GLOBSEC 2009

On January 29, 2009, the Slovak Atlantic Commission organized the fourth annual international security conference GLOBSEC 2009 in Bratislava. GLOBSEC conference is the Leading Foreign and Security Policy Conference in Central Europe, which aims to contribute to shaping of the Euro-Atlantic Security Agenda and is searching for answers to the most pressing issues of international affairs and security. The conference has focused on the topics of transatlantic relations after inauguration of Barack Obama for the US President, the future of the relations with Russia and the 60th Anniversary of NATO and its future perspectives. The Conference took place under the Auspices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic and was co-organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Representation of the European Commission in Slovakia and the Euro-Atlantic Centre, with support of the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, International Visegrad Fund, Embassy of Kingdom of the Netherlands and other partners.

During the official opening of the Conference, Mr. Rastislav Káčer, president of the Slovak Atlantic Commission said the conference was taking place in a special time – in a year when NATO is celebrating its 60th anniversary - “60 years of transatlantic vision in practice”, which had brought unprecedented stability, strength and wealth to the nations. Mr. Káčer also stressed that it was 5 years since Slovakia had joined the Alliance and the European Union and 10 years since the last NATO Strategic concept had been adopted. He said he expected that “this year will test the old institutions”. Since the conference was among the first in Europe and USA in the series of events taking place before the upcoming NATO summit, its aim was to kick off the substantial debate on the expected summit agenda. Furthermore, the intention of the conference was also to outline the basic expectations and challenges to the transatlantic relations after the inauguration of the new U.S. president and to discuss how to deal with the resurgent Russia.

Mrs. Diana Štrofová, the State Secretary (Deputy Minister) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic underlined that the one of the best answers to the unpredictable development of the current international security situation, is building of alliances, which could help to face actual and future dangers and challenges. In this context, she expressed her support to the dialogue aimed at achieving a realistic common energy security of the EU. What regards the upcoming NATO summit, she defined three core issues: reaffirming the relevance and strength of Article 5, non-article 5 operations as “coalitions of the willing” and lingering defence-spending gap (including disparity in deployment) between the US and the European NATO members. Closer cooperation and harmonization between EU and NATO activities is the way to strengthen the European security capacity building. The State Secretary expects from the new US administration a strengthening of multilateralism, what could lead to a higher engagement and contribution of the EU in addressing problems and challenges. She pointed out that the gas crisis had fundamentally altered the NATO’s and EU’s perception of Russia and Ukraine as fully reliable partners. In spite of complexities and setbacks in the relations with Russia, she stressed that Russia should not be demonized and Slovakia supports further dialogue with Russia seeking pragmatic models of correct cooperation based on sustainability and predictability. The answer to our eastern aspirations could be found in the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy based on a combination of bilateralism and multilateralism, modernization and sectoral integration. She concluded her keynote speech by conviction that membership of Slovakia in the EU and NATO has enhanced the international standing of Slovakia and its responsibility for development in international arena, and she hoped for unity and alliance to be the key message of the conference GLOBSEC 2009.

The first panel was chaired by Mr. Tomáš Valášek, Director of the Center for European Reform, London and the member of the Board of the Slovak Atlantic Commission. The panel was supposed to give suggestions to changes of the current NATO Strategic Concept, which was created before the terrorist attacks, before the crisis in Georgia, before the gas crisis, and to give answers to expectations and limitations in the time of the financial crisis. The discussion tested even the necessity of this document and willingness and preparedness of NATO member states for such a significant debate. It showed the differences among allies on Russia, Afghanistan and the perception of the Article 5.

