Speech by Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek to welcome NATO Secretary-General Mr Jaap de Hoop Scheffer:

Mr Secretary-General, Minister, Your Excellency, Friends. I have given today’s introductory presentation a pertinent title:

Missile defence, NATO and freedom

I do not feel I am able to say anything new, remarkable or trailblazing on the theme of today’s conference. Perhaps I can only explicitly underline the significance of the Bucharest Summit’s decision. The missile defence debate has been long and thorough. It has been addressed by my Government and by the Czech Parliament. It has been covered by the US government and the Russian administration. It is being discussed by NATO and the European Union. It has been deliberated by political leaders and has drawn in the public. Given its subject, this debate may appear to be too protracted and too thorough. Surprising, unexpectedly controversial. Emotive. After all, it is not about deploying thousands of troops to a strange land or about setting up a large military based in Czech territory. It is not about entering into a new pact, about drawing up a new defence strategy. It is about a small defence facility built by virtue of allied agreements that have already been concluded.

Despite that – or rather because of that – I welcome this debate. It is good that it is taking place today, when there is still time for it. In a situation where we are in a position to wage a debate based on principles and values. Not a blanket debate on implementation. The lives of Czech citizens will not realistically or significantly, or even negatively, be affected by the construction of the MD facility. Last, but not least, we are holding this debate at a time when we still have all means of averting threats. Just as NATO has had them throughout the sixty years it has been existence. And it has always known how to use them. As a result it has always been, and I firmly believe that it will remain, the most successful defence alliance in the world. The missile defence debate can act as a catalyst in this respect. The Bucharest Summit has pushed us forward in this debate. If the American MD system becomes part of the Alliance architecture, we will accomplish the effective interconnection of defence systems. But that is not all. NATO has proved its unity, it has proved its prescience and strategic thinking, it has proved its will to defend. It has proved its viability. From Prague, to Riga, to Bucharest. Today, I would like to address the issue of missile defence from three angles. From a practically security perspective – as a means to avert a specific threat. From the geostrategic and geopolitical perspective relating to the significance of NATO and Central Europe for global security. And from the value perspective, which encompasses alliance, transatlantic relations and the common will to defend. I have intentionally mentioned these aspects in an order from the most practically to the most ideological. Although that is not to say that ideals are unimportant for NATO as a military and political grouping. On the contrary.

I. Responding to a threat

The missile defence system is a response to a specific threat. That is a banal, unremarkable statement. Yet this is something we need to keep repeating over and over again. For the citizens of Europe, who have lived for sixty years in relative peace and take such peace for granted, it is difficult to digest the fact that this peace could be at risk. New York is a long way away, 9/11 is forgotten and the Americans and that Bush of theirs are also a strange lot. Madrid was politically exploited and who knows what really lies behind it, and London only has itself to blame in certain respects… If they hadn’t meddled in other people’s affairs, then it wouldn’t have happened, would it...? Naturally, politicians here and abroad are largely responsible for this mindset; they knowingly conceal and play down the threat to increase their own popularity. No one wants zinc coffins, no one wants to burn their fingers. And so they gamble with the security of everyone, including the security of their children. Politicians are prone to failure and the media wildly applaud such failures under the baton of vulgarization and under the pretext of audience and readership interest. While I realistically presume that, especially in the Czech Republic, these politicians behave differently when they are in government compared to when they are in the opposition, the damage caused to public opinion, to social culture, and to the relationship between freedom and responsibility, is irrevocable. Missile defence has a single objective, intelligible to everyone. To prevent an insidious attack on the civil population. The first person to come up with this idea was Winston Churchill following the Nazi V2 bombardment of British towns. Over time, the form of the threat has mutated. The US President Ronald Reagan started building a shield against the Soviet ballistic arsenal. Although the SDI as a whole was never put into operation, it served its purpose. It headed off threats simply by disarming the enemy, and the empire of evil collapsed. The Cold War was not lost by the Russians, but by Soviet imperialism. Today we are faced with a different threat. This is a threat faced both by NATO allies and by Russia. Former enemies are slowly but – I hope – surely becoming allies. Or they could and should become allies. Allies in the struggle against terrorism and new threats. I have the courage to make such a bold claim even despite the occasional Cold War rhetoric emanating from Moscow. This does not mean giving way to Russian pressure or interests; it must mean dialogue, common action and common interests. Resentment in the wake of erstwhile imperial glory is and must be gradually covered up by a pragmatic approach even in Russia. NATO countries and Moscow alike are endangered by the proliferation of nuclear weapons linked to terrorist and rogue regimes and groups that are difficult to control.

