Compiled by: Jana Prochotská, Andrea Ferjenčíková and Michal Kardoš
OFFICIAL OPENING
The Conference “New Challeneges – Better Capabilities” was opened by Amb (Ret.) Rastislav Káčer, president of the Slovak Atlantic commision.
H.E. Jaroslav Baška, Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic, appreciated the existing and original principles of NATO – democracy and liberty. He highlighted new security threats such as cyber attacks and energy security that go hand in hand with new requirements. However, we should not forget the ongoing threat such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he added. We should bear in mind that the security alliance does not concern only armed forces, but public support is crucial and vital as well. In the period of economic crisis searching for unconventional solutions and re-prioritization of goals and tasks becomes significantly important. Slovakia had embarked the efficient resource management even before the crisis arose. Slovakia together with NATO share the strong commitment for Afghan operation and ISAF remains one of the main priorities of the Slovak Armed Forces.
H.E. Miroslav Lajčák, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, stressed the role of Slovakia as an accountable, reliable and predictable NATO ally. According to Minister, the NATO member states should be aware of their obligations and be serious about commitment towards their only security guarantee – NATO. He elaborated Slovak basic elements for the new Strategic Concept. Firstly, Article 5 should remain a firm point of reference, but it cannot be restricted to defending only our territory. Secondly, NATO represents a community of values and the collective identity is the core principle that governs functioning of the Alliance. He underlines the partnership policy that is characterized by a wide range of permanent partnerships in different regions involving number of actors. Furthermore, NATO should establish strategic partnerships with Russia and other important security players. Fourthly, he emphasized the US-EU, EU-NATO relationships that are mutually important with no alternative.
Mr. Jean-François Bureau, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, pointed out the fact that NATO is facing huge challenges such as its transformation and mission in Afghanistan. He stressed that NATO is very active changing organization that works openly and transparently. Bureau raised the question how the Alliance could work more efficiently and with adequate performance. The next decade should bring inclusion of extensive public support into NATO security discussions.
PANNEL 1: NATO’s Strategic Concept 60 Years on: What Is Today’s Meaning of Article 5?
The first panel, entitled NATO’s Strategic concept 60 years on, was chaired by Mr. Pavol Demeš, Director for Central and Eastern Europe – Geman Marshall Fund of the U.S. He stressed that he was pleased to discuss not the Slovakia’s issues but the most pressing and challenging issues of Transatlantic alliance. He highlighted the fact that so many outstanding experts took part in the conference New Challenges – Better Capabilities. He also stressed the concept of public private partnership between the Slovak Atlantic commission and Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
H.E. Imants Liegis, Minister of Defence of Latvia, compared current meaning of Article 5 with its Cold War definition. The rational of Article 5 as we knew before 9/11 still exists and this was just confirmed by the Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008 and joint Russian and Belorussian large manoeuvres that took place in 2009. He pointed out that the events of 9/11 helped to clarify the meaning of Article 5. He stressed solidarity and collective preparation in connection with Afghanistan where all members of the Alliance are dealing with the threats to security. He emphasized that NATO shows clarity, firmness and strength in these very uncertain times. He touched upon the reinsurance and stressed that it should be the central part of the new Strategic Concept and the glue that holds the Alliance together. However, it doesn’t have to be invented since this concept is part of the current Strategic Concept. In his words Latvia also feels more assured by being a member of the Alliance. Besides reinsurance he stressed the importance of responsibility and particularly Latvia’s responsibility towards the Alliance. He emphasized Latvia’s responsibility to continue its engagement in the ISAF operations at the current level. According to Liegis, commitment to Afghanistan is in many ways an explanation of rational of the collective defence and Article 5. The new Strategic Concept should not be a substitute for proper defence plans. He stressed the importance of equal security for all NATO’s allies.
Mr. Hans Binnendijk, National Defense University, Washington D.C., mentioned six previous Strategic Concepts, from which first four concepts dealt with the military affairs and the last two dealt with the security issues. In his opinion there are two fundamental reasons for the new Strategic Concept. Firstly, since NATO was created, there have been three significant changes in security environment; the bipolar balance of power was changed by unipolar system and most recently substituted by multipolar system. The environment itself indicates that the new Strategic Concept is needed. Secondly, NATO consensus has been broken in six different issues – there are differences of opinion about Russia, Afghanistan, new challenges such as cyber attacks, defence spending, enlargement process and governance. In order to create short, elegant and convincing strategic plan there will be three stages – Reflection, Consultation, and Drafting stage. Binnendijk further outlined four R’s that will serve as a basis for bringing the Alliance together. Four R’s concern re-assurance of Article 5, responsibility (missions at strategic distance), resilience (cyber, energy, etc.), and re-engagement (within the Alliance and with other partners). Binnendijk touched upon the national specialization in certain areas. There are four basic capabilities countries have to focus on. Firstly, those capabilities needed to deliver on Article 5. The second set of capabilities relate to deployability, sustainability and usability. He pointed out the European forces half of which is not deployable according to him. If the force is not deployable it is not useful. The third point that he stressed as the military core of the alliance is C4ISR (command, control, communication, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). The fourth point is the comprehensive approach that should link the military capabilities with the civil capabilities and operating together. Mr. Binnendijk stressed that in places like Afghanistan we could be successful through this approach.
Mr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Chairman of the board, Euro-Atlantic Association of Poland, sees several problems that NATO should grapple with. Firstly, he said that the invocation of Article 5 after terrorist attacks 9/11 raises certain questions because the terrorist attack of 09/11 was not really an armed attack. And thus the question that needs to be resolved is the meaning of an armed attack and it is the critical point of understanding of Article 5. An armed attack is one that inflicts major damage, but if so, it seems to be quite open question since a cyber attack may cause serious damage too. What he sees as another issue is that various military conflicts that took place in the world were of totally different nature. The conflicts were mainly of limited scale and limited duration and thus the question is what the response of NATO would be in case of an air raid on one of the member states. He contemplates whether there should be a retaliation of an air raid in case of an attack and in what scale and what nature it should be carried out. Thirdly, he underlined that besides the Article 5 there are other security guarantees e.g. in the Brussels treaty or Lisbon treaty. For this reason it is not clear how the other security guarantees included in Brussels treaty and Lisbon treaty would fit into Article 5.
