Europe's bitter history and the recent Balkan story serve to remind us that peace is not of itself assured
Ljubljana, 04/07/2004 | speech
Speech by Dr. Janez Drnovšek, the President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the national celebration honouring the membership of Slovenia to NATO - Cankarjev dom, Ljubljana, Linhart Hall
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are gathered here today to celebrate with due solemnity our entry into the NATO alliance.
Yet is any such celebration even necessary? It seems at times that we have already had too many official celebrations and rapturous speeches.
This may perhaps be an opportunity to stop and consider Slovenia in the world of today and the future; and to consider our security.
So we are celebrating our membership in a defensive alliance. Prior to last year’s referendum we debated at great length the advantages and drawbacks of membership. In the end the feeling prevailed that we can better and more easily provide for our own security in alliance with friendly countries. And this involves countries to which we have tried to draw close in the years since our independence. Countries with developed democracy, market economies, a high standard of living, and at the same time countries with the most powerful armed forces. This has presumably involved countries with similar value systems, and therefore the realistic prospect of them being able to unite on the most important issues. Unification of views and interests in military and security – and thereby also political – issues is more than important in this organisation, since it makes decisions through the consensus of all member states. Slovenia will be a formally equal partner to the other 25 members of the alliance.
NATO was created 55 years ago as the military counter-balance to the Soviet Union. It was intended to defend what was called the free world from the spread of totalitarianism. And with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, its original purpose was gone. There is no more Soviet Union, no more Warsaw Pact. Several members of the Warsaw Pact are today already members of NATO. The world is no longer polarised, but for this reason it is all the more complex. The earlier danger has gone, but for this reason the world is no safer. A bitter realisation: after 45 years of effort and struggle against a major opponent, which in one sweep of its terrible military might could destroy the Western world – and itself at the same time – the great ideological opponent disbanded itself without a fight, but the Western world still cannot find any respite. Security still eludes us. The great danger has been replaced by numerous small ones. In previous decades almost all world conflicts were somehow a function of the great global polarisation, and they could be stirred up or subdued in the two centres. The world lived in a balance of fear, but the situation was more transparent and in some way under control.
Today the world has one military superpower and numerous smaller or larger flashpoints of crisis. International terrorism has evolved as the greatest security threat to the modern world. The threat is all the greater, since the possibility exists that terrorist organisations might get hold of means of mass destruction – atomic, chemical or biological weapons.
We may ask ourselves a number of questions today. Can the North Atlantic military defence alliance offer the right responses to the challenges of the modern world? Can it ensure greater security for us? Is it still needed?
Its fundamental purpose is to provide security for every member: if one member is attacked, all members defend it. Although the danger of an attack by one country on another is less today than it was, we still cannot rule it out entirely in the future. The world could still be completely turned around, and it would be hard to say that classical wars are entirely a thing of history. After all, almost every single country maintains and develops military forces that are capable of such attacks and resistance to them.
Yet more important to me seems to be the finding that the danger of classical conflicts is less precisely because of the existence of multilateral organisations such as NATO and the EU. The European and North American countries have established solid forms of cooperation that preclude any war amongst each other. The bloody history of Europe and the more recent story of the Balkans serve to remind us that peace is not of itself a matter of course and assured. And as a fundamental association of world nations, the UN would also be less successful in its peace efforts without the effective military persuasive force that NATO can provide. Its tasks have been appropriately fleshed out to suit this. There is the capacity for humanitarian intervention, and for the establishing and maintaining of peace. It is developing rapid reaction forces, which it can deploy to new flashpoints of crisis. This is no longer the NATO of the Cold War, ready for a massive frontal assault, it is now becoming a flexible military force that should be able to face the modern challenges: in the function of preserving the Western democratic world, and as a potential support to the UN in maintaining world peace and relieving humanitarian disasters.
NATO cannot of course intervene anywhere in the world, and the question arises as to who sets the priorities. Some believe that the North Atlantic alliance is merely a tool in the hands of the United States. It is true that the US is the major military and political force, and provides the majority of the alliance’s military capacity. It wields great influence. But NATO makes decisions by consensus. It intervened in the former Yugoslavia by unanimous decision. On its own, Europe had previously been unable to halt the Yugoslav massacres and horrors.
Following September 11th, by unanimous decision the NATO members took on the task of maintaining peace in Afghanistan. But when the prospect of intervention in Iraq arose, it was immediately clear that NATO would not participate, since there had not even been agreement among the member states in the UN Security Council. The United States put together a special coalition of countries which were prepared to cooperate in the military intervention and peace-keeping in Iraq. Any possible future intervention by NATO will certainly be tied to a prior resolution in the UN and the agreement of all members.
The differing viewpoints over the Iraq crisis triggered a crisis in trans-Atlantic relations, but today this has been largely resolved. It was shown that the member states can have differing views and that they do not automatically follow the line of the most powerful country. And the alliance can bear this and continue to function. Such situations are more the exception than the rule, but they are possible. The United States showed that it was prepared to act even without the UN Security Council and without its permanent allies, if that was in its national interest. In this way the United States has exposed the limits to the importance of both the alliance and the UN, and has placed them in the context of real power. But such is the reality of today’s world. We must simply acknowledge that American engagement in Europe has been positive, and the United States has guarded Europe from totalitarianism – from both Nazism and Soviet communism. This is also the foundation of the democratic Euro-American alliance. There is nothing unequivocal in the Iraq affair, and today we still cannot make any final assessment of its consequences. The reactions around the world, and also in the countries that participated in the attack on Iraq, including the United States, will probably contribute to future crises being resolved without war, and if military intervention is needed, it will be based on verified facts that will be likely to convince all the allies and most probably the UN Security Council, too. Let us recall that after a crucial public debate Slovenia did not support intervention without the Security Council’s consent.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Some believe that Europe should set up its own defence forces and become independent of the United States. If the EU is going to be an economic superpower, then it should also be a political and military superpower, and a counterweight in the world to the United States.
