| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | NATO | US |
| Space/BMD | CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to Disarmament Documentation
For a full list of speeches go to www.securityconference.de.
There are two distinct debates about European security
today.
The first is about security in its conventional sense. It is about
concern for territorial integrity and protection of state
sovereignty. In parts of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the
Caucasus, countries remain suspicious of their neighbours; or
nationalist tensions threaten internal cohesion. Such fears are
real, and they reate a potent sense of insecurity. In Bosnia and
Kosovo people are still struggling to escape ethnic divides and
heal the scars of bloody conflict. The conflict in Georgia last
summer showed how vulnerable individual states are when there is a
breakdown in respect for basic principles like peaceful resolution
of conflicts.
The second debate is about new threats to our security; above all
terrorism, but also the impact of the global economic downturn,
climate change and energy security. Thanks to the post war recipe
of collective defence and economic integration, much of Europe no
longer has any reason to fear conventional conflict. Yet the
paradox is that while our nations are more peaceful and prosperous
than ever, our citizens still do not feel secure. Why? Because they
know how the breakdown in law and order in Pakistan or Afghanistan
can threaten their security - in London, Hamburg or Istanbul. They
understand that without rapid action to secure a stable, global
climate, untold damage could be done to our planet - and our way of
life. They know that the threats we face are global - and that it
is increasingly difficult for the individual nation state alone to
provide the protection and security they seek.
Europe's security architecture therefore needs to address both new
global fears and our traditional concerns. And it needs to build on
the systems and institutions that proved themselves over the last
few decades - NATO, the EU, the OSCE, the UN and the Council of
Europe - while reaching out to forge new relationships to underpin
our stability and prosperity.
NATO provides a commitment to collective defence. The Article 5
Guarantee and the integrated military structures reassure each and
every one of our Allies that their borders are inviolable. Backed
by the political and military might of 26 democracies, including
Canada and crucially the US, it is a commitment that builds
confidence at home and allows us to focus on addressing new threats
abroad. This is a significant change. The post-cold war reality
demands a more expeditionary and more comprehensive approach;
because we have learned from bitter experience how instability
abroad can lead to insecurity at home. So NATO was right to act to
reverse Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. At stake was
not just the lives of thousands of innocent civilians, but the
stability of central Europe. And NATO troops are now engaged in
Afghanistan to deny Al Qaeda a base from which to launch attacks of
the kind we saw on 9/11. This is a real test for NATO. We'll be
talking about this in tomorrow's session when my colleague John
Hutton will be speaking. Suffice to say here that it demands not
just new capabilities and technologies, but troops trained for
irregular or asymmetrical warfare. The sacrifice is enormous. But
we should be in no doubt that if we leave before the Afghan
authorities - especially the Afghan National Army that Coalition
and NATO forces are training - are able to defend themselves, the
Taleban will be back, and the country will once again become a
haven for those who seek to do us harm. It is also of course a test
for the EU. The EU began as a bargain over coal and steel to
prevent another Franco-German war. Sixty years on it is the world's
most successful experiment in pooling sovereignty and promoting
intergovernmental cooperation. It has shown how collective action
can enhance national and global security. It has charted a course
for regional cooperation between small and medium sized states. It
has become a model power - those who are near us, want to join us.
And some of those who are far away, want to imitate us.
And it is a test for the EU and NATO together. They are
complementary, grappling with the same security challenges. As
President Sarkozy says, NATO is an Alliance between Europeans as
well as between Europe and the US. We need them to work together
seamlessly.
