On 27 – 28 October 2005, the Euro-Atlantic Center, in cooperation with the Slovak Atlantic Commission and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division, convened an international conference in Bratislava on the role of the Transatlantic Partnership in the new security environment. The event was held under the aegis of the Minister of Foreign Affairs H. E. Mr Eduard Kukan. For two consecutive days, officials, journalists and independent experts sought to define the position and the possible roles of the transformed North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) in the contemporary security situation, as the Allies are facing completely different, more complex challenges than ever before.
Welcoming remarks
In their opening statements, Magdaléna Vášáryová, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, and Róbert Vass, President of the Euro-Atlantic Center, agreed that globalisation not only means stronger interdependence, but also greater mutual vulnerability, which makes it necessary to redefine the position and roles of NATO in this new global situation.
Keynote - Europe as a Strategic Player: Mustering the Will, Building the Means Discussion
Christoph Heusgen, Director of the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit at the EU Council, spoke in favor of the European Union becoming a “strategic player in every possible dimension”. As he declared, “no crisis can be resolved by military means alone”. The advantage of the EU lies in comprehensive crisis management, in applying and coordinating different conflict resolution tools. The EU has from the beginning taken a transatlantic approach, from choosing Javier Solana as a former NATO Secretary General to spearhead the European defense effort, to double-hatting NATO and EU Military Committee representatives, to facilitating EU access to NATO assets via the Berlin Plus arrangement. With the decisionmaking structure in place and several civilian and military operations either concluded, running or planned, the speaker argued that Europe’s political will to become a strategic player is “clearly established”. He lamented the refusal of the EU Constitution in France and the Netherlands, but remained optimistic about the eventual establishment of the EU Foreign Minister and diplomatic service, either through the adoption of the Constitution as a whole, or of its “essence”. On the capabilities side, more capable police and military units were needed. With high increases in budgets being an “illusion”, he called for more cooperation between states in pooling their assets. Heusgen used the EU/NATO collaboration on Sudan and Afghanistan, marked by “too much improvisation”, to argue for going beyond the “limiting” Berlin Plus arrangement. “NATO is successfully reformed and the EU well established,” Heusgen concluded, which represents a chance to build trust between the two organizations.
Round Table I
Sustainig the Transatlantic Community: Still the Backbone of Global Security?
The first Round Table was focused on cooperation between Europe and America, and on strenghtening transatlantic ties. Under the chair of Pavol Demeš, Director for Central and Eastern Europe of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, speakers discussed mutual expectations on both sides of the Atlantic and the adaptation of the Transatlantic Community to the threats and challenges of today’s world.
Oľga Gyárfášová from the Institute for Public Affairs (Bratislava) drew on the findings of the prominent public opinion survey Transatlantic Trends 2005 to dissect the question of where Europeans and Americans stand today. Overall, concerns over increased anti-American sentiment in Europe have not materialized. Rather, the Europeans demonstrate a “moderately warm feeling” toward the United States. There is, however, asymmetry in the transatlantic relationship: Americans want more cooperation with Europe to relieve some of their burden, but Europeans favor more independence from the “unwanted hegemon”. Still, the speaker forcefully argued that Europe and America share enough common values to cooperate on world affairs. They also agree on the threats they face. The only possibility to defeat them is mutual understanding, confidence, and cooperation. Rather than merely following public moods, political élites should lead robust foreign and security policies and communicate them more understandably and effectively. Apart from their obvious contributions to nationbuilding, NGOs have a distinct role and responsibility in public diplomacy. It is impossible to solve the world’s security dilemmas without transatlantic cooperation, Gyárfášová said, and the Atlanticists must be loud enough in spreading the message.
