"Europe: Our Essential Global Partner"

Address to the Greek Association for
Atlantic and European Cooperation

Athens, December 2, 2011

Good morning.  It is a real pleasure to be with you here today, and to take part in this symposium that also marks the 20th anniversary of the Greek Association for Atlantic and European Cooperation. 

The GAAEC is doing important work, along with its sister organizations of the Atlantic Treaty Association across the Alliance and in partner nations, supporting the values set out in the North Atlantic Treaty and reinforcing Euro-Atlantic cooperation.  On behalf of the United States, I commend you for this.

Today I want to share with you America’s views on the Trans-Atlantic relationship, and how we work with Europe, which is truly, our essential global partner.  I’d then be happy to take a few questions and have a discussion. 

Let’s start out first with a look at the overall Trans-Atlantic relationship.  This will naturally lead us to NATO, the key mechanism through which we work together to address the threats of the 21st century.

Our engagement with Europe begins with the idea that the United States faces a daunting international agenda and that our ability to deal with it is immeasurably increased by working with strong allies and partners.  In meeting these challenges, we have no better partner than Europe, where we work with democratic, prosperous, militarily-capable allies who share our values and share our interests. In the words of President Obama, Europe is “the cornerstone of our engagement with the world.”

As the crisis here in Greece and elsewhere in Europe has demonstrated, our economies are linked in this globalized world.  We prosper together, but equally, economic policy decisions taken on one side of the Atlantic can impact livelihoods on the other side.  Transatlantic trade and investment flows between the United States and the EU now average about $2.7 billion in value each day, and support 14 million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

Our joint GDP of $32 trillion is slightly over half of global GDP. 
The EU and the United States enjoy the most integrated economic relationship in the world, illustrated by unrivalled levels investment, reaching nearly $3 trillion. Total U.S. investment in the EU is three times higher than in all of Asia, and EU investment in the U.S. is around eight times the amount of EU investment in India and China together. 
Beyond being joined at the hip economically, the United States and Europe work together on an extraordinarily wide range of issues, from Afghanistan to Iran to the tumultuous events in North Africa and the Middle East.

I will discuss Libya in a moment, and look at Afghanistan more in the context of NATO, but the challenge the international community faces from Iran is worth a special mention here.  The United States and Europe have consulted regularly and cooperate closely, and we have seen earlier this year the strongest-ever set of sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council and an even more robust set of follow-on sanctions adopted by the EU.  These additional measures included a variety of areas critical to the regime including trade, finance, banking and insurance, transport, and the gas and oil sectors, in addition to visa bans and asset freezes.  These steps raised the price of Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations and we hoped they would serve to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. 

However, in mid-November, IAEA Director General Amano issued a stark report, laying out in graphic detail Iran’s systematic efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.   We welcomed the unanimous, November 18 resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors that holds Iran accountable for its continued failure to live up to its international obligations.  And on November 21, we announced the intensification of our bilateral sanctions, to target Iran’s petrochemical industry and oil and gas sector, freeze the assets of individuals and entities who have assisted Iran’s prohibited nuclear programs, and formally identify Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern. 

We will continue to work in the P5+1 framework and with our European partners to apply pressure until Iran chooses to depart from its current path of international isolation.  President Obama has made clear that a nuclear-armed Iran would represent a grave threat to regional peace and international security, and that we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

Despite these levels of political and economic cooperation there are still some expressions of concern and sometimes resentment that the United States has somehow lost interest in Europe, or seeks to develop stronger ties in Asia to the detriment of Europe.  I’ll acknowledge freely today that yes, in fact, the United States is interested in Asia.  That should not come as a surprise to anybody.  I want to stress to you, however, that this interest has not and does not come at the expense of Europe.  Our relationship is as strong as it has ever been.  Where we used to debate what our priorities were, now we talk together about how to implement our shared priorities.  Indeed, I would submit that Europeans focused on our Trans-Atlantic ties should be more concerned if the United States was not focusing on the rise of China and India and some of the great challenges in that vast region. 

