224 SESA 04 F Original: English NAT O  p a rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y JOINT MEETING of the NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY and the NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL SUMMARY Palazzo del Cinema, Lido, Venice, Italy Saturday 13 November 2004 International Secretariat November 2004

224 SESA 04 E 1 The  meeting  opened  on  Saturday  13  November  2004  at  9.13  a.m.  with  Mr  Doug  Bereuter, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, in the Chair. 1. Opening of the meeting The President declared the special meeting open and welcomed delegates to Venice. The  NATO  Secretary  General  thanked  the  President,  the  Italian  Parliament  and  the  NATO Parliamentary  Assembly.  He  noted  that  this  session  marked  the  beginning  of  the  NATO  PA 50^th Anniversary  year.  This  meeting  was  a  true  historic  first,  with  the  North  Atlantic  Council participating in a session of the Assembly. The President announced the order of business and invited Senator Forcieri, as leader of the host delegation, to take the floor. 2. Address by Mr Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri, Head of the Italian Delegation Mr   Forcieri   (Italy)  welcomed  all  the  participants  and  read  the  following  message  from  the President of the Italian Republic (Mr Carlo Azeglio Ciampi) to the members of the Assembly: “The  Assembly,  for  over  50  years  a  symbol  of  collaboration  between  Europe  and  America,  has been able to adjust to the new realities. It has been able to develop, in particular by opening up to other  countries,  while  exercising  new  responsibilities  and  concerning  itself  with  the  issues  of security, stabilisation and easing of tension, and latterly reconstruction in Iraq. It has enhanced its capabilities in crisis management, security development and common defence at the time when the European Union is becoming stronger and more interdependent. The  NATO  Parliamentary  Assembly  has  a  key  role  in  political  cooperation  among  member countries.” Mr  Forcieri  stressed  that  this  meeting  was  exceptional,  in  particular  that  the  political  role  of  the NATO Parliamentary Assembly had grown considerably. Initially a forum for exchanges and ideas seeking a better understanding of various countries’ viewpoints and motivations, the Assembly had proved useful in making fundamental choices regarding stability and peace. It   had   also   reached   this   point   by   virtue   of   its   members’   increased   involvement   and   the professionalism of its administrative team. Its  political  activities  had  extended  beyond  the  Atlantic  regions,  and  were  indispensable  and essential in an environment in which no country could act alone. The Assembly had developed, through dialogue, a network of partnership with non-members of the Alliance. Without  being  a  decision-making  body  but  exercising  a  preventive  function,  it  tackled  issues  of peace and security using political tools, having regard to the fact that there could be no security without improving the living conditions of humanity as a whole. Peace and stability came through the control of weapons of mass destruction, social development, improved use of resources and the protection of the environment.

224 SESA E 2 Security also involved the existence and exercise of basic rights. Western democracies should not be the sole beneficiaries of these. They were responsible for campaigning for greater justice in the world and for helping regions that endured poverty, disease and threats. They  were  sensitive  to  the  need  for  peace,  expressed  by  way  of  peaceful  protests  driven  by  a sense of fear. These  were  the  challenges  that  parliamentarians  had  to  take  up  here  in  Venice,  a  city  that symbolised culture and mutual understanding among peoples. 3. Address by Mr Paolo Costa, the Mayor of Venice Mr  Costa,  the  Mayor  of  Venice,  stressed  Venice’s  sense  of  privilege  in  receiving  the  NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Venice was the embodiment of peace and stability and had never known war in its territory, thanks to its military power but also to its particular policy, which had made the avoidance of war possible by  recourse  to  dialogue  and  the  spirit  of  tolerance,  and  a  willingness  to  put  aside  any  idea  of superiority.  Turks,  Armenians,  Greeks  and  Germans  had  lived  together  in  Venice,  even  though relations between their respective nations might have been turbulent. Today the Mediterranean, the meeting point between East and West, was a point of confrontation between new fundamentalisms. Today the problems of insecurity that Europe had experienced in recent decades were becoming apparent in various regions in the world, in connection with problems of poverty and cultural crises that may lead to the phenomenon of terrorism. It  was  a  great  honour  for  Venice  to  receive  the  Assembly,  whose  members  were  devoting themselves to finding solutions to these problems. Thus Venice continued to contribute to dialogue and to peace, even if we sometimes had to accept the use of force. 