H.E. Kim Traavik, Permanent representative of Norway to NATO, pointed out the current meanings of Article 5. Although Article 5 binds allies tightly together it has been the subject of benign neglect to a certain extent and some older member states of the Alliance used to have a tendency to take Article 5 for granted. What he further stressed is the fact, that there should be a better balance in the Alliance between home and away. Alliance should focus on strategic distant places such as Afghanistan that should remain at the top of priorities. However, at the same time, Alliance must be able to focus on challenges that the Alliance faces closer to home and the paramount among those challenges is the ability to retain the idea of collectively resisting any attack on the territorial integrity of member states. The possible inability to capture all thinkable challenges and threats could weaken the Article 5. Traavik also touched upon the Alliance’s deterrence policy. It consists not only of nuclear deterrence but also conventional deterrence that have been enhanced qualitatively. The qualitatively enhanced conventional forces are essential part of NATO’s deterrence policy and create a strong position for constructive engagement in nuclear disarmament.
PANEL 2: Cyber Security as a Challenge for NATO
Mr. Tomáš Valášek, Member of Board, SAC; Centre for European reform, chaired the second panel on Cyber security. He stressed the fact that the nature of an attack has changed since the end of the Cold war. During the Cold war a threat was expected to be a direct using soldiers, tanks etc. These days, we don’t know what an attack means. The question that needs to be resolved is whether to expand the scope and definition of Article 5.
H.E. Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Defence of Estonia, pointed out that the cyber defence, threats and attacks are relevant issues to be addressed in NATO. He underlined the fact that fast development and advanced technologies create new possibilities for attacks and new threats. One specific feature of cyber space and cyber attacks is the fact that they are enabled by the exploitation of enemy’s vulnerabilities. Cyber crimes are fuelled and sponsored not only by private entities, and their interests and/or gains, but also by state actors. Cyber defence is first and foremost a national responsibility, but there is a strong coordination need on NATO’s level. He highlighted the vision of national cooperation between states with the NATO’s coordination. Comprehensive approach and more cooperation on national and international level is a concept of total defence. The concept of total defence has to be based on public awareness. Cyber deterrence is according to Aaviksoo too ambiguous to carry any relevance. As it is impossible to disarm the possible opponent the only relevant policy approach seems to be the cyber defence. The lack of coordination between different agencies responsible for different aspects of cyber defence is vitally important. The main danger of a cyber attack lies in its rapidity since there is almost no time to react.
Col. Ilmar Tamm, Director of Cooperative Cyber Defence centre of excellence in Tallinn, noted that despite serious cyber attacks in Estonia in 2007 there has not been a cyber war yet. According to him, the problem that countries need to solve is to find the cause why the cyber attacks occur and not to concentrate on what the worst scenario could be. He stressed that without knowing potential offence, the national or Alliance’s defence becomes meaningless. Mr. Tamm also pointed out the fact that several good initiatives have been made in the sphere of legal policy by number of nations. At the end of his speech he emphasized the importance of distinguishing between partners and those who want to become partners. A problem arises when the so-called partner is not willing to cooperate and disappears when his help is needed.
Maj. Gen. Glynne Hines, Director of NATO HQ Consultation, Command and Control Staff in Brussels, noted that cyber attacks in Estonia in 2007 energized NATO and kicked off its serious engagement in cyber space and started discussion on what the NATO’s policy in this issue should be. He stressed the importance of sharing information not only among NATO allies but also engaging other partners. He also noted that NATO is under attack everyday and its systems are being threatened. However, those attacks have not caused any severe damage. Gen. Hines also warned that by putting more emphasize on networking and interconnecting systems among NATO and NATO’s allies and by transmitting important information, all units connected to networks could be even more vulnerable. Therefore countries have to protect their systems against possible threats that might come from different places using NATO channels, which can be used as primary target in order to attack the states.
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Kosla, Manager – Microsoft Central and Eastern European HQ in Munich, as a representative of private sector introduced several projects of cooperation between private sector and governments. He stressed that the military and government agencies are involved in design and functional preparation of various tools. He pointed out that no government has budget to develop the security tools itself. And for this reason, there must be a close cooperation with vendors from the early stage of development. For instance, NATO actively participated in security setting developments in Vista operating system. He also touched upon the problem of tracking the cyber attackers. The problem is not to track attackers, but to collect evidence because attackers often operate in countries that do not cooperate as expected. Kosla also suggested his vision of a system similar to the Schengen information system that would help to gather and share information about cyber attacks and crimes among other partners.
PANEL 3: What is the Future of NATO/EU Relations with Russia?
The third panel entitled “What is the Future of NATO/EU Relations with Russia?” was chaired by Mr. Edward Lucas, Foreign Policy Correspondent, The Economist, London. He reminded the saying that NATO was to keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out, but the new Russian security architecture is designed to do the opposite; to get the Americans out, the Russians in and the Germans up.
In his statement, Mr. Eugeniusz Smolar, Senior Fellow, Centre for International Relations, Warsaw, is of opinion that EU can count on the case by case cooperation and hope for better in the future. He emphasized that the cooperation of NATO with Russia and EU with Russia is dependant on compromises brought from both sides. Smolar stressed that no country can compromise on values and respect for sovereignty of the neighbour countries of Russia including Georgia and Ukraine. He underlined that from the trade point of view, Russia might face non-political purely pragmatic problems that deserve the immediate response. Smolar stressed that the German, French and other businesses have a great influence on the foreign policy of the country. This creates problems in relations with the gas. He stressed that there isn’t any European market on gas. Nevertheless, European market of gas is needed because the lack of political will creates situation that Gazprom can divide the market into submarkets, which is against the European law.
In the beginning of his address, Mr. Igor Yurgens, Chairman of the Management Board and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Institute of Contemporary Development, Moscow, underlined the idea of new security architecture that is also called European Security Treaty by Russian specialists. Yurgens elaborated three aspects concerning the broad concept of architecture. Firstly, he is confident that the new missile defence system will not be American missile defence system; it should be a global concept where Russia is willing to contribute. Secondly, he suggests that there should be a broader elaboration on Afghanistan. Yurgens considers experience of the Soviet Union when present in Afghanistan as essential and would link up numerous players from and outside of the region such as Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, USA, Russia and China. The plan for Afghanistan should not represent Western suppression of independent Afghan nation. Thirdly, if the first two initiatives are successful, he would not oppose the creation of a treaty between NATO and Shanghai organisation of cooperation. Furthermore, in the long run he would support the Russian application for NATO membership. Yurgens also said that Russia is a difficult neighbour and stressed that Russia will be democratic and good neighbour, however, not because Germans want them to be like that.
The Conference “New Challeneges – Better Capabilities” was opened by Amb (Ret.) Rastislav Káčer, president of the Slovak Atlantic commision.
H.E. Jaroslav Baška, Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic, appreciated the existing and original principles of NATO – democracy and liberty. He highlighted new security threats such as cyber attacks and energy security that go hand in hand with new requirements. However, we should not forget the ongoing threat such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he added. We should bear in mind that the security alliance does not concern only armed forces, but public support is crucial and vital as well. In the period of economic crisis searching for unconventional solutions and re-prioritization of goals and tasks becomes significantly important. Slovakia had embarked the efficient resource management even before the crisis arose. Slovakia together with NATO share the strong commitment for Afghan operation and ISAF remains one of the main priorities of the Slovak Armed Forces.