Libya serves as an excellent transition point from looking generally at the Trans-Atlantic relationship to the more specific context of NATO.  What has happened in Libya over the course of this year demonstrates vividly how the United States and Europe worked together at the onset of a crisis, came together along with other global partners at NATO to act, and will work together during the future transition. 

When the Libya crisis erupted, for example, we worked closely with our European allies to pass UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.  These were strong lines in the sand, in which the Security Council demanded that the killing of civilians stop.  We looked to NATO to lead the effort to enforce the no-fly zone and arms embargo and to protect civilians, and all 28 members of the Alliance came together to enable NATO to act within six days following the passage of UNSCR 1973.  This level of coordination and integrated multinational military command and control is extraordinary when you think about it.  Throughout the conflict, the United States, Europe, and other nations cooperated in first the Contact Group, then the Friends of Libya, and we will work together to help the Libyan people as they work to bring in a new era of freedom, dignity, and security.

It is clear that Libya would not be where it is today if not for our joint efforts in NATO.  NATO’s response confirms our belief as Americans once again that NATO is the lynchpin in our Trans-Atlantic security relationship. 

NATO is a unique institution.  It combines the military and economic strength of many of the most powerful nations on earth, and takes action only on the unanimous agreement of each one its members, from the biggest to the smallest.  NATO has been and remains the best in the business at keeping the core Euro-Atlantic area safe.  It provided the security for European leaders of past decades to make the courageous choice toward greater integration, and remains the primary means through which the United States, Canada, and Europe can face together the threats of today.  It has set the global standard for providing security and defense within democratic societies.  And increasingly, it is becoming a “global hub,” through which capable Asian and Middle Eastern states cooperate to address shared security concerns. 

I’d like to take a quick look at some of NATO’s ongoing operations, and give you our perspective on them.  In any discussion of NATO today or in the future, one also must look at the capabilities of the Allies that form its core, as well. 

Repeated Summit declarations have underscored that success in Afghanistan is NATO’s key priority.  49 nations have contributed roughly 130,000 troops at present to work toward our common goal of a secure, stable Afghanistan, respectful of human rights, which will never again become a safe haven for terrorists and terrorism.  And while the situation remains challenging, we are making progress and have made progress.

• More Afghans than not continue to believe that their country is heading in the right direction.
• Since the Taliban fell in 2001, Afghanistan’s economy has tripled; a majority of Afghans believe that their economic situation has improved over the past five years.
• When the Taliban fell, there were less than one million children in school and none were girls.  Today there are 8.1 million children in school, and 3 million of them are girls.
• 80% of Afghans have access to basic health care within an hour’s walk of their home, and since the Taliban fell, infant mortality dropped 30%, child mortality dropped 35%, and maternal mortality dropped 40%.
• The transition process is underway, and Afghan National Security Forces are increasingly responsible for providing their own security.  Thanks to the efforts of Allies and Partners, the ANSF have grown by more than 119,000 personnel since 2009.  They are increasingly literate and capable, and we should see them continue to step forward to take on the security lead from NATO forces in more and more of the country.  The Army and Police continue to enjoy the highest levels of public confidence of any government institution. 
• Maintained dedication to building the Afghan Security Forces is essential, though, as surveys find that the primary reason of those who believe the country was heading in the wrong direction is a lack of security. 

We should not be naïve.  The challenges that remain in Afghanistan are serious.  But a balanced and realistic look at what ISAF has achieved continues to give cause for optimism.

We remain committed to NATO’s Kosovo Force, which continues to show its relevance for the people of Kosovo.  Recent events in the north highlighted that KFOR’s capabilities are essential to maintaining stability, and that NATO must stay until the job is done. 

