28 Nov, 2006 - Opening Session - THE RĪGA CONFERENCE

Mr. Craig Kennedy, President, GMF- The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Mr. Rob Liberatore, Group Senior Vice President of Global Affairs and Public Policy, DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
H.E. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, The President of Latvia
H.E. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General

VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA: ...very few and I say even the most learned of incumbents would not have imagined that ten former captives of the Warsaw Pact would accede to the opposing alliance and rejoin Europe's family of democracies in such an extraordinarily brief time.

We have moved in that period from decades of bi-polar confrontation of the worst sort to a more complex and interconnected system. But of course, this is an inter-connected system worldwide, where any crisis, any complications or difficulties, any place in the world can become an issue for all the rest of us wherever we may be.

That is clearly one reason why the democracies of Europe and of North American must maintain and strengthen the special relationship that they have established over the last decades through such international organizations as the NATO Alliance.

And indeed, from my own personal experience, I'm a person who just as with my English accent I situate myself somewhere Mid-Atlantic, neither entirely North American and not entirely British. I think that the concept of Transatlantic Cooperation is not a new one. I think it goes back a very long way to Lafayette going to the United States and helping them with the revolution.

It goes back to the First World War, and the Canadian and American troops came to help keep Europe free and, of course, continued throughout the Second World War. This is a long tradition of cooperation. It is not just, these are not empty words in an empty concept.

It is based on a very long tradition of cooperation and one that is truly based on common values. A common understanding of what liberty is about, (AUDIO GAP) what a democracy is about, what it means to live (AUDIO GAP) place.

Naturally, there have also been unfortunate side effects and unintended consequences. One example is the situation in the Middle East where, instead of improving, it looks rather worse than it did a few months ago. The sectarian violence again, is spiraling out of control in Iraq, with Lebanon apparently on the brink of another civil war.

A very fragile cease-fire is in place between the Israelis and the Palestinians with violent Islamic extremism gaining ground in a great many countries including a number of NATO's own member states. And we do see in a lot of countries facilitating extremists who try to recruit. To recruit young people with their ideology. And this is something I think we seriously have to address.

The content of this attraction. The attraction to violence, the attraction to extremism. I think that the psychological roots of it, are something that we have not given sufficient attention to. But the net result of it all, of course is that these adverse developments can be felt thousands of miles away from the direct zones of conflict.

And the increasing tension being brought about by Islamic terrorist attacks is contributing to an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between groups belonging to different religions (AUDIO GAP) where, of course we are not really talking about doctrinal differences (AUDIO GAP) back in the middle ages. At least some of us are not, in terms of theological disputes as to how many angels sit to the right hand of God and how many on the left side. But it is religion being used for creating hatred and animosity and engaging in violence. And the sad part of it is not the confrontation between Christians and Moslems and Jews and such.

When we see so many thoughts from the Islamic world actually engaging in the same sort of intolerance and extremist, one against the other, I think religion is being used as a cover. It is being misused, and the activities undertaken truly have nothing to do with faith.

Theses challenges we are facing worldwide, and we all share them in various degrees. And of course there is no simple solution to them. But, if we are to address them effectively, then clearly we can do so better by pooling our resources. By pooling our understanding of the situation and then working together on developing long-range strategic plans and then short- and medium-range tactical decisions.

As far as NATO is concerned, what we do require is comprehensive and concerted action in a great many areas between the members. We need the facilities for exchange of information among the security structures of all the countries concerned. And certainly there's a necessity of broadening NATO's cooperation with other countries and international organizations including the United Nations.

Now, it's quite true that NATO was founded as essentially a defensive and a military alliance. But it is impossible to conceive in the modern world a military alliance simply going out into the world with military action without consideration of the society in which it intervenes and about consideration of what the bases are, what the grounds are for building up civil society in the places where hopefully we are trying to help these populations reach such goals.

NATO has been changing and one of these changes has meant it has extended its interest as far as Africa. The relationship, the working relationship with the African Union (AU) has helped that body to expand its peacekeeping missions by providing airlift for additional AU peacekeepers and by training AU personnel.

Now this is a very delicate situation where the government of Sudan has even refused to admit United Nations troops. Clearly the presence of NATO troops for instance from the Northern Hemisphere would not be palatable to a continent which has keen memories of the periods of colonial occupation and of not to mention the period of slavery.

But training facilities, collaboration in terms of missing elements of infrastructure. Their help and their ionization(?), it seems to me, are crucial for being able to intervene where intervention is necessary and stopping bloodshed where it should not be tolerated to go on and on. I firmly believe that new forms of cooperation need to be pursued at this very summit with countries in other parts of the world that do share our vision and our values.

Such countries include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and here again, we're not talking about NATO. That should be bloated and extending worldwide. That is not the point. The point is a strong alliance that is able to have coordinated and clear cooperation with other partners who are wiling and able to intervene in certain regions. This cannot possibly weaken NATO; quite the contrary.

