Speech by the Deputy Secretary General of NATO Ambassador Alessandro Minuto Rizzo
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We gather here in a somber time. A time when we are still shocked
and revolted by the barbaric terrorist attacks on the United States. A
time when, for people all over the world, the sense of safety and
security to which we had finally begun to take for granted was ripped
away. A time when we have now to look afresh at the challenges we
face, and how best to meet them.
Of course, a changing security environment is nothing new to the
Atlantic community. When the Soviet Union crumbled a decade ago, the
tenets on which security had been built, and preserved, for forty
years began to crumble. Gone was the clear adversary. Gone were the
obvious tools to deter the adversary. Gone was the certainty that an
effective armed forces was all it took to preserve our security.
Instead, we have faced new challenges. States went to war with
themselves and their neighbors, but exported the effects to us
all. New democracies struggled to adjust to the Darwinian systems of
the Western world. Weapons that had once been under effective control
were suddenly at risk of falling into the wrong hands. And security
relationships that had stood us in good stead for decades were
suddenly called into question.
These were daunting challenges indeed. But the Atlantic community
responded to them, in flexible and forward-looking ways, to preserve
our security in a radically new environment. We built relationships
with the new democracies, to give them an anchor, and sometimes also a
rudder. We took troops that had been equipped and trained for a
defensive war, and deployed them into peacekeeping missions far from
home. We took steps to prevent the proliferation of technologies and
weapons that could put our citizens and our soldiers at risk. And we
have been rebalancing burdens to ensure that both sides of the
Atlantic feel that the transatlantic security relationship is fair,
and therefore sustainable.
All of these achievements are very real. We cannot forget how much
success we have had, how many potential crises have never materialized
because we had the foresight to predict future challenges, and the
collective will to act.
But of course, some threats are simply unpredictable. Before the
11th of September, who could have foreseen such a catastrophic
terrorist attack on a major Western city? Not even Tom Clancy. But the
best intelligence the world can buy -- not only US intelligence, but
everyone's -- failed to predict that it would happen; or indeed, even
that it could happen. And this tragedy reminds us all that we must
learn to deal with a security environment that continues to change
very quickly indeed.
Our initial response to this attack is clear. First and foremost,
to stand with our American friends in total solidarity. Throughout the
past century, the United States has supported Europe in its times of
need. Now the United States has been dealt a brutal blow. Today,
America's Allies are with her, in her time of need.
As a profound symbol of that solidarity, on September 12th, NATO's
members agreed that, if it were determined that this attack had been
directed from abroad against the United States, it should be regarded
as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which
states that an attack against one or more Allies shall be considered
an attack against them all. On October 2nd, the United States
Government confirmed that the attacks had indeed been launched from
abroad, by terrorists from Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation.
NATO's essential foundation -- its bedrock -- has always been Article
5, the commitment to collective defence. Of course, this commitment
was first entered into in 1949, in very different circumstances. But
it remains equally valid and essential today, in the face of this new
threat. With the decision to invoke Article 5, NATO's members
demonstrated, once again, that the Alliance is no simple talking
shop. It is a community of nations, united by its values, and utterly
determined to act together to defend them.
September 12th also demonstrated that the Euro-Atlantic community
today is much broader than the 19 NATO members. Within hours of NATO's
historic decision, the 46 member countries of the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council -- from North America, Europe and Central Asia --
issued a statement in which they agreed that these acts were an attack
not only on the US, but on our common values. In the EAPC Statement,
the 46 countries also pledged to undertake all efforts needed to
combat the scourge of terrorism.
It is too early to say what role NATO and its members, or the EAPC,
will play in the coming international struggle against the scourge of
terrorism. That struggle will be long and sometimes difficult. It will
require all the tools at our disposal, political, economic, diplomatic
as well as military.
Traditional critics of US policy predicted a knee-jerk reaction,
military force used prematurely, incoherently and without effect. They
were wrong. Washington's response has been measured, and military
capabilities have been placed securely in the wider context of a
multifaceted campaign against terrorism. And that campaign will need
the active engagement of the widest possible coalition of countries,
all working towards common goals. The solidarity and determination
displayed in Brussels on September 12th, by the North Atlantic Council
and EAPC are a vital first step.
We must all stand together in the face of this scourge, to defeat
it. NATO's members are unanimous: in this struggle too, we are united
with the United States -- along, I am sure, with Russia and countries
around the world. And I am confident that this is a battle we will
win. But we must also look beyond this immediate crisis. Our jobs, as
government officials and military personnel, is not only to deal with
the challenges of today, but also to prepare for the future. And if
the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania make anything
clear, it is that the future is unclear.
We must recognise that new threats, of very different kinds, have
already crossed a threshold that should make them the focus of serious
concern. For example, terrorists are able to communicate with each
other with unprecedented communications security - both because of the
availability of sophisticated encryption technology and the fact that
their messages are buried in the overwhelming volume of electronic
communication in the world today.
We can also see that attacks with military-style effectiveness can
be made by a different kind of assailant. The attacks on the USS Cole
in Yemen, the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, and now the
coordinated hijack attacks in the US itself were direct hits against a
nation's interests - conducted by a new kind of enemy. In the past, we
might have expected attacks of this intensity from other States. Yet
with the spread of technology, it is painfully clear that we are
facing major threats not just from so-called rogue states, but from
non-state actors as well.
