Vystoupení Štefana Füleho na "Krynica Economic Forum", Krynica, Polsko, 10.9.09

Vystoupení Štefana Füleho na téma „Global Security Architecture of Europe“

• Evolving relationship of hard and soft security, whose balance has dramatically changed…the EU inside, NATO outside, is this perception correct?

• The fast evolving security environment transforming geopolitical realities through the lens of energy security and climate change…,

•  asymmetrical threats such as WMD or cyber terrorism…,

• strong and politically revived Russia….or shall I rather say, as some would put it, “the neo-sovietism” in Russia? 

These are just a few reasons why an earnest discussion about the state of play of Europe’s security architecture and the balance of soft versus hard security within its framework, is of the essence at present. (I am, therefore, very pleased I can take part in it today at Krynica along with such distinguished speakers and audience. Thank you very much for having me this year.)

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Some argue that “Transatlanticism” has had its days and Europe’s security architecture is ready for another orderly shake-up.  I remain convinced we are in no such need as the structure we have in place serves its purpose well and hence provides for solid security basis. 

Yet, the picture is not entirely rosy. Almost exactly 20 years since the bi-polar division of the world crumbled with the fall of the Iron Curtain, there are significant open issues in our security architecture that Europe has yet to untangle. What we do have the need of is, therefore, the will to tackle this “unfinished business” that hinders our ability to realize its full potential and achieve a greater confluence amongst its central pillars  - NATO, EU and OSCE.

Let me dig deeper and give you five concrete ideas of what I have in mind:

(i) ENLARGEMENT

The process of EU – NATO enlargement is far from being completed. Based on the experience of my own country, I am convinced that both organizations should stick to their policy of open door to those complying with their membership criteria. There still are countries, waiting at the doorsteps of both EU and NATO, without which our political and security structures cannot be considered complete. To say that we have to keep on engaging with these countries in order to continue expanding the stable, secure and prosperous Europe is nice.  What we really need to do, tough, is to step up our efforts to attract those standing outside to seek membership and provide for not only more effective, but also politically more sound assistance for candidates to fullfil the membership criteria.

(ii) COMMON ANALYSIS OF THREATS

Internally, within both NATO and the EU we need to define what the main threats to our security are. Until we do not agree on the common perception of these dangers, we cannot even start thinking about the efforts to undertake for their tackling. I see no reason why the OSCE should be left out this framework.

(iii) ATTITUDE TOWARDS KEY EXTERNAL PLAYERS

On the Western front Europe needs to strive for a more integrated approach vis-?-vis the US in order to nurture a firm transatlantic bond – a must for both the smooth functioning of NATO as well as the EU’s stronger role on the global stageEastwards, when dealing with Russia, we need to do it on our own terms and on the basis of our own values. While demonstrating that we want to “get down to business”, we need to make it known that given the limits of Russia’s pragmatism, we have our red lines and rules of the game clearly set. An honest discussion on what are the limits of its pragmatism is, unfortunately, still pending within the EU

(iv) EU – NATO COOPERATION

The EU and NATO have to stop pretending that they are two different worlds and start reaching out for each other. These two separate “Brussels universes” could talk far more than they do. This damages their credibility and weakens Europe’s ability to become a more “heavy weight” player on the global stage. I am deeply convinced that the EU with its CFSP and ESDP does have a firm place within Europe’s security architecture, which is something I hear echoed from the US as well. Thus, the EU and NATO must work as parallels as much as possible.

After all, they both have no small missions… While Europe has to strive for more self-reliance when it comes to its security, NATO needs to reform itself to be, amongst others, able to better meet present day’s security challenges, with sources outside its borders.

(v) NEED FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO SECURITY

To be genuinely effective in that, a more multidimensional approach should be considered. The “hard security” concept of military actions and the balances of power, which has been NATO’s main focus, is no longer sufficient. The “recent lessons learnt” show that more emphasis should be given to question of economic transformation, democratic promotion and the rule of law, which make countries more stable and hence more secure. And this is where the European Union’s soft power comes to the picture.

Moreover, we cannot afford to underestimate the new asymmetrical threats such as the WMD, cyber terrorism or rough states. We know how to wage “yesterday’s conventional conflicts”, but we are yet to learn to counter these new dangers.  For that the EU and NATO also need one another.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, let me stress that institutions and treaties are important foundations of security. They would, however, be incapable of functioning effectively without the will and determination of nations that are bound together by values that they share. And this is Europe’s  greatest virtue that we have to preserve.  

After all, it is not only about a right combination of hard and soft security but also about a right balance between the institutions we have in place on one side and our values and principles on the other.