NATO Summit Bucharest 2008

The General Secretary of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, explained the importance of the Bucharest summit for the North-Atlantic Alliance during the exclusive interview he gave to Evenimentul Zilei, in his office located in the Brussels general headquarters. Although this is the place where military decisions for hot areas like Afghanistan are taken, the NATO headquarters in Brussels is far from the dramatic nature of the Pentagon, where, from time to time, you can see Black Hawks full of soldiers landing.

A perfect diplomat, Scheffer refrained from giving verdicts or labeling, as it so easily happens in Bucharest. When asked how will the Bucharest summit be remembered in the history of NATO – the decisions taken always get linked with the place they are taken in - Scheffer only expressed his hope that the heads of state and government will prove that they are dedicated to the NATO mission and values.

Ioana Lupea: The Riga summit has been called „the summit of delay“. How do you think the Bucharest summit will be named?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: It would be a great injustice to name the Riga summit “the summit of delay”, I do not agree with this interpretation. It was a successful, well organized summit. As far as Bucharest is concerned, there are a few major lines of discussion. First of all, there is the expansion subject – I do not know yet if there will be invitations made, we are in the final stage of the decision process with regards to this matter. Secondly, considering the fact that the image and credibility of NATO are after all linked to the performed operations, we will focus on these operations, in Afghanistan and Kosovo. We do not know what the situation will be in Kosovo at the time the heads of state and government will meet.
We should, in fact, realize that external factors can have quite an influence on a summit, including a NATO summit. This summit will also play an important role in the relationship between NATO and its’ partners. The distant, traditional partners that will take part in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council reunion (EAPC) and, most importantly, in the 26σN reunion, as we name it. Your readers may not understand this phrase very well – this concerns all NATO or non-NATO allies in Afghanistan, main donors, main troop suppliers. Last but not least, the final subject will be the need for NATO to answer the challenges of the XXI st century. I do not expect fundamental decisions to be taken with regards to the antimissile shield, but this subject will certainly be on the agenda.

Will a discussion regarding a new strategic concept be initiated in Bucharest?

That is difficult to tell, I don’t think that we will see the official release of a strategic concept. For a while my opinion has been that NATO needs a strategic concept. I can imagine – and I am speaking for myself here, not in the name of the 26 allies – that in Bucharest I could be asked, as general secretary, to analyze elements that could form a discussion on a new strategic concept, which could be released in 2009 and concluded in 2010. Therefore, I do not see Bucharest as an official initiation moment, but I can imagine that the first elements (of the concept) will be defined sometime between the 2008 Bucharest summit and the 2009 NATO reunion

Which are the elements that should be included in this new concept?

It is much too early to make any statement in this regard. But we have to take into consideration the fact that the current NATO strategic concept has formulated, in 1999, the operations performed by NATO on three continents, the development of relationships with its’ partners. Obviously, the new challenges need to be discussed. I believe that NATO will always be a transatlantic alliance based on collective security and integrated defense, but the world surrounding NATO has undergone major changes so NATO needs to change with it. This change must be integrated in a new security concept.

THE AMERICAN ANTIMISSILE SHIELD

„The part of continental Europe that will not be protected by the shield must be protected“

Russia considers that the open door policy was inherited from the Cold War times. Is Russia’s opposition to the expansion of NATO different at this time?

I do not agree with Russia’s position, I believe that the Alliance position is dissonant with it. How can someone be afraid of the expansion of NATO, when this means democracy, lawful governments, human rights protection? Who could be afraid of the fundamental values that NATO has always protected? Who are we to bar the nations that want to join this family? Under these conditions I do not, to be honest, understand Russia’s position very well, because I think there is no need for anyone to be worried.

Is Ukraine’s or Georgia’s membership statute negotiable with Russia?

This is not a relevant question, as the discussions regarding the allegiance to NATO are carried out with candidates and allies, not with third countries. If this is Russia’s perception, that the NATO expansion should not take place, than we should discuss this with our Russian partners. We have an important partnership with Russia, we have the NATO-Russia Council. I am not saying that we shouldn’t discuss the NATO expansion with Russia if their perception is that the expansion is wrong. But, in my opinion, this perception is wrong.

Russia and NATO can do more if they are together in Afghanistan. Which do you think is the main subject of discussion on the NATO-Russia Council’s agenda?

We have a lot to discuss. In the media we can easily see the subjects we don’t agree upon, the withdrawal from the Conventional Weapons Treaty or the antimissile shield, but there are many subjects we do agree upon. For example, there is the fight against terrorism and I would like to remind you of the Mediterranean See mission, where Russia is a participant. There we can see NATO’s and Russia’s ships in joint operations. We are also successfully performing a training program for fighting against drugs smuggling, for the people in Afghanistan. I believe that Afghanistan, Russia and NATO can do more together. We also work together for the antimissile defense shield, we have recently had an exercise in Germany, two weeks ago. We work together in the civil emergencies field. Therefore, there are a lot of things to discuss with Russia and the perception that we disagree on any subject should be avoided. We have our fundamental disputes, but I think this is a relation between adults. Russia is an important state and has its own interests, NATO is an important alliance and has its own interests, so let’s talk.

The reconstruction, a responsibility of the Afghan government

A report drawn up by a group of high commanders in the USA and NATO established that the Alliance must be ready to launch a preventive nuclear attack. What is your opinion in this matter?

