Ambassador Ivo H. Daalder, Permanent Representative of the United States to NATO

Transatlantic Forum

Berlin, July 1, 2009

Good Morning, Guten Morgen, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Let me start off by thanking Dr. Nader Maleki and Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger for inviting me here today. Although this is hardly my first time in Berlin, this is my first trip here as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, and it is a great honor to start my first official visit to Germany by speaking to all of you this morning.

I couldn’t agree more with the premise of this Transatlantic Forum: that the geopolitical challenges we face demand a vigorous, straightforward discussion on how we make progress together.

This morning, I would like to focus on the implications of a changing world for the relationship between Europe and the United States. I’ll make three key points:
-- First, when it comes to today’s challenges, the global has become local, and the local global;
-- Second, international cooperation and partnerships are critical in this interconnected world;
-- Third, all of us – Allies and partners alike – need to do more to deal with the challenges we face.

I cannot think of a better place to discuss these issues than in Berlin, a city that – while it bears the scars of a painful history – now demonstrates vibrancy, creativity, and dynamism.

Berlin holds a unique place in the hearts of Americans because it was at the center of Western solidarity during the Cold War. In a few months, Germany and the whole world will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall that so tragically divided this city for nearly 40 years. When it came down in November 1989, we all welcomed a reunified Germany as a rock-solid democracy anchored in Western institutions.

Yes, Germany today has its problems – all countries do – but it also has the optimism, the openness, and the opportunity to lead in charting a new and better future. We need that optimism and openness in NATO and in our broader transatlantic agenda to help exploit the opportunities before us.

I am a transatlanticist at heart. I was born in the Netherlands and grew up in Europe, but I spent the last quarter of a century in the think tank and policy worlds of my adopted country, the United States of America.

Perhaps this personal background makes me a little schizophrenic, but I believe it offers a great advantage: I can see Europe through American eyes and America through European eyes. I am convinced such mutual understanding is essential for effective transatlantic relations.

But it is not enough for Europe and America to look only to each other. The North Atlantic area is no island. It is submerged in a globally integrated world. Today, the right lens for transatlantic relations is not so much American or European – it is global. And NATO, too, must increasingly view itself not only from a transatlantic perspective, but a global perspective.

Our task as a community, bound by shared interests and a strong commitment to the principles of democracy, is to help our nations, our Alliance, and our wider world address the serious – and often distant dangers – that threaten us all.

We are living in extraordinary times – times that now demand … more than ever … a commitment to international cooperation. We’re combating an economic crisis of historic proportions. We’re fighting a war four thousand miles away from here. We’re confronting a host of threats that come in multiple forms: in cyberspace, on the high seas, hidden on jetliners, contained within a virus.

What is new and different about these threats – what sets this young century apart from the last – is that while they are global in scope, their impact is local. Terrorists do not recognize territorial limits. Pandemics know no borders. Climate change does not stop at the polar ice caps. Hackers are undeterred by local firewalls. In short, Ladies and Gentlemen, in this age of global politics, events anywhere around the world can have an immediate – and often devastating – effect right here at home.

As usual, President Obama said it best: “The same forces that have brought us closer together have also given rise to new dangers that threaten to tear our world apart – dangers that cannot be contained by the nearest border or the furthest ocean.”

In this age of global politics, no country, not even as great and powerful a nation as my own, can deal with the myriad of challenges and opportunities we confront by itself. In this era of interconnectedness, threats can be dealt with effectively only if we band together with our allies and friends around the world.

That is why President Obama has made renewing our alliances and partnerships a top priority – because he understands that America’s security, America’s prosperity, even our liberty increasingly depend on the security, the prosperity, and the liberty of others around the world.

And as the President has said, “America has no better partner than Europe.” The North Atlantic Alliance has always been the place where Washington looks first for international partners. It does so today and will do so tomorrow.

It’s therefore no accident that Barack Obama’s first extended overseas trip was to Europe, or that he chose to make three trips here, including two visits to Germany, in the first six months of his Presidency. It’s no accident that Vice President Biden will have traveled to Europe four times in the first six months of this young administration.

I was asked by the President to come to NATO for a particular reason. He wanted to make clear that this most successful military partnership in history – this Alliance of democracies – is central to American foreign policy.

But NATO, clearly, is not the only partnership we consider important, and it is not the only one we need. To address the complexity and multiplicity of the challenges we face, we should actively seek multiple partnerships that reinforce our strategic goals. Germany, a member and a leader of two of the strongest concerts of democracies – NATO and the European Union – understands this all too well.

Our global responsibilities are getting heavier, while the challenges we face grow more complex. We have to find a way to do more, with greater efficiency of resources, and in partnership with others. That means America doing more, Europe doing more, our Partners doing more.

With that in mind, I’d like to discuss one area of our partnership where I believe we must make progress and which is now the key priority for NATO, as well. I’m talking about Afghanistan.

AFGHANISTAN

With close to 100,000 troops, the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, is the largest and most challenging operation in NATO’s history. It’s huge commitment that will get even bigger. Success in Afghanistan is crucial for all of us in the international community.
We must disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Together, we must ensure that Afghanistan is secure for all Afghans, and through that effort, that our own countries are secure from the threat of terrorism and extremist violence. We do this not just for the sake of Afghanistan’s security – though that is important as well. We do this mostly for our security – for North America’s and Europe’s.

At the outset, the Obama administration spent two months closely consulting with our Allies and Partners to build a new Afghanistan strategy that incorporates their input. It is why the Vice President went to the Munich Security Conference so early in this administration’s tenure, and also why he and other senior officials came to NATO to hear from our Allies. We listened and we learned.

Our new strategy, embraced by NATO at the April Summit, follows the policy of defense, diplomacy, and development long favored by many of our Allies. Secretary Clinton described this as “exactly the right framework" – and so it is – but only in combination: we need not only development and diplomacy; we also need a strong defense.