Avis Bohlen, former Assistant Secretary for Arms Control at the US Department of State, asserted that US–European relations were “back to normal” after the rift over Iraq, but echoed the call for deeper collaboration between the USA and the European Union in order to deal successfully with WMD proliferation, global terrorism and other threats. Unilateralism was defeated in the Iraqi insurgency and “lucidity has returned” to Washington on the need for allies, but there may still not be a viable foreign policy alternative. Europe has its own problems, from troubles with digesting enlargement, to difficulties of defining its role in the world and a NATO–EU modus operandi, to the unwillingness to use force. The next great challenge for the allies is to avoid a damaging split over Iran. Europe is America’s indispensable ally, Bohlen concluded, and “the war in Iraq confirmed that the US still needs Europe as a permanent partner, because the world for the US is empty without Europe.”
Deputy Political Advisor from the US Mission to NATO Stuart Seldowitz reminded the audience that the US and the EU had much more commonalities than differences. He expressed confidence that America’s and Europe’s common belief in democracy and human rights will once again overcome divisions over policy. NATO remains the “centerpiece” of transatlantic relations, because it is the only place for the US, Canada and Europe to talk and act on critical matters. NATO must be transformed to be relevant for the threats of extremism, terror and authoritarianism, which are “basically the same” that brought the Allies together in 1949, albeit may now differ in form. Seldowitz called for instant radical changes in European militaries in favor of force projection in order to stop the transatlantic capabilities gap from widening. He urged people to think creatively about how to use NATO to foster freedom and military reform in the Middle East and to bring in other democracies, such as Japan and Australia.
The effort NATO made to restore its political role was described by Claus Wunderlich Deputy Permanent Representative of Germany at the North Atlantic Council (NAC). He reiterated that misinterpretations of Chancellor Schroeder’s speech at the Munich security conference detracted from its main emphasis on NATO reform. The speech triggered a “serious effort” by NATO to enhance its political role, which “succeeded”. To illustrate the point, Wunderlich used the example of the September Defense Ministerial in Berlin and the meeting of political directors on Afghanistan and Kosovo. Both sides of the Atlantic are now demonstrating greater willingness to discuss politics in NATO, Wunderlich submitted, and Germany will be eager to match the US will to enhance NATO’s political role. NATO must focus on what it is good at, namely the provision of military hardware, the German representative said. On other fronts, it should interlink with other actors, such as the EU or the United Nations.
Subsequent discussions highlighted differences in opinions on particular policy issues, but showed agreement on NATO’s continued relevance in the changed security environment. As Avis Bohlen suggested, the Alliance and the world need political dialogue in the first place: “People read speeches, but don’t discuss.” Stronger cooperation between the USA and Europe will enhance NATO’s position, and make the world safer for the next generations.
Keynote - What We Do, Not What We Are: NATO’s Global Agenda
Martin Erdmann, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, began his keynote speech with an appreciation of Slovakia’s contribution to NATO and the country’s standing as an accomplished reformer. Commenting on NATO’s “global role”, he found the expression more confusing than useful, because the Alliance cannot and will not be responsible for peace everywhere in the world. However, NATO’s approach to security is indeed comprehensive, or “global”. With the disappearance of the Soviet threat, NATO should be judged by what it does, as it “moved from just Being to Doing”. The latter, obviously, is more controversial than the former. With many new operations and a demonstrated readiness to respond to new demands, the role of NATO is defined and clear: “Today’s security means engagement.” On transatlantic relations, there is greater realism now in Europe, and a growing conviction that the EU will only become strong if it is a partner to the US. This gives ground for closer cooperation, as does the EU’s opening of membership talks with Turkey. Echoing Christopher Heusgen’s calls for going beyond Berlin Plus, Erdmann argued for enhancing the NATO–EU strategic partnership on the grounds that the current arrangement limits collaboration to operational issues.
Round Table II
Shaping the Global Security Environment: Old Institutions for New Missions
Under the chair of Martin Bútora, former Slovak Ambassador to the United States, the second Round Table was focused on the adaptation of old institutions to new missions.
Nasra Hassan, head of the United Nations Information Service in Vienna, agreed with NATO ASG Erdmann on the importance of a triangular partnership between NATO, the EU and the UN. Drawing on practical examples from her involvement in the Balkans and Africa, she argued for closer ties not only at the international, but mainly at the regional and national levels. Only if institutions and people can cooperate here will they succeed in changing the world.