I would rather not comment on this part of the report. NATO has a nuclear element in its strategy, which unfortunately is important, considering the current threats and provocations, but in my capacity as the general secretary of NATO I will never comment on the nuclear strategy issue.

Which are the challenges for establishing the connections between the antimissile shield in Poland and the Czech republic and the NATO antimissile activities?

We can see that USA is carrying discussions with the Czechs and the Polish about the shield installation, the interceptors in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic. The NATO allies agree that there is a threat from ballistic missiles. If the USA plans become reality, this will have consequences on NATO, because the shield will not cover the entire continental Europe and I know that this is a relevant discussion in Romania. I believe that NATO must initiate a discussion on the antimissile defense subject. I think that, if the USA shield becomes reality, this will have consequences on NATO, because the part of the continental Europe that will not be protected should, in fact, be protected. Security is indivisible, as I said many times and as I also said during my visit in Bucharest. There are no A or B rate states in NATO and therefore the antimissile shield is a relevant subject of discussion for NATO, but we are not in the final stage of the decision process.

The American Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, was quoted saying that the NATO force in south Afghanistan does not know how to perform rebel counteraction operations. The European states reacted vehemently. Do you believe that this moment of tension will affect the discussion regarding the increase of troop numbers in Afghanistan?

I don’t think so. I believe that Robert Gates has clarified this matter and nobody is upset anymore.

But will you request the troop numbers in Afghanistan to be increased?

This is a permanent request. I agree with Robert Gates in his request for more forces, as I am requesting the same thing.

Will NATO ask for international financial and civil support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan?

This is not NATO’s responsibility. As I said before, NATO is a military-political organization, not a development agency. The reconstruction is first of all the responsibility Afghan government, it is their country. Furthermore, there are other international organizations like UNO, EU, G8 or international donors. Under UNO mandate, NATO has the responsibility of creating a situation that allows the reconstruction of the country. But NATO does not operate in the entrepreneurial field.

Would it be possible to reach an agreement regarding “labor division”, according to which NATO would control the military side of the crisis and EU would take care of the civil reconstruction?

I believe that NATO’s main responsibility lays, as you said, within military boundaries: to create security and stability. NATO is not a development organization. The European Union is much more suitable than NATO to get involved in the reconstruction and development operations. On the other hand, the European Union too is working on having the capacity to respond in a robust military manner when needed.

France pointed out its intention to “return” to NATO. Does this imply the assignment of positions in the Alliance commandment?

First of all I would like to say that what I call the normalization of the relations between NATO and France is a French decision. A sovereign decision, made by the French government, not by NATO. If France wishes to normalize the relations, than the subject in discussion is not reintegration, because France is still a prominent member of NATO and this word would be inappropriate. I would be glad if that happens. But if this decision is taken than there is no doubt that France will become more involved in NATO’s command structure and will have the command positions which are adequate for a state the size of France.

NATO is ready for any scenario in Kosovo

Is NATO ready for any scenario in Kosovo?

NATO is ready for any scenario in Kosovo. K-FOR, the 60.000 military NATO force is ready to fulfill its UNO mandate, the NATO reserve troops are ready in case it becomes necessary, therefore NATO is ready.

What can NATO do for the stability of the Balkans?

First of all, I would like to mention the presence in Kosovo, the relationships with other allies in the West Balkans, not to speak of the ones than are knocking on the Alliance’s door. I could add the relations with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro and, even though Serbia is having elections, the relation with Serbia. NATO can play its role for increasing the stability in the West Balkans, which can only be accomplished having close relationships with these nations.

How do you think the Bucharest summit will be known in history?

It is difficult to say two months in advance. I have already said that I hope that the heads of state and government show that they are dedicated to Afghanistan, to Kosovo. Furthermore, I hope that they will have a positive outlook on the expansion of NATO and that they will be able to respond to the challenges I mentioned.

EXPANSION

„The question if and to whom we will address invitations is a political matter“

What is NATO now, a defensive alliance, an alliance focused on security or an institution for solving global crises?

I wouldn’t pick any of the three definitions. NATO is a political-military alliance. In 1949, NATO began by protecting the security of the allies and NATO is still doing that. But NATO has changed throughout the years and it has now become an organization ready and capable to generate stability. NATO does this under UNO mandate in many cases, as it is the case in Afghanistan, in Kosovo, in the training missions in Iraq or with the UNO informal approval, as it was the case with the help provided to the African Union in Darfur. We have an anti-terrorism operation in the Mediterranean Sea, which is not under UNO mandate. NATO’s mission is to generate security and stability, but it is both a political and a military mission.

The United States have requested that NATO includes three new members, Albania, Macedonia and Croatia, but European allies speak of limiting this number to two or even one. Which do you think would be the best option for NATO at this time?

There are three nations knocking on NATO’s door in the West Balkans. The question if and to whom we will address invitations is a political matter. But it is a political decision based on results. There is still time, during which these states must continue their reforms. I cannot say what the best decision would be. My opinion has always been that NATO’s door should be open, the Washington Treaty speaks of European democracies and, as soon as the European democracies fulfill the criteria necessary for the NATO membership statute, they should receive an invitation. But it is too early to say who will receive an invitation in Bucharest.

What is NATO’s answer for Ukraine and Georgia, which have requested to accede to the “Accession Operative Plan”?

This subject is on the summit agenda. We have intensified the dialogue with Ukraine and with Georgia, I believe we should use this intensification at most. The allies will discuss about the relationship with Ukraine and Georgia and maybe about other steps in this relation.