Transatlantic Security and Defense Cooperation: NATO, Missile Defense and the European Union

Thursday, February 18, 2010

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Colleagues,

As Vice-President of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament, I would like to underline that - for us - European security is indivisible from the presence of American troops in Europe, the global reach and commitment of NATO troops, and our dynamic transatlantic partnership, which is the foundation of our citizens' safety and well-being. 

The United States has been our closest partner and ally for decades. It was American troops stationed in Europe that deterred the Soviet Union and guaranteed that the Cold War didn’t turn hot. During the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, we were reminded that it was Washington and NATO that helped carry the torch of freedom to Central and Eastern Europe - although, to our dismay, the names of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were not mentioned during the commemorations in Berlin. The left wing in Europe (and in the United States) would like to convince us that it was Gorbachev who brought liberty to Europe and ended the Cold War. If they had it their way, it would be the “Mikhail Gorbachev Center for Freedom” that would be hosting this event today. Sorry to disappoint them. We all know very well who we should thank: It took an “Iron Lady” to help bring down the Iron Curtain.

Unfortunately, twisted historical interpretations are not the only problems we face in contemporary Europe. Very often in Brussels we hear voices that demand a common European Army that would be responsible for the defense of our continent. The ECR Group believes that EU armed forces would pose an unnecessary burden to Member States and would weaken our transatlantic bonds. It is disturbing that many people do not realize that such endeavors are a challenge to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. It is not the role of the European Union to take on NATO’s responsibilities. Instead, we should focus all our efforts on revitalizing NATO. We should also not give up on the idea of expanding the Alliance in Eastern and Southern Europe. Contrary to what some politicians in the EU believe, Russia cannot have veto power over our decision to extend to our European neighbors the peace, stability and security that NATO membership offers. Judging by the NATO Summit in Bucharest, an opportunity has been missed. But all is not lost. As we address our current priority, which is the difficult mission we are faced with in Afghanistan, let’s not forget about Ukraine and Georgia and our commitment to their security and eventual membership in North Atlantic Alliance.

We know very well that failure in Afghanistan is not an option. But this is not “America’s war”, as we often hear in Europe. It is our common battle against those who endanger the security of our nations and the well-being of the people we represent. This threat is global, therefore we must act globally. Today, Europe and America face many common risks. Iran is a serious menace, which is why an antiballistic missile shield in Europe is vital to the defense of our continents. It is very unfortunate that the current administration in Washington has abandoned the missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic. Indeed, we were very surprised that negotiations that were so advanced could be discarded so quickly. Much to our dismay, this news came on September 17th – the anniversary of the tragic day the Red Army invaded Poland. It goes without saying that in Central Europe we could not help but see a correlation between the “reset button” strategy toward Moscow and the decision to abandon missile defense installations in our countries. As you may recall, the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, noted that Washington had simply corrected a mistake of the previous administration and that Russia would not make any concessions in return. No one should be surprised.

When dealing with Iran, it is obvious that we cannot rely on the Russian Federation. The Kremlin not only speaks on behalf of Iran’s interests in the Security Council, but time and time again, members of the Duma try to convince that Iran does not pose a threat to our security. This is hard to believe considering Iran’s track record. The Iranian ambassador in Moscow stated two weeks ago that Russia has assured Teheran that it intends to deliver long-range air-defence missiles to Iran. We are dealing here with a very dangerous alliance.

Moscow's policies are very disturbing to us and we are following very closely developments in Russia. We are concerned about the ramifications to international security following the Duma's adoption of amendments to the law "On defense" submitted by the President of Russia. These amendments state that Russia can use military force in operations outside its borders for the purposes of countering an attack against Russian Forces or other troops deployed beyond its borders, to counter or prevent an aggression against another country, or to protect Russian citizens abroad. What exactly does this mean for the security of post-Soviet nations? According to the Putin-Medvedev duo, Russian forces should have the right to invade countries like Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc., if the Kremlin feels that Russian minorities are in danger. It is clear that this will serve as a pretext for Russia to further pursue its aggressive, neo-imperial policies in what it considers the near-abroad. It is already implementing a policy of illegally handing out Russian passports in frozen conflict territories and in Ukraine’s Crimea. This "passport policy" is evidently meant to internally destabilize Russia's neighbours.

