NPA, Alm.del - 2009-10 - Bilag 31: Optegnelser fra komitéerne fra forårssessionen i Riga i 2010

I. Presentation by Aivis Ronis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, Latvia’s Foreign and Security Priorities2. In his introductory remarks Foreign Minister Aivis Ronis provided an overview of Latvia’s Foreign and Security priorities andoffered suggestions on NATO’s possible adaptation to the changing international security environment.3. While he considered NATO also as a security provider in the wider global system Minister Ronis stressed that article 5remains the core task of the Washington treaty. Latvia fully supports the analysis and recommendations of the Group ofExperts’ report NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement. He underlined that national parliaments play a centralrole in building unity and solidarity between the Member States.4. Minister Ronis also touched upon a range of issues that are relevant for the Alliance in the future: He emphasised the needfor full complementarity between NATO and the EU; that the transatlantic link must be kept strong; that the Alliance shouldconsider its role in addressing emerging cyber security threats and the energy security needs of Member States; and that morecreative approaches to problems of common security and defence are needed, for example by more extensive use of Article 4of the Washington Treaty.5. On Afghanistan, the speaker considered the reconciliation process, the upcoming elections and the transition of securityresponsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) crucial for the stabilisation of the country. However, whilestrengthening the ANSF is vital, Latvia is also taking a closer look at what it can do to build up a more effective civil sector. Hesuggested that NATO Member States should strengthen the Afghan economy by importing more products from the country.6. On nuclear arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, Minister Ronis welcomed the results of the Nuclear SecuritySummit held in Washington, DC, on April 12-13, 2010. He also said that he believed that the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are on the right track.7. Turning to NATO-Russia relations, Minister Ronis suggested that trust and confidence must be restored. Reinforcing NATO’sdefensive capabilities – while necessary - must not end in an arms race with Russia, he said. He therefore welcomed thedecision to launch the Joint NATORussia Review of 21st Century Common Security Challenges. Furthermore, the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) should be kept open for full discussions on any issue, and the Alliance should maintain its open-doorpolicy for prospective Member States to the east. NATO should also strengthen its security co-operation with other partnercountries.8. Questions from members of the Political Committee following the presentation referred to his views on energy security,collective defence and security partnerships. Though Minister Ronis considered energy security more of an issue for theEuropean Union (EU) he suggested that it must be on NATO’s agenda, too at least for discussion. He added that he welcomesthe recent meetings of the NATO Secretary General, who has been very active on energy security, with senior EU officials. Heiterated his belief that collective defence remains the cornerstone of the Alliance. Finally, as to partnerships, the speakerreminded the Committee that NATO has more partner nations than Member States. He underlined that these partnerships are“strategic assets” that help stabilise regions beyond Europe but that the full potential of partnerships has not always beenexhausted. Asked about NATO’s main challenges, Minister Ronis identified limited financial resources as a key issue.

II. Presentation by Alexander Vershbow, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs: FromKabul to Brussels: Lessons for NATO from its Mission in Afghanistan9. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, provided the PoliticalCommittee with an overview of the lessons learned from the operations in Afghanistan since NATO assumed responsibility forthe International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) seven years ago. While progress has been made, much more needs to bedone the Ambassador pointed out. The Afghanistan operation has profoundly changed NATO’s way of approaching out-of-areaoperations, partnerships with non-NATO nations, and civil-military coordination. The new NATO strategy has put the right policyand level of resources into place, the speaker suggested and added that neighbouring countries play an important role forAfghanistan’s stability.10. Ambassador Vershbow said that the situation on the ground in Afghanistan was serious. However, he reminded theCommittee that General Stanley McChrystal’s Initial Assessment less than a year ago had described the situation as

deteriorating. This is no longer the case, he said, adding that the ANSF are beginning to make real contributions, for example inthe Marjah operation. They will be crucial in the upcoming operation in Kandahar, the speaker said. US President BarackObama sees 2011 as the year in which a serious transfer of security responsibility to the ANSF can begin to take place, henoted. 2011 will be an inflection point, rather than a drawdown date, the Ambassador underlined. It will be the start of a long-enduring commitment to Afghanistan. Amb. Vershbow pointed out that the core mission of the Alliance is Article 5. However,events of the last decade had shown that extremism beyond NATO’s borders is closely linked to the security of the MemberStates. Afghanistan is a NATO mission, not just an US mission, he noted and underlined that ISAF has shown that NATO is arelevant security actor today.11. The operation in Afghanistan and elsewhere has emphasised the need for joint capabilities and multinational components,particularly for strategic lift and intelligence sharing. The mission has also highlighted the need to further develop financial toolslike trust funds. The current financial crisis and its impact on available financial resources only underlines the viability ofcommon funding. Developing capabilities that can be used in operations like Afghanistan will not hinder Article 5 commitments,he said. The forces needed for these operations are, to a large extent, the same as for collective defence, he added.12. The Ambassador remarked that NATO’s partnerships might be the most creative new development in NATO policy.Partners are also force multipliers – a fact to which NATO has only belatedly woken up to.13. To increase the efficacy in prospective missions, NATO has to take a closer look at more flexible headquarters that can worklocally and the Alliance should review its command structure. The co-operation between civilian and military elements must alsobe increased, he said and suggested that development and assistance programmes must be linked with robust militaryengagements.14. Concluding his presentation, the US official said that NATO finally has the momentum in Afghanistan and that it cannotafford to lose it. He reminded the Committee that trainers are critical and that proper resourcing of the training mission is theprecondition for a successful transition.15. During the questions and answers session Committee Members raised issues relating to the time frame of the Afghanistanmission, the level of co-operation with other international organisations and neighbouring countries. Members also inquiredabout the communication visàvis the Afghan population, NATO’s possible role in tackling drug trade, as well as about goodgovernance and the comprehensive approach. Ambassador Vershbow stressed that the commitment to support Afghanistan isa long term commitment that extends beyond our military presence there. The keyword is not “exit”, the keyword is “transition”,he explained. He noted that the ANSF need more time to develop capabilities and acknowledged that communicating with theAfghan people is a big challenge, but that NATO is adapting to fast. He also underlined that Allied governments have to make acase to their publics that our own security is at stake in Afghanistan. He rejected the notion proposed by a Russian Memberthat drug abuse is a big problem among ISAF forces. Ambassador Vershbow added that there is a fundamental differencebetween the Soviet presence in Afghanistan during between 1979 and 1988-89 and that of NATO in the current context. Thespeaker agreed with the suggestion of a Member that there is a tribal aspect of the Afghanistan challenge, though theAmbassador stressed that the Taliban do not only want to control one part of the country. He also reminded the Committee thatmore than 2/3 of the Afghan casualties are caused by the insurgents.

