETARY GENERAL DE HOOP SCHEFFER: No, I think -- I think -- I
fully agree. Of course, we have to realize in NATO that the drive
for more capabilities and deployability and usability of forces is
of enormous importance. And as I've understand and support the U.S.
plans that exactly, that is exactly the ambition the United States
has and it's the ambition all of NATO should have because we need
more readily deployable, quickly deployable, usable forces.
And we'll certainly discuss this as well next Friday in Munich
where there is an informal meeting of NATO Defense Ministers, my
first opportunity to get to know the Defense Ministers, and we'll
certainly discuss this issue there as well.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, a question on NATO.
SECRETARY POWELL: (inaudible)
QUESTION: How urgent is an active role of NATO in Iraq, sir?
SECRETARY POWELL: As the Secretary General said, first priority,
I think, for NATO in this out of area work is Afghanistan. NATO is
there now. They are looking at other things that they can do and
that should be first priority. But as the Secretary General,
Foreign Minister and I discussed a few moments ago, NATO has many
responsibilities and I'm pleased that we're also examining what
might be done in Iraq. But we've come to no conclusions yet as to
what NATO might or might not do in Iraq. It's still a subject of
study and consultation. Afghanistan right now is number one.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, question on --
SECRETARY POWELL: I owe you one from earlier.
QUESTION: Could I ask about al-Qaida in Iraq? Recently, there
was an al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul who was picked up in Iraq.
What does this tell you about the state of al-Qaida infrastructure
and fingerprints in Iraq?
SECRETARY POWELL: It's one individual. I don't know that it is
definitive, in and of itself, but we have always said that we had a
concern about al-Qaida presence in Iraq. As you've heard me say
before, we don't want to overplay this information, we don't want
to overstate what we know, but I think his apprehension
substantiates the kind of statements that we've made, the kinds of
statements that I made in my 5 February presentation that there was
this potential connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. What
was he doing in Iraq now? Did he still have remaining contacts in
Iraq? These are the kind of things we'll be looking into. The
question remains open. So I don't want to overplay or overstate
what we know.
I'm afraid we have to go now because the Minister has to be
somewhere.
(The Secretary escorts Secretary General Scheffer to his
car.)
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about your commitment to
AIDS you laid out in a New York Times article on foreign affairs
that this year you're going to have a renewed commitment to AIDS?
Can you talk a little bit about that?
And also, sir, there are some AIDS advocacy groups are accusing
the Administration of robbing Peter to pay Paul, donating less to
the Global Fund and less -- and more to your own fund. Can you talk
a little bit about that, sir?
SECRETARY POWELL: Let me just say that sometime in the near
future, maybe next week, we will let you know what we are doing
with the new HIV/AIDS program that the Congress has now approved,
and you'll see that it will be a significant commitment of funds,
new funds for new programs, as well as a continuation of our
efforts with our bilateral programs and our support of the Global
Health Fund.
And so the President has a strong commitment to HIV/AIDS, and
when you see how the money is going to be flowing out rather
quickly in the near future, the commitment the President has made
will be quite evident, and I think the American people will be
proud of what we are doing.
I've got to go.
Source: US State Department, Washington File, http://usinfo.state.gov.
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2003 The Acronym Institute.
|
