|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/95Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>SACEUR General George Joulwan...The New NATO--Building
Stability,Democracy & Peace Through Cooperation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">The New NATO: Building
Stability, Democracy, and Peace Through Cooperation</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">SACEUR General George A.
Joulwan</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<P><FONT SIZE="+1"> </FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">INTRODUCTION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In order to set the scene for
the candid and fruitful discussions that are the purpose of the NATO
Workshop, I would like to describe our present situation in Allied Command
Europe (ACE), some challenges facing us now and in the future, and some
opportunities I foresee as the Alliance prepares itself for the 21st
century. I am fortunate that my major subordinate commanders have agreed
to share their expertise through remarks which follow. They will tell you
what the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) really meant to say!</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">ALLIED COMMAND EUROPE:
THE PRESENT SITUATION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Last year, at my first NATO
Workshop as SACEUR, I did not offer many answers. Instead, I provided
questions and ideas about the future of NATO. I focused my remarks on the
implementation of the guidance for a new NATO. At that time, the January
Brussels Summit had just occurred a few months before, and its bold, new
initiatives such as Partnership for Peace (PFP) and the Combined Joint
Task Force (CJTF) concept were still untested. Moreover, NATO had not
quite completed its force restructuring and the streamlining of its
integrated military structure. Looking back on that 1994 Workshop, I see
that we indeed stood at the beginning of the new NATO, ready to move in
new directions, ready to ensure the peace and security of Alliance
members, and ready to work with new Partner nations who would join with us
in a common effort.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Since the last NATO Workshop, my
role as SACEUR--in addition to ongoing operational responsibilities--has
been to conclude the changes in NATO's force and command structuring and
to engage the new NATO in the building of a stable and peaceful new
Europe. This engagement strategy included a rapid implementation of the
Brussels Summit initiatives, particularly Partnership for Peace. In doing
so, we put theory into practice and prepared ACE for the challenges of the
future.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">At last year's Workshop, I
discussed my mission assessment based on North Atlantic Council (NAC)
guidance from the Rome, Oslo, London, and Brussels Summits. The missions
given to me include maintaining strategic balance, deterring aggression
against defined NATO territory (Article V), and peace-support operations:
Partnership for Peace, CJTF, counter-proliferation, and support for U.N.
peacekeeping operations. My intent has been to link these disparate
missions into a clear vector to which Allied Command Europe can structure
itself and train. Clearly, I saw that if through Partnership for Peace we
could create the trust and confidence in former adversaries, then NATO
might in essence be deterring or preventing an Article V conflict;
likewise, if NATO could form a CJTF and respond to a crisis before it
became a conflict, then an Article V conflict might be prevented; or if
NATO could counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that
too might deter an Article V conflict. In Allied Command Europe, we have
been following this concept for over a year with good results.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">ALLIED COMMAND EUROPE</FONT><FONT SIZE="+0"></FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Nonetheless, our success in
creating a new NATO and implementing our engagement strategy has been
mixed. Three major points must be made in order to fully explain the
challenges and opportunities we have faced in the last year, the
circumstances facing us today, and what we must do to prepare for the
uncertainties of the future.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><I>Success of Partnership for
Peace.</I> First, Partnership for Peace has been a tremendous success and
promises to improve greatly military-to-military contacts and capabilities
throughout NATO and Partner nations. You will hear a great deal about
PFP--and rightly so.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><I>Declining Defense Budgets.</I>
Second, since the end of the Cold War, NATO nations have lowered their
individual nation's defense expenditures and reduced their contributions
to this Alliance to a point where they may have a harmful effect on NATO's
ability to carry out its military missions.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><I>The World Is Still
Dangerous.</I> Third, Europe is still a dangerous place. Clearly, there is
no longer a monolithic threat. Nonetheless, weapons of mass destruction
still exist, and the proliferation of these weapons and their delivery
systems is an all-too-real occurrence. An even more immediate danger to
the credibility and effectiveness of our Alliance, and to all other
international organizations involved, is the tragic situation in the
former Yugoslavia. Let me elaborate on each of these three points.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">The Success of
Partnership for Peace</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Over the last year, Partnership
for Peace has grown from a newly approved concept into a bold and vibrant
reality. Twenty-six nations, including Russia, have now signed up. Almost
all Partnership nations have representatives assigned to Brussels to work
with NATO Headquarters. Sixteen nations have liaison officers at the
Partnership Coordination Cell (PCC) in Mons.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">During June 1995, in fact, the
first PFP exercise and activities conference was held in the PCC in Mons.