Mr. Jean François Bureau, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, pointed out that the GLOBSEC conference is the second in the series of discussions addressing NATO’s 60th anniversary in whole Euro-Atlantic Area. He confirmed that the upcoming summit should bring answer to the changed security environment in the form of a short political statement “Declaration on the Alliance Security”, which should create space and base for discussions about the new strategic concept. He said that this statement should not replace or supplement the current Strategic Concept, rather to send clear political messages on the common security challenges. Mr. Bureau named the reasons for need of a new strategic concept: “changes in the strategic landscape”, new missions – especially in Afghanistan and lessons learnt there, the need for a comprehensive approach; new non-military security challenges such as cyber defence, energy security, maritime awareness, proliferation of WMD. He admits we do not have a comprehensive understanding of these challenges and how to deal with them from the global perspective. Due to the very fast changing environment, even in financial and economical terms, due to the specific relation between internal and external security, which demands a high level of coordination, he finds the upcoming period as very challenging. He confirmed that the NATO is going to be more and more a political-military organization. With respect to the new strategic concept, he declared that “we need a vision, we need a common view, we need a unity to address those issues” while this all will have to be reached by decision of 28 nations at the table. In this regard he thinks “we have to reshape the purpose of this principle of consensus in decision making.” Since reaching an agreement should be an inclusive process, thus he stressed that “every nation has its role in the process, every nation will provide a part of the answer” and even Russia will be involved in the debate. In the following debate he argued on the sense of the Article 5 that it is not a traditional border defence any more and we must think about the threats coming from different parts of the world, because “defence begins far from our borders”. Tomáš Valášek noted that this is a call not only for a new Strategic Concept, but possibly for quite sweeping over whole of the structures and decision making within NATO.

Mr. Adam Rotfeld, former Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, highlighted several very often-debated questions. With regards to Article 5 and non-Article 5 missions, he remarked that the mandate of the NATO is still the same - to defend the territory. Although the mission in Afghanistan is often described as a new and important challenge and test for the Alliance, he suggested that “we should not create an impression that it is our basic responsibility”. He expects the Declaration on NATO security to be similar to the London Declaration in 1990 and will emphasise the unity of the transatlantic community based on shared interests and values. Although, there is a consensus expected on the political and strategic level, operational activities cannot be a subject of consensus. Looking at the role of the US and EU, he underlined the special role of the US as an indispensable power. In regard of the U.S. anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic, he said that “new circumstances require new ways of lastingly linking Europe´s security to U.S. security and confirming the binding nature of the Article 5”. He criticized the concept of polarity and bipolarity. In his opinion, there is a need to stress the concept of interdependence. In respect to the recent dispute between Ukraine and Russia, although he admitted that mistakes were made on both sides, in his opinion Ukraine was a subject of a very aggressive policy with its own political aim. In his view, “the gas and oil cannot be used as a political instrument to change the political situation in some countries”. Mr. Rotfeld reminded that in Bucharest the Ukraine was given a promise of Euro-Atlantic perspective and he appealed this promise for Ukraine should be taken seriously. He emphasised the importance of a unified NATO and EU strategy towards Russia, which is restoring to vocabulary used during the Cold War, while NATO tends to use an inclusive approach involving countries in ensuring common security. In the following discussion, he pointed out the differentiated approach of Russia towards NATO members, and he stressed that the role of NATO and EU strategy should prevent “re-nationalisation” of security and prevent imposing the will of large and strong powers to small and medium sized countries.

With respect to the discussion about the new strategic concept, Mr. Rob de Wijk, Director of The Hague Center for Strategic Studies, is convinced there is a need for a completely new Strategic concept. According to him, there is division of opinion in Europe about the NATO role in Article 5 and non-Article 5 missions, while in his country they think that the balance should be more on the non-article 5 side. In the light of new definition of the Article 5, he stressed the need for the restructuring of forces to make them more deployable abroad. Although the security situation is changing, Afghanistan will remain on the top of the NATO agenda. In his view, if NATO fails in Afghanistan, it will lose its credibility to apply Article 5. However, he is in favour of handing over the security to Afghan authorities as soon as possible. The gas crisis has started the debate about how to become less dependent on Russia. According to his view energy security will be the key challenge for international security; the access to energy and raw materials, which already was and will be a significant reason behind many conflicts, since we are run out of minerals. In this context, he raised the question of the out of area operations in order to gain the access to resources. “This puts the Article 5 discussion in completely different context” he said. In his view, NATO will have to adapt more on this challenge and be ready to defend energy sources and routes. Other issues that might influence the view on the role of the NATO are the climate debate and the interest of countries in the North Pole. Mr. Rob de Wijk expressed his opinion that huge implication on the energy security is going to have the raise of China and India with combination of financial crisis impacts on the western countries causing a decline in absolute power. But the real danger is that “resource poor western democracies will have to deal with stronger resource rich autocracies”. His conclusion was that we have to defend our interest by cooperation, by deepening the European integration and repairing transatlantic relations, and we have to have appropriate expeditionary armed forces. During the discussion, he stressed that “we are in Afghanistan for our own security”.

