DEFENCE AND SECURITY 189 DSC 04 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the Defence and Security Committee Palazzo del Casino, Lido, Venice, Italy Saturday 13 and Sunday 14 November 2004 International Secretariat November 2004

189 DSC 04 E i ATTENDANCE LIST Acting Chairman Franco Angioni (Italy) Vice-Chairman General Rapporteur Pierre Lellouche (France) Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Co-operation John Shimkus (United States) Acting Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities John Smith (United Kingdom) President of the NATO-PA Douglas Bereuter (United States) Secretary General of the NATO-PA Simon Lunn Member Delegations Belgium Jacques Devolder Jean-Pol Henry Bulgaria Nikolai Kamov Canada Claude Bachand Jane Cordy Joseph A. Day Czech Republic Antonin Seda Pavel Severa Denmark Ulrik Kragh Estonia Sven Mikser Toomas Tein France Jean-Michel Boucheron Jean-Guy Branger Germany Wolfgang Börnsen Helga Daub Monika Heubaum Robert Hochbaum Gerd Höfer Winfried Nachtwei Kurt J. Rossmanith Thomas Röwekamp Gottfried Timm Greece Georgios Kalantzis Andreas Likourentzos Iceland Magnús Stefánsson Italy Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri Furio Gubetti Sergio Mattarella Mario Palombo Latvia Aleksandrs Kirsteins Dzintars Rasnacs Lithuania Rasa Jukneviciene

189 DSC 04 E ii Luxembourg Jean-Pierre Koepp Fred Sunnen Netherlands Tiny Kox Norway Gunnar Halvorsen Per Ove Width Poland Danuta Grabowska Pawel Gras Zbyszek Zaborowski Portugal Manuel Filipe Correia de Jesus Julio Miranda Calha Rui Miguel Ribeiro Romania Attila Verestoy Slovakia Jozef Bucek Spain Manuel Atencia Hilario Caballero Maria Rosario Juaneda Jordi Marsal Alejandro Muñoz -Alonso Turkey Vahit Erdem Muharrem Karsli Mehmet Nessar United Kingdom Sir Menzies Campbell Lord Clark of Windermere Bruce George United States Michael Bilirakis Ellen Tauscher Tom Udall Associate delegations Albania Sabit Brokaj Bamir Topi Armenia Artur Petrosyan Austria Maximilian Hofmann Walter Murauer Katharina Pfeffer Azerbaijan Siyavush Novruzov Croatia Kresimir Cosic Marin Jurjevic Velimir Plesa Finland Kauko Juhantalo Georgia Nicholas Rurua Russian Federation Vassiliy Klyuchenok Victor A. Ozerov Vladimir Vassiliev Victor Zavarzin Andrey Zhukov Sweden Hakan Juholt Asa Lindestam Switzerland Hermann Bürgi Edi Engelberger The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia^*   Slobodan Casule Esad Rahic * Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name

189 DSC 04 E iii Ukraine Volodymyr Zaplatynskyi The European Parliament Ana Maria R.M. Gomes Vasco Graça Moura Geoffrey van Orden Pawel Piskorski Parliamentary Observers Japan Shintaro Ito Masataka Suzuki Serbia and Montenegro Aleksandar Zuric Parliamentary Guests Algeria Mahdjoub Bedda Mauritania Cherif Ahmed Ould Mohamed Moussa Speakers Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, Defence Chief of Staff, Ministry of Defence, Italy Julian   Lindley-French,   Course   Director,   Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland Antonio Martino, Defence Minister, Italy Admiral   Michael   G.   Mullen,   Commander,   NATO Joint Forces Command, Naples Alessandro  Politi,  Independent  Analyst  of  Strategic and Intelligence Policy, Open Source Intelligence, Italy Committee Secretary Sylvia Hartleif International Secretariat Zachary Selden, director of the Committee Valérie Geffroy, co -ordinator of the Committee Alex Dowling, research assistant Filippo Gamba, research assistant