H.E. Miroslav Lajčák, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, stressed the role of Slovakia as an accountable, reliable and predictable NATO ally. According to Minister, the NATO member states should be aware of their obligations and be serious about commitment towards their only security guarantee – NATO. He elaborated Slovak basic elements for the new Strategic Concept. Firstly, Article 5 should remain a firm point of reference, but it cannot be restricted to defending only our territory. Secondly, NATO represents a community of values and the collective identity is the core principle that governs functioning of the Alliance. He underlines the partnership policy that is characterized by a wide range of permanent partnerships in different regions involving number of actors. Furthermore, NATO should establish strategic partnerships with Russia and other important security players. Fourthly, he emphasized the US-EU, EU-NATO relationships that are mutually important with no alternative.
Mr. Jean-François Bureau, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, pointed out the fact that NATO is facing huge challenges such as its transformation and mission in Afghanistan. He stressed that NATO is very active changing organization that works openly and transparently. Bureau raised the question how the Alliance could work more efficiently and with adequate performance. The next decade should bring inclusion of extensive public support into NATO security discussions.
PANNEL 1: NATO’s Strategic Concept 60 Years on: What Is Today’s Meaning of Article 5?
The first panel, entitled NATO’s Strategic concept 60 years on, was chaired by Mr. Pavol Demeš, Director for Central and Eastern Europe – Geman Marshall Fund of the U.S. He stressed that he was pleased to discuss not the Slovakia’s issues but the most pressing and challenging issues of Transatlantic alliance. He highlighted the fact that so many outstanding experts took part in the conference New Challenges – Better Capabilities. He also stressed the concept of public private partnership between the Slovak Atlantic commission and Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
H.E. Imants Liegis, Minister of Defence of Latvia, compared current meaning of Article 5 with its Cold War definition. The rational of Article 5 as we knew before 9/11 still exists and this was just confirmed by the Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008 and joint Russian and Belorussian large manoeuvres that took place in 2009. He pointed out that the events of 9/11 helped to clarify the meaning of Article 5. He stressed solidarity and collective preparation in connection with Afghanistan where all members of the Alliance are dealing with the threats to security. He emphasized that NATO shows clarity, firmness and strength in these very uncertain times. He touched upon the reinsurance and stressed that it should be the central part of the new Strategic Concept and the glue that holds the Alliance together. However, it doesn’t have to be invented since this concept is part of the current Strategic Concept. In his words Latvia also feels more assured by being a member of the Alliance. Besides reinsurance he stressed the importance of responsibility and particularly Latvia’s responsibility towards the Alliance. He emphasized Latvia’s responsibility to continue its engagement in the ISAF operations at the current level. According to Liegis, commitment to Afghanistan is in many ways an explanation of rational of the collective defence and Article 5. The new Strategic Concept should not be a substitute for proper defence plans. He stressed the importance of equal security for all NATO’s allies.
Mr. Hans Binnendijk, National Defense University, Washington D.C., mentioned six previous Strategic Concepts, from which first four concepts dealt with the military affairs and the last two dealt with the security issues. In his opinion there are two fundamental reasons for the new Strategic Concept. Firstly, since NATO was created, there have been three significant changes in security environment; the bipolar balance of power was changed by unipolar system and most recently substituted by multipolar system. The environment itself indicates that the new Strategic Concept is needed. Secondly, NATO consensus has been broken in six different issues – there are differences of opinion about Russia, Afghanistan, new challenges such as cyber attacks, defence spending, enlargement process and governance. In order to create short, elegant and convincing strategic plan there will be three stages – Reflection, Consultation, and Drafting stage. Binnendijk further outlined four R’s that will serve as a basis for bringing the Alliance together. Four R’s concern re-assurance of Article 5, responsibility (missions at strategic distance), resilience (cyber, energy, etc.), and re-engagement (within the Alliance and with other partners). Binnendijk touched upon the national specialization in certain areas. There are four basic capabilities countries have to focus on. Firstly, those capabilities needed to deliver on Article 5. The second set of capabilities relate to deployability, sustainability and usability. He pointed out the European forces half of which is not deployable according to him. If the force is not deployable it is not useful. The third point that he stressed as the military core of the alliance is C4ISR (command, control, communication, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). The fourth point is the comprehensive approach that should link the military capabilities with the civil capabilities and operating together. Mr. Binnendijk stressed that in places like Afghanistan we could be successful through this approach.
Mr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Chairman of the board, Euro-Atlantic Association of Poland, sees several problems that NATO should grapple with. Firstly, he said that the invocation of Article 5 after terrorist attacks 9/11 raises certain questions because the terrorist attack of 09/11 was not really an armed attack. And thus the question that needs to be resolved is the meaning of an armed attack and it is the critical point of understanding of Article 5. An armed attack is one that inflicts major damage, but if so, it seems to be quite open question since a cyber attack may cause serious damage too. What he sees as another issue is that various military conflicts that took place in the world were of totally different nature. The conflicts were mainly of limited scale and limited duration and thus the question is what the response of NATO would be in case of an air raid on one of the member states. He contemplates whether there should be a retaliation of an air raid in case of an attack and in what scale and what nature it should be carried out. Thirdly, he underlined that besides the Article 5 there are other security guarantees e.g. in the Brussels treaty or Lisbon treaty. For this reason it is not clear how the other security guarantees included in Brussels treaty and Lisbon treaty would fit into Article 5.
H.E. Kim Traavik, Permanent representative of Norway to NATO, pointed out the current meanings of Article 5. Although Article 5 binds allies tightly together it has been the subject of benign neglect to a certain extent and some older member states of the Alliance used to have a tendency to take Article 5 for granted. What he further stressed is the fact, that there should be a better balance in the Alliance between home and away. Alliance should focus on strategic distant places such as Afghanistan that should remain at the top of priorities. However, at the same time, Alliance must be able to focus on challenges that the Alliance faces closer to home and the paramount among those challenges is the ability to retain the idea of collectively resisting any attack on the territorial integrity of member states. The possible inability to capture all thinkable challenges and threats could weaken the Article 5. Traavik also touched upon the Alliance’s deterrence policy. It consists not only of nuclear deterrence but also conventional deterrence that have been enhanced qualitatively. The qualitatively enhanced conventional forces are essential part of NATO’s deterrence policy and create a strong position for constructive engagement in nuclear disarmament.