Mr. Robin Shepherd, Chatham House, Senior Research Fellow for Europe, London, is of opinion that question of capabilities and financial side should be put into the frame of political will. He pointed out the bitterness in the UK, USA, Canada and some other countries about other NATO member states not pulling their weight. According to him, Afghanistan is an existential test for the Alliance. The debate about the new strategic concept will depend on the level of political will and public support to go beyond the minimalist version built around the Article 5 and to address the new challenges emerged after September 11. Although, he does not expect any large-scale threats, these issues will be confronted with different visions and different willingness of allies to address them. And he raised questions whether it is caused by civilization exhaustion, or the 20th century left Europe too pacifistic, too relativistic, too legalistic and too hedonistic. This might have political consequences for the future of NATO. In his opinion, the political leader must educate people that threats are real and their consequences worldwide.

Mr. Pavol Demeš, Director of the German Marshall Fund of the US, Bratislava, chaired the second panel focused of the very recent inauguration of the U.S. president Barack Obama, which gave a unique opportunity to analyze how deep the possible changes in the policy of the new administration might be really expected and to predict also the impact on Euro-Atlantic relations as well as on the global security environment.

According to Mr. John C. Hulsman, German Council on Foreign Relations, the expectations from the new president are too high. The Europeans can expect “music to their ears”, since on one hand Barack Obama is going to agree with Europeans, he is going to say: the world is multilateral and multipolar, and we must coordinate more at all levels and come up with more common views, but on the other hand the Europeans will be expected to do a lot more. And he illustrated it by example of closing Guantanamo or demand to raise European contributions to Afghanistan. He pointed out the lack of common positions between the allies and the hesitation to tackle hard issues and gave some examples regarding Afghanistan. With respect to Iran, he noted that bombing would be a mistake, but than we have to be much tougher and do more what regards economical sanctions. He thinks that there are certain time limitations to solve problems, otherwise “we will have an arms race in the Middle East”. He is convinced that “no alliance will survive without solving problems” and he expects Obama will use any multilateral forum to do it. But the ideas are needed. He said that Germans but also other Europeans like to “hide behind numbers and opinion polls”.  From the political point of view, he agreed that it is the EU 3 (Germany, UK, France) what really matters. In the question and answer period, John Hulsman said, that the key strategic issue is how we integrate raising powers such as China into our Euro-Atlantic norm space it in the next 20 years, because then we will have no power to set those norms.

Lt. Col. Scott Rutter (Retd), Director, Business Development, Communications and Tactical Networks, BAE Systems and National Spokesman and Board Member Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), shared his personal experience from the Iraqi battle field, when he witnessed the loss of 10 his soldiers. During the transition from conventional to stabilization and security operation, he recognized the need for cooperation with other institutions and integration of soldier into local communities. The young generation of soldiers today is quick, focused and determined what he appreciated. According to him, it is important to train and develop local partnerships. On the other hand, there is an asymmetric threat present. The commitment is more than providing soldiers; it has its economic, diplomatic and information side. Mr. Rutter underlined the importance of interoperability of forces and preparation of soldiers to understand the full spectrum of operations even before a real combat. From the new US president, he expects staying the course and commitments. He underlined the responsibility the whole society including private companies, industry and local communities have in order to revive the support for soldiers coming back home.

