Rasmussen bangs the drum for Europe to do more, everywhere

By Nigel Chamberlain, NATO Watch

In his speech ‘Fulfilling Europe’s Potential’ at the EU Inter-Parliamentary Conference in Vilnius on September 6, Secretary General Rasmussen said that civilians in Syria had been gassed by their own regime and the situation is of concern to the whole world. He reiterated that NATO continues to play its part as a forum for daily consultations between North America and Europe and continues to protect and defend the Alliance’s south-eastern border, adding that it is vital that NATO is prepared to meet any security challenges from Syria.

The Secretary General said that Lithuania has helped to strengthen NATO’s security and political solidarity, as well as having made important contributions to operations, including the mission in Afghanistan. He referred to the opening of the NATO Centre of Excellence on Energy Security in Vilnius and to Lithuania’s support for strengthened cooperation between the EU and NATO. This opening provided him with the opportunity to again call for Europe to invest more - financially and politically - in defence and security. He illustrated his theme with figures:
 
- most European NATO Allies have reduced their defence spending over the last four years -some by more than 20%;
 
- defence spending in the emerging world is increasing quickly - in 2012, Asian defence spending overtook Europe’s for the first time; 
 
- it is forecast that by 2015, defence spending in China alone will be equal to that of the 8 largest European NATO Allies combined.
 
He contrasted the declining European defence spending against the rising global security challenges of nation-state instability, missile proliferation, terrorism and cyber-attacks and appealed for Europe to back up its soft power instruments with hard military capabilities. And, despite European armies having half a million more soldiers than the United States, “we continue to fail to get the most out of those impressive resources” and “there are too few examples where our forces train efficiently together”. This problem is compounded by protecting national industries which result in poor economies of scale, excessive running costs, and inefficient training. His plea is for Europeans to “raise the level of our ambition, let go of the lingering national rivalries of the past and pool and share more of what we have and use it more effectively”.
 
Rasmussen then said that he believed the countries of Europe should focus on three key areas in advance of the EU Summit on security and defence in December:
 
1. Capabilities. European countries have made real progress in developing new capabilities such as heavy transport aircraft. But there are shortfalls, include drones for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance where more has to be done. NATO’s Smart Defence initiative has 29 multinational capability projects in the pipeline while the EU is working to provide capabilities through pooling and sharing e.g. a multinational programme on acquiring more air-to-air refuelling planes.
 
2. Industry. Europe needs effective and modern defence industries without national barriers to competition. A European defence market must lead to innovation, better and cheaper equipment, and a better return on investment. European security will be based on a stronger, more sustainable, and more streamlined defence industry.
 
3. Forces. No single European country on its own can produce the forces of the size, scale and skills that were deployed during the past 20 years. But together, he aegues, Europeans can. So Europe must cooperate more closely.
 
NATO and the EU share the same values. We share the same strategic analysis of the challenges we face. And we have the same vision. Our two organisations are on the same road and travelling towards the same destination – a Europe where our nations share responsibility for our security and remain a force for good in the world. … We can be and must be global actors.
 
There follows a summary of an interview with the Secretary General published in the Lithuania Tribune.
 
Q1: The former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACUR) has recently called on NATO to take action against Syria. Do you think NATO could be engaged in any military campaign?
 
A1: No, I don’t see any further role for NATO. 
 
Q2: NATO Allies do not seem to have a common position on a military response. Isn’t there a lack of unity among member-states over the response to what happened in Syria?
 
A2: There may be different approaches to whether individual countries would participate, but I think it’s a general view that a chemical weapons attack cannot go unanswered. I think the international community has a responsibility to uphold and enforce the ban against the use of chemical weapons by the Syria regime.
 
Q3: In your opinion, would it be appropriate for NATO Allies to take a military strike without UN Security Council approval? Many say it would breach the international law.
 
A3: If individual nations were to respond militarily, it would be in defence of international conventions that clearly ban the use of chemical weapons. 
 
Q4: The G-20 also focuses on Syria these days. Do you think there is still a chance for an agreement between the West and Russia within the Security Council?
 
A4: It seems to be difficult, and I strongly regret that division within the international community. 
 
Q5: You have repeatedly highlighted the lack of EU defence capabilities. Do you think it will reduce the EU role on the international stage?
 
A5: I am very much concerned about declining defence budgets. If this trend continues, Europe will not be able to participate in international crisis management in the future. And that vacuum will be filled by emerging powers because they invest more and more in defence. I urge in particular European Allies to invest more in modernizing our military capabilities so that they can address the security threats of the 21st century.
 
