Early in 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney called on the European
Union to shoulder its responsibilities and participate in a
"forward strategy for freedom." At the World Economic Forum in
Davos, Mr. Cheney criticized the European Union for lagging behind
in military capabilities and called for greater cooperation
and burden sharing between NATO and the European Union.
European leaders agree that, whatever their differences, the
United States and Europe should maintain a united front in the
face of tomorrow's challenges. They also agree that the European
Union should assume a larger share of the Transatlantic burden of
maintaining international security and stability. There is a firm consensus among
European and American leaders that the Transatlantic relationship remains the central
strategic alliance on the global playing field and that both Europe and America must
play their full parts.
During the Dutch Presidency of the
European Union in the second half of
2004, EU-U.S. relations will be given appropriate
attention, based on a broad
agenda that includes security policy, terrorism,
and economic issues.
In a stable and mature Transatlantic
community there is always room for
disagreement and debate. Some commentators
have argued that recent disagreements,
such as those over Iraq and
the International Criminal Court, show
that the Transatlantic relationship has
entered a period of decline. The reality,
however, is that virtually every decade
has had its share of Transatlantic disagreements,
over issues like Suez, Vietnam,
cruise missiles in Western Europe
and, most recently, the war in Bosnia-
Herzegovina. Each of these disagreements
led to deep reflection, better
mutual understanding and in the end
greater determination to tackle new
threats and challenges in partnership.
One need only look at the facts to see
that we are still each other's natural and
indispensable partners. Our relationship
is based on a shared set of values. A high
level of commitment to promoting
democracy, good government, human
rights and freedom brings together
North America and the European
Union, and distinguishes us from many
other regions of the world. Notwithstanding
high-profile trade disputes, we
are also by far each other's most important
economic partners. In NATO, we
possess the most successful military alliance
in world history, an alliance that is
being reformed to meet the threats and
challenges of the 21st century.
Terrorism, whether or not combined
with weapons of mass destruction, is the
most acute threat that we currently face.
The day that not only states but also terrorists
and criminals can lay their hands
on weapons of mass destruction, the
world will become a totally unpredictable
place.
The Madrid bombings of March 11,
2004 destroyed any lingering illusions
some Europeans may have had that their
continent would be safe from terrorism.
It is one thing to be conscious of one's
vulnerability; actually becoming a target
is another thing altogether. What is
worse, we know that Al Qaeda will not
stop at blowing up trains in Madrid. In
fact, we know that Al Qaeda cells are
ready to commit other murderous acts.
After the terrorist attacks against the
United States of September11, 2001 the
European Union responded to UN Security
Council Resolution 1373 by drawing
up a list of terrorist organizations and
individuals whose accounts were to be
frozen. In accordance with Security
Council Resolution 1267, all organizations
with links to Al Qaeda have been
placed on the list. The joint approach to
terrorism is made easier by a new pan-
European arrest warrant.
Following the Madrid attacks, EU
leaders adopted further antiterrorist
measures. We appointed a counterterrorism
coordinator, Gijs de Vries from
the Netherlands, who is charged with coordinating
all the European Union's
counter-terrorism efforts. Cooperation
between intelligence services is being
further intensified, and Europol will
have greater responsibility for coordinating
police operations.We are intensifying
our efforts to disrupt terrorist
organizations' financial flows and freeze
their assets.
Willingness to engage in the fight
against terrorism will also be a litmus
test for EU relations with third countries.
The European Union is prepared to
assist those countries that are willing but
unable to take action against terrorism,
but will reconsider relations with the
unwilling. The Dutch Presidency offers
an excellent opportunity to reinforce
Transatlantic cooperation in the fight
against terrorism in all its forms.
The line that separates external from
internal security is blurring, like the one
separating ecological, criminal and military
threats. The predictability of a bipolar
world vanished with the end of the
Cold War. The communist threat is
gone. Borders have been flung open, and
globalization has made its influence felt
in every corner of the globe. Unfortunately, terrorists and criminals have also
seized their chance to exploit the open
borders. Globalization brings not only
opportunities but also challenges.
The same message is coming from
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, President
George W. Bush, my European colleagues
and Director General Mohamed
El Baradei of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. It is that if we want to
safeguard international peace and security,
the multilateral system will have to
find an effective response to new realities.
This is why NATO Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer, my predecessor as
foreign minister of the Netherlands,
has called for a multilateral system
with teeth, one that can deliver on its
promises.
Against this background, does it really
make sense to caricature the Transatlantic
relationship as a confrontation
between a "hyperpower" and a limping
economic giant? To propagate a simplistic
tale of an all-powerful America that
no longer needs the multilateral system
and a European Union that defends
multilateralism only because Europe
lacks the means to act unilaterally?
This black-and-white picture does
not do justice to the facts. In my experience,
few people in Washington still support
the idea that the United States is so
powerful that it can do without friends.
Opinion polls show that the American
public believes in multilateral cooperation.
