28 Nov, 2006 - Session 1 at the Rīga Conference: A New Global Role and Partners for NATO?
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Centre for Strategic and International StudiesMr. Philip Stepens, Associate Editor, Financial Times
The Honorable Hans Haekkerup, Former Defense Minister of Denmark
Dr. Francois Heisbourg, Director, Foundation for Strategic Research
Dr. Alyson Bailes, Director, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
PHILIP STEPHENS, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, while we are waiting for our final panelists, I will introduce myself. My name is Philip Stephens. I am from the Financial Times. I think everyone here needs to understand that this is tough for me because I am a political columnist.
For those of you who don't know how political columnists work, what normally happens is I stay somewhere over the back there with my notebook taking down all the good ideas, stealing the best ones and then presenting them in the Financial Times as my own later in the week.
But this time I have to sing for my supper. I was walking around this very beautiful town yesterday to catch a feel for it before this conference. And as I reached the cathedral I found myself passing one of our American colleagues. He knows who he is but I am not going to name him. And as we drew level, he was having a very animated phone call on his mobile phone. And after we got level, I jut caught one sentence. "We are having trouble with the French," he said.
Well as a Brit, I felt like saying, well we always have trouble with the French. But, actually looking at our subject, "A New Global Role and Partners for NATO?", I think this is a subject that is more than about old rivalries. Our subject is "NATO's Global Mission" or indeed whether NATO has a global mission.
Is it, as has often been said in the past few years, out of area or out of a job? And what does it mean being "out of area?" Does it mean, as we are in Afghanistan, existing membership protecting security beyond its borders, or does it mean forging alliances which eventually cover the whole of the world?
Does Afghanistan tell us NATO's stretched or does it tell us that it is under-resourced? Well we have four excellent speakers, panelists to explain that. I am going to...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Is under resourced. We've got four excellent speakers, panelists I'm going to introduce to explain that. Zbignew Brzezinski is going to speak to us for ten minutes or so. Then I'm going to ask the other panelists to comment on that, and then I'm going to turn it over to you.
Although, I'm under very strict instructions that this is an interactive, working session, I expect lots of contributions from the floor, from all parts of the floor. But I ask you, if you to keep them short and sharp.
I'll introduce our panel briefly before I turn it over. Alyson Bailes, sitting over here, is the Director of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute. Prior to that, she served distinguishedly in the British Diplomatic Service for 30 years in places as far apart as Beijing and Balm (ph). She's been Political Director as well of the Western Economic Union.
Hans Haekkerup served as Denmark's Defense Minister for seven years, until the year 2000. He's also served as a Special representative to Secretary-General of the United Nations in Kosovo, and he now looks at security issues from the other end of the telescope, as it were, because he's based in Beijing as a Security Commentator.
Zbignew Brzezinski hardly needs any introduction. At the moment, he's Trustee and Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and also a Professor at Johns Hopkins University. He's had too many (AUDIO GAP).
His distinguished career has included (INAUDIBLE) own, that's the Brits (INAUDIBLE) Chief (INAUDIBLE) studies in London (INAUDIBLE) as a Ministry of Defense at the France (INAUDIBLE) Mission to the United Nations.
So, I can't think of a better galaxy of talent. I'm going turn over now to Keith (ph) and ask him to introduce (AUDIO GAP).
KEITH (ph): Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. (AUDIO GAP) is a new global role and partners for NATO? (INAUDIBLE) defined the (INAUDIBLE) thing does NATO have a global mission? (AUDIO GAP).
The dangers (INAUDIBLE) them in different ways. (INAUDIBLE) regional violence in (AUDIO GAP) that part of the world, which I call the Global Balkans from Suez to Sinjong. (AUDIO GAP).
And, of course, the reality of major state rivalries. Particularly, again (AUDIO GAP) to its smaller and weaker neighbors. The uncertain role of Iran in the Persian Gulf. (AUDIO GAP) more threatening by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (AUDIO GAP). In Afghanistan (AUDIO GAP) military links to the United (AUDIO GAP).
