Ladies and Gentlemen,
lt is a great pleasure to be here, and an honour to be the first speaker at such a gathering of luminaries. The Munich Conference has acquired the reputation of being one of the very few gatherings of the year that one absolutely should not miss. This year's conference, with its very pertinent agenda, and with such distinguished participants, will only burnish that already glowing reputation. So let me begin by congratulating the Chairman, Dr. Teltschik, for his fine work in bringing this all together.
I have been asked to speak on the lessons of Kosovo and to speak for no more than 15 minutes. This is truly impossible -- particularly for a Scotsman! But I will do my best.
Lesson one is crystal clear. We won. Whatever the revisionists now contend, the ethnic cleansing and state sponsored violence was stopped, the perpetrators withdrew, the refugees are home, the NATO-led peacekeeping force is in place. And out of the legacy of communism, apartheid and brutality the elements of a multiethnic democracy are, not without difficulty, being put in place.
Now, I hope you will forgive me if I mention only briefly other key-important lessons we have already learned from the Kosovo operation.
We learned the importance, in modern operations, of close and trusting relations between the military and the civilian worlds, both during the air campaign and now in the peacekeeping mission.
We learned that, in the new Euro-Atlantic security environment, Russia and the West are compelled to co-operate.
Finally, we learned how important our Partners within the Partnership for Peace have become to all kinds of peacekeeping operations.
These are all important lessons of Kosovo, and I certainly hope we can talk about these and other issues during the discussion period a little later on this morning. But let me spend the remaining precious minutes on just two of the most important lessons:
The first lesson of Kosovo is clear: to deal with 21st Century challenges, we need 21st Century forces.
Kosovo was, in many ways, a test of how our forces have evolved in the years since the Cold War ended. In general, of course, they have passed with flying colours. Our air forces accomplished their mission during the air campaign with amazing precision, and superb professionalism. And our land forces are now keeping the peace in Kosovo in very difficult circumstances, and laying the foundations for lasting stability in future.
All that is good. But Kosovo also revealed that many of our militaries have not made all the adjustments necessary to be effective in the modern security environment. Whereas in the past, we needed heavy armour to defend Western Europe, today we need highly mobile forces to go to the conflict. Where in the past we could plan to fight on our own territory, today we must plan for operations that require our forces to stay abroad, perhaps for years. Whereas in the past, technological innovation was something that helped us work effectively together, today technology is moving so fast that some of NATO's members are, at least, in danger of being left behind.
We have already begun to address these challenges. Last April, we put in place a Defence Capabilities Initiative, and it is beginning to pay off. We have already identified the areas of NATO's military capabilities that need improvement, and we are taking steps to make those improvements happen. And I have been very clear to our leaders that they must make the necessary investments to make it work.
Now, I know that somewhere in this audience, an official from a Department of Finance is wincing. But let me be clear: improving military capability is not necessarily about spending more -- it's about investing more wisely. This is not always an issue of finding new money for defence. It is about getting a good return on investment - literally "getting more bang for your buck". Today, the European Allies spend about 60% of what the United States spends on defence, but the European Allies get a fraction of the capability. We need to improve that return on investment, through innovative management techniques, identification of priorities - and courageous decisions. And, where it proves necessary - and it will, new money will have to be allocated. Let me be clear -- I am committed to ensuring that the Defence Capabilities Initiative delivers, to give us the forces we need in the 21st Century.
The second lesson of Kosovo is also about preparing for the future: in the 21st Century, we need a more equitable division of labour within NATO. lt is neither fair, nor politically sustainable, to ask the United States to continue to assume a disproportionate share of the costs and the burdens of addressing security challenges in Europe. In the 21st Century, the European Allies will have to play a stronger role, in partnership with North America.
The benefits to both Europe and North America of improved European capabilities are clear. A stronger Europe will be able to handle purely European contingencies where North America doesn't wish to get involved. And a stronger Europe will be able to share more of the burdens with North America when both are engaged in addressing security challenges. An improvement in European capabilities is a win-win situation.
This lesson, too, has already been learned, and real progress is being made, very quickly, to address it. The European Union has set itself an ambitious goal -- in three years time, the EU countries intend to be able to deploy a multinational force of about 60,000 troops, within 60 days of the order, and to be able to keep those forces in theatre for at least a year. This is a formidable target, but let's not forget how many people said that the Single Market and the Single currency would never happen. Since I am paid today in Euros, let me say that I have every confidence the EU can meet these targets, too.
As I mentioned, a stronger Europe makes sense on both sides of the Atlantic. That is why NATO had taken practical steps to provide material support to European-led operations. Our new command structure allows for European-led operations using NATO capabilities and assets. The NATO force planning process takes European requirements into account. And as I mentioned, the Defence Capabilities Initiative is improving military capabilities overall. So NATO is doing its part to ensure ESDI delivers as well.
Let me address one final point on ESDI. I know that there are some people, in Europe and in North America, who are concerned that ESDI might lead to damaging divisions within NATO, or even a decoupling of the Alliance.
My answer is blunt - it is nonsense. It is nonsense for two reasons. First, because decoupling is impossible. The US anyway retains key strategic capabilities which are indispensable for all but the smallest operations: logistics, strategic lift, satellite reconnaissance etc. There is no reason to fear "decoupling", because for the foreseeable future, a decoupled Europe simply would not work. ESDI is not about Europe "going it alone", but about Europe doing more.
Second and more importantly, nobody wants decoupling. Even the most ardent Euroenthusiast understands that an ESDI that undermines NATO or the transatlantic relationship is a losing proposition. Bosnia and Kosovo have made utterly clear that NATO remains Europe's dominant security institution. For anyone - European or American to undermine this remarkably successful institution - either deliberately or by accident -would be self-defeating. ESDI is about adding more military options to our menu when responding to crises, not reducing them.
Let us also remember how strong and enduring the transatlantic relationship has proven to be, over the last 50 years and more. North America and Europe share unbreakable bonds - common values, common interests, and decades of mutual trust and confidence. The transatlantic relationship is, and will remain, solid, despite any disagreements, or some occasional heated rhetoric, the normal chemistry in vibrant democracies. New institutional relationships will do nothing to change that.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
These are not the only lessons of Kosovo, but they may be the most important ones for the future. We need military forces that are structured and equipped-to meet the likely challenges of the 21st Century effectively. And we need a transatlantic relationship that reflects 21 Century realities and requirements.
The payoff, if we meet these challenges, is big: a NATO that continues to preserve the safety and security of our citizens. Most people in NATO countries take that sense of security so much for granted. They know they are free from the threat of military attack. They know that, in an emergency, our armed forces are there. And they know that, if called upon, our militaries can go abroad and help bring peace to others, before conflict, or its fall-out, approaches our shores or their homes.
This sense of safety and security is a precious thing - for 50 years NATO protected it, and it is still NATO's job to preserve it. As we move into the 21st century, I am totally confident that we have the tools, the people, and the vision, to do the job.
Das geschriebene Wort der Rede muss nicht mit dem auf der Konferenz gesprochenen Wort übereinstimmen.
Weitere Artikel und Reden zu und aus der Sicherheitskonferenz bei e-politik.de
Dienstag, 11.11.2003