Referring to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, Director of the French Center on the United States Guillaume Parmentier suggested that NATO is too multilateral for Washington and too American-dominated for Europe to serve the interests of each side. In his view, NATO has not adapted to the current environment and “is groping to find a mission”. The EU, for its part, has problems related to geographic definition and political purpose. European construction, however, is a unique institution-building enterprise that will take decades to finish, and will be understandably self-centered along the way. For serious political issues, groupings must be formed within the EU to lead the way on problems that cannot wait. The Allies need a new transatlantic concept. NATO should understand its own role as military- and security-oriented. Political elements from the European Constitution, a universally agreed part of the document, should be implemented, so that the EU can organize itself better vis-à-vis the United States. The European Union should establish permanent political dialogue—a platform rather than an institution—with Washington, its most important partner. NATO–EU relations are merely technical issues that will be solved on the basis of the previous arrangement.
Tomáš Valášek, Director of the Center for Defense Information in Brussels, argued that the sheer number of NATO’s operations obscures a fundamental problem that the Alliance is still falling short of its potential. The reasons are political. There is now a concerted and increasingly strong effort by some European states to block NATO missions. Atlanticism, once the dominant worldview across Europe, is losing ground. US foreign policy, in addition, is unhelpful to the cause. To revive the Atlantic idea, which is perceived increasingly as a status quo ideology contrasting with the “progressive” Euro-Centrism, Valášek suggested a four-pronged approach. First, emphasis should be placed on capabilities. Second, the US must continue to engage with Europe and embrace the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). Third, the Atlanticist camp must define its own vision for Europe, based on what Europe can do for NATO. The speaker suggested making EU assets available to NATO and setting rules for EU operational engagement. Fourth, EU and NATO agendas must be brought closer together, eg by establishing working groups on key issues.
Jeff Gedmin, Director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, reminded that the US “still needs Europe as an ally, but in other ways than before.” We have common values and interests, but not in each case: competitive impulses exist, as well as differing threat assessments. On Iraq, Washington needs the assistance of allies, particularly in areas such as medical relief, construction and non-governmental engagement. If Iraq fails, Gedmin warned, the US will become more inward-looking. Calling Germany’s election results “the worst possible outcome”, the speaker concluded that the country was faced with prolonged governmental stagnation.
The recurring strain in subsequent discussions was that old institutions, individually, had to be adapted to new missions and, collectivelly, they had to be used in a creative fashion to achieve the best possible synergies. Perseverance and staying power, best embodied for Nasra Hassan in a UN report entitled No Exit Without Strategy, has been stressed by several speakers as a precondition of success in most current missions.
Round Table III
Adapting to Asymmetry: NATO’s Military Transformation
Mário Nicolini, Adviser to the Slovak State Secretary of Defense, opened the third Round Table on military transformation by saying that military means alone are not able to do the job, but neither are political means.
Philip Stack from the Deployable Forces Coordination Group at Allied Command Operations/SHAPE dealt with command and control, funding and force planning, three intricately linked determinants of NATO’s military transformation. On funding, there is slow but discernible progress toward better cost-sharing between Allies. On the fast evolution of military concepts, embodied in the NATO Response Force (NRF) and the Combined Joint Task Force, Stack reversed the question: “Does political decisionmaking match our military preparedness to act on a five-day notice?” He also warned that the costs of NRF’s instant deployability are only now becoming apparent to planners and policymakers.
Director of the Governance Research Centre at the University of Bristol Anthony Forster outlined four defense models used for defining the purpose, structure and support for their armed forces: expeditionary warfare, peacekeeping, territorial defense, and post-neutral. Now more than ever, European planners and policymakers have to make hard choices about the overall numbers of uniformed personnel, the proportion of élite vs regular units, the degree of professionalization, and specialization. We must resist “popular allures” that are “rampant” in Europe, such as expeditionary warfare or full professionalization. For Forster, there is a general trend across NATO to create two-tier forces, which are capable of operating in high-intensity combat and alleviate the otherwise prohibitive cost of a full expeditionary capability. He also sees the failure of most European governments to look “beyond hardware and structures” at the larger societal aspects of defense reform, such as legality, legitimacy and public opinion.