To add to these complications, the Internet provides all the
information one needs to build nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons. Missile technology, too, is becoming ever more widespread --
and as a result, ballistic missiles are posing an ever-increasing
danger to our societies.
The list goes on. Globalisation offers our societies the
opportunity to become more creative and prosperous; but it also makes
them more vulnerable. Regional conflicts will confront us with a cruel
choice between costly indifference and costly engagement. The scarcity
of natural resources may have major economic, political, and perhaps
even military ramifications. And an economic downswing, an
environmental disaster, or a regional conflict could give migration an
entirely new dimension.
The principle is clear. The 21st century will offer no shortage of
tough challenges, and the international community is only beginning to
figure out how to address them. I believe that three tracks need to be
followed, if we are to continue to preserve our security in an
uncertain future.
First, we must take active steps now to meet these new challenges
from within existing resources and capabilities. NATO is already doing
so. I have already mentioned the steps that the Alliance is taking in
immediate response to the attacks on the US. We are also doing
more. NATO members are cooperating more closely together to deal with
the effects of proliferation. We are fostering a vigorous and
structured debate to strengthen our common understanding of the risks
posed by weapons of mass destruction. We are improving the quality and
quantity of intelligence and information-sharing among Allies across
the board. We are also working to ensure that our deployed soldiers
have protection against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons - so
they will not be deterred by an aggressor who might use such weapons
against them. The Alliance is working to develop theater missile
defence systems to protect our troops in action from the kind of
missile attacks Iraq launched at Israel and coalition forces during
the Gulf War. This will raise the threshold for any potential
aggressor, who will know his weapons have less of a chance of getting
through.
International organisations such as NATO, the EU and the OSCE - as
well as private NGOs - are also working much more closely
together. These different organisations have all unique strengths. By
working together, we are better able to tackle the full range of
challenges we face. We are seeing the product of that cooperation
today in the Balkans, and there is room for much more.
That is the first track: to respond more effectively to the
challenges we can see today. The second track is equally important: to
invest in our capabilities to respond.
Safety and security are taken for granted by so many of our
citizens, but these do not come about by accident. In the Cold War, we
spent hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring the
safety of ourselves and our future generations. We must approach the
new security challenges with the same vigour, the commitment, and the
willingness to spend money on the right things.
When I took up my post as Secretary General, I said that I had
three priorities: capabilities, capabilities, capabilities. At the
1999 Summit in Washington, NATO's Heads of State and Government said
much the same thing. They directed that the Alliance take steps to
make our forces more mobile, more effective in the field, and better
able to stay in the field for extended period of time. I am determined
to hold the NATO Allies to this commitment - and to stretch their
thinking even beyond this into the future.
But doing so will take money, and we must all make the case for
taking the steps now to preserve our safety and security well into the
future. I am referring not only to armed forces, but also to a wide
spectrum of capacities which could prove essential to face effectively
the new challenges to our societies. Better early warning. More
deployable civilian police. More effective monitoring of illegal
monetary transactions, and more effective ways to stop them. The list
goes on and on -- but for any of these essential capacities actually
to be developed, they simply must have funding.
Now, I know that the global economy is in a precarious state, and I
am aware that Government budgets are being squeezed everywhere. Let me
be very clear: I am certainly not suggesting that other vital programs
should be eviscerated in a panicked and excessive rush to fund
security. That would be very much the wrong reaction. But just as
before September 11th, preserving the security of our societies
requires the right amount of spending - and spent in the right way, as
part of the normal, balanced activity of any responsible government.
The third track: move NATO's agenda forward. The events of
September 11th have changed many things, but they have not invalidated
our agenda pre-September. If anything, they have reinforced the logic
of that agenda. They have reinforced the logic of keeping the peace in
the Balkans - because building stable, multi-ethnic states are our
best insurance against terrorism emerging in the first place. They
have also reinforced the logic of NATO enlargement - because the broad
coalitions we need to respond make the notion of "ins" and
"outs" ever less valid. And they have increased the value of
our Partnerships - because the ties we have built to Russia, and even
to faraway places like Central Asia, can turn out to be crucially
important in an emergency.
If we were to change this agenda - if we were to alter our policies
on the Balkans, enlargement, or our wider Partnerships - we would be
undermining our own security. That is why we will not let the
terrorist attacks derail our agenda.
This is where the Atlantic Treaty Associations play such an
important role. You remind our publics, and our governments, of the
security issues we are facing. You help to explain how we respond to
challenges, and why. And you are important advocates at budget time,
to ensure that the interests of defence are not drowned out in the
clamour of so many other pressing needs.
For all those roles I congratulate you -- but I also encourage you
to keep it up. The complexity of challenges we face is increasing
ever-more quickly. And the pressure on government budgets is not
diminishing. For both of these reasons, you in the ATA, and we in
NATO, all have our work cut out for us.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Despite the terrible attacks in New York and Washington, we cannot
forget how much success we have had, over the past decade, in building
peace and security in the post-Cold War world. We have been successful
because we had the foresight to see challenges coming, the
capabilities to respond, and the determination to act together when
necessary. Those are the essential ingredients for success -- and as
long as we maintain our vision, our capabilities and our solidarity,
the Alliance will continue to preserve the safety of future
generations, in an uncertain future.
Thank you.
| 