We know that Iran is successfully developing missiles capable of reaching Europe. We know that it could use chemical and biological weapons or keep up its efforts to acquire the nuclear bomb. We know that Syria supports the Hizballah, which destabilizes the Middle East and represents a threat and hostile terrorist group for the West. We know that North Korea, which has long-range missiles and atomic weapons, collaborates with those regimes. We know there is a risk that sub-state or transnational players are in a position to seize such devastating technologies. The intelligence is there to warn us that these threats must not be underestimated. Given the secrecy involved, it is impossible to inform the public in detail about these threats or analyse them in the media. Which makes the responsibility of politicians all the greater as they are the ones with access to this information and have an irreplaceable duty to take decisions. A duty that no one can wrest from them. Not only because the Constitution says so, but also because this is common sense. It is infinitely better to be criticized for tackling a threat than to ignore the threat and place the lives of citizens in danger. It is infinitely better to be a Churchill than a Chamberlain. NATO is a functioning community. It can defend the freedom of its members because it has always responded correctly to changing threats. It has been able to name them, analyse them and counter them effectively. Together, we NAMED the threat of attack by individual ballistic missiles at the Prague Summit in 2002. This Summit initiated work on a Feasibility Study. Before the Riga Summit in 2006, this ANALYSIS was drawn up and confirmed the correctness of the path we were pursuing. We all approved it. In Bucharest, we took the joint decision to COUNTER the threat and incorporate the American MD system into Alliance defence structures. We decided, then, to ACT together. This process illustrates the NATO decision-making mechanism. The Alliance proceeds in a balanced manner; it takes decisions by a consensus of all members and demonstrates its capacity for action. We took the decision to face up to the threat of a ballistic missile attack jointly, freely and responsibly.

II. Security and stability

By building a missile defence system, we are taking a practical step to counter a specific threat. The very fact that we were in a position to take that decision and the manner in which it happened also demonstrates the higher significance of NATO as a sphere of security and stability. As NATO expands, this area of security and stability increases. The Alliance is not just here to look for ad hoc solutions to individual threats. It is a compact community, the most powerful defence alliance in the world, and an important element of global security. If NATO were merely a utilitarian organization set up to avert individual risks it could generally resign itself to the fact that MD is not to be. On account of Russia’s opposition, internal criticism, and anti-American attitudes prevailing in parts of society and among politicians. Pragmatically, unlike the threat of the total destruction of members during the Cold War, it would ‘just’ mean there would be a risk that European cities would be wiped off the map, or at least a risk that this threat would be used as blackmail. The Alliance, however, has a higher mission. It is an area of shared security. Therefore, we cannot allow one part of NATO – that part across the ocean – to have a higher degree of missile defence than the European part. The Alliance also has geopolitical and geostrategic significance, comprising not a mere list of individual defence initiatives, but holding unique value only as a whole. If we were to decide that we could get by without a radar and anti-missile system in Central Europe, we would be de facto accepting that this unified area did not exist. That while certain countries would be in NATO, they would be so afraid of the growling Russian bear that they would gravitate back to the sphere of Russian influence, or would never break free of that influence in the first place. Yalta, or more precisely Tehran, would still be dictating the situation and the distribution of spheres of influence. We do not want to maintain or restore spheres of influence, but a sphere of security and stability. So NO to Tehran and YES to Bucharest. It was important for us to pass this test in Bucharest. It was important to show that NATO would not be broken down into prime factors. That, from the aspect of security, it is a monolith from which individual stones cannot be extracted, thus crushing the overall power of the Alliance. Europe sought security in the complex balance of powers for centuries. Central Europe played a key role in this. It was here, over hundreds of years, that bloody conflicts surfaced that went on to draw in other countries. NATO has radically simplified the search for peace. The new status quo brought together previously rival states under one roof and the strength of the Alliance forced powers outside this community to respect the situation. Incidentally, this solution is the only potential chance for the Western Balkans and, by extension, for us. By taking a clear, final decision in Bucharest, we made it plain that NATO not only knows how to combat individual topical threats, but that it remains an indefeasible zone of security and stability. It is an area where the Musketeers’ ‘one for all and all for one’ is still relevant. The negotiating position of such an alliance is completely different from that of individual countries or groups of countries. This should not be forgotten. Thanks to NATO, even small countries can enjoy the luxury of safeguarding their secure future at a level unprecedented in history. No defence alliance has ever been so geopolitically or geostrategically compact as NATO. Bucharest was instrumental in that.