III. Consideration of the draft General Report Alliance Cohesion [055 PC 10 E] presented by Raynell Andreychuk(Canada), General Rapporteur16. Following the introductory remarks by the General Rapporteur, Senator Raynell Andreychuk (CA) comments by theMembers focused on relations with Russia, Member States’ contributions to the Afghanistan mission, reform of NATOinstitutions, including radical reform of funding mechanisms, the Strategic Concept, a possible policy on selling high-tech militaryequipment to third countries, and further development of partnerships, especially the NATO-EU relationship. Some Memberssuggested updating the information in the report on additional contributions on the Afghanistan mission, though one delegatesaid that discussions on this topic should not become a competition over whose country suffered the most fatalities. Membersconsidered NATO’s update of the Strategic Concept as positive, but cautioned to regard this as a panacea for all of NATO’schallenges. Concluding the exchange on the General Report, Senator Andreychuk said that she will take the comments intoconsideration and update the paper accordingly.

European Vice-President of the International Crisis Group addressed the Committee on the Central Asian Region and apossible ‘great game’ involving the West, the Russian Federation, and China. The speaker focused on the internal politicalsituation in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan as well as the influence of outside powers in theregion.19. Common to all of these Central Asian states is that they did not have to fight for their independence from the Soviet Union –indeed, they did not want the Soviet Union to be dissolved, but had no say in the matter – and that they all have strong, oftenautocratic, presidents. All but Tajikistan, whose president has to share power with Islamist factions, live under one-party rule.While large democratizing projects were initiated in the region after the end of the Cold War by the West, this stopped when theregion became strategically more important after September 11, 2001 – even the 2005 massacre in Uzbekistan only put a short-lived damper on relations.20. As to Russia, Mr. Délétroz pointed out that Moscow played a positive role in the immediate aftermath of September 11,2001, but has subsequently adopted a stance that tries to obstruct U.S. foreign policy in the region. He suggested that Russiahas yet to understand soft power and has not fully grasped that there is a real postcolonial movement in the Central Asianrepublics and a deep distrust of Russian foreign policy goals, especially after the 2008 Georgian War.21. Talking about China’s role in the region, the speaker underlined that the main issue is its Xinjiang Province and its Uyghurpopulation. Immediately after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, China proceeded to settle all border issues with neighbouringcountries in the region and worked for good relations with them. Today, the country is very active in all the regional markets, andthrough its step-by-step approach it will soon overtake the EU in exports. One of the big successes for China is the building of apipeline running from Turkmenistan to China, he said.22. Central Asian regimes face several challenges, the speaker noted. He said that increasingly hard-line actions by thegovernments, drug and weapon trafficking, free-moving extremists, and high youth unemployment rates could bring down anyone of these regimes – which would have catastrophic effects for all states involved.23. In a lively discussion between the members of the Political Committee and Mr. Deletroz, the latter answered questions onRussia’s precise role in the region, the Russian-Chinese relationship, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s role in theregional power game, the possibilities of an enhanced role for NATO, the current state of affairs in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan’supcoming chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the future of European energydependence in light of large shale gas discoveries in Europe.

VI. Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations on Security in the Gulf and onthe Arabian Peninsula: an Agenda for NATO [057 PCTR 10 E] by Mike ROSS (United States), Rapporteur, presented bySenator Sergio de Gregorio (Italy)24. Due to the absence of Mike ROSS, who could not attend the session, Senator Sergio de Gregorio, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations presented the Sub-Committee report to the Committee.25. In the ensuing discussion, delegates asked how the various bilateral relations of the Member States could be organisedunder a NATO umbrella, whether rooting out terrorism in Yemen could turn out to be a pipedream, how anti-piracy efforts canbe strengthened, how a firm hand could be combined with incentives vis-à-vis Iran, what Russia’s role in the region is, and howmilitarytomilitary contacts could be enhanced. Furthermore, Turkey’s efforts in Yemen, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and thesituation in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were also subjects of discussion.