PANEL 2: Cyber Security as a Challenge for NATO
Mr. Tomáš Valášek, Member of Board, SAC; Centre for European reform, chaired the second panel on Cyber security. He stressed the fact that the nature of an attack has changed since the end of the Cold war. During the Cold war a threat was expected to be a direct using soldiers, tanks etc. These days, we don’t know what an attack means. The question that needs to be resolved is whether to expand the scope and definition of Article 5.
H.E. Jaak Aaviksoo, Minister of Defence of Estonia, pointed out that the cyber defence, threats and attacks are relevant issues to be addressed in NATO. He underlined the fact that fast development and advanced technologies create new possibilities for attacks and new threats. One specific feature of cyber space and cyber attacks is the fact that they are enabled by the exploitation of enemy’s vulnerabilities. Cyber crimes are fuelled and sponsored not only by private entities, and their interests and/or gains, but also by state actors. Cyber defence is first and foremost a national responsibility, but there is a strong coordination need on NATO’s level. He highlighted the vision of national cooperation between states with the NATO’s coordination. Comprehensive approach and more cooperation on national and international level is a concept of total defence. The concept of total defence has to be based on public awareness. Cyber deterrence is according to Aaviksoo too ambiguous to carry any relevance. As it is impossible to disarm the possible opponent the only relevant policy approach seems to be the cyber defence. The lack of coordination between different agencies responsible for different aspects of cyber defence is vitally important. The main danger of a cyber attack lies in its rapidity since there is almost no time to react.
Col. Ilmar Tamm, Director of Cooperative Cyber Defence centre of excellence in Tallinn, noted that despite serious cyber attacks in Estonia in 2007 there has not been a cyber war yet. According to him, the problem that countries need to solve is to find the cause why the cyber attacks occur and not to concentrate on what the worst scenario could be. He stressed that without knowing potential offence, the national or Alliance’s defence becomes meaningless. Mr. Tamm also pointed out the fact that several good initiatives have been made in the sphere of legal policy by number of nations. At the end of his speech he emphasized the importance of distinguishing between partners and those who want to become partners. A problem arises when the so-called partner is not willing to cooperate and disappears when his help is needed.
Maj. Gen. Glynne Hines, Director of NATO HQ Consultation, Command and Control Staff in Brussels, noted that cyber attacks in Estonia in 2007 energized NATO and kicked off its serious engagement in cyber space and started discussion on what the NATO’s policy in this issue should be. He stressed the importance of sharing information not only among NATO allies but also engaging other partners. He also noted that NATO is under attack everyday and its systems are being threatened. However, those attacks have not caused any severe damage. Gen. Hines also warned that by putting more emphasize on networking and interconnecting systems among NATO and NATO’s allies and by transmitting important information, all units connected to networks could be even more vulnerable. Therefore countries have to protect their systems against possible threats that might come from different places using NATO channels, which can be used as primary target in order to attack the states.
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Kosla, Manager – Microsoft Central and Eastern European HQ in Munich, as a representative of private sector introduced several projects of cooperation between private sector and governments. He stressed that the military and government agencies are involved in design and functional preparation of various tools. He pointed out that no government has budget to develop the security tools itself. And for this reason, there must be a close cooperation with vendors from the early stage of development. For instance, NATO actively participated in security setting developments in Vista operating system. He also touched upon the problem of tracking the cyber attackers. The problem is not to track attackers, but to collect evidence because attackers often operate in countries that do not cooperate as expected. Kosla also suggested his vision of a system similar to the Schengen information system that would help to gather and share information about cyber attacks and crimes among other partners.
PANEL 3: What is the Future of NATO/EU Relations with Russia?
The third panel entitled “What is the Future of NATO/EU Relations with Russia?” was chaired by Mr. Edward Lucas, Foreign Policy Correspondent, The Economist, London. He reminded the saying that NATO was to keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out, but the new Russian security architecture is designed to do the opposite; to get the Americans out, the Russians in and the Germans up.
In his statement, Mr. Eugeniusz Smolar, Senior Fellow, Centre for International Relations, Warsaw, is of opinion that EU can count on the case by case cooperation and hope for better in the future. He emphasized that the cooperation of NATO with Russia and EU with Russia is dependant on compromises brought from both sides. Smolar stressed that no country can compromise on values and respect for sovereignty of the neighbour countries of Russia including Georgia and Ukraine. He underlined that from the trade point of view, Russia might face non-political purely pragmatic problems that deserve the immediate response. Smolar stressed that the German, French and other businesses have a great influence on the foreign policy of the country. This creates problems in relations with the gas. He stressed that there isn’t any European market on gas. Nevertheless, European market of gas is needed because the lack of political will creates situation that Gazprom can divide the market into submarkets, which is against the European law.
In the beginning of his address, Mr. Igor Yurgens, Chairman of the Management Board and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Institute of Contemporary Development, Moscow, underlined the idea of new security architecture that is also called European Security Treaty by Russian specialists. Yurgens elaborated three aspects concerning the broad concept of architecture. Firstly, he is confident that the new missile defence system will not be American missile defence system; it should be a global concept where Russia is willing to contribute. Secondly, he suggests that there should be a broader elaboration on Afghanistan. Yurgens considers experience of the Soviet Union when present in Afghanistan as essential and would link up numerous players from and outside of the region such as Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, USA, Russia and China. The plan for Afghanistan should not represent Western suppression of independent Afghan nation. Thirdly, if the first two initiatives are successful, he would not oppose the creation of a treaty between NATO and Shanghai organisation of cooperation. Furthermore, in the long run he would support the Russian application for NATO membership. Yurgens also said that Russia is a difficult neighbour and stressed that Russia will be democratic and good neighbour, however, not because Germans want them to be like that.
Mr. Eckart Von Klaeden, CDU/CSU, Bundestag, Berlin, was addressed by Chairman of the third panel Edward Lucas to evaluate German-Russian relations. According to Klaeden the Grand Coalition in Germany has been characterized by a significant change in perception of relations towards Russian Federation. The term Strategic Partnership has been replaced by Modernizing Partnership that represents friendly downgrade of the goal. The change in new coalition regarding partnership with Russian Federation is dependant also on FDP. German Free Democratic Party prefers the term Pragmatic Partnership towards Russia. He proposed that Europeans should act openly, decisively and jointly towards their Russian partner. There are two possibilities – the energy cooperation of EU with Russia will be either terminated or could be still revived. Klaeden stressed that German national interest comes with the interest of its neighbours in Europe. Kladen’s impression is that the official position of Kremel is that European order was made in the 1990s with weak Russia and Russian weakness was abused to implement the European principles.
