“Homeland Security is an International Issue” Speech to the Association Nederland-VS at the Royal Military Academy Breda, The Netherlands.

Let me express my appreciation to Mr. Peters, Major General van Groningen for inviting me here today.

Members of Netherlands-United States Friendship Organization, Military Academy Cadets, and distinguished Military and Defense Professionals: I am especially gratified to speak to this group of young cadets – at an institution that has produced gifted and dedicated military officers and advisors – and from whose ranks I am confident NATO will draw a new generation of leaders.

Today, I am pleased to discuss a topic important of concern to all of us: homeland security, and how the U.S. views NATO’s role in Homeland Security.

I. Homeland Security and NATO: What are we doing?

Homeland Security is a critical challenge for the United States and our NATO allies and we are moving to address and strengthen our defenses. You won’t find the term “homeland security” in any NATO document; but it has become an important part of what we are doing nonetheless. Homeland security means we must be prepared to each address our internal threats to security while at the same time collectively addressing those that are external. In American vernacular, we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. In effect this means we have to overcome what had been in the past, during the Cold War, a rigid distinction between what was civil and what was military. We are standing together in recognizing those common threats and those common challenges.

As all of you know, Article 5 of NATO’s Washington Treaty declares that an attack against one member of the alliance is considered an attack against all. It was this provision of the Treaty that was invoked to provide NATO’s unified response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. Accordingly, each Ally committed itself to assisting the United States by taking such actions as it deemed necessary.

While historically, Article 5 has provided the vehicle for our joint fight against terrorism, NATO has moved consistently to address the rising challenges of homeland security; NATO has – and continues -- to reaffirm its commitments.

• Paragraph 25 of NATO’s 1999 Strategic Concept provides that “acts of terrorism, sabotage, and organized crime” constitute risks of a wider nature to the alliance. At the 2002 Prague Summit, NATO agreed to “The Prague Capabilities Commitment” to improve and develop new military capabilities to deal with contemporary threats.

• And in 2004 at the Istanbul Summit, NATO’s leadership endorsed measures to improve our capability to defend against terrorist attacks.

Concrete efforts towards meetings these goals were outlined at the May 2004 Conference of National Armaments Directors. NATO members agreed to embark on a ten-point work program to develop new, advanced capabilities to defend against terrorist attacks with an ally taking the lead in each of the capabilities. The ten areas included:

• Technologies to defend against mortar attacks. Triggered by the increasing number of terrorist mortar attacks, this item was initiated by the Netherlands. The Netherlands has moved this work strongly ahead and will turn over lead nation responsibilities to Norway in the near future.

• Countering improvised explosive devices, such as car and road-side bombs, through their detection and destruction or neutralization. Spain leads this effort.

• Reducing the vulnerability of wide-body civilian and military aircraft to man-portable air defense missiles, led by the United Kingdom.

• Bulgaria leading the effort to reduce the vulnerability of helicopters to rocket-propelled grenades.

• Italy taking the lead in protecting harbors and ships from explosive-packed speedboats, and also utilizing underwater divers using sensornets, electro-optical detectors, rapid reaction capabilities and unmanned underwater vehicles.

• Detection, protection and defeat of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. France, supported by the Czech Republic, is the lead nation in this effort.

• Slovakia, taking the lead in explosive ordnance disposal, with the objective of preventing existing stockpiles of munitions from falling into the hands of terrorists and of improving NATO’s technological and operational capabilities to dispose of such stockpiles.

• Precision airdrop technology for special operations forces and their equipment. The United States is the lead nation for improving this capability.

• Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition of terrorists, with the goal of developing improved tools for early warning identification of terrorists and their activities, led by Germany.

• Developing new technologies and strategies for critical infrastructure protection with Belgium in the lead. As you can see, some of these initiatives are military, and thus in NATO’s traditional areas of responsibility, but others have broader application. More recently – and significantly -- last year’s Riga Summit Declaration condemned terrorism “whatever its motivations or manifestations” and reaffirmed the commitment of alliance members to “fight it together as long as necessary, in accordance with international law and UN principles.”