Over 130 representatives from Partnership and NATO countries met in
working-level meetings to conduct operational level planning for 1996 and
1997. Among other things, they discussed and arranged the logistics and
manning requirements for their ever-expanding exercise schedule.
Militaries who, just a few years ago, looked across barbed wire and
minefields at each other are now meeting around tables to learn how to
work together on a military level for the common good.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In 1994, the first year of PFP's
existence, we held three exercises; in 1995, a series of marine, air, and
land exercises are planned for the Black, Baltic, and North Seas, as well
as for Partnership and NATO countries--including the United States. Over
150 PFP and NATO exercise-related events, as well as numerous bilateral
exercises "in the spirit of PFP," will be held in 1995.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The military objective for such
exercises is to attain military interoperability for operations in such
areas as disaster relief, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping. To more
effectively execute such operations, we want to improve the ability of
Partner countries to work with NATO forces and with NATO's command and
control structure. As could be expected, this objective has proven to be
quite a challenge for all concerned. Some may remember our discussions at
the last NATO Workshop on my strategic concept for PFP. With clear
political guidance from Brussels, and working with the PCC, ACE is
developing an exercise program to tailor programs to individual country
needs. Our objective is to expand the ability to work together--Partners
and NATO--to common standards, procedures, and doctrine. In 1995, we went
from theory to practice in our military cooperation with our new Partners.
And we are not just holding exercises between a Partner country and NATO;
our PFP exercises include a regional dimension as well. In other words, we
have a Partner nation and its neighbors taking part in exercises with
NATO. Doing so develops mutual trust and confidence among our Partners,
their neighbors, and NATO.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">It is well known that
interoperability within the Alliance alone has been difficult enough to
achieve. Nonetheless, over the years, we have perfected many procedures
and doctrines that should greatly enhance the effectiveness of any
combined operation conducted by NATO and Partnership nations.
Interoperability is a daunting task; but PFP and NATO are engaged in
making it happen on a military-to-military level across Europe.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Just as important to the
strength and stability of the new Europe, however, are the bonds of mutual
trust, confidence, and friendship formed in the day-to-day planning and
execution of PFP exercises. The staffs who plan the exercises and the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who conduct them are learning how
to work together, live together, and trust each other in a crisis. This
trusting brotherhood has been NATO's strongest characteristic and is now
expanding throughout the new Europe.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Partnership for Peace is far
more than a training program for entry into NATO. It is indeed an
engagement strategy in every sense of the word. It ties together NATO and
its Partners with common goals, training, and friendship. It includes
education and transparency as well as field training exercises. You can
see why Secretary General Claes recently said that PFP is fast becoming a
"key foundation stone for the new European security architecture."
NATO is more than ships, tanks, and planes. We are an organization with
shared values, ideals, and interests. Those ideals and values are also
being embraced by our new Partners.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Declining Defense
Budgets</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">My second point is far less
encouraging than our successes in PFP and military-to-military contacts.
We have witnessed a dangerous decline in national defense budgets and
reduced contributions to this Alliance since the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the collapse of communism. These precipitous drops are harming NATO's
capability to carry out its present and future military missions--missions
that are every bit as important as those in the past.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Recently, I spoke to NATO's
Defense Planning Committee and expressed this same message to them. It is
not a new message, but it bears repeating. For 40 years, NATO maintained
robust deterrent forces and won a great victory over totalitarianism. Our
sacrifice--both in terms of money and manpower--ensured the continued
peace and prosperity of Western Europe. Therefore, no one should say the
cost was too great.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Unfortunately, in our rush to
divert defense funds to other programs, we have failed to appreciate that
the desired "peace dividend" is not money, it is peace itself.