In opinion of Mr. Martin Bútora, Honorary President of the Institute for Public Affairs, former Slovak ambassador to USA, the original phrase regarding NATO: “Americans in, Soviets out and Germans down”, was changed after Visegrad countries had entered this organization to: “Americans in, Russians out and nationalism down”. However, nowadays, we have to answer questions, what to do, to keep Americans in, how to prevent creating spheres of influence and new raise of nationalism, populism, isolationism, which could emerge in the time of economic crisis. According to him, EU and the US had not talked sufficiently together. He remarked that there is a need for a new type of forum dealing with civilization issues and values besides those aimed at economic or security topics, and which could improve the quality of thinking. The debate is needed also due to the economic crisis, which could substantially change political landscapes and horizons. What regards transatlantic relations, the Europeans should be prepared at least to talk with the US. For the new NATO member states the Article 5 has still its relevance. He emphasized that any further agreement with Russia should not be made at the expense of EU. In respect to Balkans, it would be a mistake if US would disappear, he noted. Mr. Bútora expressed the conviction that involving more partners into coalition could be the efficient way dealing with Iran.

Mr. Marcin Zaborowski, European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, expressed his slight optimism when looking at the development of the transatlantic relations. He admitted that the relations improved during the second term of G.W. Bush and he also expressed his surprise about the pace and rapidness the new president has moved issues like Guantanamo, climate change, Iraq, Iran etc. With respect to Afghanistan, which he considered as a key topic of this year, he would not expect a request from the new president for further military, rather than for civilian contributions to Afghanistan. What still has prevailed in the US approach to EU is the tendency to talk to big states, not to presidency, to take EU as a trade block and avoiding its political structures. Although the bilateral relations of EU and the US have gained a certain importance and the portfolio of issues has increased, institutionally the relations do not work very well. During the upcoming NATO summit he would anticipate that Afghanistan and Iran would be the two main topics of Obama’s agenda. With regards to Afghanistan, we should not forget the role of the public opinion and its influence on politics.

The third panel was chaired by Ambassador Ortwin Hennig, EastWest Institute, Brussels. The panel analyzed the raising confidence of Russia, its latest steps including using gas as a political instrument and expected development in the context of the Europe divided over the question what should be its strategic approach to this country. On the other hand Russia is an important partner when dealing with number of security issues. However, even Russia will likely to be hit by the economic crisis.

In the beginning of his address, Mr. Borys Tarasyuk, Chairman of the European Integration Committee, Ukrainian Parliament, reminded Putin’s words:  „Russia returned to the world or global stage as a strong state, which other counties take into consideration”. He stated that “Ukraine is not a challenge to the EU, but contributor to the common European security.”  The recent gas crisis and the Georgia war showed a new “quality” of Russia as an aggressor towards its neighbours. However, he critically pointed out that the EU had not learnt a lesson from previous signals and still lacks the common energy security strategy and now it is facing Russia using its resources as a geopolitical instrument. “Divide and rule” is a principle applied in Russian policy. Russia was and is still trying to divide Europe by Iraq, energy, anti-missile system, Kosovo, NATO enlargement, Georgia, and attempts to damage the transatlantic link. On the other side, he admits “we need Russia economically prosperous, politically stable, democratic and cooperative”. We can encourage Russia to behave itself in such a manner. Ukraine and EU has lots of challenges, but we have to address them together including the energy. Thus, he suggested creating a mechanism to deal with this specific issue. In the following discussion Mr. Tarasyuk remarked that we do not need a new document like a new European Security Treaty as proposed by Russia. But Russia has to fulfil its current commitments, which is not the case in regard to Moldova, or Georgia.

