One of the most important sessions focused on how NATO is currently operating with a general agreement that there are serious issues to be addressed at the forthcoming Bucharest Summit.
The discussion was opened by the German Defence Minister, Franz Josef Jung, who made an impassioned defence of the role of NATO and its importance for European security in the future. He said “NATO is the stable anchor of our security but it has new challenges” and went on to raise questions about the command structure and strategic air transport capacity of NATO. He paid a warm tribute to the non-NATO members who were supporting NATO, especially the Australians in Afghanistan. It was necessary, he said, to show success in Afghanistan to domestic electorates as the coverage by the media in Europe was largely negative. 28 million people had been liberated from the Taliban and they now have an elected President and to their own Constitution. 38% of those in higher education were now women and 4.7 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan.
Like many others present Mr Yung feared that the three main elements of security, economy and good governance were not sufficiently being brought together. This was a theme that was echoed time and again throughout the conference. He also sounded a warning note that the security situation was becoming more risky in the North and that there was a need to speed up solutions to some of the basic structural problems.
A sizeable proportion of his contribution addressed the issue of NATO and ESDP, saying that they needed to work with each other and not against each other. The Germans have been supporters of the Berlin plus model of co-operation which many in Britain and United States see as being threatened by the current Lisbon Treaty and their defence Minister admitted that there were EU/NATO problems which needed to be ironed out as part of a comprehensive network approach to security. This is a debate we will turn to in the House of Commons next week. It was clear that the German government still favours the concept of NATO enlargement to the east with the emphasis being on common values and therefore open to all. This naturally played well with Ukrainian and Georgian representatives but there needs to be a serious debate about the timing and strategic value of such moves which will no doubt occur at the Bucharest Summit. The German Minister, who is a popular and well regarded politician, made conciliatory noises to the Russians, praising their role in Operation Endeavour, and to the French who he would like to see playing a greater role in the alliance.
The Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who spoke with his trademark clarity and directness (in English, French and German) set out what he believed to be the key elements for NATO in Bucharest. First, the problems in Afghanistan need to be sorted out and there needs to be not just the reality but the perception of success. Second the Balkans must be integrated. Third, the interplay with other institutions such as the UN, EU and the World Bank needs to be urgently addressed. Fourth, NATO must not remain on the sidelines while new threats emerge such as WMD, energy security, ballistic missile technology and trans-national terrorism. On Afghanistan he said there was a greater need for common goals with clearly defined benchmarks, maximal flexibility of forces and the least number of caveats possible. In welcoming better integration of the French within NATO, the Secretary General went out of his way to make clear his view that NATO and the EU should act in a complementary way. He said that issues such as cyber threats, new missile technology and energy threats all require a multifaceted approach. While national governments would continue to take a lead role in many of these issues there was a role for NATO because of the trans-national nature of the threats. If NATO did not act then there would be a real risk that some member states would seek unilateral or bilateral responses which could potentially undermine the Alliance.
He reminded all those present that we are in Afghanistan under a UN mandate, it is not a mission of choice, and therefore all countries must live up to their international responsibilities. He concluded a very impressive performance with a warning that next year's 60th anniversary of NATO cannot be about past glories but should be about the readiness to deal with future challenges. A clear subtext to the Secretary General's remarks was the underlying tension between the EU and NATO where some officials describe the relationships as being at an all-time low. It is difficult to see how this can be improved in the short term given the elements of the Lisbon Treaty which will result in the duplication by the EU of NATO structures and guarantees.
The new French Defence Minister, Herve Morin, was keenly awaited to see if any hard details would emerge about the defence and security review being undertaken by the Sarkozy government. In particular, the conference was keen to hear about hints that France would seek a greater role within NATO. Alas, we were told that the work would be finished by April, presumably with announcements being tailored for the French presidency of the EU. While supporting the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty Minister Morin called on NATO to rationalise its internal structure which he believed was too costly and overmanned. He supported the concept of NATO enlargement to create a “Euro Atlantic community based on common values” but, he warned, NATO is a military alliance and should not act as global policeman taking the place of United Nations. Unsurprisingly, this was greeted with a glum silence especially by many of the Americans in attendance. He said that Europe must do more to share the burden of their own defence and not hide behind the US. In calling for “Europeans” to assume a greater role in their defence he said that “the EU cannot be the civilian arm of NATO” and urged a more robust role. Perhaps most worryingly from a Conservative viewpoint, he referred to the need for a strong European pillar of NATO which only reinforces the worry that many of us have that the developments in EU defence policy are likely to supplant rather than supplement NATO. If only Gordon Brown would have the honour and decency to give us the referendum he promised, we would have the chance to put these vital arguments about our national security to the British people.
The session was concluded with a typically fluent contribution from the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Radoslav Skorski who, while praising the concept of NATO expansion to the east, made conciliatory noises over missile defence to the Kremlin. It was clear to anyone who had not understood before that Poland is now a major player within the NATO alliance. The final speaker, in place of Senator McCain, was Senator Lindsey Graham who in his inimitable style was blunt on Afghanistan - “we are not losing but are we winning?” and on the need to maintain strength in the ideological battle with the terrorists - “the high ground in this battle is the moral high ground”. It was an excellent point on which to end what was a fascinating, thought-provoking and for some of us a worrying session.
Part 1 of Dr Fox's review can be read here.