If we are, for instance, to intervene effectively in Afghanistan, and if we have partners from the Eastern part of the globe from where we stand, then it only relieves the pressure on NATO members for their commitment, for their costs and for their manpower and military resources.

It can only be of mutual benefit, so therefore this is something that we should address. And to develop mechanisms of cooperation without necessarily, and that is not the point at all, of becoming the world's policeman.

Afghanistan, obviously, is on the agenda. It represents one of the most serious challenges for NATO today. It is the first country where NATO has undertaken sustained ground combat operations, and where some of NATO's member states are experiencing some of the most intense fighting since the Korean War, and where some are experiencing the first casualties since the Second World War. On the (INAUDIBLE) United Nations mandate and at the behest of a democratically elected government, NATO has undertaken the unenviable task of stabilizing the weak country whose ungoverned territories remain to this day breeding grounds for terrorists, and where drug production and trafficking are increasing at an alarming rate.

So far, from a military point of view, NATO's operations in Afghanistan have been successful; however, the brunt of the fighting has been borne by just a few countries; namely the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, as well as our non-NATO Australian partners.

Other NATO members have troops there, but have imposed caveats on the use of them, and on the use of their equipment. This at a time when NATO's commanders on the ground urgently require additional manpower, urgently require supplies, and NATO cannot afford to lose this crucial struggle against the regressive forces of the insurgency by being indecisive or lacking commitment.

If we fail in our mission in Afghanistan, then surely the Taliban and Al Qaeda will return to power. It will embolden Islamic extremists elsewhere in the world, and that is the scenario that surely we will not wish to see fulfilled. (AUDIO GAP) So it is a matter for all members of the alliance to display the political will necessary to come up with the resolve required to ensure the success of our mandate in Afghanistan.

And yes, here again, it is one of those situations where we know very clearly that the purely military solution will not suffice. It will not provide the necessary stability to a country that has been suffering from nearly continuous warfare for the last 30 years.

If we are to succeed in this extremely important mission, then we must work together with other international organizations. Now this includes the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, many other non-governmental organizations to help improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and to reduce their daily plight, because unless we also engage their hearts and minds, the military successes will evaporate and not leave any lasting consequences.

This means that increased (AUDIO GAP) if we are to see a lasting and permanent result. (AUDIO GAP) in 90s that came from various quarters. We heard that enlargement might have threatened stability on the continent, that it would destroy the age old balances and add liabilities rather than assets to their lines.

And we have seen results, and it is very much the contrary. Since the last two phases of NATO's enlargement, we have seen continued reforms in the new member states. We have seen increased stability in Eastern Europe.

The NATO new members are making meaningful contributions to NATO operations (AUDIO GAP) in the alliance (AUDIO GAP) a country of slightly less than 2.3 million inhabitants. Believe me all of us are deeply committed to our membership in NATO.

I have absolutely no doubt that it was in the best interests of the Alliance to enlarge it, to enlarge it to the East in 1999, in 2004, and I firmly believe that it is still in our best interest to continue this process once the remaining accession countries are deemed ready for invitation. We note that Croatia, Albania, Macedonia have been making considerable progress towards receiving an invitation.

And of course we look forward to 2008 as the year when important decisions will have to be taken in that regard including decisions of our potential admission of new members. However, in order to ensure long (AUDIO GAP). (AUDIO GAP) potential deepening of NATO's relationship with Georgia and Ukraine for the democratic development of these countries and for achieving long last stability in the Southeastern part...

...(AUDIO GAP), (INAUDIBLE) ladies and gentlemen, have no doubt that the agreement here at the Riga Summit (AUDIO GAP) financial result (AUDIO GAP) implementation. In other words, NATO's member states will have to commit their money behind their stated intentions, (AUDIO GAP) stated aim (AUDIO GAP), at least 2 percent of the GDP for defense I think remains an extremely valid one.

This is what will insure (AUDIO GAP). You are here in Latvia, a country that in the last 15 years has undergone incredibly (AUDIO GAP). (AUDIO GAP) the three Es. We need an efficient (AUDIO GAP) capable of taking rapid decisions, naturally based on common understanding of what the goals are. We need an effective alliance equipped with the necessary military means to (AUDIO GAP).

(AUDIO GAP). Ladies and gentlemen, you stand here in a country because its people (AUDIO GAP). They were ready to work for it. (AUDIO GAP) daily life (AUDIO GAP) countries and our militaries are also able to raise (AUDIO GAP) and what we dream does make a difference. I wish you well.

(AUDIO GAP) gentlemen, (AUDIO GAP). (INAUDIBLE). Welcome. (AUDIO GAP).

H.E. JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER, SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO: That's you (INAUDIBLE). Madam President, ladies and gentlemen - this is the second time that Craig Kennedy and (INAUDIBLE) have organized (INAUDIBLE) (AUDIO GAP).