KEYNOTE SPEECH: Crafting the new Strategic Concept: Ambitions, Resources and Partnerships for a 21st Century Alliance, Amb. Alexander Vershbow
Amb. Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, stressed that the U.S. is fully committed to a strong and relevant Alliance. Vershbow warned that poor governance and festering extremism can go far beyond NATO’s boundaries and can have deadly implications for the security of NATO allies’ populations. He further highlighted that the new Strategic Concept will need to help the Alliance to strike the right balance among the old and new missions. He pointed out three fundamental pillars that the experts should bear in mind when elaborating the Concept; developing a stronger consensus about the challenges that NATO will be facing; ensuring, that the public understands the necessity of matching resources to NATO missions; strengthening partnership to maximize its role to build peace and stability and to better reflect globalized world. Vershbow also appreciated Slovakia’s ongoing NATO Response Force contributions. Pooling more resources would help to reduce costs and more efficiently deliver key capabilities for operations now and in the future. Pooled capabilities allow multiple countries to share the burden of procurement and maintenance. Multinational arrangements are particularly helpful for smaller allies, as they offer a way to provide capability collectively that none could field individually. He stressed that even larger countries had come to see the utility of pursuing pooling and multinational procurement. Vershbow touched upon the European military expenses. He is of opinion that consensus around collective defence cannot take place if there are perceptions that some members are true security providers while others are security consumers. He emphasized that the European defence spending has not increased since 1998. Vershbow stressed the importance of NATO’s cooperation with the EU and other institutions. He touched upon combined NATO’s military strength that should consist of economic and other civilian contributions. He said it will be important to engage with Russia in order to dispel the false notion that NATO enlargement is directed against Moscow. According to him, dialogue and cooperation between NATO and Russia should serve to demonstrate to both sides that the other is not a threat, and that security is a common one towards which all countries must work in concert. He stressed that the U.S. are committed to developing so called Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defence in Europe, and a missile defence architecture that will be inherently collaborative. In his words this should form part of a wider NATO missile defence system. He highlighted that strong missile defence architecture is necessary to deter the widest possible range of threats, whether from missiles armed with conventional weapons or, in the worst-case scenario, missiles bearing nuclear weapons or other WMD. He stressed that the new U.S. approach of missile defence is based on significant progress in technology and revised analysis of the threats posed by Iran and others. It’s an approach that is fundamentally consistent with Article 5 and the principle of indivisibility of Allied security. Vershbow also stressed that the new architecture is to be inclusive. He is enthusiastic about a potential cooperative role for Russia.
KEYNOTE SPEECH: Vision of NATO in the Changing Security Environment, H.E. Anders Fogh Rasmussen
H.E. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General, primarily touched upon two main issues; Afghanistan and the new Strategic Concept. In the beginning of his address he stressed the mission in Afghanistan which is, in his words, the most complex challenge NATO has ever undertaken. According to him the costs of inaction would be much higher and instability in case of no action would be just a matter of time until the Europeans would feel the consequences. For this reason, Afghanistan remains NATO’s number one priority. New complex security challenges such as cyber attacks, energy security and climate change are showing that searching consensus in NATO on whether and how to respond to the new challenges has become increasingly difficult. He expects that the new Strategic Concept will help to make the right political choices, better prioritise tasks and clarify the political and military tools. According to Rasmussen the new Strategic Concept will give to Euro-Atlantic community a firm, and agreed foundation for all future activities. He stressed five issues that, he personally believes, will require particular attention during the process of framing the Strategic Concept. Firstly, NATO’s core task was, is, and will remain, the defence of the NATO allies' territory and populations. He further stressed that territorial defence often starts far from NATO’s boundaries and territorial defence also requires a capability to deal with the new security threats such as terrorism and cyber defence. Secondly, the new Strategic concept will need to urge the military transformation since it is important to cover the full spectrum of tasks, from collective defence to peace support operations. He highlighted the resources that need to be allocated more efficiently through better cooperation, coordination and through collective solutions. Thirdly, new strategy must incorporate the notion of a “Comprehensive Approach“. Current security situation demands a comprehensive application of economic, political and other measures that go far beyond NATO’s capabilities. He stressed the vital role of NATO and its connection with other international players, including the United Nations, the European Union and the NGO community. As the fourth point, he pointed out that the new Strategic Concept must reaffirm the long-standing NATO objective: help to complete the consolidation of Europe as a continent that is whole, free and at peace. Rasmussen stressed that different views of Russia and NATO are unavoidable. Nevertheless, NATO and Russia have many common interests – in Afghanistan, in combating terrorism, and in preventing nuclear proliferation. The main task remains to pursue these long-standing common interests.
PANEL 4: The Impact of Economic Crises on European Defence Budgets
The fourth panel entitled “The Impact of Economic Crises on European Defence Budgets” was chaired by Mr. Quentin Peel, International Affairs Editor, Financial Times, London.
In her introductory statement, H.E. Ljubica Jelušič, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, stressed that there are three groups of countries regarding the defence budgets. The first group spends the same percentage of their GDP like before the economic crisis. The second group has faced the nominal and percentage decrease in defence budget spending. The third type of countries invests mainly into their domestic defence industry which is perceived as counter-crisis measure. According to Jelušič the positive results of economic crises are for example closer cooperation among countries, bigger involvement in multi-national projects, etc. Also smaller countries are more ready to put resources together for multinational common projects. Greater synergy between the EU and NATO is necessary in order to bring the cost cutting and efficient functioning. She stressed the necessity of synergy effect of the EU and NATO within the European defence agency and European defence markets. She highlighted the importance of the public diplomacy as the defence sector is currently under increasing level of public scrutiny.
Mr. Marshall Billingslea, former NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment, and former US Deputy under Secretary of the Navy, Washington D.C., opened his speech with coming back to Hans Binnendijk’s address on the new Strategic Concept and he also elaborated four R’s. Billingslea added the fifth R – Resources because the lack of resources represents a significant problem for the Alliance when establishing the new Strategic Concept. Billingslea emphasized that only 6 out of 28 NATO allies donate an agreed 2% of GDP. Two percentage points is an amount that was set as the meaningful sum in order to be able to fulfil the commitment of Article 5. From his point of view, the current balance of financial burden sharing within the Alliance is not healthy. Moreover, there exists a significant difference in spending financial resources on modernization and R&D between the U.S. and European partners that can lead to inoperability of the troops.
Mr. Malcolm Chalmers, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, London, highlighted that Great Britain is an untypical European country in two aspects. Firstly, UK has been increasing the defence budget over the last decade. Secondly, UK has been projected to have the highest budget deficit of any OECD country in 2010. Mr. Chalmers stressed that there will need to be cuts in spending after the general elections next year. Agenda of burden sharing within the Alliance plays a similarly important role in the UK as in the U.S. Operations in Afghanistan will be given an absolute priority. In the UK the issue of burden sharing is right at the top of the agenda. The main worry in defence in the UK is that cuts will fall where they can, rather where they should. He also stressed that the main goal of buying new weapons and military equipment should be to create effective armed forces and not to support industry, which is supposed to be the secondary objective. Afghanistan is critical to NATO and its credibility. However, the disparity in contributions is quite considerable. He stressed that there are some states that could do more.
