17 March 1999

TRANSCRIPT: VERSHBOW ON NATO'S CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

(From USIA electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda") (1770)

(While NATO's continuing "essential" purpose is "to guarantee the
freedom and security of its members...what is new as NATO enters the
21st century are the ways" in which it "carries out this function,"
says Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Permanent Representative to
the North Atlantic Council. He cites a number of initiatives that
"will clearly demonstrate to all our publics that NATO is the key to
building a more stable, secure, and united Europe for the next
century." Vershbow's assessment is included in the March issue of
USIA's electronic journal "U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda" which addresses
the topic, "NATO's 50th Anniversary." Following are Vershbow's
responses to questions posed by editors of the journal.)

QUESTION: How would you describe NATO's primary mission and key
challenges as it enters the 21st century?

VERSHBOW: NATO's essential purpose, as it has been since 1949, is to
guarantee the freedom and security of its members. This is unchanged.
What is new as NATO enters the 21st century are the ways in which NATO
carries out this function. NATO is no longer faced with a massive
military threat poised on its borders. But it is faced with a variety
of challenges -- for example, weapons of mass destruction, regional
instability, and ethnic conflict. As a result, NATO has already put
increasing emphasis on crisis response operations and on partnership
and cooperation with the other states of Europe, aimed at promoting
stability, integration, and peaceful resolution of disputes.

This is not to say that, on the one hand, collective defense is no
longer NATO's primary purpose or, on the other hand, that NATO is
going to turn into some form of "globo-cop" set to intervene in every
crisis both in Europe and out. Rather, it is merely a recognition that
many of the threats to the security of the allies emanate from outside
NATO territory -- whether through weapons of mass destruction or
regional conflict -- and that NATO must be prepared to deal with these
kinds of threats whenever there is an Alliance consensus to do so.

In practical terms, NATO is already doing so through the Bosnia and
Kosovo missions. By raising the profile of this kind of action in the
Strategic Concept, we will be giving guidance to NATO's defense
planners to prepare the forces necessary to carry out these kinds of
missions in the future.

Q: How do you see the U.S. role in NATO evolving in terms of U.S.
participation in and commitment to the Alliance?

VERSHBOW: For the United States, NATO is the linchpin of European
security, which continues to have a direct bearing on U.S. interests.
We will therefore maintain the strongest possible commitment to NATO
for as far as the eye can see. I think the strength of the Senate vote
in favor of ratifying NATO enlargement (80-19) shows the strength of
bipartisan support for NATO and the U.S. leadership in it.

In terms of relative weight, however, we are pleased that the European
allies are interested in strengthening the so-called "European
Security and Defense Identity" or "ESDI." We see the idea of Europe
taking on a greater role in providing for its own security within a
strong transatlantic framework as very much in the U.S. interest. If
backed by effective military capabilities and political will, ESDI can
be a "win-win" for the U.S. and Europe and increase domestic U.S.
support for the Alliance. So while the U.S. commitment will remain
strong, we hope the European side of the equation will get stronger.

In the past, discussions about ESDI focused almost exclusively on
institutional arrangements. Such arrangements are indeed important.
But a discussion about ESDI that is not based on real capabilities
will be just a paper exercise. These points were very much the center
of UK Prime Minister Blair's calls for a renewed European dialogue on
ESDI and we welcome this focus on capabilities. We hope the NATO
Summit will give a new impetus to the development among the European
allies of the effective, mobile, and sustainable forces needed to
perform future peace support operations without undue reliance on the
United States.

Our chief concern is that in proceeding with institutional
developments on ESDI, we not lose what has already been achieved in
building ESDI within NATO. We expect that the Washington Summit will
mark the completion of arrangements on ESDI agreed at the 1996 Berlin
NAC (North Atlantic Council) Ministerial -- including mechanisms for
sharing NATO assets with the WEU (Western European Union). This
arrangement preserves NATO as the framework for collective defense and
avoids the waste and political divisiveness that could come from
efforts to establish separate European capabilities and structures. It
also preserves the kind of genuine, open consultations we have within
NATO and a role for the six European allies that are not members of
the European Union. Efforts to further develop ESDI beyond the Berlin
framework should preserve these gains.

Q: What will be the long-term impact of the Partnership for Peace on
NATO, as well as on European and transatlantic security?