4. President’s speech The   President   said  that  the  meeting  was  testimony  to  the  strong  connection  between  the Assembly  and  NATO.  One  of  the  major  achievements  of  the  Assembly  was  in  encouraging  the transition  to  democracy  of former  Eastern  bloc  countries  and  in  promoting  the  building  of  a  free Europe. He noted the candidacy of three countries across the Adriatic and looked forward to the Assembly promoting their integration. He  said  that  the  breadth  of  the  Assembly’s  work  was  reflected  in  the  range  of  subjects  to  be debated  at  the  session,  at  the  end  of  which  he  would  be  retiring  after  two  decades  with  the Assembly. He thanked the delegates for the memories. 5. Address by Mr Jan Petersen, Foreign Minister of Norway The Foreign Minister of Norway wanted to share some personal experiences of his 16 years in the  Assembly.  He  noted  that  one  of  the  key  strengths  of  the  Assembly  was  in  facilitating networking  and  in  giving  broader  understanding  to  some  of  the  key  events  in  European  history, notably  the  disintegration  of  the  Warsaw  Pact.  He  recalled  visits  to  the  German  Democratic

224 SESA E 3 Republic shortly before the fall of the Berlin wall and spoke of meeting with new colleagues from the former Soviet Union who became partners and new members of the NATO family. He encouraged the Assembly not to take on too many tasks but to stay focused, in order to allow influential people in national parliaments the time to contribute fully to the work of the Assembly. He also praised the quality of the Assembly’s reports and the work of the Secretariat. He said that the Assembly should continue to be in advance of the debates held within the Alliance. Looking to the future, he said it was important to develop further the Mediterranean agenda and to improve the transatlantic dialogue, in which both sides needed to be better at listening. 6. Address by Mr Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO The  NATO  Secretary General said that he was aware that the relationship between NATO and the Assembly was informal, but he doubted that a more formal arrangement could achieve more. He said that the meeting was an opportunity to discuss the pressing issues facing the Alliance and noted  that  debate  was  a  precondition  of  achieving  its  objectives  in  a  radically  different  strategic environment. He noted that, in the Balkans and Afghanistan, NATO had provided the military resources but had not  been  involved  in  the  political  processes  there.  NATO  needed  a  stronger  political  role.  This required a culture of debate in which it was recognised that discussion of security issues need not necessarily reach a consensus. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly was a lynchpin between the Alliance, national parliaments and the public. There were three major challenges for the NATO PA. First, to help explain to the public that the new security environment in  which NATO was operating was essential to their personal security. Large parts of the public still had a narrow territorial view of security, but if NATO failed to tackle  problems  where  they  occurred,  such  as  Afghanistan,  these  problems  would  end  up  on NATO’s  doorstep.  Second,  to  dispel  the  idea  that  security  could  be  bought  on  the  cheap.  New military  capabilities  were  required,  rapid  reaction  forces  sustainable  at  a  distance  over  time  and with  a  mix  of  capabilities.  Forces  dedicated  to  territorial  defence  alone  were  a  waste  of  scarce resources. Third, to show through the example of the NATO PA that cooperation among nations and  between  institutions  could  be  productive.  The  new  threats  which  NATO  faced  knew  no borders. Partners needed help in transition. A strong EU and a strong NATO were complementary goals, so long as unnecessary duplication was avoided. The  role  of  parliamentarians  and  of  the  President  personally  was  much  appreciated.  Above  all, NATO needed to take on a more political role. The  President  thanked  the  NATO  Secretary  General  for  bringing  his  important  message  to  the meeting, and for focusing on priorities with the Assembly in mind. 7. Exchanges of views The President invited Mr Van Gennip (Netherlands) to ask the first question. NATO overview Mr  van  Gennip  (Netherlands)  asked  to  what  degree  NATO  could  become  more  relevant  by developing a more holistic attitude to security, in particular in respect of the economic aspects of security.