189 DSC 04 E 1 Vice-Chairman  Franco  Angioni  (IT)  chaired  the  meeting  of  the  Committee  at  the  50th  Annual Session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.    Guest speakers Presentation  by  Admiral  Giampaolo  Di  Paola,  Defence  Chief  of  Staff,  Italian  Ministry  of Defence, on NATO transformation: the Italian perspective. Admiral Di Paola discussed the political and the operational transformation of NATO.  The political dimension  is  characterised  by  out  reach  initiatives  such  as  the  Istanbul  Co-operation  Initiative.   However,   Admiral   Di   Paola   stressed   that   political   developments   must   be   underpinned   by operational capabilities, otherwise new initiatives would remain hollow.  Operational transformation should  be  based  on  three  principles:  multinationalism,  ‘jointness’  (all  military  components  acting together),  and  ‘best  effect’  operations  (political  and  civilian  components  to  reinforce  military operations).   John   Shimkus   (US)   asked   about   the   cost   of   operational   transformation   and   whether   it represented a good investment.  Admiral Di Paola said there were two competing arguments.  One envisaged greater costs and another simply required better spending.  He believed that the reality was probably somewhere between the two.   Tiny Kox (NL) asked how it is possible to transform a military organisation without political consensus on its new objectives.  Admiral Di Paola responded that  the  necessary  operational  military  tools  would  be  similar  regardless  of  the  exact  type  of deployment.  Asked by Geoffrey van Orden (EP) about EU attempts at transformation, Admiral Di Paola welcomed efforts through the European Security and Defence Policy to initiate changes.   Presentation  by  Admiral  Michael  G.  Mullen,  Commander,  NATO  Joint  Forces  Command, Naples, on JFC Naples’ Current Operations and NATO-EU Security Co-operation. Admiral  Mullen  reported  that  after  his  first  month  as  Commander  of  JFC  Naples,  he  was convinced of the strength, capability and deployability of his forces.  He outlined four operations currently under his command.  In the Balkans, operations Joint Guardian (KFOR) in Kosovo and Joint Forge (SFOR) in Bosnia were now part of a unified command and control for the region.  This joint operations area allowed for a rapid deployment of SFOR troops to contain tensions in Kosovo in March 2004.  NATO’s aim in the Balkans, he continued, was the reduction of troop levels whilst maintaining security through other forms of engagement, such as defence reform and Partnership for  Peace  (PfP).    In  Kosovo,  enhanced  NATO  capabilities  would  be  best  served  by  more  crowd control  capabilities,  fewer  caveats,  and  improved  manoeuvrability.    Admiral  Mullen  reported  that Operation   Active   Endeavour,   the   maritime   interception   initiative   in   the   Mediterranean,   had dramatically  reduced  human  trafficking  and  illegal  immigration  in  the  region.    Finally,  Admiral Mullen  described  the  NATO  training  mission  to  Iraq,  agreed  in  June  2004,  which  was  recently expanded to establish a NATO-supported Iraqi Training, Education and Doctrine Centre.   Responding to a question from Rui  Miguel  Ribeiro (PT) on the restrictions imposed by national caveats,  Admiral  Mullen  informed  the  Committee  that,  in  Kosovo,  countries  were  lifting  their national caveats under pressure from SACEUR.  Additionally, he pointed out that the challenge of using  forces  of  limited  capabilities  was  as  much  of  a  restriction  as  those  limited  by  caveats.   Expanding on the situation in Kosovo, he reported that few displaced  Serbs had returned to the region, indicating that the root causes of unrest in March 2004 had not diminished.   Presentation by Antonio Martino, Minister of Defence of Italy. Mr  Martino  argued  that  adaptability  was  the  most  important  asset  of  the  Alliance.    In  the              21^st century, the threats have changed from global war to global terror.  Mr Martino identified two key concepts for the alliance: international interoperability and usability. Rapid deployment and the

