We had a great and fruitful meeting with the Secretary General. Let me make 3 points:
1. NATO is in good shape. The operations, especially ISAF, show that NATO is able to operate in multiple theatres in a sustainable and successful way. The orderly handover of ISAF's security responsibilities to the Afghans by the end of 2014 only confirms this. It's natural for every military operation to come to an end. After all, that's the point!
We have to admit that the world will not necessarily become a more peaceful place after the end of ISAF; the opposite is probably true. That's why NATO has to be ready to respond to future security challenges. NATO just can't afford to run out of steam!
I welcome discussions within the Alliance on how to maintain NATO's agility and interoperability after the ISAF mission is successfully concluded. In this and in fact in all NATO discussions it's critical that the voice of every ally is not only heard but that we also have the wisdom and patience to listen. We need to take advantage of the comparative strengths of each ally for the good of the Alliance! That's the only way NATO is going to be able to move forward in unity.
2. The transatlantic link is steadfast strong. It is based on the solidarity, unity of purpose and collective decision-making that goes on day to day, decade to decade. This experience has created an unbreakable bond not only between the governments of US, Canada and European countries; for generations it has created bonds among our military men and women, our diplomats, our civil servants and our publics. NATO is a truly unique organisation in the world – it is our true home and family.
There are two factors that give me confidence to believe in the continued strength of the transatlantic link. First, the idea of an EU – US free trade agreement, which I support. We should move forward expeditiously. Second is the fact that the approach to the United States no longer divides us – labels such as "new Europe" and "old Europe" are in the past for good and that is A Good Thing!
3. The question of burden-sharing in NATO is an eternal one. Yes, the share of military capabilities between the US and other allies is disproportionate; this should change! At the same time, we all are convinced that the US should remain the most powerful military power on the planet. Europe should beef up its defence spending, but it's just as important to think about how to go about doing so and where to focus spending. Just as budget is the most graphic expression of political prioritisation for a country, the same is true for NATO.
Last year, the Estonian government succeeded in hiking defence spending to 2% of GDP. This is all the more impressive in light of the budgetary constraints and austerity measures imposed because of the economic crisis. But Estonia is the exception rather than the rule.
The economic crisis in Europe is not yet over giving us precious little reason to believe that defence spending will increase dramatically anytime soon. It will take time for the economy to right itself; it will take time for Europe's defence industry to become more competitive and integrated. I hope that the European Council, which is set to discuss EU defence and security issues later this year, will devote the attention to this question that it deserves.
The US recent decision not to implement phase 4 of the NATO's European Missile Defence and the overall compression of US capabilities in Europe is yet another call for Europeans to increase its share in the common defence effort.
That said I remain convinced that the US commitment to European security is "iron cast" as Secretary Hagel recently put it.
Thank you.
