|
To the President of the House of Representatives of the States General
The Hague, 16 April 2002
At the General Consultation of 28 March 2002 on transatlantic relations and arms control, member Blaauw requested a memorandum setting out the government's position on the future of NATO. A reaction was also sought to the opinions expressed by Senator Lugar in a speech on 18 January 2002 (see: www.senate.gov/-lugar/011702.html). I am pleased, on behalf also of the Minister of Defence, to respond to the member's request.
In doing so, I will concentrate on the agenda for the NATO Summit in Prague in November, since discussion on the future of NATO in the months ahead will occur mainly in the context of preparations for the summit.
NATO's current responsibilities are set out in the Strategic Concept adopted in 1999. None of these responsibilities are any less relevant now than they were then. NATO forms the foundation for a stable security structure in Europe and is also the most important forum for the transatlantic security debate and, as such, is essential to Europe and the US alike. The Alliance is proving its military value through its successful peace operations in the Balkans, in which almost 60,000 military personnel are currently taking part. The Alliance also projects stability through intensive cooperation with partners and its ongoing process of expansion. It is now working with Russia on a more far-reaching form of cooperation; one that will not affect NATO's own freedom to act. If sufficient progress is made in these discussions, a special NATO-Russia Summit will probably be held in late May to seal the agreements. The fight against terrorism is a new challenge. As I said in my speech on 5 April on the occasion of the celebration of the 50 th anniversary of the Atlantic Committee, the summit in Prague will have to focus on NATO's role in combating terrorism and the changes needed to facilitate that role. In recent years the Alliance has continually adapted to developments in the security area and will have to do so again in this respect.
A large number of practical proposals are currently being discussed which are designed to enable NATO to offer better protection against terrorist attacks and their effects (consequence management), especially those in which weapons of mass destruction are used. The Netherlands started off discussion on this last December in the form of concrete proposals that are now being discussed and developed. They include:
· closer cooperation between the intelligence services;
· consolidation of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Centre;
· strengthening the capacity to protect the civil population in the event of an attack with weapons of mass destruction, and
· comparison of the measures taken in different NATO countries after 11 September, so that best practices can be shared.
Proposals put forward by other countries include a response unit for cases of biological (terrorist) attack, a rapidly deployable diagnostic and forensic laboratory, and joint training on combating the effects of biological and chemical attacks. Agreement on a (hopefully large) number of these proposals could be reached in the months ahead.
In addition to these specific measures, the upgrading of the NATO countries' military capabilities in general is also to be discussed. The Defence Capabilities Initiative process has resulted in improved capability in some instances, but certainly not all. The outcome of the Prague Summit must be a more targeted list of shortcomings, better prioritisation and, if possible, greater commitment from all the allies to actually achieving the objectives within a set period. The European countries in particular will have to tackle their military capability deficiencies in both the NATO and EU arenas. More can and must be done, through closer cooperation, more emphasis on modules, pooling and task specialisation, and, in some cases, higher defence budgets. The US in turn must commit itself to greater defence technology transfer.
The DCI at the NATO level and the European Capabilities Action Plan at the EU level are two sides of the same coin and reinforce one another. The Netherlands has taken the lead in the EU by launching the European Capabilities Action Plan. This must likewise produce some initial results in short order.
Another focus of attention is internal change in NATO itself, partly in the light of anticipated NATO expansion. The NATO command structure will need to be looked at critically again, as will defence planning methodology, in order to attract greater political attention. The internal organisational structure of NATO headquarters will need to be further modified. The starting point here is that NATO is increasing both its political decisiveness and its military strike capability.
As far as Senator Lugar's ideas are concerned, I agree with his analysis that Americans and Europeans are both vulnerable to terrorist attacks, including those involving the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of terrorist attacks on the US and Europe is certainly not over. The fight against terrorism will be a long one. The task is to keep the most dangerous technologies out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people - largely because the terrorists are, as he rightly says, beyond deterrence. In that light I regard Senator Lugar's appeal for a broadening of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program as an attractive idea. It is transparently clear that more money and energy will need to be put into countering the proliferation of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons now and in the future. In this context, the Nunn-Lugar program in the countries of the former Soviet Union performs a very useful function and in principle the idea of broadening this deserves every support. NATO, and more specifically the enhanced WMD Centre, can play an important role in this.
Another point, which was also raised by Senator Lugar, concerns NATO's geographical reach. The Washington Treaty does not wholly exclude action outside the Euro-Atlantic area. Article 5 of the treaty relates to "the restoration and maintenance of security in the North Atlantic area" in the event of aggression, but does not limit the action required to achieve this. In view of the fact that the threat of terrorism would most likely come from outside the Euro-Atlantic area, it does not make sense to impose geographical restrictions either - quite the reverse. So I agree with Senator Lugar that "old distinctions between 'in' and 'out' of area have become utterly meaningless".
I also agree completely with Lugar's objections to the theory propounded by some that there would be a defined division of tasks between the US, which would take on the major conflicts outside Europe, and Europe, which would concentrate on the smaller conflicts within Europe. This is based, as Lugar rightly says, on the mistaken assumption that the US has only minor interests in Europe and that Europeans have few interests in the rest of the world. Both have global - and often identical - interests and should as far as possible act in unison to be effective. The fact that Europe lags behind in terms of capability, as he correctly states, is no reason to turn NATO into a purely political organisation, but is, in fact, a further reason for addressing those shortcomings.
To summarise: the agenda from now until Prague is ambitious. Where originally it was only expected to be an 'expansion summit', the events of 11 September have added the changes to NATO needed in the light of the new threats and, following on from this, much more focus on its approach to its military shortcomings. The government's efforts will be fully and energetically aimed at helping to ensure that NATO takes up the new challenges, since this is essential to our security.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs,
J.J. van Aartsen
House of Representatives, Parliamentary Session 2001-2002 , 28 000 V, no. 59
|