And the reality of (AUDIO GAP). Particularly one (AUDIO GAP). American/Japanese alliance (AUDIO GAP) and perhaps a (AUDIO GAP)
...and perhaps (AUDIO GAP) we are (AUDIO GAP) of international situation and handing yet one (AUDIO GAP) solitary military power on its own. We now (AUDIO GAP) armaments (AUDIO GAP) lines of members with Article 5. And play central to regional security (AUDIO GAP) between (AUDIO GAP) exit security it has to be bridged. There are series of options and we have (AUDIO GAP) chosen (INAUDIBLE)
Dr. Heits (ph) book who writes on the subject in my own newspaper last (AUDIO GAP) to give his comment.
DR. HEITS (ph): Herr Muller (ph) (AUDIO GAP) impression that NATO is looking more and more like a solution in search of a problem. Yesterday evening we were told its energy. This morning (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE) vision. I (AUDIO GAP) By going out (AUDIO GAP) NATO has changed its very nature.
(AUDIO GAP) But we (AUDIO GAP) liability that (AUDIO GAP). And that is something we are all going to have to learn to live with.
Second and last remark. The challenge, the global challenge (AUDIO GAP) which (INAUDIBLE) mentioned (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE). We're priding ourselves out of the traditional military stabilization market (AUDIO GAP) in Vietnam.
CRAIG KENNEDY: (AUDIO GAP). In Vietnam (AUDIO GAP) The French could sustain 400,000 in Algeria (AUDIO GAP) we'll have 16,000 (AUDIO GAP) let's say the (AUDIO GAP) situation, it's also the situation (AUDIO GAP) brought about by globalization. We can barely act on our (AUDIO GAP) long-term large-scale stabilization operations. (AUDIO GAP) small Afghanistan (AUDIO GAP) and so (AUDIO GAP).
It seems to me that we have a fairly sharp delineation, if you like. Are we talking about the core (AUDIO GAP) give another perspective.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thanks very much (AUDIO GAP) global operator. Dr. Bertram (AUDIO GAP) prepared for this meeting said (AUDIO GAP) prepared to answer (AUDIO GAP) NATO doing (AUDIO GAP) does NATO face a global (AUDIO GAP) challenge? (AUDIO GAP) more specific, do NATO's (AUDIO GAP) members face a (AUDIO GAP) other (AUDIO GAP) go global because these are globalized.
But it also needs some (AUDIO GAP) proliferation (AUDIO GAP) and to some extent it needs the power to make rules and regulations, because when you are dealing with enemies at the individual level, the corporate level it is through the law and enforceable rules that we are going to (INAUDIBLE) those dangers.
It does not have significant (AUDIO GAP). It does not (AUDIO GAP). (AUDIO GAP) is a very important area (AUDIO GAP) and with the EU having a think pause, I think it is (AUDIO GAP) pushing on enlargement questions (AUDIO GAP).
(AUDIO GAP) but again (AUDIO GAP) we make NATO of (INAUDIBLE) is that (AUDIO GAP) structure. It has a NATO procedure (AUDIO GAP) because the inter-operability that you can get no where else (INAUDIBLE) to NATO. And it is not so much a question (AUDIO GAP) our French (AUDIO GAP) at the high-end of these peacekeeping operations or even into war-fighting (AUDIO GAP).
I mean there is only one organization (AUDIO GAP) share our values and I think it is important if we are going in some states to build up a NATO presence in the theater that we have partners that are ready in that theater to support us (INAUDIBLE) and we already have the cooperation on which we can build...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: ...essence in the theater that we have partners that are ready in that theater to support us in logistics and we already have the cooperation on which we can build. What would decide the relevance of NATO in the future is like in the past 15 years.
The role of the organizations has not so much been decided by Islamics (ph), I'm sorry to say, but rather by which organizations dictate on what job, at what time, and how did they carry it out. It's a continuum (AUDIO GAP) of at hoc decisions which has decided the relevance of the organizations in (AUDIO GAP).
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: OK, thank you very much. I'd like to (AUDIO GAP) discussion (AUDIO GAP) out now. I think we've (AUDIO GAP) I'd like everyone if they could to be short. I'll take this lady here.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I do believe it came time to create something competitive. And it's a waste of time to discuss about NATO, because NATO is the consequences (AUDIO GAP) like Warsaw Pact of the Second World War. And now everything is (AUDIO GAP) of time. So we need to create some secretive competitive (INAUDIBLE) where we can integrate NATO.