At first glance this looks logical and attractive. But in truth it is not. Ignoring the fact that even the concept itself of competition between the United States and Europe could lead to new dangers and tensions, we must still establish certain facts. Some important member states of the EU do not wish to choose between the EU and the US, since they are strongly tied to both. For them, trans-Atlantic cooperation is the only acceptable path.
The other fact is that the gap in military capability is huge. The European countries are lagging behind, and despite the fact that the United States is calling on them to increase their military spending, there is little prospect of this. Currently the gap in military capability is increasing. Europe has other priorities today, and does not wish to and cannot place military spending at the top of the agenda. I should mention the aging of the population and the growth in health and pension spending. These are becoming an increasing burden on the finances of European countries, and I would doubt that they are prepared to further restrict spending on social benefits in order to invest more in defence. Most probably not without a direct and major threat. International terrorism is perhaps now becoming this threat, but the question arises whether we can counter it with classical military means. Europe wants and needs to invest in knowledge and education. It is true that in the United States, considerable knowledge is channelled and developed in the military defence system, and that this also creates jobs. To a certain extent Europe can follow this direction, but not to the extent that it could set up an independent, comparable defensive capability. Nor would this be rational in comparison with what NATO provides for Europe today. So the only realistic possibility for now is the concept of a limited European defence force, which has recently been taking shape, and which on the one hand will rely on NATO infrastructure, and on the other hand will aim merely to establish a military capability with which Europe might manage and control primarily the European crisis flashpoints. And NATO will stay in the game as the fundamental Euro-American association that will protect their common interests and also each individual member in the event of attack by a third party. The United States and gradually Europe will also act independently when there is no common interest.
If terrorism represents today the main security threat, we must ask ourselves whether NATO can protect us from it. Only to a certain extent. It cannot protect us entirely, just as all other military and police means cannot, either.
The Western democratic world can use military means to remove some dictator, and it can attempt to pacify some country so that it might establish democracy there and bring it closer to Western standards. But the experiences of both Afghanistan and Iraq show that this is a risky and lengthy process. It requires huge investment, and cannot simply be extended in perpetuity. Nor does it eliminate terrorism, at least not in the short term, and it is questionable whether it does in the long term. While such actions might deter other dictators from state terrorism, they cannot influence the numerous terrorist groups which, on the contrary, can acquire additional encouragement.
The roots of terrorism are frequently irrational, and are based on religious fanaticism. But the causes must be sought elsewhere, and not primarily in religion. In the history of humankind, considerable misery has already been caused in the name of various religions. But when religion is tied to violence, it involves an abuse of religion. No religion based on a true spirituality will appeal for violence.
A twisted religion can add its own irrational chord to the rational reasons for resistance, such as poverty and neglect. Desperate people become driven suicides and murderers. It will be hard to stop them by military and police means. Something more will be needed.
The United States in particular, as well as Europe, must finally get engaged more decisively in resolving the crisis in the Middle East. This continually generates new disaffection in the Arab and Muslim world, and serves as major evidence of the unjust attitude of the West towards them. The project some are calling the Greater Middle East, which is gradually taking shape, points to the urgent need for a stable political compromise, which would also be accompanied by economic re-growth. In this the EU and NATO could play a constructive role as partners. But the prospects for success will depend on the involvement of all the local players. And perhaps alongside the politicians, diplomats, soldiers and business people, religious leaders could also play an important part in calming passions.
Islam and the Western Judaeo-Christian civilisation can coexist peacefully. This has been demonstrated in long periods of history, and today a great many Muslims live peacefully in Europe. Turkey is a Muslim country that is both a member of NATO and a candidate for EU accession. The foundation of any coexistence is always equality and mutual respect.
We Slovenians must also build on this. Different religions and cultures can enrich us. If amongst ourselves we can establish a tolerant existence, we will be able to contribute more in the world to the search for true paths to a decent life for every person. And we can play our part in a dialogue with the Orthodox and Slavic world. Russia, too, must have its place as a partner in Europe and in its relationship with NATO.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I should conclude now. We still therefore have no truly special reasons for celebration. But many reasons to think, and to work hard. Through membership in NATO, we have gained some security guarantees, but not complete security – because there is none.
We have acquired considerable responsibility. We will jointly decide and participate in resolving the major issues of the world. We will not be able to dissemble, claiming that we can let those things go on without involving us. Today the world is so interconnected and interwoven that no one can hide behind their fence. At least not for long. We cannot evade the challenges and dangers of the modern world. Membership in NATO, the EU, the UN, chairmanship of the OSCE, all mean that we have opted for an active policy in Europe and the world. And that we will not only be concerned with ourselves.
These are tasks that demand more from today’s political elite, from diplomats and the Slovenian armed forces. But a critical and constructive civil society can also contribute much. Political and official institutions, not just in our country but also in the EU, NATO, the UN, the United States and elsewhere, are often not capable of resolving the problems of the modern world. They cannot break out of their own skin and their own inertia. Meanwhile, problems remain and grow. This does not involve just every new political and military flashpoint of crisis, but huge differences in quality of life. We are unable to reduce poverty in the world, and we are unable to protect the Earth and its atmosphere from our own destructive activities. And ultimately many more people are still dying from hunger than from terrorism – which of course does not justify terrorism, but it is right that we should remember the other realities of this world. Violence has never succeeded in changing them for the better.
Finally, may I recall our soldiers and police officers on missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan, working with the representatives of other democratic countries there to ensure peace and the return of normal life. May their missions be successful, and may they return home with valuable experiences.
Thank you.