According to Mrs. Oksana Antonenko, Senior Fellow (Russia and Eurasia) at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, the relations between EU, NATO and Russia are not good when looking under their surface. Using the deconstructive approach, she elaborated more on the term “resurgent Russia”, its meaning and perceptions in various debates. Although Russia is not part of the USSR anymore, it will last several generations until the memories of the USSR will not influence its policy. Russia has an ambition to be an important player, but has no allies and very few reliable partners, has limited military capacity and still remains a marginal player in respect to key global issues. With regards to EU and NATO relations to Russia, she noted that the number of bodies, institutions and working groups did not lead to better relations, but to disappointment, mistrust and missed opportunities. In her opinion, NATO-Russia Council is not an ideal platform. “Less is more”. And this motto should be also implied when indentifying areas of cooperation between NATO and Russia. and she also outlined the possible opportunities: cooperation in antipiracy operations; fight against drugs in Afghanistan; and tactical anti-missile defence. She noted that G20 could be also a very effective mechanism to involve Russia and give it a role and responsibility. Russia discovered EU as a political and security player for the first time during Georgia conflict thanks to the Sarkozy’s role. Since interdependency is a reality, the gas and financial crisis create opportunity for strategic cooperation. Mrs. Antonenko pointed out that there has been no influence of public debate on the policy making process but that is slowly changing. There is an increasing demand from Kremlin for an independent expertise with the president Medvedev. The space is opening up partly as a result of financial crises. It is now the right time to draw Russia and China closer to western values and to give them opportunity and responsibility. The Russia is changing and a new post-soviet generation is appearing. She emphasized that we should not miss this opportunity.

Mr. James Sherr, Chatham House, Head of Russia and Eurasia Programme, London, remarked that during the gas crisis, Russia behaved like not being a member of Euro-Atlantic community and having no wish to be part of it, but Ukraine failed to behave like the one, which wants to be a part of it. Behind the certain type of isolation of Russia is that we have lost the ability to communicate effectively and clearly with them. Although, Russia is irritated by the EU, it does not have a respect to EU. The presumption that more prosperous Russia, with more trade etc. should lead to more stable Russia, was not fulfilled. Russia still wants to be a leader of stability and security in post-soviet region and this ambition is fuelled by its nationalism. “We are dealing with a country which is motivated both by very strong sense of injury and insult” said Sherr. He pointed out that with respect to gas issues the division among political, economical and geopolitical aspects is impossible, the EU-Ukraine-Russia gas relations cannot be separated from bilateral Ukraine-Russia relations and finally that Ukraine and Russia are not capable to solve bilateral problems on their own. What we are facing today, in his view, is spreading of post-soviet models of opacity.

Mr. Dmitriy Talanov, Head of NATO Unit of the All-European Cooperation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, characterized the current NATO-Russia as being at crossroads. In his opinion, the NATO made a mistake when froze the cooperation with Russia last year in August. Such a worsening of relations did not appear since the Kosovo crisis. There is an impression that the Alliance is willing to forget its own declarations. He informed about the restoration of informal dialogue with on ambassadorial level in Brussels and discussions held about anti-missile system and crisis settlements. Mr. Talanov is the same opinion as the NATO Secretary General and thinks there is a need for a constructive agenda. Russia is prepared to raise old questions including enlargement and anti-missile defense, which are considered crucial for Russian security and could lead to destabilization, lack of confidence and trust, especially in case of Georgia and Ukraine. Reminding the Russians suggestions about European security architecture, he noted that we have entered a very critical time of transformation of security system. However, it is unthinkable Russia to be a member of NATO, as he confirmed in the further discussion.

Mr. Róbert Vass, Secretary General of the Slovak Atlantic Commission, concluded the conference with his closing remarks summarizing the key messages of all panels.

Exclusive partner	BAE SYSTEMS
Main Partners:	Ardaco, a. s. , Mercedes-Benz
Partners:	PQM, spol. s. r. o.  , University of Economics Bratislava
Media Partners:	SITA – Slovak News Agency, Euractiv.sk, Euro-Atlantic Quarterly