And my proposal is to create an international organization of military leaders for a peace guarantee where tactics will be prevention of conflict, prevention of war. It's always better to prevent it, than pay consequences. But the (INAUDIBLE) is I will talk when I'm invited to give a conference.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thank you very much. And I've got one back here, I think.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Mr. Chairman, could you ask people to identify themselves?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, I'm sorry.
(INAUDIBLE), RIGA, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: These are the days of French reluctance to expand NATO into a partnership for the Pacific countries. But in Afghanistan, we certainly can all agree that we cannot betray Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan we (AUDIO GAP) and peacekeeper NATO countries.
The end result of the Riga Summit will be (AUDIO GAP) the peacekeepers will be able to go or and not a member of NATO in Afghanistan. Why can we not engage Australia more closely because they're the ones who are actually fighting and dying to help us while our NATO country is not doing it in Afghanistan?
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Fine, and I've got one here.
FREIHERR ZU GUTTENBERG: First of all, I think that global challenges don't allow either a nostalgia (ph) as referred to maybe (INAUDIBLE) nostalgia or solutions in search of a problem, so, probably a NATO level or sub-level which offers a bit more creativity and lots of flexibility.
Two questions to Dr. Brzezinksi. Is your concept based on values, on pragmatism? Is the first question, and the second question, it's maybe a bit delicate coming out of the mouth of a German MP but, do we need to redefine the term solidarity, also in the respect of the concept that you have mentioned? Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Yes, Dr. Brzezinksi.
DR. BRZEZINSKI: Well I take as my point of departure the notion that today, unlike the Cold War, we are not faced with a single massive threat. But we are faced much more with what I call "global turbulence," a variety of threats. Some state actors, some informal actors, perhaps, weapons proliferation, collision between major powers. And that turbulence is mostly concentrated in an arc ranging along the southern rim of Eurasia from the Middle East all the way almost to the Pacific.
Now, in response to that a western security alliance, which is primarily focused in Europe, has already expanded it's strategic purview and is engaging itself more and more in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf, and in Afghanistan. (AUDIO GAP). And I think that stretches the abilities of NATO quite considerably. And the (AUDIO GAP) reinforces that point.
We need to respond (AUDIO GAP). So, there is in a sense, a happy conjunction here. And the question for us is how to involve them more actively? Give them a role, but benefit also from the commitment of capabilities and resources that they're prepared to engage in a joint response. And this is why I favor the creation of a new category within the NATO structure. Not just members, Article 5, and partners, but between participants, active participants on a selective basis within a role to play, within NATO structures and would give that alliance a more relevant matter, a more relevant capability for responding to this new reality of spreading, percolating global turbulence.
If NATO doesn't do that, if it follows our friends - our French friends' advice - it will be a security, a regional security alliance for a secure region and that's all it will be. And, in fact, even that recommendation is already antedated because NATO is already engaged in Afghanistan. So, we don't really have a choice. We are engaged in dealing with the security problems of the Eurasian southern rim. And if we're going to be effective we have to engage those powers that are prepared to help us. Because I frankly don't think we can do it on our own.
UNIDNETIFIED PARTICIPANT: I'm going to come back to the POW, just a minute while I take two more questions from the floor. Then I will come back, but one here.
H.E. EL SAYED EL REEDY, CHAIRMAN OF THE EGYPTIAN COUNSEL OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I believe the thesis which has been presented by Professor Brzezinksi seems to me to be reasonable and logical. You need to engage the countries that are involved in that region. Whether it is Afghanistan, whether it is (INAUDIBLE), whether it is Iraq, whether it is energy crisis, there - this part of the world, which is the Muslim part of the world with the Middle East as its core, needs to be talked to. Needs to be engaged in solving the problems of that region and for that
H.E. EL SAYED EL REEDY: ...needs to be engaged in solving the problems of that region and for that engagement to be effective, it is not enough to just - to just talk at them, but it is important to have a dialogue with respect. And in order to have a dialogue with respect to the wishes and to the concerns of these countries you need to address the basic problems, the root causes of these problems, such as military occupation in Palestine, military occupation in Iraq. And the way you talk to the Muslim world, whether you talk to the Muslim world with respect, or you talk to the Muslim world with such characterizations that only enflame these millions of people.