189 DSC 04 E 2 development of niche capabilities by small countries are also important.  NATO, he concluded, is an  organisation  based  on  shared  values,  and  sustained  military  transformation  would  ensure  its future relevance.   Much of the discussion focused on the capabilities and spending gap between the US and Europe. Julio  Miranda  Calha (PT) asked if specialisation could be a means of resolving the capabilities gap.  Mr Martino responded that it could be, but that  the capabilities gap was even wider than the financial gap because of duplication of efforts within the EU.  Sven Mikser (EE) believed that the financial  gap  was  critical  and  that  progress  was  unlikely  as  long  as  national  parliaments  viewed defence budgets as the most convenient place to cut back on spending.  Mr Martino agreed noting that  defence  remained  the  easiest  item  to  cut  in  national  budgets  because  it  did  not  offer immediate   and   visible   results   for   the   public.      Victor   Zavarzin   (RU)   recommended   closer              co-operation on anti-terrorism measures between NATO and Russia and the drafting of a concept document for that purpose.   Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri (IT) turned to the issue of transatlantic relations and terrorism.  He believed that it was a problem of different approaches to terrorism, not different  perceptions  of  threat.    Mr  Martino  pointed  out  that  separating  Europe’s  preventative politics   from   American   preventative   war   was   not   possible   and   that   both   are   necessary.              Ellen Tauscher (US) responded that the US did not see pre-emptive war as the only answer but that the new asymmetrical environment demanded a multi-dimensional response.  She added that US policy towards North Korea and Iran demonstrated the US commitment to such an approach.   Presentation by Julian Lindley-French, Course Director, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, on The State and Development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) Mr  Lindley-French  explained  that  the  Helsinki  Headline  Goal,  to  establish  a  European  Rapid Reaction Force, remained a work in progress.  More so than NATO, ESDP suffers from a lack of usable  forces,  particularly  for  the  higher  end  of  the  Petersberg  Tasks.    There  are  two  levels  of transformation  for  ESDP:  the  grand  strategic  and  the  security-operational.    That  transformation would   require   at   least   one   defence   planning   cycle   of   ten   to   fifteen   years   to   materialise.                  Mr Lindley-French asserted that NATO remains a central institution for maintaining a US presence, avoiding  re-nationalisation  of  security  and  defence,  and  for  providing  a  framework  for  emerging European capabilities.  The EU’s centre of gravity for its members, the complexity of the strategic environment and the desire for autonomy were all drivers for ESDP to succeed, he argued.  On the other hand, it was constrained by disagreements over its nature and role and the leadership of the US.    In  concluding,  Mr Lindley-French  stated  that  ESDP  is  here to  stay  and  its relationship  with NATO will be determined by developments in the next four years. Geoffrey  van Orden (EP) challenged the utility of NATO and ESDP pursuing the same aims, to which Mr Lindley-French replied that EU strategic autonomy would allow Europe to act where the US  was  reluctant.    In  response  to  Vahit  Erdem’s  (TR)  question  on  NATO-ESDP  compatibility,       Mr  Lindley-French  said  that  he  believed  the  capabilities  gap  would  endure  but  that  it  could  be managed.      Kresimir   Cosic   (HR)   raised   the   issue   of   niche   capabilities   in   the   EU   and                      Mr  Lindley-French  explained  the  EU  idea  for  a  clearinghouse  system  of  integrating  different European  forces  together  into  battle  groups.    Rui  Miguel  Ribeiro  (PT)  asked  if  ESDP  was  an unnecessary addition and that if NATO was sufficient, to which Mr Lindley-French warned that a failure to ensure co-operation between the EU  and NATO could persuade the big powers to act outside of institutional frameworks.   Presentation  by  Alessandro  Politi,  Independent  analyst,  on  Europe-USA:  a  new  Atlantic Relationship. Mr Politi believed that NATO faced a choice between “slowly dying” and starting “on a completely new  basis”.    This  meant  drafting  a  replacement  to  the  North  Atlantic  Treaty  encompassing  the entirety of the Atlantic, including South America and Africa.  Both continents are failing to establish