VERSHBOW: It is a cliche to say that the Partnership for Peace has
been successful beyond anyone's wildest imagination -- but it is true.
PfP has given NATO a way to work with all the countries of the
Euro-Atlantic area to encourage a commitment to cooperation and to
enhance security and stability. It is helping shape the environment in
ways that make both NATO and the Partners more secure. It is also
becoming more and more of a vehicle for NATO and Partners to act
jointly in preventing and managing crises in Europe. So PfP will
continue to have an enormous impact on improving the overall security
environment in the Euro-Atlantic area.

While PfP is important in its own right as a contribution to European
security, we also recognize that some PfP states want to take the
further step of becoming members of NATO. NATO enlargement remains a
central part of NATO's strategy for creating a secure, undivided, and
democratic Europe. We expect that summit leaders will approve a
package of measures which the U.S. has proposed calling "The
Membership Action Plan." Under the "MAP," NATO will commit itself to
help aspiring members become the strongest possible candidates,
recognizing that the issuance of an invitation will require a
political decision by the allies that a nation's membership in NATO
will contribute to the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic area. The
Membership Action Plan will allow NATO to give aspiring members more
feedback and guidance in their defense modernization and reform
efforts. It will demonstrate that NATO has a tangible expectation to
admit additional countries in the not-too-distant future.

Q: Why is the NATO-Russia relationship important and in what
directions do you see it going?

VERSHBOW: For historical, geographic, and military reasons, Russia
remains one of the most important interlocutors for NATO on a number
of political and security issues. How NATO and Russia cooperate can
have a tremendous impact on the overall security of the Euro-Atlantic
area. Our vision of an integrated European security system is one that
has welcomed the full participation of a democratic Russia, not only
through the NATO-Russia relationship, but also through the OSCE
(Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and other
institutions. NATO has already established a strong pattern of
cooperation with Russia through the Permanent Joint Council (PJC). Few
people know -- not least of all in Russia itself -- that Russian
soldiers are serving alongside NATO in the Bosnia Stabilization Force
(SFOR), under a U.S. general.

The PJC has proved itself as a constructive forum for exchanging views
and developing specific areas of cooperation -- for example, in
discussing peacekeeping operations, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, science and the environment -- and even the year 2000
problem. Just as important, the PJC has proven itself a key forum for
consultation with Russia on difficult and contentious issues such as
Kosovo. Allies and Russia were able to exchange views candidly, and
this indeed helped to manage differences and focus attention on our
common goal of reaching a peaceful settlement. As for the future, I am
convinced that as Russia comes to know NATO better, we will see even
more NATO-Russia cooperation in tackling jointly the opportunities and
risks of the new century. This will only strengthen the security of
Europe as a whole.

Q: Are there tangible outcomes that you would like to see as a result
of NATO's 50th anniversary commemoration in Washington in April?

VERSHBOW: There are dozens. For starters, we will celebrate the
inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in NATO -- and
this is an important point because it shows that Stalin's dividing
line in Europe is being erased forever. NATO will also reaffirm its
commitment to further enlargement and take practical steps to help
candidate countries in the form of the Membership Action Plan I
mentioned earlier. We will take steps to make PfP a more operational
instrument -- a standing coalition of democratic states acting
together in response to crises.

NATO will also be providing its own answer to your first question --
"What is the role of NATO in the 21st century?" It is important for
our publics and for other countries to get a clear message on what
NATO is all about. Helping answer this question will be an update of
NATO's Strategic Concept. The last version was written in 1991, as the
Cold War was still coming to a close. The new version will speak
directly about NATO's future -- including "non-Article 5" crisis
response operations, and a greater emphasis on partnership and
cooperation, alongside its continuing commitment to the defense of
NATO members.

We have a number of other initiatives that I won't describe in detail,
but which are also very important. We have, for example, a "Defense
Capabilities Initiative," aimed at making sure that U.S. and European
military forces take maximum advantage of advanced technologies and
are able to deploy and sustain themselves in crisis response
operations away from their home bases. We have also proposed an
initiative on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that aims to get NATO to
focus more directly on one of the most important emerging security
threats for the next century. Taken together, these and other
initiatives will clearly demonstrate to all our publics that NATO is
the key to building a more stable, secure, and united Europe for the
next century.

---