PC
230 PC 13 E
Original: English
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
SUMMARY
of the meeting of the Political Committee
Room Elafiti 1, Hotel Valamar Lacroma
Dubrovnik, Croatia
Saturday 12 and Sunday 13 October 2013
www.nato-pa.int October 2013
i
230 PC 13 E
ATTENDANCE LIST
Committee Chairperson Raynell ANDREYCHUK (Canada)
Acting General Rapporteur Ojars Eriks KALNINS (Latvia)
Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee
on NATO Partnerships Daniel BACQUELAINE (Belgium)
President of the NATO PA Hugh BAYLEY (United Kingdom)
Secretary General of the NATO PA David HOBBS
Member delegations
Albania Pandeli MAJKO
Jozefina TOPALLI
Belgium Armand DE DECKER
Theo FRANCKEN
Jan JAMBON
Gerald KINDERMANS
Philippe MAHOUX
Martine TAELMAN
Karl VANLOUWE
Olga ZRIHEN
Bulgaria Dobroslav DIMITROV
Tchetin KAZAK
Canada Leon BENOIT
Jane CORDY
Joseph A. DAY
Suzanne FORTIN-DUPLESSIS
Cheryl GALLANT
Hélène LAVERDIERE
Lawrence MacAULAY
Croatia Boris BLAZEKOVIC
Davor BOZINOVIC
Igor DRAGOVAN
Marin JURJEVIC
Denmark John Dyrby PAULSEN
Estonia Marko MIHKELSON
France Jean-Marie BOCKEL
Jean-Louis CARRERE
Jean-Marie LE GUEN
Pierre LELLOUCHE
Germany Ernst-Reinhard BECK
Dagmar FREITAG
Jürgen HARDT
Frank HENKEL
Robert HOCHBAUM
Karl A. LAMERS
Johannes PFLUG
Rainer ROBRA
Anita SCHAEFER
Greece Aristovoulos SPILIOTOPOLOUS
Hungary Mihaly BALLA
Matyas FIRTL
Istvan SIMICSKO
Gabor STAUDT
Vilmos SZABO
Iceland Thorunn EGILSDOTTIR
Ossur SKARPHEDINSSON
Italy Paolo ALLI
Andrea CAUSIN
Valeria GALARDINI
Federica MOGHERINI
Domenico SCILIPOTI
Lithuania Rasa JUKNEVICIENE
Luxembourg Norbert HAUPERT
Norway Sverre MYRLI
Marit NYBAKK
Poland Pawel ARNDT
Anna FOTYGA
Beata KEMPA
Mieczyslaw LUCZAK
Dariusz SELIGA
Cezary TOMCZYK
Portugal Manuel CORREIA DE JESUS
José LELLO
Romania Roberta Alma ANASTASE
Marius BALU
Mircea Dan GEOANA
Slovakia Juraj DROBA
Gabor GAL
Anton MARTVON
Slovenia Dragutin MATE
Spain Enrique ABAD
Emilio ALVAREZ
Beatriz RODRIGUEZ-SALMONES
Turkey Ali Riza ALABOYUN
Muzaffer BASTOPCU
Metin Lutfi BAYDAR
United Kingdom Peter BOTTOMLEY
Nigel DODDS
Michael GAPES
Lord HAMILTON of EPSOM
Baroness RAMSAY of CARTVALE
Associate delegations
Armenia Koryun NAHAPETYAN
Austria Anton HEINZL
Herbert SCHNEIBNER
Azerbaijan Gudrat HASANGULIYEV
Malahat IBRAHIMGIZI
Finland Jussi NIINISTO
Mikko SAVOLA
Georgia Levan BERDZENISHVILI
Moldova Mihai GHIMPU
RussianFederation Leonid KALASHNIKOV
Victor OZEROV
Vyacheslav TETEKIN
Serbia Miroslav PETKOVIC
Dejan RADENKOVIC
Dragan SORMAZ
Sweden Clas-Göran CARLSSON
Switzerland Jakob BUCHLER
Hans HESS
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[*] Pavle TRAJANOV
Ukraine Volodymyr OLIINYK
Oleh OSUKHOVSKYI
Andriy PARUBIY
Rostyslav PAVLENKO
Regional Partner and Mediterranean
Associate Member Delegations
Algeria Miloud FERDI
Lakhdar NOURI
Jordan Yousef DALABEH
Morocco Ahmed TOUIZI
European Parliament Ioan Mircea PASCU
Teresa RIERA MADURELL
Parliamentary Guests
Afghanistan Mohd Dawood ASSAS
Said M. HASAN SHARIFI
Ikramuddin MASOOMI
Khalid A. PASHTOON
Assembly of Kosovo Xhavit HALITI
Speakers Vesna PUSIC, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Croatia
Dr Bichara KHADER, Director of the Arab Study & Research Centre (C.E.R.M.A.C.), DVLP, and Professor at the Faculty of Political, Economic & Social Sciences, Louvain University (UCL), Belgium
Kolinda GRABAR-KITAROVIC, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy
International Secretariat Steffen SACHS, Director
Rebecca CHANDLER, Co-ordinator
Anca BRETAN, Research Assistant
i
230 PC 13 E
Saturday 12 October 2013
1. Following the opening remarks by the Chairperson, Senator Raynell Andreychuk (Canada), both the draft agenda [153 PC 13 E rev. 2] and the Summary of the Meeting of the Political Committee held in Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on 18 May 2013 [120PC 13 E] were adopted.