That is the point which I would like to put to the Professor Brzezinski and to the rest of the panel. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thank you. A security region for a secure area, or a global (INAUDIBLE) but another question just here, the gentleman here.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: (INAUDIBLE) committee. I would like to say, to make a comment from the first question put by the Honorable Brzezinski. Is NATO facing global challenge? The answer is yes. But is yes not from today.
Few people recall that in these very days we are celebrating also the 50th anniversary of the Committee of Three that in 1956 was releasing the non-military, the report on non-military (AUDIO GAP) recuperation, and if we go there, and if we look to the future with the sense of history, we can see that there (AUDIO GAP) exactly the same question (AUDIO GAP) NATO members, and so we are only (INAUDIBLE) new tools. Maybe the problem is that we are using probably not the right words.
When we are talking about transformation, this sometimes needs, has a new changes, when in fact we are only adapting with new tools what NATO was doing already from the very beginning. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: So it's not a new problem. I'm going to come back - I've marked a couple more, but I'm going to come back and give the panelists a go, but one question that arises for me is where does, if NATO doesn't move global, where does the legitimacy come from for its operations? I think Alyson Bailes raised this, but anyway, Dr. Heisbourg?
FRANCOIS HEISBOURG: Yes, Speaker, I wouldn't call you my American friend. You called me your friend, friend. Nice to be your friend. I don't speak for the French and I don't think you speak for the Americans. And I would definitely not endorse the idea of a regional (INAUDIBLE) NATO.
I was saying that NATO, by ceasing to be regional, had ceased to be the "one for all, all for one" alliance it was during the Cold War. Donald Rumsfeld understood this, and although one can disagree with many of his policies or statements, on this one I'm afraid he was right, and we'd better come to terms with that, and I agree entirely with what was said a few seconds ago about the fact that these issues are not new.
In the Korean War, which was also mentioned by the Secretary General this morning, by the way, which was rather larger than the war in Afghanistan, we had many Australians, many New Zealanders, many people from non-NATO countries. Does that mean that we created a global NATO at the time, that we disrupted the security order in Asia-Pacific region?
No we did not. And rather than asking the French what they think about global NATO, you may want to ask the Australians what they think about global NATO. And you will not get a very excited response, because they do believe that they have to live with China.
Second point, the arc of crisis (INAUDIBLE). You are much too limited. Suez to Sin Yong (ph), look at the Moroccan elections next March. It is going to be from Marrakesh to Bangladesh to use the old neocon chestnut. And it is not only that, it is also in Nigeria. It is in Africa.
And why do I say this? Because in practice what we seek today in terms of successful stabilization operations, not like Iraq and not for the moment like Afghanistan, but like Sierra Leone, like Liberia, like the Congo, very big places, very difficult ones.
What do we see? We see a new way of working between the hard robust, sharp edge of the Brits in Sierra Leone, for example, or the EU/French-led force in the Congo two years ago, small manpower, kicking-in-the-doors operations for two months, three months, and then the dozens of thousands of UN peacekeepers from countries which are not necessarily democracies.
The low-labor countries, the low-labor-cost countries, as you well know, are not all of them democracies. And those that are democracies, like India, tend to actually side with China on issues like Darfur rather than with NATO.
So if we are serious about dealing with arc of crisis, the big arc of crisis, we had better not put ourselves into a West-against-the-rest paradigm of the sort that you have outlined, because if we do that, we are going to find out that this is a market where the terms of exchange are not playing in our favor.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Thank you. I have got (INAUDIBLE) four people. So I am going to ask our final two panelists to be as concise as then can. Hans Haekkerup, was Donald Rumsfeld right?
HANS HAEKKEREUP, FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER DENMARK: You raised the question about the legitimacy of these operations. And I think we had that discussion in NATO once especially before: Kosovo. At that time, the Security Council did not function and the NATO countries, as democratic countries we are, had to make a decision which was later endorsed.
