REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR MEL SEMBLER

AT GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE

ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

Rome, December 3, 2004 - 9:30 am

 

Senator Colombo, Ambassador Hunter, I would like to thank you for hosting this important event. On behalf of President Bush, I would like to congratulate the Atlantic Treaty Association on the excellent work you have done for 50 years in promoting understanding of the Atlantic Alliance and bringing nations together.

The theme of your conference, the future of Euro-Atlantic security, is more relevant than ever, and . I am confident that with your continuing efforts and dedication we will continue to have an alliance capable of addressing the challenges of the 21 st century.

As President Bush has said, “Our great Transatlantic Alliance has met and overcome great dangers in the past, and our work in NATO is not done. In the past, many assumed that NATO represented a pledge that America would come to the aid of Europe.

Today, by our words and by our actions, we know that NATO means much more -- it is a solemn commitment that America and Europe are joined together to advance the cause of freedom and peace.”

The Atlantic Alliance is at the heart of the transatlantic relationship and the one and only guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security. I believe that Rome is the exactly right place to discuss the future of this relationship.

Italy is a pillar of support for a renewed NATO and is dedicated just as strongly to European unity. Rome has just hosted the signing of the EU Constitution. Italian governments have not wavered in their willingness to put military forces on the line in defense of freedom. Let us remember Italy’s positive example, then, as we evaluate the issues currently facing our alliance.

The relationship between the U.S. and Europe has been tested by debate over the war in Iraq and, more broadly, how most effectively to wage the global war on terror. Disagreement over other issues -- such as the role of the UN, and the view of the EU as a counterweight to U.S. power -- has further muddied the waters. However, as Minister Martino said, we are allies because we are friends, and not friends because we are allies.

It is normal – and, I would argue, even healthy – for friends to disagree from time to time, but we don’t disagree over one fundamental point – that NATO remains the most vital force for transatlantic security since World War II.

Despite our disagreements, I believe there is a real chance for transatlantic relations to improve in the coming year, and NATO can play a pivotal role in this process.

The re-election of President Bush presents an opportunity to mend relations between the U.S. and Europe. Already, the President has sent a strong and positive signal by choosing his first two post-election meetings to be with NATO’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a few days I will travel to Washington with Prime Minister Berlusconi for his meeting with President Bush.

The strong public statements to emerge from these meetings, confirming the bedrock role of NATO in transatlantic relations and renewing our commitment to move forward with the Middle East peace process, demonstrate our willingness to work with our allies to bring about a more peaceful and secure world.

The grim predictions by pundits in both Europe and the U.S. that the transatlantic partnership, and even NATO itself, are on the brink of a separation or divorce are wildly premature and not at all supported by a closer inspection of post-war U.S.-European relations.

After all, the debate over the Iraq war is not a unique event in the history of the alliance. Remember Suez, Vietnam, the deployment of Pershing missiles in the '80s, and our big disagreements over Bosnia a decade ago. All were touted as evidence in years past that NATO was on the verge of a break up.

It didn’t happen then and it will not happen now. Since NATO’s inception, the transatlantic relationship has been characterized by ups and downs. We are, after all, not the Warsaw Pact, requiring a rigid orthodoxy of thought, but rather an alliance of democracies governed by consensus with the right to independent and critical thought. At each of these crisis points, NATO unity has bent but not broken, and we have emerged stronger for the challenges ahead.

I predict the same renewed unity in 2005, as we all agree to put the Iraq debate to rest and focus instead on supporting the first democratic elections in that country’s memory.

Both sides of the Atlantic need to make a strong and sustained effort to overcome the divisions of the past. We need to avoid unhelpful rhetoric and instead really listen.

We need to put forward a united front to demonstrate our collective willingness to support the development of a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq, regardless of national attitudes towards the war itself. As former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson wrote a few weeks back, the question posed to our allies who will not send troops or have withdrawn troops must be: “What is your plan if Iraq fails?” The stakes are enormously high, and we need our allies to step up and commit.

For NATO, this means a concerted effort to get its Iraq training mission fully operational before January elections. Here, again, I’d like to thank Italy and the other countries that have “stepped up to the plate,” as we say in baseball, for this important task.

In Afghanistan, we need to build on the success of last month’s election.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) must move into western Afghanistan and establish additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTS) to help extend the reach and authority of the central government. As this expansion proceeds, we also need to look closely at bringing Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF together under a unified NATO command, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld suggested at the NATO Informal Defense Ministerial in Romania.