The difficult road to peace and stability
in Iraq and Afghanistan, moreover,
has taught us that concepts like unipolarity,
or "hard" versus "soft" power, are
outmoded. In fact, both America and
Europe must have hard military power,
as well as soft economic and diplomatic
power, and be prepared to use both as
circumstances require. And while EU
member states have the task of improving
their military capabilities, the United
States needs to improve its post-war reconstruction
and peace building capabilities.
There is little point in winning wars
if one does not have a proven concept
for winning the peace.
In the meantime, we must not forget
that countries like China and India are
also evolving into great powers in the
military, economic and cultural spheres.
Two hundred years ago, Napoleon said
that when China awakes, the world will
tremble. And now, like the rest of Asia,
China is waking up, and nobody knows
how strong it will become or how it will
use its military and economic might.
Russia, too, remains in the equation.
Which means that Europe and America
must work out how to make the role of
international policeman and peacemaker
consonant with the need for broadbased
international cooperation.
In the light of this increasingly complex
agenda, there is one danger against
which it is imperative that the United
States and the European Union cooperate
and act jointly: the growing threat of
weapons of mass destruction. How can
we make the multilateral non-proliferation
regime more effective so that we
will be protected from this threat, as well
as generations to come?
The discovery of the secret black
market in nuclear weapons technology
run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer
Khan has opened our eyes, far more than
any previous developments in North
Korea, Libya and Iran. The current nonproliferation
system is not preventing
the spread of nuclear technology or the
materials needed for weapons of mass
destruction. Mr. El Baradei has said that
the recently discovered cases of illegal
trade in nuclear technology are only the
tip of the iceberg. It is essential that
loopholes in the non-proliferation system
be closed as quickly as possible. Several
recent proposals may point the way.
In an address at the National Defense
University in February 2004, President
Bush argued for a UN Security
Council non-proliferation resolution
that would
inter alia require states to cooperate
on criminalizing proliferation.
Such a resolution would provide a basis
in international law for tightening export
and transport controls throughout
the world. The Netherlands supports this
proposal and believes such a resolution
should be adopted under Chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter, to make it
binding on all UN member states.
Another important subject is enforcement
of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
and verification by the IAEA. Parties to
the Treaty are free to use nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes. The problem is
that some of them are prepared to abuse
that freedom. Under the current regime,
states have the right, subject to monitoring
by the IAEA, to build up a complete
nuclear fuel cycle, but once the cycle has
been completed, they can denounce the
NPT, refuse access to IAEA inspectors,
and begin to produce nuclear weapons
90 days later. Although this is certainly
not the intent of the treaty, such a scenario
has been playing out in North
Korea. And many are worried that Iran
may have embarked on the same road.
We need a universal regime that is
binding on all countries. The road to that
regime is long, but a first step might be a
Security Council resolution declaring
that withdrawal from the NPT automatically
constitutes a threat to international
peace and security. This would create a
de facto prohibition against denouncing
the treaty after becoming a party to it.
For such an approach to succeed, all
countries must regard the NPT as fair,
and so one important step is for nuclear
states to put more effort into reducing
their own arsenals.
The IAEA inspectors must not only
be able to verify whether a country is
doing what it claims as is now the case
but also whether it is doing anything it
has not declared. This is the basis of the
Additional Protocol, which all IAEA
member countries should be required to
accept as the new safeguards standard. At
the very least, accession to the Additional
Protocol should, in the short term, become
a prerequisite for providing nuclear
materials to a country for peaceful
purposes.
Along with strengthening the multilateral
non-proliferation regime, it is
necessary to tackle the feelings of insecurity
that drive countries to arm themselves, as well as the deeper roots of instability.
I have in mind regional crises
like those in the Middle East and Kashmir.
The European Union's strategy includes
detailed non-proliferation criteria
for its relations with third countries.
States like Iran and Syria are already feeling
the effects of this policy. The security
strategy also has a "soft" side that focuses
on effective ways to tackle instability at
its roots and to export stability to the regions
bordering the European Union.
We have a clear interest in supporting
the calls for reform that we now hear
coming from many quarters in the region
that Americans call the Greater
Middle East. Europeans refer to their
strategic partnership with the Mediterranean
and the Middle East. Both Americans
and Europeans want to support
voices for democratic reform in the region.
The desire for more intensive dialogue
and closer cooperation, both
within the region and with Europe and
America, is very strong. Other G-8 countries
also play an important role. The
European Union will continue to use existing
instruments that have proved their
worth, such as the Barcelona process
aimed at strengthening economic and
political links with the Mediterranean
countries, and MEDA, the EU program
for development cooperation with countries
in the Mediterranean and the Middle
East with which the Union has concluded
association agreements.
Also, where appropriate, we must reinforce
existing structures, such as the cooperative
activities of the European
Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Our relations with countries like
Yemen, which have so far remained outside
the fold, must be placed on an entirely
new footing. The political-military
security aspects will be handled in NATO.