We are also concerned about the offensive nature of Russia's recent "war games." As you may know, the joint military exercises "Zapad 2009" concentrated on repelling a simulated NATO-led attack on Belarus. It is regrettable that Lieutenant-General Sergey Skokov, the Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Ground Forces, stated that the country faces "potential threats" from the West. A Western threat scenario is being instrumentally used to implement modernization efforts of the Russian armed forces and to stir anti-Western public opinion. This Cold War rhetoric obviously damages our relations with Moscow. But we cannot simply press the "reset button" and pretend that all our problems will go away. We cannot look the other way when human rights are violated, journalists are murdered with impunity, and the sovereignty of our neighbours is threatened. And we have to be clear on this: Russia has not given up its sphere-of-interest mentality and it views the integration of former soviet republics - whether east or west - as a zero sum game. One of the most vulnerable countries in the EU's neighbourhood is Ukraine.

As standing rapporteur on Ukraine in the previous term of the European Parliament and as a member of the EU-Ukraine delegation, I did everything that I could to bring Kyiv and Brussels closer together. We are disappointed that today there is a feeling of "Ukraine fatigue" that is talked about both in Europe and in the U.S. We are often tempted to have a "who lost Ukraine?" debate. Let's be frank, Ukrainian politicians gave many excuses for the EU to say "they are not ready, yet." For the time being, the general mood in Brussels is that a membership perspective for Ukraine is out of the question. But the ECR Group does not accept this status quo. If indeed Ukraine fell off the tracks, we will help it get back on. The Association Agreement - that is currently being negotiated - and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area will bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. It should facilitate people-to-people contacts and a liberalization of the visa regime. A free, democratic and economically stable Ukraine will first-and-foremost benefit the Ukrainian people; but it is also in our interest for Ukraine to prosper. This is why Washington should play an even greater role in helping Kyiv on its journey toward judicial, constitutional, and economic reform. We cannot give up on Ukraine.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The challenges that the transatlantic alliance faces are indeed difficult. We are threatened by external enemies and those who speak on their behalf and defend them in America and Europe alike. We must refrain from short-sighted solutions and temptations to believe that problems will fix themselves. This is not the case. Luckily, we can rely on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II, to constantly remind ourselves that – in the end – courage, sacrifice, and devotion to freedom will allow us to prevail. Thank you.

 

Tue, 20th December 2011 - W dniu 19 grudnia 2011 w Parlamencie Europejskim odbyła się konferencja zorganizowana przez Komisję Europejską przy wsparciu Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi PE i polskiej prezydencji. Jest to juz trzecie debata tego rodzaju zorganizowana w trakcie polskie prezydencji. Konferencję otworzył Przewodniczący Komisji AGRI Paolo De Castro, Komisarz Dacian Cioloş oraz polski Minister Rolnictwa Marek Sawicki. Głównym celem trzeciej już z kolei konferencji na temat Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej (WPR) było omówienie głównych jej aspektów przez ekspertów naukowych.

Witamy na stronie Grupy Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformatorów w Parlamencie Europejskim.

Grupa EKR została utworzona w lipcu 2009, przez osiem partii politycznych, które łączy sprzeciw wobec Euro-federalizmu i świadomość konieczności przeprowadzenia fundamentalnych reform w Unii Europejskiej, aby stała się ona bardziej transparentna oraz by skutecznie reagowała na potrzeby społeczeństwa.
Niniejsza strona internetowa ma na celu dostarczenie informacji na temat naszej pracy i politycznych priorytetów oraz umożliwienie Państwu wyrażenia swoich poglądów.