|
2008-02-25
U.S. Ambassador to NATO
Victoria Nuland's Speech in London
AMBASSADOR VICTORIA NULAND
United States Permanent Representative to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Speech at the
London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom
A warm thanks to Lord Wallace, Professor Gaskell, Professor
Cox, Alan Revell and to all of you for attending today.
What an honor and a treat it is to be back on campus, and
such a prestigious one at that. I’m delighted to see so
many students and younger faces in the audience today. One
of our greatest fears at NATO headquarters is that the
generation that understands and believes in the Atlantic
Alliance is dying off. We have to ensure that it is not
just our fathers and grandfathers who understand what NATO
is all about, but it is all of you because you’ll have to
take our great Alliance forward through the 21st
century.
Being on campus again naturally makes me a little nostalgic.
In the early 80’s, when I was a student, our preoccupations
were all about nuclear weapons counts, mutual assured
destruction, and keeping strong a NATO military Alliance
that had never fired a shot in its history. Few Americans
understood the European Union – or had ever heard of it –
Ok, that’s still too true but less than it used to be.
Today, more than 25 years
later, I join you in a very different age -- one where every
school kid on both sides of the Atlantic can tell you what
al Qaida is but few remember the Soviet Union. And one
where we are once again asking ourselves whether the
structures we built to take us through the Cold War -- our
NATO Alliance, the EU, the World Bank, the UN – are up to
the 21st Century challenges we face today.
I would argue
that NATO has already done a lot to transform for new
missions. Not only are we keeping peace in Kosovo and
supporting security and stability with our Afghan partners
in the Hindu Kush, we are training the Iraqi military in
Baghdad, supporting the AU’s Darfur mission with airlift and
training, developing counter-terror technologies, missile
defense capability, cyber security and other 21st
century capabilities while deepening our partnerships with
forty countries across 4 continents -- from Casablanca to
Canberra. And at our next summit in Bucharest, we will
invite new members into the Alliance, proving once again
that NATO, like the EU, is one of the most powerful magnates
and mentors for democratic change in history.
With that
little unpaid advertisement for NATO, let me now follow with
something you may find completely counterintuitive –
especially from me; as tomorrow’s diplomats, journalists,
parliamentarians, international lawyers and business people,
I hope you will consider it your first responsibility in
addition to building the strongest possible Britain and
NATO, to strengthen and build the capacities of the European
Union. You will think this is strange, a little suspicious
-- to have the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, standing here,
urging you – the British and international leaders of the
future to build a stronger EU. So why am I doing it?
If we have learned anything since September 11, 2001 – or
for that matter over the past 60 or 100 years – it is that
the U.S. and the UK not only need each other, we need a
strong Europe. We, in the United States, need a Europe
that is as united as possible, ready and willing to bear its
full measure of responsibility for defending our common
security and advancing our shared values. And Brits and all
Europeans, need an America that is engaged, consulting and
cooperating with Europe—finding common solutions to common
challenges. Just as our transatlantic unity in the 20th
century ensured the defeat of fascism and Soviet Communism,
in the 21st century we must also share the risk
and share the responsibility for protecting and advancing
the freedom we enjoy.
Today the
challenges we face together run the gamut from terror,
violent extremism and weapons of mass destruction to the
need to decrease our dependence on carbon fuels and address
the poverty, disease and hunger that still afflict too much
of the world's population. Together, we must manage a
Kremlin that has tightened its grip on state power,
suspended the conventional forces in Europe treaty and
threatened to target missiles at its neighbors, even as we
work together with Russia on Iran, North Korea and other
vital shared interests. We must maintain the right mix of
diplomacy and offers of political and economic engagement
plus pressure on Iran to come back into compliance with the
UNSC, abandon terror and give its people the future they
deserve. And we must encourage China to use its growing
power for stability and peace, in its neighborhood and
globally. In short, we are living in a complex and
dangerous world -- one that requires those of us who are
blessed to live in free societies to join forces to protect
what we have at home and to secure and enlarge the
democratic community.
As we in the United States look across the globe for
partners in meeting these challenges we of course look to
our Asian Allies and other strong democracies to our South
and to our East. But one of our first stops is often at the
European Union. We will always consult early with London
and other member state capitals but increasingly we are also
turning to European institutions as well.
With 15 missions now on three continents, the EU has proven
its ability to deliver a whole which is greater than the sum
of its parts. Today’s EU brings development aid, human
rights standards, anti-corruption programs, police trainers,
election monitors, cadre building skills and most
importantly, the capacity to put all these things together
in the right combination to meet the challenges of the
moment. Britain has been a leader in building these
capacities in the EU, and they are paying off -- witness the
EU's combined civil-military mission in Bosnia, the civpol
missions in East Timor and in Rafah, and peacekeeping
efforts in Chad. We commend the EU's leadership on all of
these issues.
But just as the EU’s capacity for common action on the soft
power side has gone up, our collective transatlantic
commitment on the hard power side, has objectively gone
down.
