Paris, 12 March 2009 – To mark the Czech Presidency of the EU and at the invitation of the Speaker of the Czech Senate, the European Security and Defence Assembly organised a seminar yesterday in Prague on EU-NATO cooperation. The debate provided material for a report being prepared by the Political Committee on “New opportunities for EU-US foreign and security policy cooperation” (Rapporteur: Mr Jordi XUCLA I COSTA, Spain, Liberal Group) to be submitted to the Assembly’s next plenary session in Paris (2 to 4 June 2009).

In his inaugural address the Speaker of the Czech Senate, Mr Premysl SOBOTKA, stressed that the Euro-Atlantic relationship remained the key foundation for Europe’s collective defence and security. Without NATO, he said, Europe could not meet the new risks and challenges to its security.

The President of the Assembly, Mr Robert WALTER, underlined the need to improve the arrangements for cooperation between the EU and NATO. With reference to the EU’s anti-piracy operation ATALANTA, off the Somali coast, Mr WALTER pointed out that because ATALANTA was not technically a Berlin Plus Operation various onboard equipment furnished by NATO could not be used – leading to very expensive duplication. He also cited the NATO and EU operations in Afghanistan and the less than satisfactory organisation of the meetings between the EU’s Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the North Atlantic Council (NAC), suggesting that it was necessary to strengthen not only EU-NATO relations, but also the relations between the EU and the United States, which should focus more on security issues.

During the first session chaired by the head of the Czech Delegation to the Assembly, Mr Jan NADVORNIK, Mr Ivan DVORAK, Director of the Defence Policy and Strategy Division of the Czech Defence Ministry, recalled that NATO and the EU together had 32 member states, of which 21 belonged to both organisations. He pinpointed three areas in particular in which EU-NATO cooperation could be strengthened: the NATO-EU Capability Group; multinational capability development projects beneficial to both organisations, for example in the field of helicopter availability and strategic airlift; and effective cooperation in the conduct of operations on the ground, in particular between EUPOL and ISAF in Afghanistan and between EULEX and KFOR in Kosovo. Obstacles to cooperation should be overcome gradually by determined efforts.

Mr Hartmut BÜHL, Editor of The European, referred to “grave deficiencies” in NATO-EU relations, a serious obstacle to their development being the dispute between Turkey and Cyprus. He quoted a recent report by Mr Ari VATANEN (Finland-France) and adopted by the European Parliament on 19 February, which stated that ideally the EU and NATO security strategies should be “not only complementary, but also convergent, each giving due weight to the potential of the other”.

There followed a lively debate in which Mr Konstantinos VRETTOS (Greece) raised the question of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Mr Markku LAUKKANEN (Finland) wondered about possible bridges between the EU battlegroup and the NATO Response Force (NRF) concepts. Mrs Claire CURTIS-THOMAS (United Kingdom) raised a point about NATO accession criteria. Mr Jim HOOD (United Kingdom) sparked a discussion about the consequences of a strategy for the simultaneous or successive accession by candidate countries to both the EU and NATO. There were detailed exchanges on Afghanistan following comments by Mr Detlef DZEMBRITZKI (Germany). Mr Nigel EVANS (United Kingdom) raised the issue of the future of Russia-NATO relations, while Mr Rudi VIS (United Kingdom) commented on the background to the Turkey-Cyprus dispute. Mr Laszlo BORBELY, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies, congratulated the ESDA for having organised the seminar and more generally on the highly useful parliamentary work it did at the service of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

During the second session chaired by Mr Doug HENDERSON (United Kingdom), Chairman of the Defence Committee, Admiral Alain COLDEFY, Vice-President Political Affairs, EADS (France), stressed the need to overhaul NATO’s defence planning in a context of Euro-American competition. There could be no true prospects for “tough but friendly” industrial competition between Americans and Europeans unless the latter pooled their forces, EADS being a good example.

Mr Pascal BONIFACE, Director of IRIS, referred to President Sarkozy’s decision to rejoin the NATO military structures and to the major parliamentary debate on this issue scheduled to take place on 17 March. He warned the political authorities about the possible consequences of a “double enlargement” of NATO to include not only the remaining European states but also “western countries” in the broad sense, such as Australia and New Zealand, or even Japan. What may be considered as defensive action by some could be construed as offensive action by others and cause problems at geostrategic level. He wondered whether NATO was the best equipped to deal with certain security challenges such as failed states, migratory movements and climate change, and warned about the dangers inherent in a “militarised” response to security challenges whose causes were eminently political and required above all political solutions.

Professor Otto PICK, Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Czech Republic), said that the United States had already cut back on and reconfigured their troops in Europe. NATO, which symbolised the transatlantic link would not survive a US decision to the effect that the transatlantic relationship was no longer vital to its national interests. The European Union was “there to stay”. The two essential questions were 1) do European citizens perceive common threats and a need for security cooperation? 2) Are we prepared to pay for a common defence and what would we do without the Americans?

During the ensuing debate, a number of the speakers agreed with Mr LAUKKANEN (Finland) that Europe needed to speak with a single voice, particularly on the issue of energy security and with regard to Russia. Following a point raised by Mrs Françoise HOSTALIER (France), there was also a lively exchange on the issue of UN-NATO relations. Mr DZEMBRITZKI (Germany) underscored the need for military planning to be based on a global political vision, particularly in Afghanistan. There was discussion of the threats posed by terrorism (Mrs Betty WILLIAMS, United Kingdom) and failed states (Mrs Claire CURTIS-THOMAS, United Kingdom) and of France’s new posture with regard to NATO (Mr Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA, France).

Summing up, the President of the Assembly, Mr Robert WALTER, recalled that a genuine transatlantic partnership meant equality between the partners. Europeans owed it to themselves to further strengthen the cooperation between the EU and NATO. He looked forward to continuing the debate in committee and at the plenary session.