At some point, it will no longer be possible -- or desirable -- to maintain two separate military operations in Afghanistan, especially as the OEF and ISAF begin working in the same areas of the country.

We need to stay active in the Balkans, where the U.S. and Europe have worked together so effectively to stabilize Bosnia and stop the fighting and repression in Kosovo. Primarily, this means staying the course in Kosovo, where peace is still fragile.

The key lesson learned from the violence last March is that troops participating in all NATO missions must be prepared to undertake tasks such as crowd and riot control, and not hamstrung by national caveats limiting their role. We have to make sure that NATO decisions are followed up by actions, and that NATO commanders have the tools needed to carry out their missions.

NATO must strengthen its partnerships with non-NATO countries.

Through the Nato-Russia Council, Russia is emerging as perhaps NATO’s most important and powerful partner in the global war on terrorism. And NATO’s outreach through the partnership for peace to the Caucasus and Central Asia is helping the countries of those regions undertake needed political and defense reforms. NATO can play a role in establishing perhaps the greatest deterrent to would-be terrorists: stable, secure, and accountable governments.

In this same vein, NATO also needs to expand its outreach to the Arab states and Israel. The U.S. believes that NATO can add value as one of the key instruments for our long-term engagement in this important region. T his is the logic behind the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Alliance’s e ffort to reach beyond our partners in the Mediterranean dialogue to other states of the broader Middle East and North Africa.

Finally, NATO must continue its transformation into a more agile, flexible fighting force that is capable of meeting 21 st century security challenges. This process is well underway: NATO has adopted a leaner and more flexible command structure, and created a new Alliance Transformation Command in Norfolk, Virginia -- plugging European allies into cutting-edge changes in technology and doctrine in the U.S.

While we move forward on all of these fronts, we also need to keep a close eye on two major fault lines that, if left unattended, could place a damaging long-term strain on the Alliance.

The first of these is the capability gap. NATO must be able to project its forces well outside of Europe wherever they are needed in our increasingly dangerous world. As NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer succinctly put it: “We must make sure that our means match our ambitions. There simply is no other choice.”

NATO’s multilateral force structure has one decided advantage over “coalitions of the willing” -- interoperability. To be able to work and deploy together with greater speed, effectiveness, and reliability, however, NATO members must standardize their equipment, language, tactics, and procedures – all of which costs money. While the U.S. will spend over $400 billion on defense this year, the 25 other NATO members combined will spend less than half of that.

If our European allies continue to spend so little on defense, they simply won’t be able to keep up with the U.S. in the air, on the sea, or on land.

In addition to the technology gap between us, there is an even more critical “usability gap.” Of Europe’s 2.4 million men and women in uniform, only roughly three percent can now be deployed on our priority missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. By contrast, thirty percent of active US Army personnel are currently deployed overseas.

It does us no good to spend money on forces if we cannot use them where they are needed.

The other major potential fault line runs through NATO’s evolving relationship with the EU. A he althy transatlantic relationship demands a close and productive partnership between the two great institutions responsible for Europe’s future, a partnership based on complementarity and cooperation rather than on rivalry and competition.

A few leaders on the continent have called for the European Union to adopt a long-term strategy to become a counterweight to the U.S. that, in my view, would be the very antithesis of the transatlantic community we have been building together since the end of the Second World War. Such a reversal would amount to a colossal strategic error.

It would repudiate the primary factor that has produced two generations of peace and unparalleled security, prosperity, and unity in Europe -- the commitment of the United States to the defense of this continent, and the existence of NATO.

Our goal for the coming months and years should be nothing less than a new, 21 st century strategic alliance between the U.S. and Europe, one based on the twin pillars of a renewed and rejuvenated NATO and increasingly stronger U.S.-EU ties.

Together, the U.S. and Europe can be a potent force for global prosperity and stability.

In President Kennedy’s words, NATO allies must continue to be the “watchmen on the walls of world freedom,” especially as we take on the new challenges of our time. I am optimistic that this 55-year old alliance can play a decisive role in defeating the specter of global terrorism, in extending the zone of peace and security to new regions, and strengthening it within Europe.

To do all of this, we will need to work together more effectively to overcome our differences, and to recognize the strength of our collective transatlantic bond. The Atlantic Treaty Association can help us in these efforts, and together, through a unified NATO, we can continue to ensure that not only the Euro-Atlantic area is secure, but that our transatlantic relationship can help bring peace and security to other parts of the world as well.

Thank you.