If in 1980, the transatlantic average for national defense
spending was 3 percent of gdp, today it is 1.7 percent. And
when you subtract the 4 percent American taxpayers now
contribute our trans-Atlantic average is closer to 1.4%,
despite the fact that Britain continues to punch well above
its weight spending 2.32 percent of GDP on defense.
Why has transatlantic security investment dropped? You know
the answer. Because after the Cold War, we all took a peace
dividend. And also because throughout the 90's it was
fashionable in salons in Europe and even some in the US to
believe that soft power was the only appropriate answer.
That hard power was dangerous, that it drew enemies, and
using it was the mistake of overly militaristic societies.
And yet, in Chad, those EU nations that participate are
discovering that even to conduct a relatively modest peace
support operation, you need desert capable helicopters, long
range transport aircraft, you need sophisticated
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and
modern interoperable communications equipment. All the
development aid in the world, all the governance support and
police training in the world does no good if you can’t first
provide security for the people you aspire to help.
And my home organization, NATO, is learning the same lessons
in Afghanistan. So I am here in London today to say that
the United States needs, the U.K. needs, NATO needs, the
democratic world needs a stronger, more capable European
defense capacity. An ESDP with only soft power is not
enough. It will take concerted U.K. leadership within the
EU to get European defense spending growing again and to
focus ESDP on the right things like upgrading European
military capabilities with badly needed investment in
helicopters, UAVs, special forces, interoperable
communications and counterinsurgency trained soldiers and
civilians. This is an interest we share because U.S. and
U.K. soldiers and civilians cannot continue to bear so much
of the global load without more help from more of our Allies
and friends.
And also because we know that if Europeans will invest in
their own defense, they will also be stronger and more
capable when we deploy together. Which takes me back to
Afghanistan, one of my favorite subjects these days– the
greatest operational challenge our Alliance has ever
undertaken in its 59 year history.
First, the good news: the NATO Alliance that never fired a
shot in the Cold War had some real operational successes
last year with our Afghan partners. Despite the dire
headlines, the Taliban’s much vaunted Spring Offensive never
materialized. Roads, schools, markets and businesses have
been built all over the country. Six million Afghan
children now go to school, one third of them girls. Over
80% of Afghans have access to health care. And as President
Karzai told the NAC last week, most Afghan people now live
less than five kilometers from a clinic today. Districts
and villages throughout eastern and southern Afghanistan --
in Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Nuristan and Konar; in the Sangin
valley and Musa Qala in Helmand; and in the area south of
Kandahar -- are more secure and more accessible than they
have been in years -- in some cases, decades. The ranks of
trained Afghan soldiers have swelled from 35,000 to almost
60,000, with Afghans themselves leading the fighting in some
important combat operations. This spring, the United States
will send an additional 3,200
Marines to capitalize on the gains, and support
the Afghans, and support the momentum -- 2,200 for ISAF
combat missions in the south and 1,000 more trainers for
Operation Enduring Freedom, focused primarily on
Afghanistan's police forces in the South and West.
At the same time we have got to be honest. The intense
challenge of this mission for Afghans and for NATO allies
has become clear. Insurgents are resorting to the deadly
terrorist tactics of improvised explosive devices, suicide
bombing, kidnapping and targeted assassination; they kill
teachers in front of their students, parliamentarians in
their districts and kill foreigners in hotels in the center
of Kabul. In the mountains and caves along the
Afghan-Pakistan border, they plot and train for the next
attacks on our cities. In areas where security is weak, the
Taliban and their drug-lord enablers have pushed more prime
land into poppy production. Crime and corruption are on the
rise, and the Afghan people grow more impatient every day to
see action and justice from their elected leaders.
Meanwhile, we as an international community have struggled
to coordinate our efforts.
And just as Iraq forced adaptation in American and UK
military and development tactics and strategy, the Afghan
mission is forcing changes in NATO. With each passing month,
allies learn more about what it takes to wage a 21st-century
counterinsurgency -- a combined civil-military effort that
puts warriors side by side with development workers,
diplomats and police trainers. Whether flying helicopters
across the desert at night, embedding trainers with the
Afghans, conducting tribal councils with village elders or
running joint civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction
Teams, most of us are reinventing the way we provide
security. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, this
requires new training, new equipment, a new doctrine and new
flexibility in combining civil and military efforts in a
truly comprehensive approach to security.
As we surge soldiers to the south of Afghanistan this
spring, we must also ensure our civil efforts are keeping
pace. It is not enough to talk about knitting up civil and
military efforts: we need to ensure we have joint action on
the ground and the requisite resources. This is why
President Bush asked Congress for over $10 billion in
development and governance support and counter narcotics
efforts for Afghanistan last year – to ensure that as we
liberate communities, we work with Afghan leaders to bring a
better quality of life with new roads, schools, power, water
and employment options other than poppy. But in too much of
Afghanistan – and particularly in the South – as a
TransAtlantic community, we are underinvested in promoting
good governance, rule of law, counter narcotics and
anti-corruption programs.