But as the world changes, so must the EU. It must modernize and
adapt. It must turn its attention to the wider range of
insecurities. Take energy for example: if we want to secure our
energy supplies, we need a properly functioning internal market,
more interconnections between countries, more diverse sources,
secure routes of supply and ambitious action to drive a global
low-carbon revolution. The EU needs to stand for open markets at
home and abroad. And if we are to address insecurity and
instability beyond our borders, we need to use the accession
process and partnership arrangements to encourage political and
economic reform. But we must also develop the hard edge of our
external action. Be it tackling piracy in the Gulf of Aden,
building the Palestinian security services in the West Bank, or
training police in Kosovo. The EU is showing how its instruments
add real value to our security, provided that NATO and the EU work
co-operatively to support each other's efforts. I have talked about
institutions. But however much European security may today be
defined by cooperation within Europe, our alliance with the US and
our relationship with Russia remain at the heart of the European
security debate. The West has spent the last twenty years seeking
partnership with Russia. It has never sought to encircle, threaten
or weaken it. Yet whatever our intentions, the perception in Moscow
is different. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that Russia feels
"uncomfortable" with the current European security arrangements.
There is a clear deficit of trust that we must work together to
overcome. So we welcome President Medvedev's call for a debate
about the future of European Security. In taking this debate
forward we should be pursuing our mutual interest in resolving and
preventing conflict in Europe, tackling WMD proliferation,
combating organised crime and addressing the threat from extremism.
This enterprise can only be successful if we work to a shared
understanding of what security means. Though we must also be clear;
this does not undermine our commitment to leave the door to NATO
membership open for those who desire it. Its starting point needs
to be an acceptance of the fundamental principles of territorial
integrity, democratic governance and international law, and
recognition that, in the 21st century, breaking these principles
will have serious consequences. It needs to embrace a wide
definition of security: not just military security and state
sovereignty, but economic, energy and climate security, human
security and human rights. And it should take place across Europe's
enduring security institutions - including the OSCE, EU and NATO -
which have served us well and must not be undermined. Which brings
me to the US and the Transatlantic relationship. European and North
American interests - political, economic and military - are very
closely aligned. We all believe that liberty, equality and justice
are the foundations of peace and prosperity. And we know that when
we act together, we have an unrivalled ability to shape the world
around us. Yet ours is a relationship that has been strained b
divisions over Iraq and more recently questions of burden-sharing,
leading to talk of a "two tier alliance".
This is the moment for us to renew the alliance. Because as global
power becomes more diffuse we will need each other more. And
because President Obama has signalled that he wants to intensify
our partnership. As he said in Berlin "In this century..."America
needs "a strong European Union that deepens the security and
prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad." If
Europe wants to work with the new Administration, if it wants to
re-energise multilateralism for the 21st century, it needs to show
that we are not just a partner of historical choice but a partner
of future choice too. We need to invest in the alliance, and not
just support from the sidelines. That means practising what we
preach. It means taking the difficult decisions not just the easy
ones. And it means being willing and able to combine hard and soft
power in a credible way.
We welcome US willingness to talk to Iran. But if Iran doesn't
respond we will need to be read to impose much tougher sanctions,
even if that imposes costs on us here in Europe. In this instance,
nuclear security must come above commercial interests. We also need
to work much harder to generate military and civilian resources if
we are to continue to be taken seriously as an international
player. And we need to sweep away the obstacles to genuine NATO/EU
partnership, in strategic dialogue, but also in practical
co-operation. This includes developing a common approach which
makes all of us, including Russia, feel more secure, rather than
just talking about it. And we - and I include the UK here - need to
show that we want to be not just bilateral partners of the US but
also European partners.
The backdrop to all discussions of European security in 2009 will
inevitably be the economic downturn. This is strengthening two
opposing political forces. The first is for countries to turn
inwards. The second is multilateralism: people recognise that
unless countries can work together we will be powerless to respond
to the great challenges of our time. Europe has a central role to
play in ensuring that the latter wins out over the former. We have
spent sixty years fine tuning our own multilateral institutions.
Both NATO and the EU are remarkable success stories. Now we need to
turn outwards, renewing old alliances but also reaching out to new
partners. Using our collective power and influence to forge a new
era of global cooperation and shared interest. This is the best,
indeed the only way to ensure that the peace and prosperity we have
enjoyed over the last sixty years will continue for the next.
Source: Munich Security Conference, www.securityconference.de.