224 SESA E 4 The  NATO  Secretary  General  replied  by  pointing  out  that  NATO  was  already  acting  in  these areas, for example through provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan, by seeking to address drugs trafficking and through other activities in the civil sphere, for example, the extension of the internet in central Asia and the Caucasus. He stressed that NATO could and should do more. Transatlantic relations Jane Cordy (Canada) asked the NATO Secretary General how the public’s narrow view of security could best be expanded. Mr Pastusiak (Poland) asked how NATO could make the most of the opportunities provided by the recent US elections and the death of Yasser Arafat to improve transatlantic relations and to break the impasse in the Middle East peace process. Ambassador  Burns  (United  States)  replied  that  transatlantic  relations  could  be  rebuilt  by  the mutual recognition of common values and interests. The United States could not and did not wish to  go  it  alone  and  Europe  could  not  become  a  strategic  counterweight  to  the  United  States.  He stressed  the  need  to  do  better  in  Afghanistan  and  hoped  that  all  European  countries  would contribute to stabilising the situation in Iraq. Finally, he stressed the need for a greater commitment to defence spending by members of the Alliance. Ambassador Struye de Swielande (Belgium) wished to go back to Mr van Gennip’s statement. NATO  would  be  judged on  its  multi-dimensional  approach  to  security  and  on  its  success  on  the ground,  in  Bosnia,  Afghanistan,  etc.  In  Afghanistan  the  substantial  NATO  military  presence  is helping  to  stabilise  the  political  situation.  However,  the  ratio  of  development  aid  to  this  military presence was not high enough. The Afghan population expects specific action (building hospitals, roads,   water   supply   installations,   etc.).   It   was   for   the   members   of   the   Assembly,   as parliamentarians, to ensure that this military action went hand in hand  with an inflow of funds to make this work possible. It should be remembered that the Taliban were hostile to NGOs because they  wished  to  avoid  development  and  democracy.  NATO  would  be  judged  on  its  capacity  for global assistance to a country. Ms  Duchêne(France),  Deputy  Permanent  Representative,  wished  to  go  back  to  the  issue  of NATO action on the ground, in connection with the previous statement. The question was whether NATO could do everything. She did not think that everything could be done at the same time. For example,  NATO  was  supporting  the  campaign  against  drug-trafficking  in  Afghanistan,  but  it  was doubtlessly undesirable for it to conduct this campaign itself. As  regards  transatlantic  relations,  she  recalled  that  in  Istanbul  all  member  states  agreed  to participate in aid to Iraq in one form or another, in the country or outside it. Michel  Barnier,  the  French  Foreign  Minister,  had  recently  stated  that  within  NATO  France  was sometimes  intractable  as  an  ally,  but  could  not  be  ignored.  Reinvigoration  of  the  transatlantic relationship was a legitimate concern, but a base existed. The North Atlantic Council was the site of animated but constructive debate, and was on the right track. Mr  Rivière  (France)  wished  to  question  the  United  States  Ambassador  on  the  acquisition  of nuclear weapons by Iran. He  told  the  Assembly  that  on  2  November  the  25  European  Union  Foreign  Ministers  had expressed the wish that Iran should stop work on uranium enrichment. On 5 November France, Germany and the United Kingdom asked Iran to suspend nuclear work during negotiations on the long-term status of the Iranian nuclear programme.