Our investment of manpower and infrastructure returned a generation of
unprecedented peace, prosperity, and stability. Now our nations have
shifted resources away from defense programs despite the uncertain future
of the European security environment, the ongoing crises in and around
Europe, and our mandate to continued peace and security.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Let me highlight some of the
alarming trends:</FONT></FONT> </P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Since 1990, the median
percentage of defense spending to gross domestic product for the 14
nations in the integrated military structure has dropped 25%.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Also since 1990, the national
defense budgets in Allied Command Europe have paralleled this drop in
commonly funded Alliance programs.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Moreover, NATO security
investment program funding levels have plunged 50%.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Even so, these reductions in and
of themselves are not my greatest concern. The accompanying uncertainty of
capability and responsiveness to the dangers that surround Europe concerns
me even more.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">As SACEUR, everything I do is
affected by our diminished funding and future uncertainty. When we do not
have a clear decision on future budget allocations, we cannot plan for
adequate levels of training. Unknown manpower, equipment, and training
levels make our response to major or lesser contingencies an uncertain
proposition. When an organization's money runs out, even well-motivated
professionals cannot succeed when called upon to act.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Specifically, this uncertainty
in funds allocation makes the possible intervention into Bosnia to cover
the withdrawal of U.N. forces a difficult exercise in juggling funds. If
we implement such an operational plan, we may need to reduce normal
Article V activity. This "offset" exercise will then turn into
another attempt to squeeze money out of an already constrained budget.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">I purposely say "constrained"
for several reasons: if our budgets for the upcoming years are based on
assumptions that probably will not come to pass, then NATO's capability to
perform its assigned missions will be in danger. Let me illustrate what I
mean by an analogy. If you can imagine NATO as a locomotive pulling such
missions as CJTF, PFP, non-Article V crisis management, and the basic
Article V mission of credible deterrence, then the tracks must be laid on
a solid bed of adequate resources. In order to keep NATO from derailing,
we must have a rock-solid roadbed of robust manpower levels, modern and
capable infrastructure, adequate exercise funding levels for both Article
V and non-Article V missions, and capable command and control mechanisms.
Until we clearly and decisively acknowledge the Alliance's basic military
requirements and capabilities--and commit to a future funding plan to
cover the costs--uncertainty will continue to erode the capability we now
enjoy.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">With those thoughts on budget
concerns as a background, let me talk specifically about the future as it
relates to Allied Command Europe's mission. Allied Command Europe is
currently defining its requirements to guarantee accomplishment of our
traditional Article V missions, our newer non-Article V roles, as well as
our newest outreach initiatives.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">To accomplish all this, ACE has
adapted its command and control system to accommodate a two-tiered force
structure. On one hand, we have small, regular, and readily available
reaction forces--principally the ARRC and AMF(L)--as a military response
option to lesser regional contingencies. On the other hand, we still train
and equip large, mobile forces for our fundamental Article V
responsibilities.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">This two-tiered approach is
sound in theory. However, we will eventually face a crisis if we train and
equip only to meet lesser regional contingencies and not to meet our
overall strategic responsibilities. What is more, it is our strategic
Article V capabilities that have allowed us to respond in a lesser manner.
We have only one set of assets in NATO and they must be adequate to
accomplish all missions.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Let me be clear. ACE has dropped
25% in its force structure in the past five years. The entire ACE manpower
in our Major NATO Command (MNC), Major Subordinate Command (MSC),
Principal Subordinate Command (PSC) headquarters is now just over 3,000
personnel. Barely enough to do one CJTF corps, let alone two. And our
total military budget is approximately 1% of 16 nations' defense budgets.