With these challenges in mind, we very much welcome Prime
Minister Brown’s enduring commitment to Afghanistan, and his
December 12 announcement that in the 2009-2012 period,
Britain will commit an additional £ 450 million to
development and stabilization assistance in Afghanistan, on
top of the £ 490 million you have already spent in the past
six years. I have seen the effect of this investment, and
the hard work of your nearly 8 thousand troops on the ground
in Helmand. In April 2007, we landed in Sangin 5 days after
its liberation from the Taliban by Afghan, British, United
States, Danish and Estonian troops. Our guys were still
sleeping rough on floor of the "Taliban Hilton", a former
hospital riddled with bullet holes which the enemy had used
as its base, and they took us to the UK outpost where just a
week earlier young men from your nation spent months fending
off rocket and grenade attacks from just a few yards away.
One of the most poignant moments was to see the names of the
British fallen etched into the mud walls of the fort – brave
young people of just 19, 20, 25. .
And five months later, Stewart and I were back. This time,
the streets and market of Sangin were alive with families
and kids, and we visited a newly refurbished school where
classes would soon resume. Today, a similar story is
unfolding in Musa Qala. And Britain is again thinking
about reinforcing its contingent of combatants and trainers
in Helmand to solidify the gains.
But too much of burden – particularly in the South -- is
still born by the nations who have committed the most forces
there. While the EU’s 200-plus train-the-trainer police
mission is very welcome and playing an important role at the
national and provincial level, we estimate Afghanistan is
going to need at least 3000 embedded police mentors to begin
to turn the tide and create Afghan confidence in the
effectiveness and trustworthiness of their local police.
What could be more vital to winning hearts and minds of
Afghans 18 months before the next election cycle in
Afghanistan than creating confidence in the security of
their communities? As a Mom myself, I would say what Afghan
mother, what Afghan father will side with democratic change
if they aren’t sure their kids will be safe tomorrow?
As we like to say in Brussels, there can be no development
without security and no security without development. The
question is whether we are practicing what we preach as well
as we should.
Which takes me back to my more fundamental point: we need a
stronger EU, we need a stronger NATO and if Afghanistan has
taught us anything, we need a stronger, more seamless
relationship between them. I would go further: if we
truly believe in a transatlantic comprehensive approach to
security – one that combines the best of our soft and hard
power – we need a place where we can plan and train for such
missions as a NATO-EU family.
O.K. don't get scared, I am not talking about combining
institutions or even melding their mandates. That wouldn’t
make sense for Europe or for North America. Europe needs a
place where it can act independently, and we need a Europe
that is able and willing to do so in defense of our common
interests and values.
But we cannot keep showing up side by side in far flung
parts of the world and playing a pick up game. Coalitions
of the Willing have their limitations. We have to learn to
think, to train and to act together, while preserving the
autonomy of each institution. This is not simply about
Afghanistan and Kosovo, where NATO and the EU are both
involved now; it is about effective joint action wherever we
may be called to support security and development – from the
Palestinian territories, to Africa, to future challenges
that we can only imagine today. If we can do it as a
TransAtlantic community, we as core members of the UN family
will also strengthen that organization’s efforts.
And the good news is that the stars might actually be coming
into alignment for this kind of coherence. In Paris, we
have a president who is prepared to use his EU presidency to
strengthen Europe’s defense contribution and then bring
France back into a renovated NATO. In Washington, leaders
of all stripes are calling for more, not less Europe. And
in London, David Miliband is calling on us to support the
global “civilian surge” for democracy with both soft and
hard power.
So the old prejudices and callouses are fading on both
shores of the Atlantic. Now we must show equal wisdom in
breaking down barriers within the organizations. On the EU
side, a partner like Turkey which contributes generously to
EU missions and wants to cooperate with the European Defense
Agency should be welcome, should be consulted and offered a
security agreement and rights commensurate with its
contribution and potential. In response, NATO should open
the doors of partnership fully to Cyprus and finalize its
security agreement, while also encouraging Malta to come
back to the Partnership for Peace. Long-standing members of
both the EU and NATO like the UK, France and Germany hold
the keys to this kind of grand bargain. The U.S. stands
ready to help, but Europeans must take the lead in melting
the glaciers of the senseless "frozen conflict" between the
two organizations.
With 21 of our members sitting in both the EU and NATO now,
with renewed understanding on both sides of the Atlantic
that we need each other, it only makes sense that we finally
get this fixed. And as we’ve learned the hard way, history
has not ended. If we care about democracy and peace, we
have to be stronger than those who oppose them. And we have
to be willing to make the investment of blood and treasure
to maintain "a global balance of power that favors freedom",
as my boss, Condi Rice likes to say.
This is going to take courage, it is going to take
creativity and it is going to take vision. It is also going
to take considerably more investment from all of us. My
generation is prepared to start this work of reshaping one
of history’s greatest partnerships – the TransAtlantic union
– to meet this latest challenge to our security and our
liberty. Your generation will have to finish it. Thank you
for joining me here today and I look forward to our
discussion. |