Martin Fedor, State Secretary of Defense, spoke on the success and challenges facing defense reform in Slovakia. With force planning based on NATO Force Goals, armed forces here are becoming more usable for the full spectrum of NATO missions. Slovakia is acting in 14 foreign theaters, honing its specialized skills in demining/engineering and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection. Full professionalization is on track to take effect from 1 January 2006. Besides military niche capabilities, Fedor spoke of his country’s “political niches” on interlinked issues that it now promotes with and makes available to its allies: the knowledge of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the process of transition and reform, and NATO and EU enlargement. Addressing political issues, he asserted that “the future is neither European nor Atlantic, but Euro-Atlantic.” Both NATO and the EU assure Slovakia’s security, and institutional arrangements must be combined to achieve maximum effect.
Ivo Samson, Senior Research Fellow at the Slovak Foreign Policy Association, argued that “the elimination of contemporary threats is dependent on sufficient quantity of well-used information.” In particular, there is a dramatic shortage of Arabic speakers in Western intelligence agencies to translate collected data. Samson pointed out a continuing absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism. He argued for using all possible means, including military, in the fight against terrorism.
Round Table IV
Projecting Security: NATO Enlargement and Partnerships
Speakers in the fourth Round Table on NATO enlargement and partnerships, under the chair of Troels Foeling, Secretary General of the Atlantic Treaty Association, agreed that NATO must reach out to promote reform and shape developments in its security environment.
Slovakia’s Permanent Representative at the NAC Igor Slobodník emphasized just this vocation of NATO’s collective and individual outreach. Stressing the Open Door policy, he outlined ways in which the experience of new NATO member countries can serve the interests of aspirants and partners. Specific references were made to Slovakia’s interest in eventually seeing Ukraine and South East Europe inside the Alliance.
“Public opinion in Ukraine is characterized by a lack of knowledge about NATO, which may cause problems in our effort to become a member of the Alliance,” claimed Vladyslav Yasniuk, Deputy Head of the NATO Department at Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The speaker thanked Slovakia for its assistance with manifold aspects of Ukraine’s drive for NATO membership, from inter-agency organization to public opinion to defense reform. Ukrainian officials recently discovered that the independent media, owned by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, consistently block NATO-related information from being broadcast. The speaker talked about the recently started security sector reform, which will encompass the intelligence, interior and border guard communities.
“The problems of the Balkans cannot be solved without the Transatlantic Partnership,” said Štefan Rozkopál, head of the Department of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Balkans at the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Elaborating on the point, on the one hand, he described the importance of the US to key countries in the region. On the other hand, the EU remains the most important actor in the Balkans through a web of bilateral and multilateral networks. The accession of Turkey to the European Union will deter conflict in the Balkans and strengthen the region’s stability. He reminded that the status of Kosovo is the region’s crux problem that must be given utmost attention.
Head of the Center for War and Peace Studies at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations Yuriy Fedorov was talking about “filling the glass of NATO–Russia cooperation.” Lamenting the fact that foreign policy in Russia remains in the hands of “traditional groups”, he presented NATO as a “natural partner for Russia” and called for enhanced practical cooperation in the frames of the NATO–Russia Council. Communication at all levels and understanding NATO enlargement as a positive development by Russia are challenges. The speaker remains hopeful that cooperation with NATO will help Russia “transform faster”. On Ukraine’s possible accession to NATO, he mentioned two problems: Russia’s Black Fleet at Crimea and Ukraine’s responsibility to maintain Russia’s strategic missiles Sakhalin.