Mr. Peter Blaschke, CEO BWI Informationstechnik, Meckenheim, introduced his address as industrial and possibly German point of view. Budgets will need to be cut and possible consequences will represent postponing of infrastructure modernization, projects, etc. Outsourcing of support processes such as IT and communication might be an option for some issues. In 2006, German forces contracted full outsourcing model with high degree of control by Ministry of Defence for IT and communication services. BWI Informationstechnik represents a joint venture between Siemens and IBM and it is also a public-private partnership with German forces. He further described the ongoing project between BWI and German forces worth over 7 billion euros.
PANEL 5: NATO’s Military Transformation: Operations and Capabilities Development
Fifth panel was chaired by Mr. Jamie Shea, Director of Policy Planning, Private Office of NATO Secretary General, and was devoted to NATO’s military transformation. NATO is a political and military alliance, but its main role remains to deliver military capabilities. Transformation has had mixed results at NATO; it is a subject that sounds good as a slogan, but it is not that easy to translate it into day to day operational reality.
H.E. Eimert van Middelkoop, Minister of Defence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, stressed that NATO is as relevant now as it was in 1949. It has retained its relevance in the changing world by adapting to changing circumstances. Current Strategic Concept has been perceived as Balkan centric and the Alliance should not repeat its mistake and become too ISAF centric. The Netherlands is conducting a policy survey and by doing so they are trying to learn from history by identifying seven strategic functions that armed forces have performed over time including deterrence, protection and intervention. He emphasized that interstate conflicts are still possible, but they are far less likely than they were in the past. The threat is no longer monolithic, but extremely diverse and defused. He stressed that in order to protect NATO allies the Alliance should maintain capabilities and respond adequately in case of an unexpected attack. Certain degree of task specialization is desirable within NATO. Collective capability development can be seen as a particular variety of tasks specialization. NATO needs to fulfil all functions such as flexibility, adaptability and mobility. NATO also needs to have response force that is used where needed, including Article 5 purposes. Regarding the question of resources, allies need to be as flexible as budget allows. Regarding the question of raising the number of the usable and deployable forces, Middelkoop feels that mainly the new NATO member states should set goals and mechanisms to try to reach the figures. NATO should engage civilian reconstruction efforts as well, however, not by acquiring civilian capabilities itself. Middelkoop is persuaded that NATO should invest in solid partnership and specialized civil organizations such as the UN and various NGOs. The problem he raised is that NATO’s budget has not been increased for many years. Also NATO’s priority should be a detailed review of its current projects. He concluded that the main goal should be to create the Alliance with the sound baseline in terms of forces available; realistic and sustainable level of ambition and a solid financial foundation allowing the flexibility to adjust to new threats.
Mr. Damon Wilson, Director of the International Security Program, Atlantic Council of the United States, expressed his concern about the capability development within the NATO member states and he pointed out the differences between the development in the U.S. and Europe. He highlighted that the U.S. are at crossroads, because they have to decide, whether it is worth working through the arrangements of allies if they are not able to bring certain capabilities to the table. Wilson stressed why the Strategic Concept is so important; he stressed that it’s not just about building public support for the Alliance in Europe it’s also about ensuring that the erosion of support of the U.S. for the Alliance will be avoided. During the discussion, he stressed that the unity that brings the U.S. and Europe together is the Article 5 and collective defence as a bedrock commitment.
Mr. Adam Sowa – Deputy Chief Executive for Operations of the European Defence Agency; touched upon developed European capabilities and stressed that whoever produces capabilities, it is good for authorities, since these capabilities can be used for other operations carried out by the UN, NATO or EU. He highlighted the comprehensive approach of spending defence budgets wisely, as well as he stressed the comprehensive approach to the capability development. Sowa is convinced that seeking for good synergy of projects as well as for synergy of civilian and military capability is essential. As for discussion about the EU and NATO relations, he remarked that EDA doesn’t have any formal connections with NATO. However, the EU countries are allowed to use NATO’s common structures for the ESDP’s purposes, but this is still not enough.
Mr. Marshall Billingslea, former NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment, and former US Deputy under Secretary of the Navy, Washington D.C., opened his speech with coming back to Hans Binnendijk’s address on the new Strategic Concept and he also elaborated four R’s. Billingslea added the fifth R – Resources because the lack of resources represents a significant problem for the Alliance when establishing the new Strategic Concept. Billingslea emphasized that only 6 out of 28 NATO allies donate an agreed 2% of GDP. Two percentage points is an amount that was set as the meaningful sum in order to be able to fulfil the commitment of Article 5. From his point of view, the current balance of financial burden sharing within the Alliance is not healthy. Moreover, there exists a significant difference in spending financial resources on modernization and R&D between the U.S. and European partners that can lead to inoperability of the troops.
Mr. Malcolm Chalmers, Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, London, highlighted that Great Britain is an untypical European country in two aspects. Firstly, UK has been increasing the defence budget over the last decade. Secondly, UK has been projected to have the highest budget deficit of any OECD country in 2010. Mr. Chalmers stressed that there will need to be cuts in spending after the general elections next year. Agenda of burden sharing within the Alliance plays a similarly important role in the UK as in the U.S. Operations in Afghanistan will be given an absolute priority. In the UK the issue of burden sharing is right at the top of the agenda. The main worry in defence in the UK is that cuts will fall where they can, rather where they should. He also stressed that the main goal of buying new weapons and military equipment should be to create effective armed forces and not to support industry, which is supposed to be the secondary objective. Afghanistan is critical to NATO and its credibility. However, the disparity in contributions is quite considerable. He stressed that there are some states that could do more.
Mr. Peter Blaschke, CEO BWI Informationstechnik, Meckenheim, introduced his address as industrial and possibly German point of view. Budgets will need to be cut and possible consequences will represent postponing of infrastructure modernization, projects, etc. Outsourcing of support processes such as IT and communication might be an option for some issues. In 2006, German forces contracted full outsourcing model with high degree of control by Ministry of Defence for IT and communication services. BWI Informationstechnik represents a joint venture between Siemens and IBM and it is also a public-private partnership with German forces. He further described the ongoing project between BWI and German forces worth over 7 billion euros.
PANEL 5: NATO’s Military Transformation: Operations and Capabilities Development
Fifth panel was chaired by Mr. Jamie Shea, Director of Policy Planning, Private Office of NATO Secretary General, and was devoted to NATO’s military transformation. NATO is a political and military alliance, but its main role remains to deliver military capabilities. Transformation has had mixed results at NATO; it is a subject that sounds good as a slogan, but it is not that easy to translate it into day to day operational reality.