NATO-led ISAF has seized the military initiative by recognizing that security at home and stability abroad go hand-in-hand. Allies and partners are continuing to create stable and secure environments in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Security and reconstruction must come together in order to achieve success. It is no longer the case – if it ever was – that military and civilian objectives are mutually exclusive. The implications of this are profound. As we have often said: “Winning the war against terrorism means winning the peace in Afghanistan.” In Afghanistan, we are undertaking a Comprehensive Approach that links military operations, reconstruction, training and equipping Afghan military and police, counter narcotics, and better communicating the importance and successes of the ISAF mission. The integrating and coordinating military and civilian operations aimed at securing our homelands is critical. My point is that even in NATO Operations abroad, the line between what is military and what is civilian is less clear than it used to be.

II. Homeland Security and NATO: Are we doing enough?

The threat environment has changed. Many once argued that defensive, conventional approaches to homeland security were adequate to address the challenge; today we are living in a different strategic environment.

In the 21st century our challenges are formidable – but not insurmountable. Today’s challenges include maintaining the security of our cyber infrastructure – as demonstrated by the recent computer security breaches discovered in Estonia;

They include securing our ships, ports, and waters;

They include coordinating intelligence-sharing and counterterrorism efforts;

They include protecting civilian populations and guaranteeing the integrity of our energy infrastructure.

In the area of cyber defense, NATO is working to anticipate and protect against terrorist disruption of national critical infrastructure assets, including information and communications systems.

In the area of maritime awareness and security, NATO’s Standing Naval Forces have conducted anti-terrorist operations, monitored merchant shipping, and engaged in compliant boarding of suspicious vessels, and escorted ships in the Straits of Gibraltar and throughout the Mediterranean in Operation Active Endeavour. But we think more can be done in sharing information more broadly. In the area of enhanced intelligence sharing, NATO leaders agreed in Istanbul to make improved intelligence coordination and sharing a priority. To that end, NATO has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Alliance’s intelligence structure and created a new Terrorist Threat Intelligence Unit (TTIU), which reports periodically to the North Atlantic Council.

In the area of civilian population and infrastructure protection, NATO allies and our partners have established an inventory of national civil and military capabilities that could be made available to assist during a terrorist attack. From communications equipment and teams, mobile hospitals and more than 300 NATO civilian experts who can support NATO or national responses to emergencies—the capabilities strengthen nations and the alliance’s security. NATO’s civil emergency planning efforts have also resulted in published responder standards for accidents involving Chemical, Biological, or Radiological agents. And, we test cross-border and multi-national response capabilities in regular exercises.

This brings me to missile defense. The proposed U.S. missile defense system in Europe would contribute to the security of the U.S. and NATO allies, as well as other European friends. We see the security of NATO members as indivisible. We do not want a situation where U.S. security is somehow decoupled from that of our Allies. Our aim should be to develop a more effective defense for us all.

The USG welcomes NATO cooperation in missile defense, particularly in addressing the short-range threats that Europe faces from the Middle East. U.S. and NATO efforts will be complementary. Working together, we would form a more effective defense for Europe.

But there is even more to be done – and we are doing more. We – together -- understand the responsibility we have to address the security of our alliance. Now we are following through on that commitment that will take cooperation, coordination, and complete resolve.

The United States remains fully committed to defending security at home for Americans and our NATO allies. And we are constantly reviewing what more is possible and our Allies must do the same.

We recognize that there is a clear need for enhanced coordination for NATO security and counterterrorism initiatives and are exploring possible mechanisms to achieve this important goal. We also know that we must accelerate our efforts. Our people have the right – and our governments the responsibility – to provide a safe, secure environment.

We need to make both the imperative need for increased vigilance to Europeans, North Americans and the world. We must explain why homeland security matters and why our alliance is so important to addressing those concerns. Homeland security is not just important to Americans – NATO’s homeland security challenge has been made painfully clear in London, Madrid, Istanbul and beyond.

The story is not just one of threats and warnings: we should also underscore the good work that NATO is doing in addressing these needs. That is a message people in all NATO countries need to hear – and a message we can deliver much more effectively than we are doing. The more our people understand our threats and challenges, the more they will support us.

Homeland security is one of the issues that will define the future of this Alliance. Homeland security demonstrates why NATO remains at the heart of the transatlantic security community and how the Alliance is changing to deal with 21st century security challenges.

We’ve come a long way together, but the road ahead is long. America will be there with NATO for the long haul, and we call on all Allies to do everything possible to fulfill our joint commitment to each other and our people.