Q6: There have been warnings that a strong EU defence policy could duplicate NATO. Is there such a threat today?
 
A6: It is of utmost importance to ensure close coordination between NATO and the EU. Twenty-two countries are members of both organizations, and we have only one set of taxpayers, only one set of military capabilities, so it would, of course, be waste of resources, if NATO and EU pursue the same programs at the same time. The European Defence Agency coordinates closely with the NATO command of transformation, which is located in Norfolk, the United States. 
 
Q7: Some Lithuanian officials said they were concerned about Russian and Belarus military exercises ‘Zapad’ that will include 12,000 servicemen in September. Do you see a reason to be worried?
 
A7: No, I don’t think ‘Zapad 2013’ constitutes any threat to NATO or NATO Allies. We will also conduct an exercise called ‘Steadfast Jazz’. It’s quite natural that militaries do exercise. What is important is that we are transparent, that we tell our counterparts what it is about, its purpose, size and scope.
 
Q8: Do you see that transparency now? It seems that NATO has not received information for the final planning conference.
 
A8: We could hope for more transparency but there has been progress compared to the past. Recently we had a good meeting in the NATO-Russia Council, and the Russians have provided us with some information.
 
Q9: What is the importance of the ‘Steadfast Jazz’ exercise in Poland and the Baltics?
 
A9: Let me stress that there is nothing unusual in having the ‘Steadfast Jazz’ exercise. Actually, over the last seven years we have conducted, I think, 17 similar exercises, hosted by 14 different countries. It is the first time that we see such an exercise here and I really appreciate that Poland and the Baltic states are co-hosting this exercise. As NATO draws down operations in Afghanistan, we will step up exercises, training, education in order to maintain and further develop our ability to work and operate together, and I see the exercise Steadfast Jazz in that light as well.
 
Q10: Lithuania disagrees with the Estonian proposal to rotate NATO air police missions in the future. What do you think about it – is there a need for change?
 
A10: I think the air-policing of the three Baltic states is an excellent example of what we call ‘Smart Defence’. Allies that have aircraft provide air-policing on rotational basis so it’s not necessary for the three Baltic states to invest in building a very expensive air force. This could be an example of the more efficient use of resources but it is for the three Baltic States to decide on how to do it
 
Q11: What should the NATO contribution be in Afghanistan after 2014 to prevent a civil war in the country? When will there be more clarity on the new mission?
 
A11: We are making steady progress on the planning for the post-2014 mission. We can’t provide information on concrete numbers until we know whether the Afghans will actually invite us and until we know whether there will be the necessary legal arrangements – a Status of Forces Agreement. But it’s not a big deal right now, there is still more than one year till a new training mission will be established as of 1 January, 2015.
 
NATOWatch comment
 
This was a much more informative speech and more detailed interview than we have seen of late from the Secretary General, and that is to be welcomed. However, he does seem to be developing an evangelist tone to his enthusiasm for Europe to do more in terms of defence expenditure, industrial cooperation and developing a more expansive role in the world. His impassioned ‘values, challenges and vision’ appeal for NATO and Europe to become ‘global actors’ will not go down too well in some quarters, one suspects.
 
He is fulfilling his job specification by ‘holding the line’ on NATO’s position on Syria and appears unmoved by the former SACEUR’s ill-advised intervention and suggestion that NATO should just get on and plan military strikes against Syria. But he again misses no opportunity in calling for ‘something to be done’ militarily by the international community to both punish and deter the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Assad’s forces. 
 
It was helpful to read some detail about NATO exercises and NATO-Russian relations. We need more of this, and in more detail, on the NATO website. And Mr Rasmussen’s comments on Afghanistan were helpfully revealing too. They clearly indicated that there is something of a ‘log jam’ in discussions with President Karzai and he seems to be agreeing with him that there is no “big deal” in there being no sign of an agreement coming to the table. Once again, one suspects that there are rather strong differences of opinion on this score.
 
Finally, it would have been interesting had the Secretary General been asked to comment about the competition between Lithuania and Latvia over contracts for freight shipments to/from Afghanistan which have been using the Latvian port of Riga since February 2009. Earlier this month, local media reported that NATO shipments for/from Afghanistan might be re-routed to the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda. A delegation of US experts apparently inspected Latvian transport infrastructure recently while the US Ambassador to Lithuania Deborah Ann McCarthy said that:
 
Lithuania has a lot to offer. It has a major port that has some unique abilities, and I think in that sense it stands very good chances of definitely participating in the whole process.