224 SESA E 5 He  was  anxious  to  know  what  the  Bush  Administration’s  analysis  of  the  situation  was  and  what strategy it was pursuing. Mr Møller   (Denmark) expressed disappointment that only a little over half of NATO members had answered the call to contribute troops in Iraq and urged all NATO countries to contribute more. Mr  Meckel  (Germany)  underlined  NATO's  50  years  of  success  as  a  security  alliance.  However, after 9/11 the role of the Alliance, which had evoked Article 5 for the first time in its history, had not been very clear. In Afghanistan, NATO needed to live up to its obligations as a multilateral security organisation.   He   asked   about   the   level   of   resources   required   to   act   comprehensively   in Afghanistan.  On  the  issue  of  Iraq,  he  stressed  that  Germany  had  declared  its  willingness  to contribute to NATO's training mission from outside Iraq. Ambassador   Juneau   (Canada)   noted   that   his   country   had   the   second   largest   overseas deployment   within   NATO,   including   a   commitment   of   more   than   13   years   in   Bosnia   and Herzegovina and a presence in Afghanistan. Ambassador  Benavides  Orgaz  (Spain)  noted  that  specialised  forces,  police  in  particular,  were required  for  peace  consolidation.  Initiatives  within  the  greater  Middle  East  were  now  starting  to come to fruition. Mr   Erdmann   (Germany),   Deputy   Permanent   Representative,   replied   to   the   question   about German  participation  in  Iraq,  noting  that  UNSCR  1546  appealed  for  assistance  in  a  number  of ways, not just in terms of military forces. Germany had been clear from the outset that it would not be  sending  troops to  Iraq,  but  it  had  not  wanted  to  obstruct  the  Security  Council.  Germany  was also not participating in training within Iraq, but German police and armed forces were training Iraqi personnel outside Iraq. Ms   Duchêne (France),   Deputy   Permanent   Representative,   asked   whether   Resolution   1546 compelled  nations  to  intervene?  Of  course  not. Should  France  have  blocked that  resolution  and blocked the United Nations? No. What was France going to do? It was not going to send troops; it had said at the outset that it would not, and it had to take public opinion into account. However, France was prepared to help Iraq (relieving the Iraqi debt, election preparation programme etc.). France was not prepared to make war, but would help to consolidate peace. Ambassador Burns (United States) replied to the question about Iranian uranium. This would be a  major  international  problem  in  2005.  The  United  States  had  two  issues  with  Iran.  First,  Iran’s open and declared support for terrorist groups. Second, Iran’s violation for more than two decades of  its  international  obligations  by  pursuing  a  secret  nuclear  weapons  programme.  The  United States was supporting diplomatic efforts by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. But it was important that Iran was not allowed to use the cover of protracted negotiations to develop a nuclear capability.  A  theocratic  regime  should  not  be  allowed  to  have  nuclear  weapons.  Iran  would  be judged by the United Nations Security Council. The NATO Secretary General noted that Afghanistan remained a high priority for NATO. Tackling the drugs trade would need a concerted and coordinated international effort. Afghanistan could not be allowed to become a “narcostate”. The President commented that the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Afghanistan would be an immense challenge.