Russia is acutely conscious of this NATO value. With the Alliance, it is not the enemy that has crept towards its borders, but a sphere of security and stability. As a result, the West is becoming an important partner of Russia on the global scene. A strong, predictable partner with whom common values and interests can be found. In the world today, full of new, hard-to-foresee threats emanating from violent and hostile groups, it is particularly important to find such a partnership. I unequivocally welcome the fact that, in line with the struggle against terrorism in general, the specific issue of missile defence has become a matter for discussion between Russia and the USA, between Russia and NATO, and between Russia and the Czech Republic. When a consensus is reached or when a hint of consensus is forthcoming, this will surprise only those who underestimate the centuries-old capacity of Moscow’s foreign policy to act pragmatically and who overestimate the Russian home-policy debate and resulting public declarations. By embarking on common action in the field of missile defence, or at least admitting this possible avenue, Russia has not only acknowledged the real existence of the threat, but has reasserted its co-responsibility for the fate of the world. I believe it would be a big mistake to deprive Moscow of such co-responsibility. Both in respect of the futile anti-Russian radicalism and the courting of circles in Moscow which assert transient national superpower interests over the long-term need for Russia’s involvement in the system of global security. I stress this need, which applies within and outside Russian borders. Missile defence has reaffirmed NATO’s unity, underscored the significance of Central Europe for global security, and confirmed the importance of the Alliance’s common area of security and stability.

III. Alliance, freedom and the will to defend

Missile defence has tested NATO’s capacity to respond to threats and verified its geopolitical significance. If the former constitutes the ability to defend against a topical threat in the here and now, while the latter is a guarantee of defence against – or the prevention of – any future threats, then we need to mention the reasons why it is worth combating those threats. Since its formation, NATO has not merely been a military community or just an important geopolitical entity. Its was and is primarily a community of values. Freedom, our highest shared value, gave rise to a transatlantic alliance. Freedom is what we are defending. And freedom is what our enemies hate about us. No matter whether they were the Communist general secretaries or are Osama bin Ladens. Freedom is the essential cord linking NATO countries on both sides of the Atlantic. That is the main reason we needed the American missile defence system. Not just because it is technologically more advanced, or because the USA is the only country capable of bearing the cost connected with its installation. Reinforcing transatlantic relations was a more important aspect. This is a relationship which rescued Europe from perishing in three world wars: first, second, and cold. This relationship remains a thorn in the side of those opposing the construction of the radar. The radar itself is a small facility similar to those already standing in a number of NATO countries, including the Czech Republic. But the point is that this time it is not an Italian radar, but an American one. And that has artificially unleashed unbridled passions. The fact that they are artificial, or perhaps deftly supported by the media, is borne out not only by information from the secret services, which remains classified, but also by the fact that, despite the huge amount of propaganda and absolutely disproportionate space given over to activists in the media, there has not been a single spontaneous protest. All we see are the same few faces and very small demonstrations, always the same sentences learnt by rote. Always the same attempts, tricks and even financial resources. That does not imply that these organized, incited protests should be underestimated. No way! It remains important that we put a stop to these attacks. Not because they have centred on a single radar, on a specific defence facility, but on the very essence on which NATO and the whole of our civilization is built. Backing down would diminish the unity within the Alliance and weaken the transatlantic link. This would lead to weaker will to defend freedom. We can survive without a radar, but not without that will. My country regained its freedom not twenty years ago. Seventeen years ago, the last Soviet occupying troops left the country. Nine years ago we entered NATO, which provides its members with the best possible guarantees that their freedom will be defended. By participating in foreign missions, we stand alongside those states that defend the freedom of others. Even though this entails sacrifices of the highest kind. Our active involvement in the missile defence project underscores the fact that we are willing to assume even greater responsibility for the common defence of freedom. We cannot just take from the Alliance; we must also give something in return. So far we have enjoyed the guarantees of security provided by the Alliance. Now we will provide those guarantees to others. NATO’s Bucharest Summit confirmed all three functions of missile defence – averting a specific threat, the geopolitical importance of the Alliance, and its shared will to defend. The anti-ballistic umbrella is one defence system. However, its global nature, the need for cooperation and the consensus of all member states, and the core of the threat to which it is responding enable us to grasp, again and more forcefully, what those four letters N, A, T and O stand for. North Atlantic – a solid transatlantic relationship in the defence of freedom. Treaty – a contractual sphere of security and stability. Organization – a smoothly functioning organization capable of countering all imaginable threats.

I said at the start that it was healthy to have a long debate on missile defence at a time when we can still afford such a luxury. Will we be able to afford it in the future? I am confident we will, since we have weathered this debate. We have defended the zone of freedom and have not bowed to pressure to take an unfree, servile and populist decision. A decision which would inexorably narrow the area of freedom for future negotiation. The essence of humankind is freedom. These are not the words of any conservative or liberal thinker or politician. This statement is attributed to Hegel, the author of the dialectic. Perhaps this could be acceptable, then, for both the rightwing and leftwing of the political spectrum. Besides, we all know that missiles don’t select their targets either… To that effect, our civilization must act out of self-preservation; in the name of freedom, we should defend it. We should grasp it as our common mission and in this respect we should actively assume joint responsibility.

Thank you for your attention.