We strongly support the decision by Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010 to develop a missile defense capability to protect all NATO European populations, territory, and forces.  The United States will offer our national missile defense system, which we are building following a course the President has labeled the European Phased Adaptive Approach , as our contribution to NATO’s system.  We are committed to two things:  making missile defense an integral part of NATO’s capabilities as we move into the 21st-century, and cooperating with Russia if Russia desires to do so.  The United States intends to continue working with Russia to lay the foundation for future cooperation in missile defense, both bilaterally and in the NATO-Russia Council. 

We mentioned Libya earlier, and looked at it mainly from the perspective of an operation that again proved NATO’s worth as a “hub” of sorts for global security, bringing together Allies and like-minded partners.  Libya demonstrated to our nations why NATO matters, and why NATO remains indispensable to confronting the security challenges of today.  Libya also revealed much about NATO’s capabilities, both strengths and weaknesses.  This is the second aspect of NATO I would like to address briefly.

First, the strengths.  Within six days of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, NATO aircraft were enforcing a no-fly zone, and ships were enforcing an arms embargo.  Only NATO has this capacity for quick collective security action based on demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and regional support.  Only NATO has the integrated command structure to allow 28 Allies and additional partners to work effectively and communicate in a complex mission.

Greece deserves a special mention here.  Along with other Mediterranean states, Greece quickly facilitated the deployments of Allied and partner planes, resources, and personnel to strategically located bases, and provided crucial logistics support.

Operation Unified Protector was also the first NATO operation in which the European nations played a strong leading role.  Unlike Kosovo, where the United States flew the overwhelming majority of sorties, here we saw the UK and France, along with several smaller nations, step up, after the first week in which the United States deployed its unique assets to counter key regime military targets and air defense capabilities.   

But it also highlighted some shortcomings of NATO.  Allies lacked targeting personnel, supplies such as spare parts, and even munitions.  Allies lacked critical enablers such as refueling tankers, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.  

A failure to invest in defense and a failure to address key capability shortfalls threatens to undermine NATO’s role as the basis of the Trans-Atlantic security relationship in the twenty-first century.  Though difficult for all, including the United States in these difficult budget times, Allies must ensure that resources match NATO missions.  We need to step up efforts to meet our level of ambition, not reduce our effectiveness as an alliance because means cannot be mustered.  Defense spending needs to be smarter, and every dollar, euro, or pound spent needs to count for more.  NATO Secretary General Rasmussen’s “Smart Defense” initiative is a positive step, and we must fulfill capabilities commitments made at the Lisbon Summit.
 
Before closing, I want to share a few themes that are emerging as goalposts for the May 2012 Summit in Chicago, with the caveat that the NATO Secretary General and all 28 Allies are currently working on both agenda and substance in Brussels.  As such, my remarks should not be interpreted as being ahead of that process. It is safe to say that the United States sees this as a key opportunity to continue NATO’s transformation to meet the threats of the 21st-century. 

Afghanistan, as always, will occupy a prominent role.  The Summit will be an opportunity to demonstrate progress in transitioning lead security responsibility to the Afghans by the end of 2014, and defining NATO’s enduring partnership with the Afghans.   

Capabilities, including missile defense, will be key.  The Secretary General’s vision of Smart Defense will almost certainly be elaborated, to include shared or pooled assets.  The right mix of nuclear and conventional forces must be established.  Now that Poland, Romania and Turkey have agreed to host key elements of a missile defense system, it is feasible that NATO could declare an interim operational capability for NATO’s territorial missile defense system. 

Finally – partnerships are an integral aspect of the Alliance.  Between now and the Summit, we should look for ways to enhance and expand our partnership both with those countries outside NATO that are capable militarily, as well as those who strive to be more capable.  A look at NATO’s past and present operations – in Afghanistan, Libya, and off the coast of Somalia – makes it clear that non-NATO partners will be increasingly central to NATO’s future activities.  Particularly as we all strive to share more broadly the burden of defending our common interests. 

In closing, I want to thank all of you for your interest in foreign affairs and for your support of international security.  I also want to thank Mr. Georgiou and the GAAEC in particular for the opportunity to speak with you.  Thank you for your attention, and I’d be pleased to take a few questions.