By the end of the year, the U.S. will have some 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, the vast majority of them deployed under ISAF. They join over 38,000 troops already contributed by 41 other Allies and partners.

Together we are also establishing a NATO Training Mission for the Afghan National Army and the Police. The Afghan Army currently participates in 90 percent of all ISAF military operations. To grow its strength to a size of 134,000 men under arms, NATO Allies are contributing trainers, and expanding a trust fund to cover the costs of sustaining it over the long haul.

Now the challenge we face here is a tall one. According to our best estimates, it will cost $17 billion or more to build the Afghan Army; and it will cost another $2 billion every year to sustain that force in the field. Last year, total government revenues in Afghanistan were just $750 million.

So you see the problem: there is no way for Afghanistan to pay its soldiers, let alone equip them with decent gear, unless the international community – that’s us – pays the bill. But if we don’t pay, the alternative is not paying nothing; it is to deploy more of our own forces and at far greater costs to ourselves.

So far, the United States has contributed $5.6 billion this year – and we are requesting another $7.5 billion next year – to train and equip the Afghan security forces.

But even with this effort, there are not yet enough Afghan security forces – current or planned – to shoulder the burden of securing Afghanistan. This is a weakness in our effort that we cannot allow or afford. We can provide everything in the way of troops and development assistance, but if we can’t equip and sustain the Afghan forces, we cannot succeed. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to waste.

Let me be frank. The United States is doing its part. We’re deploying an additional 21,000 troops and hundreds of civilian experts this year. The Congress has provided another $4.6 billion in assistance for Afghanistan alone.

I recognize that Europe – including Germany – has done a lot as well. Even so, Europe and Germany can and should do more.

The additional forces you and others have deployed for elections security must stay after the elections – security isn’t magically going to improve after the vote. We will need many more trainers as demands rise on Afghan forces to take the operational lead. To ensure these forces are sustainable, we need to fully finance the Afghan National Army trust fund. The $350 million pledged by the rest of the international community to date is great; but it is not enough – not by a long shot. And, we need to get more Afghan police trained, equipped, and into the field to better secure the peace.

Some have argued that the Obama administration’s renewed commitment to Afghanistan – backed by the deployment of more troops and an influx of money – Americanizes the effort in Afghanistan. That is certainly not our intent, nor is it an outcome that is in anyone’s interest.

The additional American contributions represent our assessment that time is not on our side. If we want to stem the violence and cut off all support to the insurgents, while also creating the space for economic and social development, we have to act decisively and immediately to build up the Afghans’ capacity to secure and govern their own country. We need to empower the Afghan leadership and develop the structures necessary to do this. And, above all, we need a serious infusion of resources.

That is why the best way to ensure this effort won’t be Americanized is not for the United States to do less, but for Europe to do more.

I recognize that in some countries, including here in Germany, citizens have serious concerns about the Afghanistan conflict. But a recent poll indicated that a clear majority of Germans was also concerned about the prospect of the Taliban regaining power. This is a concern Americans share. And, obviously, so do the Afghan people – when only some four percent support the Taliban.

I believe we have the support of the Afghan people for our international effort, and increasingly, the broad recognition that a Taliban victory would be a disaster for the world community.

Why, some would ask, would this concern us here in Berlin or in Brussels or in Boston? Why worry about people in a far-off place like Afghanistan? The answer, I submit, lies in the changing nature of world politics that I spoke about earlier – a world in which the global has become local.

In NATO, we used to speak about “out of area” – that’s what was beyond Alliance territory – and “in area” – Alliance territory itself. Well, today out of area is in area. It’s the same thing.
A terrorist who gets trained in Kandahar and devises plots in Hamburg can turn airplanes into weapons of mass destruction in New York. Where do you defend against such a threat? In New York? Hamburg? Or Kandahar? That’s the reality that we are confronting.

And we’re not alone in confronting it. Today we have 42 nations participating in the largest and most challenging NATO operation ever. We have the largest number of troops – both U.S. and non-U.S. – deployed in any NATO operation – ever. The fact that so many countries and organizations care so much about Afghanistan shows how vital its stability is to our collective security.

A NEW ALLIANCE FOR A NEW CENTURY

The new challenges I described at the outset are not looming on the horizon; they are already at our doorstep. Addressing them is not just a matter of political agreement, but of adapting and reforming our institutions – starting with NATO – so that they are oriented and prepared for this new global age we now live in.

At this moment, we have a great opportunity to revitalize the most successful military alliance in history and build a new Alliance for a new century. We have a new Administration in Washington. We will have new civilian and military leadership of the Alliance. And we have a mandate to draft a new Strategic Concept to guide the Alliance in the years ahead.

The Atlantic Alliance was founded in 1949 as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. It now faces unprecedented challenges: sending bridges to Indonesia after a tsunami and helicopters to rescue earthquake victims in Pakistan; organizing a flotilla of ships to protect vessels from pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden, deploying tens of thousands of troops to fight insurgents in the Hindu Kush, and keeping the peace in South Eastern Europe.

NATO will continue to be a beacon of stability and peace and freedom in Europe – as it was in the 20th century – but it will have to achieve this mission in a new world that is vastly different from the one in which it was founded and grew up. NATO must adapt to new realities.

A year ago, Barack Obama came to this city and spoke to millions of people in Germany and around the world about this critical moment in our history. “Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic,” he then said.
“Now is the time to join together through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifices, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

I believe that the need to build bridges, to join together in constant cooperation, to build strong institutions, to share in our sacrifices, and make a real commitment to global progress is even greater today than it was a year ago.

And you have the commitment of the Obama Administration to do whatever is necessary to make this happen in the months and years ahead.

Thank you.