NATO and Public Opinion Workshop
An international Workshop on NATO and Public Opinion was conducted during the conference. Public opinion experts, representatives of NATO, national governments, the Atlantic Treaty Association and journalists discussed the mutual expectations of governments and publics in a dramatically changed security environment. Participants examined the Transatlantic Partnership, NATO and security in the communication triangle politicians–media–public and sought to find out what works and what does not.
“The most important role in shaping the relationship between the public and politicians is played by the media, which mold public opinion and also sell politics to the public,” assumed Oľga Gyárfášová. The most important NATO-related task for the media is to emphasize the institution’s relevance. The speaker argued for a robust communication by governments, emphasizing responsibility—not responsiveness—to the public.
Zsolt Rábai from the NATO Public Diplomacy Division outlined the new concept of public diplomacy, addressing the media, non-governmental organizations and other players, in the effort to “reach beyond the usual suspects.” The role of NGOs is in creating space for discussion between the public and the government, which contributes to a better understanding of security challenges and the importance of NATO in member and partner states alike.
As a country moves from integration as a goal to integration as a means, communication goals change considerably, argued Mário Nicolini. Addressing four topics—security awareness by the public, defense budget and good spending, international operations, and terrorism—he listed what exactly public support is needed for, and what has worked or failed in the Slovak case. A dynamic, well-informed security community is essential to counter complex threats to the individual security of citizens.
Michal Havran, Jr., a Brussels-based Slovak journalist, presented the view that Western media consider NATO as a “pragmatic alliance aimed at global security” with no political superstructure—or values—as a result of Turkey’s human rights abuses. The Western media, Havran argued, have lost interest in NATO and high-level political visits. Slovak journalists, meanwhile, vigorously cover topics such as the Bush–Putin summit in Bratislava, which illustrates that “Slovakia is euphoric about institutions that are already dead.”
New security challenges cannot be addressed effectively without cooperation between governments and NGOs, because the latter represent the first “contact-point” in communication, assumed Petr Zlatohlávek of Jagello 2000, a Czech NGO.
Róbert Vass emphasized the importance of links within the non-governmental sector for the functionability of a security community that would, first, maintain constant dialogue about the evolving threat and the missions of security institutions, and second, sensitize the public to both. He stressed that the young generation must be a specific target group for communication and involvement.
The Conference
The conference consisted of four Round Tables and one Workshop. The luncheon and reception on the first day were hosted by Magdaléna Vášáryová, State Secretary of the Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The second-day luncheon was given by the State Secretary of the Slovak Ministry of Defense Martin Fedor. A special guest speaker at the latter event was Rodolphe M. Vallee, US Ambassador to Slovakia. Both delivered keynotes on transatlantic cooperation and the role of Slovakia.
Media Coverage
GLOBSEC enjoyed a very good coverage by the media. Several media partnerships—Slovak Radio, Radio Twist, TA3 TV channel, weekly Týždeň, internet portal www.euractiv.sk, TASR press agency—were effective in diffusing the message of the conference widely. More than 12 news media outlets were accredited at the conference. The organizing NGOs, the United Nations Information Service in Vienna, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense issued press releases covering conference topics before, throughout and after the event. Along with general conference-related information, the media also aired and printed interviews with participants and organizers.
Main Partner
BAE Systems is an international company engaged in the development, delivery, and support of advanced defence and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea, and in space. The Company designs, manufactures, and supports military aircraft, combat vehicles, surface ships, submarines, radar, avionics, communications, electronics, and guided weapon systems. It is a pioneer in technology with a heritage stretching back hundreds of years and is at the forefront of innovation, working to develop the next generation of intelligent defence systems. BAE Systems has major operations across five continents and customers in some 130 countries. The Company employs over 90,000 people and generates annual sales of approximately £14.8 billion through its wholly owned and joint-venture operations.
Partners
We thank our partners: German Marshall Fund of the United States, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, Ministry of Defense of the Slovak Republic, Institute for Public Affairs, Matej Bel University Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Political Sciences and International Affairs.
