Paris, 30 November – NATO and the European Union (EU) should broaden their cooperation gradually and pragmatically, both geographically and functionally, according to Alessandro Minuto Rizzo, NATO Deputy Secretary-General..
 
Addressing the WEU Assembly on Tuesday, Mr Minuto Rizzo said that “security is a holistic affair. That is why the common aim of NATO and the EU should be to cooperate in all areas where our interests coincide, and where both institutions can complement each other.” The most obvious area is in crisis management, he said. “In the Balkans, we have done this to great effect. But we cannot and should not limit ourselves to the Balkans.” In Afghanistan, NATO acts as a military stabiliser, whereas the EU is the biggest financial donor. “Both our organisations are critical to the long-term future of the country”, he added.
 
However, Mr Minuto Rizzo considered that “we should look even further.” The EU has responded to the mounting humanitarian crisis in Darfur, while NATO has been approached by the UN with a request for assistance to the African Union. “I am convinced we can help to provide a minimum of stability and security for the hundreds of thousands who are suffering.”
 
Other areas in which synergy is important are terrorism and improving military capabilities. “We must ensure that the EU’s Headline Goal plans are compatible with NATO’s force planning. It is in the interest of all of us that we have a constructive dialogue on the emerging Battle Group concept,” he said. “And we should consider closer cooperation in the armaments area too, particularly as the European Defence Agency takes shape.”
 
Mr Minuto Rizzo went on to say that the broader Middle East region and the fight against weapons of mass destruction were yet other areas offering cooperation potential: “Proliferation is a defining security challenge of the early 21st century, and it needs to be tackled with a sense of urgency.”
 
Although NATO and the EU have made headway in building a strong partnership, there “is simply no other relationship that offers more potential for shaping the strategic environment in line with our values and interests.” But they have been unable to exploit this potential, mainly because “we (…) are looking for the key to our relationship in a too limited place, namely in our Balkans cooperation that started in the 1990s (or) in those areas where we are essentially doing the same thing, namely crisis management.”
 
Mr Minuto Rizzo said he realised the cooperation agenda was ambitious, but the fact that 19 countries were members of both NATO and the EU, each with its own defence budget and one set of forces, “should help facilitate our coherence. And I also detect a growing awareness that our institutions will depend on each other for serious security management in this new century,” he added. Urging Assembly delegates to convince the sceptics about the need for more cooperation, he said the dispute between the Atlanticists and the Europeanists belonged to the past. “We simply cannot afford to waste any more time, energy and money on maintaining artificial barriers.” He added that Assembly members bore a special responsibility, “because you are the parliamentarians who are most knowledgeable on defence and security. That is why your voice really matters. You can make the case for greater cooperation between our institutions, both on the ground and at the institutional level.”
 
In reply to questions, Mr Minuto Rizzo said he was unsure whether NATO institutional reform was a good idea. “We need to wait a little before we find the right answer.” A new structure might represent “more problems than it would solve.” He said an organisation like NATO should have a missile defence system, but he was not sure whether Russia should participate. NATO had two added values: it was the only organisation that encompassed the EU, the US and Canada, and was the only one able to provide crisis management.
 
However, he was more downbeat about bridging the gap between US and EU capabilities. He said EU countries’ defence budgets represented about 60% of the US budget, but that in terms of military efficiency the difference was much bigger. There were good reasons for the lack of specialisation and other factors which resulted in Europe not being at the level it should be at in the world. And he was not optimistic about the prospects for redressing the balance. “As budgets are declining rather than rising, I am afraid the problem might continue and become bigger in the future.”