I think this question has deliberately been left open and should be left open. We now have a situation where the U.N. Security Council actually works. We have had fine resolutions carried by unanimous council on North Korea, on Lebanon, on Iran, so, and also on Sudan. So, we are in a very different situation, but I think it is deliberately left. This question has not been answered.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Alyson Bailes.
ALYSON BAILES: First, quick point to Australia - a couple of months ago the Australian Prime Minister went to Parliament to demand more money for more peacekeeping forces. How did he justify that? By reference to (INAUDIBLE) Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands?
Australia is a major regional peacekeeping power. It is the only really effective legitimate power that can deal with the not inconsiderable arc of crisis that also exists in the Western Pacific. And I do think we have to be a little careful...
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I'll start with Dr. Brzezinkski. A lot of questions raised, I'm sure, but this...
DR. BRZEZINSKI: Well, let me move rather rapidly through the different issues that have been raised. My French friend, I emphasize "French" friend, has spoke evocatively of the centrality of the Cold War. And he quoted with admiration, Donald Rumsfeld's comment about it's relevance to NATO. All I can say to that is that the Cold War is history. Donald Rumsfeld is history. And we're dealing with new problems in a new setting. And we have to address these problems. And that is what I'm trying to do.
We have, in fact, a situation in which several countries in the Pacific are interested in some sort of a security relationship with us and have security concerns that happen to be similar to our concerns. Foreign Minister Aso of Japan visited NATO and made a very important speech there, which I recommend you all read, which shows how Japanese security thinking is evolving.
The Australians and the New Zealanders have visited NATO and they have raised some of the issues that I am addressing. In fact, there is a movement in that direction and the press in these countries, as well as in South Korea, is also discussing these issues. So, there is some real movement here.
And how do we respond to that movement? And I think by some arrangement that's flexible, that's not overly-structured. That does not create a global NATO. But creates the capacity for NATO to cooperate with countries in the Pacific that share interest with us and have the same anxieties. That I think is what we should be striving for.
That's relevant also to the issue raised by my Egyptian friend. Namely, if we don't do that, but in the meantime NATO expands increasingly through the Middle East, to the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan - God forbid - Pakistan next, too many people in that part of the world... NATO will be perceived, is beginning to be perceived as a replay of Western imperialism.
And there is a real risk, particularly of America being viewed as an imperialist country, which is following in the footsteps of the British. And that's something we have to be conscious of...enhance the participation of other, particularly Asian countries, is important.
Now, how will China be affected by all of this? I think what I have in mind threatens China less than if something else happens. The Asian countries, the Pacific countries, will be building a security system of their own if they're not involved with us. And that's going to be far more anti-Chinese. I wouldn't object at all to the creation of a NATO-China counsel, like the NATO-Russia counsel, if the Chinese want it. At this stage, I don't think they do. But that seems to me to be a reasonable thing to explore.
But if we don't engage the countries that want to be engaged with us, the Pacific countries, they'll develop something on their own. And that's going to be far more divisive and far more threatening to China.
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: Fine, I'm going to break up this a little by going to Alyson Bailes first, and then I'll come back to you. But if you could speak very, very quickly.
ALYSON BAILES: I'll try to be very quick. An institution which is a solution in search of a problem may also be tempted to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut. I think there are several different nuts which the partnership idea is trying to solve. I think probably they could be solved more simply.
For true contributors, I agree, why not have a special true contributor status, the equivalent of the political military framework developed in PFE, adjusted for global participation. If NATO wishes to play a wider stabilization role in areas of conflict why not cooperate, as in the case of the African Union, with any positive and inclusive framework?
If countries come to NATO for partnership because they want defense, actual direct (INAUDIBLE) defense I think NATO should politely say, "No, thanks. We have enough on our plate especially in Afghanistan."
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: I am afraid someone just whispered in my ear that life is like that and we have to wrap up. So my apologies to the remaining two panelists.
I think we haven't succeeded in taking away the question mark, but I think we have defined the question very clearly. And we have learned that Donald Rumsfeld is history. Thank you very much indeed and thanks to our panel.