So we have changed and will continue to do so. But we must stop the free
fall or face a "hollow" NATO.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Since 1989, our capability to
generate forces in a timely manner has been reduced drastically. Clearly,
a drop in our adaptability from Cold War levels is understandable; but a
continuing trend downward risks a "hollow force" in NATO and
less capability to accomplish our assigned missions.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Therefore, we must match
resources with requirements. A failure to do so endangers not only the
viability of this great Alliance, but also the security of Partner nations
that have committed to close ties with NATO and its component nations.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">And those who represent the
industrial base of this Alliance have a special role to play. We need
their energy, their ideas, their imagination, and their technology. As we
get smaller in force structure, NATO must become more capable. We need the
best high tech communications systems as well as modernized equipment and
precision munitions for our reduced force. We need to properly state the
requirements, and our friends in industry must help us say it right the
first time. And, if whatever we are developing is not working out, we must
quickly determine that so we do not throw good money after bad.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">We need to put NATO's high tech
community and industrial base to work on engagement in conflicts at the
lower end of the spectrum. How can we create the best conditions for
success in peace-support operations? How do we train forces in
multinational formations using simulation? How should NATO handle the
logistical requirements of a 16-nation multinational force that is
deployed out of area? What intelligence platforms are needed on these new
battlefields? How do we break down the rigid constraints of national
intelligence and provide timely, fused intelligence to the multinational
commander? These are real needs in today's and tomorrow's NATO.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">The World Is Still
Dangerous</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">My final point concerns NATO's
role in helping to mitigate the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia. Admiral
Smith, CINCSOUTH, provides his views below, so I will not go into details.
Let me just say that, in cooperation with the U.N. and many of our Partner
nations, NATO has helped limit the conflict and the suffering, and we are
prepared to do even more. We truly hope the U.N. remains in the former
Yugoslavia. But NATO is ready to assist in the U.N. withdrawal if it
becomes necessary or to implement a peace agreement. Let me also reiterate
what I have so often said: there is no military solution to the situation
in the former Yugoslavia, only a diplomatic/political one.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">And if I may offer a personal
opinion, we--NATO--must act as an Alliance in confronting the challenges
or missions we face. Whenever NATO forces are committed, we must ensure
their safety; whenever NATO as an Alliance makes a decision, then NATO
must control its own destiny and protect its credibility. And let me urge
that as we commit forces to these new challenges, we must maintain the
cohesion, solidarity, mutual trust, and confidence within the Alliance.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUSION: THREE FINAL
POINTS</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Let me close with these points:</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">First, since its formation,
NATO's mission has been the security and stability of Europe. NATO's
mission continues today. The occurrences of 1989 and 1990 only ended one
phase and began another in our ongoing mission. The new phase includes
increased cooperation and partnership with our new friends in Eastern
and Central Europe.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Second, I am optimistic and
excited about the future and about the direction in which NATO and its
new Partners are headed. Clearly, never have so many been so committed
to a future of friendship and cooperation. We are well on our way to
establishing lasting ties and realizing our common vision of a new
Europe: dynamic, democratic, and engaged. And we will do this with a
strong European defense identity pillar within a transatlantic alliance.</FONT></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Third, NATO must maintain
adequate force levels and consistent funding in order to meet the
challenges of the future. We must stop the free fall in our budgets and
forces. Europe--indeed the world--is still a dangerous place. We must
underpin the political initiatives of the Alliance and a functioning
integrated military command structure. And we must match requirements
with resources.</FONT></FONT></LI>
</UL>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">To do so, we need the help of
all those nations, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to
the NATO Workshop. The coalition represented at the Workshop of industry
and political, diplomatic, and military leadership--both within the
Alliance and now with our new Partners--is a powerful force to realize our
Workshop's theme: Building Stability, Democracy, and Peace Through
Cooperation. We have always been a team in NATO. That team is strengthened
by new Partners who bring added vitality and enthusiasm and we are glad
that they joined us in Dresden. Together we can participate in and
establish a new Europe and a new NATO. In doing so, we will give hope to
our children and grandchildren for peace, freedom, and prosperity as we
enter the 21st century.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="Joulwan.htm">Go to Top
of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="95Workshop.htm">Return
to Dresden '95 Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>