In an exclusive interview, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says it “makes sense” for the EU and NATO to cooperate politically and militarily.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen

In an exclusive interview, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says it “makes sense” for the EU and NATO to cooperate politically and militarily. On Afghanistan, he hopes for a transfer of responsibility for security to the Afghans to start next year and on relations with Moscow, he points to common threats and says that “NATO is not an enemy of Russia”. Finally, he likens his present job to his former role as Danish prime minister in that it is all about “consensus building”.
As Europe develops its own separate security and defence policy, how do see future cooperation between the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

First of all I would like to stress that I have a very positive attitude to the development of a stronger defence and security policy pillar within the EU. I think that it is the way forward. I would very much like to see an EU capable of conducting crisis management and peacekeeping operations in cooperation with NATO. I do not consider the development of ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) as competition with NATO, but complementary to NATO.

I think that strengthened cooperation makes sense politically as well as militarily. Politically, it could be because a majority of the member states are members of both organisations. If we organise the right division of labour, we could add value, like in Kosovo, where NATO conducts the military operations and the EU a more civilian mission. In Bosnia it’s the other way around: we have handed over the responsibility for the military operation to the EU. So it's an excellent example of how we can achieve political synergies.

Militarily it makes sense that we join efforts. I think common procurement (of equipment), common acquisition, collective solutions in general would provide us with more efficient solutions. And we could make more efficient use of money.

NATO has its own Parliamentary Assembly, what role can the European Parliament and national parliaments play in security and defence policy?

Well, there are differences among our members as to how strongly parliaments are engaged in security and defence policy. It very much depends on constitutional arrangements. Having said that, as a long-serving parliamentarian, I’m strongly in favour of strengthened engagement from parliamentarians in defence and security matters.

I think in today’s world it is of crucial importance to strengthen the link between the people and decision-making in security and defence policy areas. In ancient times there was a very long distance between the diplomatic and military establishments and the man on the street. But in today’s world foreign policy, security policy and defence policy are intertwined and interlinked with people's daily lives.

In early December you visit Moscow for talks with the Russian leadership. How do you see the future structure of cooperation between NATO and Russia?

My long term vision is to establish a strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. My analysis is that at the end of the day Russia and the allies within NATO share common security interests. I know that we have our disagreements, we have our disputes with Russia, for instance on Georgia - we have to insist on the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Georgia. But these disputes should not overshadow the fact that we are faced with the same security threats in a number of areas.

One of them is Afghanistan. The Russians know very well, based on experience, that if Afghanistan is left behind, and if terrorism once again gets rooted there, the terrorists could easily spread from Afghanistan through Central Asia to Russia.

Russia has also suffered from internal terrorist attacks. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery is a third example. We all know that Russia is within reach of Iranian missiles. Piracy is a fourth area, where we are faced with the same security threats.

So when I go to Russia in December it will be a very important task to try to convince the political leadership that NATO is not an enemy of Russia, NATO is not directed against Russia. On the contrary: we share interests in a number of areas.

At the time of the Afghan election you were quoted as saying that as only about 3% of polling stations had been attacked NATO had done an excellent job in terms of security. With the subsequent accusations of fraud, do you think NATO has been let down by the Afghan authorities?

It's still true that from a security point of view the elections were quite successful as nearly all polling stations opened and only 3% were directly attacked. But there's no reason to hide the fact that the election process has been a tough time for all of us, it has taken too long and the way it has been conducted has left the impression of lack of credibility. So, let's face it, that's a problem. 

It's now our challenge, and this is the reason that we have to renew the contract between the international community and President Karzai and his government, to ensure that they provide good governance and deliver basic services to the Afghan people and not least, that they fight corruption effectively. To that end we need a strengthened engagement from the international community.

Public opinion in Europe is getting nervous about troop casualties in Afghanistan. At what point does NATO say the mission is accomplished? What would be the criteria to say “we have done our job?”

Well, it will be mission accomplished when the Afghans are ready to take responsibility for their own security and run their own country. Obviously I am not able to present an exact timetable but I can describe the way ahead. That is to hand over responsibilities to the Afghans, province by province as their capacity to take responsibility develops. 

Therefore we need to train and educate Afghan soldiers and police and increase the Afghan security force. NATO has decided to establish a training mission and it is of crucial importance to ensure that it is up and running and is fully equipped.

Realistically, I believe that the transfer of responsibilty to the Afghans can start next year in areas and districts where conditions permit it. This gradual transfer of responsibly for security will take place in a coordinated manner within NATO and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force).

President Obama is on the verge of deciding whether to send more troops to Afghanistan. Do you have a feeling about what he will do and the implications?

I think we will end up with more resources, more troops, but its a bit too early to present any exact figure. We are now in a very intense phase of consultation among allies and partners within the international ISAF coalition made up of 43 countries so its takes time.  I think it is necessary to spend a sufficient amount of time to make sure we really take the right decision. I have a particular focus on the training mission because I really think the transition to Afghan lead is the way ahead.  But it is still too early to present exact figures.

Is NATO overstretched, if there were another conflict would it be able to find the resources?

NATO is currently the world's strongest military alliance with a huge capacity, but of course right now we are very much focused on our mission in Afghanistan, because a lot is at stake for the Afghan people, but first and foremost for our own security and for the international community. Let me stress why we are in Afghanistan. It is because of security. The terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 2001 were rooted in Afghanistan and the following day the NATO alliance invoked, for the first time in its history, Article 5, the collective defence clause, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all of them. The mission is still not accomplished - so right now we are focused on Afghanistan. This is also about territorial defence.

I would like to stress that the core task of NATO is territorial defence of allied nations but we have to realise that in today's world the defence of our own borders very often starts far away like in Afghanistan, so right now this is our number one priority.

NATO is in the process of developing a new strategic concept. Countries like the US, the UK, Holland and Denmark prefer a more global strategy, while France and many of the newer member states would prefer a more regional focus. What would you prefer?

I don't see any contradiction. This will be one of the core items on the agenda in our new strategic concept exercise. Since NATO was established 60 years ago territorial defence according to article 5 has been our core function it will remain so!

Today, we are also faced with new threats, including cyber attacks, and in order to address these new threats properly, we need to transform our armed forces.

Around 70% of our armed forces in Europe are stationary. I think that if we are to make our territorial defence credible, then we have to make sure that we can actually move people around, we have to have a more mobile, a more flexible and more deployable military.

In conclusion, I do not see any contradiction between territorial defence and a global reach and a global perspective. My role will be to build this bridge.

How would you describe the differences between being Prime Minister of Denmark and the Secretary General of NATO?

(Laughing) I get that question a lot. There are similarities and there are differences. I think that in my case there are more similarities than differences. Of course it is a particular challenge to the Secretary General of NATO to ensure consensus among 28 nations, 28 individual sovereign nations with 28 particular interests.

Having said that, as leader of the government in Denmark I was also in position where I had to create a consensus within the coalition government, which was also a minority government. And then I had to create the majority in parliament.

So I think that I come from a political environment where we are used to consensus building. There is a difference between operating in a strictly national environment and a international environment in Brussels, but it's not that different.

In Denmark I had a weekly meeting with the government on Tuesdays. Here I have a weekly meeting with North Atlantic Council on Wednesdays. So maybe it’s just the difference between Tuesday and Wednesday.