H.E. Eimert van Middelkoop, Minister of Defence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, stressed that NATO is as relevant now as it was in 1949. It has retained its relevance in the changing world by adapting to changing circumstances. Current Strategic Concept has been perceived as Balkan centric and the Alliance should not repeat its mistake and become too ISAF centric. The Netherlands is conducting a policy survey and by doing so they are trying to learn from history by identifying seven strategic functions that armed forces have performed over time including deterrence, protection and intervention. He emphasized that interstate conflicts are still possible, but they are far less likely than they were in the past. The threat is no longer monolithic, but extremely diverse and defused. He stressed that in order to protect NATO allies the Alliance should maintain capabilities and respond adequately in case of an unexpected attack. Certain degree of task specialization is desirable within NATO. Collective capability development can be seen as a particular variety of tasks specialization. NATO needs to fulfil all functions such as flexibility, adaptability and mobility. NATO also needs to have response force that is used where needed, including Article 5 purposes. Regarding the question of resources, allies need to be as flexible as budget allows. Regarding the question of raising the number of the usable and deployable forces, Middelkoop feels that mainly the new NATO member states should set goals and mechanisms to try to reach the figures. NATO should engage civilian reconstruction efforts as well, however, not by acquiring civilian capabilities itself. Middelkoop is persuaded that NATO should invest in solid partnership and specialized civil organizations such as the UN and various NGOs. The problem he raised is that NATO’s budget has not been increased for many years. Also NATO’s priority should be a detailed review of its current projects. He concluded that the main goal should be to create the Alliance with the sound baseline in terms of forces available; realistic and sustainable level of ambition and a solid financial foundation allowing the flexibility to adjust to new threats.
Mr. Damon Wilson, Director of the International Security Program, Atlantic Council of the United States, expressed his concern about the capability development within the NATO member states and he pointed out the differences between the development in the U.S. and Europe. He highlighted that the U.S. are at crossroads, because they have to decide, whether it is worth working through the arrangements of allies if they are not able to bring certain capabilities to the table. Wilson stressed why the Strategic Concept is so important; he stressed that it’s not just about building public support for the Alliance in Europe it’s also about ensuring that the erosion of support of the U.S. for the Alliance will be avoided. During the discussion, he stressed that the unity that brings the U.S. and Europe together is the Article 5 and collective defence as a bedrock commitment.
Mr. Adam Sowa – Deputy Chief Executive for Operations of the European Defence Agency; touched upon developed European capabilities and stressed that whoever produces capabilities, it is good for authorities, since these capabilities can be used for other operations carried out by the UN, NATO or EU. He highlighted the comprehensive approach of spending defence budgets wisely, as well as he stressed the comprehensive approach to the capability development. Sowa is convinced that seeking for good synergy of projects as well as for synergy of civilian and military capability is essential. As for discussion about the EU and NATO relations, he remarked that EDA doesn’t have any formal connections with NATO. However, the EU countries are allowed to use NATO’s common structures for the ESDP’s purposes, but this is still not enough.
Vice-Admiral (Ret.) Walter B. Massenburg, Former Commander, Naval Air Systems Command; Current Navy Executive Fellow for the Institute for Defense and Business, Kenan Flagler Executive Education School, University of North Carolina; Vice President for Readiness and Sustainment, BAE Systems Inc., stressed the importance to evaluate the threats coming from pirates operating Somalia. However, in his words, the issue remains how to counter those types of activities while being still in the context of primary NATO commitments as for the case of Afghanistan and Iraq. The new Strategic Concept, in his opinion, represents an opportunity to redefine and embrace all important issues in such an important document where all NATO’s allies should define more clearly their contributions. According to him, it is important to respond to the new threats through common actions applying collective responsibility.
PANEL 6: New Nuclear Disarmament Proposals: Implications for NATO and the Transatlantic Relations
PANEL 6: New Nuclear Disarmament Proposals: Implications for NATO and the Transatlantic Relations
The last panel was chaired by Mr. Tomáš Valášek – Member of Board, SAC; Director International Security, Centre for European Reform. During the introduction he touched upon the nuclear disarmament that was announced by Obama in April 2009. He deduced several implications from this announcement. Firstly, he wonders whether it can help to bring Russia into more constructive relationship with the West. Secondly, what would it mean for NATO’s deterrence policy? Thirdly, would that change relations among NATO allies?
H.E. Ivo Daalder, U. S. Permanent Representative to NATO, stressed that allies have to be aware mainly of ballistic missile attacks as the threat under Article 5. However, other threats are multiplying as well. Since the consequences of not-acting are unacceptable, Obama administration’s main goal is to deter possible nuclear holocaust and achieve global zero. Daalder stressed the danger associated with the proliferation of ballistic missiles with chemical, biological and nuclear warheads. Missile defence program, coming from Obama’s administration is smart, swift and strong program and could be joined by allies as a territorial missile defence. He emphasized that president’s decision and the new program have nothing to do with Russia. It is neither directed at Russia nor was the decision based on the desire to carry favor with Russia. In his words, Obama offers an effective defence against rockets that could travel intercontinental distances by relying on proven technologies like Aegis radars and ships and standard missiles that can shoot down ballistic missiles before they reach their target. The new system is flexible and can be based in many different places and it can be part of a NATO system, if the Alliance decides that territorial missile defence is now the kind of Article 5 contingency that this alliance needs to take on. As for the threats coming from countries such as Iran, he introduced that by 2018 all 28 territories should be protected against ballistic missile of all ranges. Regarding the question of Russian reaction to this program, Daalder pointed out meetings of U.S. and Russian presidents in April and July 2009 that could be understood as extension on strategic arms control negotiations. He highlighted, that Russia was not a factor to reappraise the anti-missile defence in Central Europe, but it has been driven by three things – changing nature of the threat, changing appreciation what technology could do to deal with the threat and a believe that missile defence in Europe is something that the U.S. are going to carry out with Europeans rather than by themselves. Last but not least Daalder is convinced that the absolute goal of zero is a realistic plan. The process of going to zero is as important as the result itself.
