|
Vortrag am Goethe Institut in Atlanta, USA |
|||
|
Future of NATO
Excellencies,
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts with you about the current state and future of NATO.
Almost everyone agrees that NATO has been the most important transatlantic institution for more than 50 years. Even if we tend to see the past in a rosy light, it still is.
Seen the current discussions about a transatlantic rift we should be aware, that there were and will always be disputes and conflicts within this Alliance. This is a matter of fact of every relationship in daily life. I would even say: the deeper the relationship the more likely is it to disagree on various aspects.
More than twenty years ago, the new founded Green Party in Germany asked for the immediate dissolution of NATO. Times they are changing. Since then, the world, our policy and the NATO changed too. A few weeks ago Lord Robertson got a T-shirt which says: "This ain't your daddy's NATO". That's right.
In order to stimulate the discussion let me briefly deal with three questions.
1. Is NATO really out of business?
1. NATO - Out of business?
The fact is: After the end of the Cold War some of the European states were very reluctant to take over Non-Article 5 tasks outside the NATO area. In the end, NATO did engage in the Balkans.
When NATO invoked Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty only one day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, Washington demanded only some minor military contributions from Brussels.
Some of us where glad, that the U.S. avoided to involve the Alliance in the decision-making process on possible military reactions. In Europe most governments perceived this as a further sign, that the US-administration is not interested in a common approach and involvement of all of its Allies. And indeed: Finding a consensus among 19 or even 26 members is sometimes very hard. It is easier, just to keep some of your allies informed, occasionally consult with them or build a coalition of the willing.
NATO has vigorously tried to avoid a loss of relevance and influence. The war against terrorism and the fight against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction now belong to its core activities. This became common ground in Prague during the NATO summit in October 2002: NATO now can act globally - and it does, like in Afghanistan, where NATO took over the ISAF mission in August 2003.
Following a proposal by US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, the NATO summit in Prague decided to create the NATO Response Force (NRF) to counter the new and global threats posed by international terrorism, failing states and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This force of about 60.000 soldiers is supposed to include the best which NATO-states have to offer. They should be deployable world wide within five to 30 days, specialized in high-intensity warfare - a prerequisite for conducting such interventions like in Afghanistan. They should be capable to fight autonomously for up to 30 days. The NRF is supposed to be fully operational by 2006.
Even though the Europeans welcomed this American initiative in principle, some substantial reservations were voiced. Regarding the NRF there are three essential prerequisites from a German perspective: First, the decision about force deployment should rest with the NATO-Council and therefore be made unanimously. Second, national participation should be depending on national decision-making procedures, e.g. a German participation must be based on a prior decision by the Bundestag. Third, the initiative has to be compatible with the creation of European crisis response forces. Only under these preconditions Germany has agreed to develop a NRF-concept.
2. Bucks & Capabilities
Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, and many others argue the reason for the present discussion about the future of NATO is the widening technological and operational capabilities gap between the U.S. and Europe. He fears that soon the armed forces of the Alliance won't be able to conduct joint operations. This, from an American point of view, not only reduces NATO's operational relevance but the relevance of NATO itself. The solution to this problem and to this kind of crisis perception seems to be: Spent more bucks for the bang, adapt NATO to the US standards and strategies and buy American.
At the Washington Summit in 1999 NATO responded partly to these demands by adopting the New Strategic Concept and the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI). Since the European partners showed good will but did not provide additional money to improve their capabilities in a broad sense, NATO agreed a year ago to the more limited Prague Capabilities Initiative (PCI), the creation of a NATO Response Force (NRF) for global high readiness war-fighting tasks. Firm political and nation-specific commitments and an agreed time-table are supposed to make the difference. The Allies have made over 400 of those commitments for the full range of Alliance missions wherever they may occur , including defense against terrorism. There will be improvements, but the question is will there be enough to satisfy those who ask for strong European global military intervention capabilities.
The Green Party and the government coalition in Germany have no doubt, that there have to be improvements in the field of capabilities. And there are some significant and very expensive projekt underway in the field of air transport, communication and force protection. It is interesting that although the Green Party regards the use of force as an ultimate instrument we are ready for the most far reaching reform of the Bundeswehr. For us it is completely unrealistic to expect, that any German government will be able to spend more money on defense. We have to spend it wiser.
Concerning the transformation of the German Bundeswehr the Greens have been asking for years for a smaller but better equipped all-volunteer force of about 200.000, the multinational pooling of military capabilities and increased specialization. In view of the economic and budgetary situation we expect, that the major political parties in Germany will realize that one cannot cut pensions, health care and social security and at the same time increase the defense expenditure for an army which still has a strong focus on territorial defense of Germany. There are clear budgetary limits and we have to set priorities.
3. New Priorities
What kind of capabilities do we need in the first place? The 19 NATO members spend more than 515 billion $ per year on defense. This is more than 60 % of the global defense expenditures. NATO has 3.7 million soldiers, 4 million reservists and 700.000 paramilitary troops. The wars in the Balkan and Afghanistan have showen us, that there is no military adversary who is able to resist the military capabilities of NATO.
So peace enforcement is not the central capability gap of NATO as an alliance.
So what kind of forces do we need? Let's be fairly realistic. We need a sustainable peace policy and NATO is able to make an important global contribution. As Greens we ask what can NATO contribute to peace and stability in Europe and the rest of the world and how can NATO support the United Nations in fulfilling its tasks. NATO gave the answer by providing international security assistance in the Balkans and Afghanistan. It contributes to the cooperation and confidence building with other armed forces, especially in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area. It develops common strategies and procedures for cooperation in different crisis situations. Some argue, by this the NATO has turned into something like an armed OSCE. That's right. But this kind robust peacekeeping and military cooperation link is indispensable.
Some commentators see the beginning of a continental drift. Depending on the point of view and origin of the observers, either the lacking of a European will to exercise tough power politics is being identified as the primary reason for this drift; or it is being attributed to the American way of conducting power politics, which rests too much on military means. Many Europeans fear that NATO will be forced to copy the American model and follow its lead. They are afraid, that the u.s. national security strategy, its nuclear, the non-proliferation strategy will determine the strategy of NATO as a whole. Therefore Europe was ready to find its own security strategy. My colleague Rainder Steenblock will discuss this in more detail.
4. Conclusion
-But NATO alone is not able to shoulder all responsibilities. The complex security issues today can only be coped with by common action on the basis of shared interests and with the support of the United Nations. We need a cooperative and multilateral approach, which strongly emphasises crisis prevention and sustainable peace. This is why we support a stronger European role in global affairs. At the same time we support a NATO that is oriented toward the future and based on a renewed transatlantic spirit.
Thank you.
|
|
||