224 SESA E 6 Missions and capabilities Mr Gama (Portugal) said that given the fact that NATO had had some difficulty in maintaining a sufficient and effective presence in Afghanistan, how could an increased NATO commitment in that country be reconciled with the performance of the mandate given to NATO at the Istanbul Summit regarding Iraq? Mr Bilirakis (United States) asked about the status of the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) and the progress that was needed to take it forward. Mr Casule (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia^*) spoke about the great progress made by NATO and other partners in contributing to security in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and hoped that NATO would use the experience forged in this work in other missions. Ambassador  Sir  Ricketts  (United  Kingdom)  said  that  there  was  an  urgent  need  to  expand  the training mission in Iraq and he hoped that decisions on this would be taken shortly. Afghanistan was  a  longer  mission  in  which  ISAF  would  be  required  for  some  time  in  order  to  combat  the narcotics problem. He added that Afghanistan itself had to take primary responsibility for this issue. Ambassador   Kovanda   (Czech   Republic)   congratulated   the   former   Yugoslavia   Republic   of Macedonia on its progress which he hoped would act as an inspiration for the rest of the Balkans. He  looked  forward  to  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Serbia  and  Montenegro  becoming  members  of Partnership for Peace when they met the requisite conditions. Ambassador Eide (Norway) said that tremendous progress was being made in many new areas such   as   expanded   partnerships   and   new   initiatives   in   the   Middle   East.   He   said   that parliamentarians could play a role in helping all players to pull together in the same direction and to ensure  that  public  opinion  accepted  the  need  for  the  commitment  of  the  necessary  financial resources for NATO to do its job. The NATO Secretary General commented that more progress needed to be made on airlift, and stressed that he was happier when he saw defence budgets going up rather than down. Mr Smith (United States) said that in the United States the growing opinion of Europe was “they don’t like us, and we don’t need them”. NATO unity was bent but not broken. Delegates needed to be  statesmen,  not  politicians.  NATO’s  credibility  was  inseparable  from  its  capabilities.  European NATO member states spent less than half of what the United States spent on defence, and most of that  went  on  personnel.  NATO  needed  to  make  a  difference  in  the  world.  National  caveats prevented effective operations in theatres such as Kosovo. He asked the NATO Secretary General for his comments on these issues. Mr Gricius (Lithuania) noted that Lithuania had ratified the constitutional treaty for Europe within a matter of weeks, and he asked for comments on the relation between coalitions of the willing and NATO structures. Mr Mikser (Estonia) noted that NATO was taking on tasks at a much lower end of the spectrum of tasks compared to coalitions of the willing, and he asked how this  would affect the future of the Alliance. Would they be a rapid response force, or would they just train the trainers? Mr    Aramaz    (Turkey),   Deputy   permanent   Representative   restated   his   country’s   belief   in transatlantic  engagement.  Turkey  had  been  heavily  engaged  in  Afghanistan.  Policing  alone  was * Turkey recognises the Republic of Macedonia with its constitutional name.

224 SESA E 7 not  a  sufficient  response  to  traffic  in  illegal  drugs.  It  was  also  necessary  to  find  an  alternative income for farmers. Ambassador Mazuru (Romania) suggested that parliaments needed to find faster ways of taking decisions in relation to military operations. Ambassador  Luiz  Gomes  (Portugal) stressed  the  importance  of  the  Eastern  dimension,  and  of the role of the NATO PA in forging ties in this direction. Ambassador  Patijn  (Netherlands)  said  that the  European  Constitutional  Treaty  would  provide  a better  planning  framework  for  EU  operations.  This  was  necessary  because  of  the  changed strategic  environment.  A  broader remit  would  allow  the  EU  to  become more  active.  Cooperation was essential to success. Ambassador  Sir  Ricketts  (United  Kingdom)  said  that  NATO  had  to  go  on  accepting  the  most demanding military tasks as it could be caught out if it set its sights any lower. NATO and EU Mr Maghinas (Greece) commented that the NATO EU partnership had worked well in stabilising the  Western  Balkans  but  more  needed  to  be  done  in  promoting  that  stability  throughout  South Eastern Europe. Mr Gubetti (Italy) referred to recent comments made by the NATO Secretary General on terrorism, and on the necessity for strengthening the transatlantic link. He agreed with those comments and asked   whether   it   would   be   useful   for   the   Assembly   to   adopt   a   motion   setting   out   the Secretary General’s arguments. Mr  Ba i  (Turkey)  asked  for  a  view  on  the  nature  of  Turkey's  potential  contribution  to  relations between NATO and the EU. Mr  Kanerva  (Finland)  asked  what  further  steps  were  needed  for  the  continued  development  of troop commitments in partnership with the EU. Mr   Piskorski   (European  Parliament)  praised  the  tremendous  work  of  the  President  of  the NATO PA and expressed his hope for deeper cooperation in future between the EU and NATO. Mr Banáš (Slovakia) asked if there was a real danger of Turkish disappointment or demotivation, even in the NATO context, if the EU did not send a clear signal on Turkish EU membership. Mr  Zarubinskyi  (Ukraine)  wanted  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Assembly  to  the  Presidential elections in Ukraine which gave a strong signal of the European future of his country. Ukraine now needed Europe's support. NATO PA / NATO Lord Clark of Windermere (United Kingdom) asked how parliamentarians could help and promote public support for NATO's future tasks. Mr  Shahgeldyan  (Armenia)  noted  that  the  NATO  Secretary General  had  visited  the  Southern Caucasus  and  appointed  a  representative  for  the  South  Caucasus  and  Central  Asia.  He  asked what were NATO’s policy guidelines regarding the South Caucasus?