...you think should be soon. This gathering will be known as the Alternative Summit. The invitations of GMF is fast becoming almost as sought after and coveted as an invitation to the real thing. (AUDIO GAP).

As I said early yesterday evening, I, for one, am not afraid (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE) 21st Century to be (AUDIO GAP) Renaissance Man, if ever such an individual existed. (INAUDIBLE) needs your ideas (AUDIO GAP).

To set the agenda in nineteen (ph) thousand nine, and please, don't hesitate to be bold. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "All great truth begins as blasphemies." (AUDIO GAP) the less we'll have to fear from (AUDIO GAP) our globalized response (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE).

We know that we have to (INAUDIBLE) easily identifiable threats (INAUDIBLE) - that is to say terrorism. (INAUDIBLE) profits or small arms, Allied through malicious (ph). Without so imposed, (AUDIO GAP) geographical restrictions. The Venet (ph) Armed Force is able to create stability as much as to win wars (AUDIO GAP) diplomatic and economic means combined to produce maximum effects.

But if we know this all intellectually it does not mean that we draw the consequences in practices. Some are still surprised as far away as Afghanistan has become NATO's primary field of operations. Others still see transformation as a luxury rather than a necessity if we are to protect our forces and carry out effective operations.

Others still believe that we can protect populations and protect stability beyond our resources with ever declining defense budgets and shrinking infantry battalions. In short, we need to generate the political will and the military capabilities that is consistent with our intellectual understanding of the important challenges we are facing.

Second, we need to be clear when NATO's spring (ph) fly. In the age of globalization virtually any societal problem can quickly escalate into a security challenge. So it is hardly surprising incumbents are constantly calling in NATO to go global. And at every new emerging challenge to its already crowded agenda. And in some cases they're right.

I'm thinking of energy security for example. But NATO cannot take on every problem thrown out by globalization. Otherwise we would be a jack-of-all-trades, but master of none. We need to apply benchmarks. And the key question is, "Where does NATO ask value?" Where are we in real demand? Where can NATO's particular political and military assets be used to best effect.

The answer in my opinion is clearly stabilization of operations. We have a range of invaluable assets, integrated forces, a well-established and (INAUDIBLE) statistics political military decision-making structure. And the network appointments (AUDIO GAP) contributors from across the globe. Eighteen at present.

(AUDIO GAP) the construction has to begin from scratch. The holy (AUDIO GAP) fighting the nation-building (AUDIO GAP) first we need to (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE) obvious case in point. We need to prevail even when the going gets rough or when a newspaper editorialist starts calling for an exit strategy. We either confront the threats or they will end up on our doorsteps.

(AUDIO GAP) 87 women (AUDIO GAP) percent of the population now has (INAUDIBLE) up to ten times for 2001. In education, almost 6 million Afghans are in school, up six times from 2001. And in the economy, GDP has tripled in the past five years and per capita income has doubled.

At last by no means let us not forget the 4 million Afghan refugees (AUDIO GAP) and while we have to be frank about the risks (AUDIO GAP) we also need to avoid over-dramatizing our difficulties on ways that feed soulful (AUDIO GAP) reasons why we went to Afghanistan in the first place. (AUDIO GAP) of its combined joint statement of the ones. (AUDIO GAP) just as we (AUDIO GAP) need combat forces (AUDIO GAP) needs to engage more. The necessary but not sufficient condition of success. And that is why I called on you in particular (AUDIO GAP) (INAUDIBLE)...

In recent years we have made (AUDIO GAP) not just a force provider. While our troops are engaged in operations we must be part of the process leading to a political solution. Now, this also means that we need to debate a strategic policy intensively, among allies, with our partners, and with other organizations, and key regional players.

In short, we must debate all aspects of defense and security in the new security environments if we are to fully understand the complex worlds in which we now have to operate. Such a dialogue is a key prerequisite for keeping NATO vibrant. As I said, I'll be seeking also more progress in NATO-European Union relations. If (AUDIO GAP) on the well-known difficulties in this relationship, I may appear like a hopeless optimist, I'm not. I'm simply a realist or at least I try to be and realism (AUDIO GAP) to suggest that the pressure of operating (AUDIO GAP) challenges. In (AUDIO GAP). Kosovo, as well as (AUDIO GAP) will force NATO and the European Union to coordinate (AUDIO GAP) more and subordinate better. (AUDIO GAP).

That is why, by 2008, we might have finally managed to break (AUDIO GAP) the log jam in NATO-European Union relations and (AUDIO GAP) develop the pragmatic level of cooperation (AUDIO GAP) without the notion of a beauty contest.

Finally, (AUDIO GAP) I also expect the post-Riga period to (AUDIO GAP) lead to a more general reassessment of NATO's purpose and roles. (AUDIO GAP)...