189 DSC 04 E 3 viable  democracies  and  the  efforts  of  the  EU  and  USA  in  those  regions  have  been  so  far insufficient.  NATO’s global mission in the new millennium makes this a logical step.  Mr Politi also envisaged  a  new  balance  of  interests  based  around  distinct,  integrated command  chains for  the USA  and  EU  which  could  be  interoperable,  or  “joinable”,  when  required.    The  division  oflabour approach, he argued, was unrealistic.  Both sides needed to retain the capacity to act along the full spectrum of tasks.   Menzies  Campbell  (UK)  believed  that  NATO  did  not  need  a  new  treaty  but  instead  a  new transatlantic bargain.  Mr Politi responded that a re-evaluation of basic principles was needed and that negotiations over the EU constitution had showed this to be possible.  Replying to a question by Vahit Erdem (TR) about the lack of common transatlantic values on which to base a new treaty, Mr  Politi  identified  transatlantic  values  as  a  force  for  good  in  confronting  the  threat  of  terrorism.   Manuel  Filipe  Correia  de  Jesus  (PT)  asked  what  the  new  NATO  would  do,  to  which  Mr  Politi replied  that  it  should  intervene  to  prevent  crises  in  the  Atlantic  area,  whilst  supporting  economic development in South America and Africa. Claude Bachand (CA) offered the view that NATO was already   unwieldy   with   26   members   and   that   the   addition   of   two   continents  to   its   area   of responsibility would make it less effective. Reports Pierre Lellouche (FR) presented the General Report of the Committee Operations in Afghanistan and  the  Expanding  NATO  Role.    The  Report  was  supplemented  by  a  brief  update  on  events  in Afghanistan  since  the  drafting  of the  Report  in  September.   In general  the  Report finds genuine progress in building a stable and representative Afghanistan, but notes that the task ahead is vast and will require a long term commitment from the members of the NATO Alliance. Several members of the Committee including Julio Miranda Calha (PT) underlined the importance of confronting the narcotics trafficking problem in Afghanistan and the need to develop a long-term strategy. The General Rapporteur reported that no clear strategy appeared to be in place to tackle the drug problem and underlined the need to focus the attention of the international community on this seminal issue.  Some believed it was better to co-opt warlords gradually, whilst others argued in  favour  of  dismantling  the  drug  network.  Tiny   Kox  (NL)  asked  what  would  happen  if  a democratically elected “narco -state” resulted from next year’s elections.   Winfreid  Nachtwei (DE) asked about how to build coherent policies between the various international organizations working in Afghanistan.  The General Rapporteur suggested that a steering Committee might be needed to coordinate  the   wide   variety   of   international   and   non-governmental   organizations   working  to construct a viable state in Afghanistan.   The Draft General Report [158 DSC 04 E Rev.1] was adopted by the Committee. John  Shimkus  (US)  presented  the  Report  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Transatlantic  Defence  and Security  Co-operation,  Alliance-wide  progress  on  meeting  the  Prague  Capability  Commitments.    The  Report  finds  both  areas  of  progress  and  significant  problems  in  filling  gaps  in  Alliance capabilities.  Ellen Tauscher (US) said that coalitions of the capable, not merely coalitions of the willing, were needed.  Lord Clark of Windermere (UK) noted that the Report accurately cites a UK  Parliamentary  Defence  Committee  Report  that  is  highly  critical  of  the  Ministry  of  Defence’s procurement efforts, but fails to note the Ministry of Defence’s strong rebuttal to that Report.  The Rapporteur agreed to consider altering the paragraph in question to reflect this. The Draft Report [160 DSCTC 04 E] was adopted by the Committee. John  Smith  (UK)  presented  the  Report  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Future  Security  and  Defence Capabilities,  The  Development  of  Response  Forces  in  NATO  and  the  EU  and  the  Evolving    NATO-EU  Relationship. The Report notes the progress in both NATO and the EU in developing

189 DSC 04 E 4 response  forces,  considers  ways  for  the  two  organizations  to  harmonize  their  requirements  and strengthen the relationship, and examines the transition between a NATO force and an EU force in Bosnia and Herzogovina. Geoffrey  van  Orden (EP) stressed that the European Rapid Reaction Force did not provide new forces but was simply a collection of pre-existing forces under different political control.  He believed that it was important to make the public aware of that fact. Lord Clark of Windermere (UK) noted several inaccuracies in the Report, and issues which had been overtaken by events since the drafting of the Report in September.  He submitted those in writing to be included in the final version of the Report.   The Draft Report [159 DSCFC 04 E] was adopted by the Committee with the understanding that those changes and corrections would be made. Resolution of the Defence and Security Committee The  General  Rapporteur  presented  the  draft  resolution  on  NATO  Operations  in  Afghanistan.   Noting the discussion of the previous day, the General Rapporteur proposed adding two phrases to emphasize the concerns of the Committee about the narcotics traffic and the impact of the mission on  the  credibility  of  other  international  organizations  besides  NATO.    The  Committee  approved those oral amendments and considered a total of eight written amendments. One amendment was withdrawn,  The  remaining  seven,  three  of  which  were  altered  and  voted  on  as  amended,  were approved by the Committee.   The Draft Resolution [193 DSC 04 E] was approved overwhelmingly but not unanimously by the Committee. Elections All Committee officers eligible for re-election were re-elected.   Julio Miranda Calha (PT) was elected to replace Pierre Lellouche (FR) who vacates the position to become President of the Parliamentary Assembly.  Sven Mikser (EE) was elected as Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Co-operation.  Joseph A. Day (CA) was  elected  as  Vice-Chairman  of  the  same  Sub-Committee.    Ellen  Tauscher  (US)  and  Pawel Gras (PL) were elected as Vice-Chairmen’s of the Sub-Committee on Future Security and Defence Capabilities.  John Smith (UK) was elected as Rapporteur of that Sub-Committee. ___________