224 SESA E 8 NATO and Russia Mrs Sliska (Russian Federation) asked how NATO planned to deal with the problem of the supply of drugs from Afghanistan. Mr  Ozerov  (Russian  Federation)  asked  how  NATO  was  going  to  cooperate  with  the  Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. NATO and Ukraine Mr Lilletun (Norway) commented on the security situation in the Balkans and advocated a more intense cooperation with Serbia and Montenegro in the Partnership for Peace structures. Ambassador Moreno (Italy) said that he was confident that NATO and the European Union could be  developed  at  the  same  time,  because  the  two  organisations  had  values  in  common.  Good results have been achieved in the Balkans, in Bosnia in particular. The European Union is playing a vital part in this region, and NATO would not back out. This showed the extent to which synergy between the European Union and NATO was possible. As  regards  relations  between  NATO  and  Russia,  Italy  had  always  thought  that  Russia  should share  in  building  a  new  security  architecture,  particularly  in  respect  of  combating  terrorism,  the issue of Iraq and the Balkans problem. There  would  soon  be  a  meeting  at  ministerial  level  between  NATO  member  countries  and  the Mediterranean countries. Ambassador Ivanov (Bulgaria) supported the engagement of all Balkan countries in the security efforts  of  the  international  community.  In  Afghanistan,  NATO  needed  to  cooperate  with  all  other international  organisations  engaged,  especially  the  OSCE,  to  work  successfully  on  the  narcotics problem. Ambassador  Zepos  (Greece)  underlined  that  in  the  Balkans  NATO  had  to  ensure  that  all countries   remained   involved   in   the   international   efforts.   Issues   like   cooperation   with   the International Criminal Court were important. In Afghanistan NATO's ISAF could provide help in the fight against drugs, but in the first place the Afghans had to take responsibility themselves. Ambassador  Herman  (Hungaria)  agreed  that  further  dialogue  was  required  before  Serbia  and Montenegro could joint the PFP. He said that NATO needed to have more political clout if it was to pursue a multi-dimensional approach to security and that the Assembly could help in this respect. The NATO Secretary General responded to the remaining questions. He agreed that there was a perception gap between Europe and the United States on the fight against terrorism but noted that there  was  full  commitment  in  the  United  States  to  NATO.  He  said  that  parliamentarians  had  a strong  role  to  play  in  improving  NATO's  dialogue  with  the  public,  particularly  in  appealing  to  the younger generation. He also made a strong plea for the second round of the elections in Ukraine to be  free  and  fair.    Responding  to  Mr  Ba i  (Turkey),  he  believed  that  Turkey  and  indeed  all  the allies could play a role in helping to expand the EU-NATO agenda, which remained too limited. In reply to Mr Ozerov (Russian Federation) he said that the security questions had been discussed in the NATO-Russia Council and would continue to be taken forward in the CSTO.

224 SESA E 9 8. Conclusion of the meeting The  President  thanked  delegates,  the  staff  of  the  Assembly  and  the  North  Atlantic  Council  for attending what had been an important and memorable session. He closed the meeting at 12.15 pm. ______________