The ultimate aim is to improve the
prospects for reformist forces and eradicate
the breeding grounds for extremism.
Even the appearance that America
and Europe are trying to impose their
will on others would be pernicious. So
we must stress the principle that the
Middle Eastern countries themselves are
responsible for initiatives in these areas.
The European Union is promoting a
cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue
between Europe and the Islamic
world. It is my firm belief that Europe's
own Muslim communities have a crucial
role to play in this dialogue.
Clearly, such a dialogue would benefit
from an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict,
which is currently a catalyst for
hatred. It feeds the forces of extremism
and serves as a recruiting ground for terrorists.
It is a political black hole that
cancels much of the good work done by
reformists elsewhere in the region. This
is why our common effort to further the
Middle East peace process is crucial for
our overall credibility and our ability to
support reform effectively.
We must continue to encourage the
two parties to reach a political settlement
of which the essential elements are well
known: the Taba plan, the Arab League's
Beirut Declaration and the recent
Geneva document have provided us with
an increasingly detailed outline for a definitive solution. The parties, however,
must first honor their commitments to
the Road Map agreed by the four-power
"Quartet" (the United States, the European
Union, the United Nations and
Russia), which is essential for rebuilding
trust and bringing them back to the negotiating
table.
The complex international agenda
demands an active European contribution,
which means that Europe must be
able to respond to every sort of threat
and challenge. To do so effectively, policy
coherence is indispensable. We cannot
afford the luxury of addressing only simple
problems and neglecting more difficult
ones. If the European Union really
wishes to help make the world safer, it
must mobilize all its hard and soft power
and use it wisely.
Since its enlargement on May 1,
2004 the European Union has a population
of more than 450 million and its
Gross National Product represents one fourth
of the world total; it must be able
to do more than it is doing now. The
question is not one of competing with
the United States but of assuming some
of the responsibility the Americans are
currently shouldering. In short, we must
share the burden.
The European Union is thus working
hard on strengthening its military capability,
so that the member states can deploy
their armed forces quickly and
effectively, even when the battlefield is far
away. Such missions could take place
under a NATO or an EU mandate. The
recent Franco-British proposal to set up
rapid reaction battle groups is not as new
as it may seem. European countries had
already agreed in 1999 to develop a rapid
reaction capability. But the new proposals
give concrete form to this objective. The
aim is to create units of around 1,500
troops, with their own logistical and
transport facilities, which could be deployed
in theater in a matter of days. The
EU member states possess only a single
set of forces, whether under a European
or a NATO flag. This means that any
overlapping between the EU battle groups
and the NATO Response Force, for which
EU member states also provide the majority
of units, will have to be avoided by
means of a smart rotation system, which
is currently being discussed.
The Netherlands does not believe
that the further deepening of the European
Security and Defense Policy implies
a weakening of our Transatlantic ties.
Europe needs America, and America
needs Europe. In security matters, NATO
is the Transatlantic forum that binds Europe
and the United States. We must
cherish and make optimal use of this
forum, both in terms of political dialogue
and concrete cooperation. This is
equally true from Washington's perspective.
Ad hoc arrangements are sometimes
unavoidable, but the use of permanent
structures like NATO is by far the best
option. NATO must be a two-way
arrangement, with continued investment
from both sides of the Atlantic.
We live in a world that can suddenly
become unstable and dangerous, a world
in which national borders provide less
and less protection. To respond to this
challenge, cooperation between Europe
and America remains crucial. The problems
we face are global problems. Neither
the United States nor the European
Union can handle the new threats in isolation.
Global problems are best dealt
with through collective action, provided,
of course, that such action is credible
and effective.
That is why we must increase the effectiveness
of the multilateral framework.
The United States, the European
Union, Russia, China and other interested
parties should continue to apply
their military power under the multilateral
umbrella. But in the longer term we
cannot expect them to do so unless the
multilateral system allows for effective
action against serious and acute threats.
In short, the question of the Transatlantic
relationship is part of an even
more significant one: How can Europe,
America and other important partners
contribute to a more stable, secure
and peaceful world? The international
agenda forces us to work together. It is
not a mere option but an inescapable necessity.
Those Europeans who believe
that our future path will diverge from
that of the United States should bear in
mind that we rely on our partnership
with the United States to keep the multilateral
system intact.
When circumstances warrant, the
European Union must not shrink from
backing up soft power with hard power.
At the same time, the United States
should give soft power the credit it deserves.
In the long run, both are necessary
to maintain peace and stability.
Bernard Bot is the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs. Born in Batavia, Indonesia
in 1937, he studied at Leiden and Harvard Universities, entering the Dutch diplomatic
service in 1963. He has
served in Buenos Aires, East Berlin and as Ambassador in Ankara, deputy-permanent
representative to NATO and, from 1992 until 2002, as permanent representative
to the European Union.
This article is an adaptation of his Beyen lecture, delivered in Utrecht on
6 March 2004.
go to top