Mr. Bruno Tertrais – Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la recherché stratégique, shared his view on the possibility of going down to zero. The idea of going back to pre-nuclear age is only desirability. Commenting on the feasibility of nuclear zero, he stressed that the U.S. is the biggest conventional power and will remain so for a long time despite the reinvestment in defence capabilities by Russia and despite the constant investment in asymmetrical capabilities by Chine. He stressed that the World without nuclear power would not be a disadvantage for the U.S. However, he pointed out that other states have different perspective arising from their not so strong conventional power. Tertrais underlined that the immediate abolishment of nuclear weapons wouldn’t make world a safer place. Vice versa it would make world less safe place. He emphasized that French should participate on the broad discussion how to create and frame conditions for nuclear world. Countries might diverge on what the safe world is. He sees three past attempts to bridge the gap between U.S. and European point of view - as for Joint position of European Union from December 2008, Conclusions from G8 summit, as well as Security Council Resolution n.1887 from September 2009. As for the discussion he appreciated that non-nuclear allies are involved in the discussion on disarmament.
Mr. Nick Pickard – Director of the Security Policy Department, Foreign & Commonwealth Office of United Kingdom, pointed out three important links on this issue. First link is between disarmament and non-proliferation. The United Kingdom is not of opinion that world without nuclear weapons, but rather world with non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the core issue of the debate. He considers that the non-proliferation is more about denuding Iran and North Korea of arguments they use far too successfully with other countries in non-allies movement. As for the second link, Pickard pointed out the nuclear and conventional dimension. The amount of nuclear weapons decrease and conventional arms and conventional deterrence become more important, because countries use proliferation of nuclear weapons against conventional threats. Thirdly, he introduced the link between deterrence and disarmament, where he stressed the fact that it is not an inconvenient to do both at the same time, the goal is to deter existing nuclear threats.
Mr. Karl-Heinz Kamp – Director of the Research Division, NATO Defence College remarked that some states such as France, China, Russia and India are simply not willing to get rid of the nuclear weapons they possess, because they perceive it as a compensation for capabilities. Despite the fact that the global zero is not possible a deep reduction is necessary and possible. The vision of global zero delegitimizes deterrence; if zero is the goal, than anything above zero, to preserve deterrence in the meantime is bad. We erode the strategy deterrence which we might need for long time. He is of opinion that NATO should find solution how to preserve deterrence under changed circumstances against terrorism, failed states etc. Nevertheless, this is what NATO hasn’t done yet; on the other hand France and UK have evolved nuclear deterrence little bit in their thinking and concept.
VOICES OF FREEDOM
On the occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, the Slovak Atlantic Commission organized a side event of the New Challenges – Better Capabilities conference, which was to address young people from different countries from Europe and North America. The idea of Voices of Freedom was to remind the successor generation that such values as democracy and freedom do not come automatically, but we have to fight for them each day. The aim of the event was to stimulate young people towards active civic approach and thinking about common values that we all share within the Euro-Atlantic community. The voice refers to a mean for expressing the beliefs and opinions. Thanks to those young people who strived for their voices to be heard in the streets in 1989, people in the central and eastern European region are free to express their ideas and opinions nowadays. The conference New Challenges – Better Capabilities was a great opportunity to organize the side event Voices of Freedom and to remind everyone that security as well as freedom of speech didn’t use to be a commonplace in this part of Europe.
Symbolic was also the place where Voices of Freedom event took place. This was the exact place, where the group of young people with various backgrounds gathered in 1989 and created the ground for the fall of the non-democratic regime in Czechoslovakia. Twenty years later, some of the most important proponents and defenders of democracy and freedom gathered again and revived their memories concerning the values they were fighting for.
The moderator of Voices of Freedom event was Pavol Demeš, civic activist and the head of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. The Slovak Atlantic commission invited 5 prominent speakers that were the main protagonists of November 1989 in Slovakia and who laid down the fundaments of the fight for freedom and democracy; Ján Budaj, Ladislav Snopko, Anton Popovič, Zuzana Mistríková and Filip Vagač.
Ján Budaj emphasized that the abolition of the Iron Curtain was an extraordinary and fascinating moment for him. In the communist times Bratislava was assigned an attribute ‘the city of peace‘. But the truth was that only Bratislava and Berlin were two cities that were physically crossed by the Iron Curtain and it wasn’t unusual to hear the shooting near the fence. Despite the threat that we were all facing, our vision was to rejoin Czechoslovakia to the Western culture and to become a part of democratic and free Europe. Nevertheless, the change was not that obvious in 1989. The main obstacle seemed to be the Soviet troops that occupied our territory. It was almost impossible to imagine that they would peacefully leave this country. However, it happened but it wasn’t coincidence but rather the zeal and civic will to change the political environment that was no longer accepted by masses. Ján Budaj emphasized, that due to the Velvet revolution, democracy in Czechoslovakia came from the bottom, from the people of this country, it was not artificially ordered from abroad. However he appreciated the foreign help to the dissent which was crucial for the success of this endeavor.
Ladislav Snopko stressed that the most important thing in 1989 was the faith and hope. With hope a person can get over bad times. Also endeavor was unavoidable part of the changes that took place in Czechoslovakia. However, he stressed that endeavor should be fair and human. The Velvet revolution, which was rather a Czech expression, had fortunately no victims in terms of dead men. This was quite unusual since it is said that “a revolution eats its children”. However the fundamental political change that took place in Czechoslovakia passed with no blood. The revolution was manned by people engaged in culture and art. They were not political pragmaticists.
Zuzana Mistríková stressed that the communist regime helped to disintegrate itself by creating a reasonable ground for students to oppose the regime. . By accomplishing the raid against student in Prague, they gave us an argument which was understood by all people and not just by intellectuals and student that actively participated in the revolution. She touched upon different perspectives of changes among students in Bratislava and Prague. These differences were also influenced by different political views of leaders in Prague and Bratislava. However, she stressed that they fought together during the most important period of the revolution in 1989.
Anton Popovič explained his personal situation that was influenced by some members of his family that escaped from the communist regime in 1968 and settled down in the U.S. He was also willing to escape from Slovakia but he saw the opportunity in changing the country instead of quitting from his mother land. After 1989 and after the communist political regime vanished the new wave of political leaders appeared. Unfortunately many of them have been missing self-reflection. Popovič also stressed that ordinary people living in Czechoslovakia perceived the revolutionary leaders their heroes.
Filip Vagač pointed out the fact that it wasn’t possible to organize any event similar to Voices of Freedom in 1989. People were not allowed to read books they wanted to. He stressed that people awoke when the raid against students in Prague took place because people were aware that something very similar could have happened to anyone. He highlighted how difficult it was to carry out the revolution without any internet communication and cell phones. It is almost unthinkable nowadays.
Jean Francois Bureau devoted his speech to the values that all speakers of Voices of freedom event were fighting for 20 years ago. He stressed that they helped to end the communist regime and by their zealous actions enabled to resettle democracy, rule of law and liberty. Adherence to these principles is nowadays a commonplace for all NATO and EU members. However, he stressed that young generation, whose representatives took part at Voices of freedom event, should take responsibility to defend those hardly achieved principles and values.