2. The Chairperson then explained the procedures for amending the Committee’s draft resolutions on The Crisis in Syria: Implications for the Region and Beyond [205 PC 13 E rev. 1] and on The Growing Strategic Relevance of Asia-Pacific: Implications for NATO [204 PC 13 E].
I. Presentation by Vesna PUSIC, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Croatia on Regional Security Policy PrioritiesCroatian Perspectives
3. In her presentation to the Committee, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Croatia, Mrs Vesna Pusić, covered a broad range of issues. She outlined her views on NATO partnership policies towards Eastern Europe and the progress achieved to date in regional security and inter-state co-operation. She noted that NATO’s “open door policy” was linked with the process of accession to the EU, even though for the so-called “new democracies” of the region, the former raised more controversial domestic debates than the latter.
4. In her view, public understanding in the countries of the region had mainly focused on the military aspect – the NATO deterrent and mutually-reassuring Article 5 - as the most important element of a possible NATO membership. However, over time, there had been a change in the public mind set and military aspects were now seen in concert with the need to pursue institutional and societal reforms. The speaker emphasised the importance of generating a common understanding that achieving domestic stability without framing a stable neighbourhood was impossible.
5. NATO membership had allowed Croatia’s political leadership to develop its relations with its neighbours to create the needed regional secure environment and to assist them with fast-tracking their own security. In this context she acknowledged that the countries of the region differed significantly in their view on NATO membership - varying from those applying for candidacy to those that are far from it. On this point, the speaker mentioned Montenegro, which she considered a small country of strategic importance, and the practical support Croatia had given Montenegro for sharing lessons on meeting the accession criteria. In her view, Montenegro was more or less ready to join the Alliance. Regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina she noted that the country was key to regional stability, but that plans to join NATO had been on hold for some time.
6. The discussion following the presentation focused on the importance of continuing to work jointly to achieve a stable and secure Eastern neighbourhood. The Minister stressed that the danger some countries, such as Ukraine, Moldova or Belarus, could become failed states, should not be disregarded. Sustaining dialogue and co-operation with Russia on neighbourhood issues but also on threats of common concern such as the Syria crisis, remained relevant, she said. Confidence-building measures had to be taken in this regard to jointly engage neighbouring countries in cross-border projects in areas such as: economic co-operation, media and publishing. National media and publishing industries could not survive in the small markets of the region; they needed to enjoy freedom to expand, she explained. Economic co-operation between Croatia and Serbia was already under way, but more initiatives were needed to create a friendly-investment climate.
7. Finally, Mrs Pusić remarked that while external support to progress towards democracy and stable economies was essential, the political will in national capitals to co-operate was essential to promote regional co-operation. On Kosovo and its relations with Serbia, both the speaker and Committee members commended the agreement and the progress achieved in both countries. Croatia was in favour of regional co-operation at all levels. She concluded by suggesting that Allies should not regard this region as divided into EU and non-EU member countries but rather as all countries in the region being at different stages for achieving EU and NATO membership.
II. Consideration of the draft General Report The Growing Strategic Relevance ofAsia: Implications for NATO [154 PC 13 E] by Ojars Eriks KALNINS (Latvia), Acting General Rapporteur
8. Following the presentation of the draft General Report, members commented on a broad range of issues, including on Asian regional security issues, the economic component of the US security pivot to Asia and possible consequences of reduced defence investments on the rebalancing towards Asia. Debating a possible greater NATO involvement in the Asia-Pacific region in the long term, members reflected on the issue of building durable but realistic partnerships with countries of the region. In this context, it was argued that, in terms of concrete measures which could improve security in Asia-Pacific, NATO only had a limited array of tools to offer. Several Committee members noted the need for NATO to increase its engagement with global partners especially as Asian emerging powers are pivoting to the rest of the world. NATO could play a role in helping partners and other regional states to build a robust regional security architecture for the entire region it was suggested. That said, participants agreed upon the need to balance inevitable budget cuts with maintaining NATO capable and prepared to meet its commitments and responsibilities.
9. One member bemoaned that in diplomatic and security terms, the EU currently remained almost absent from the Asia-Pacific region. Other comments emphasised that European Allies must take greater share of responsibility for security in the European neighbourhood which included improvements in anticipating and management of emerging security threats. One member emphasised that European Allies needed to overcome budgetary shortfalls, inequalities in capabilities and contributions to peacekeeping operations. This was important to maintain a credible military deterrent as well as to uphold Alliance cohesion. Arguing that the rebalancing was more a necessity than a choice, Ojars Eriks Kalnins (LV) commented that the US shift in focus was only in its beginning stage and that there was a global pivot to Asia. He noted that Asia-Pacific had a host of security issues and stressed the importance of transparency. In this context he suggested that the People’s Republic of China should engage in a dialogue on regional security issues. NATO as an organisation needed to understand what its role could be with regards to the Asia-Pacific region.
The draft General Report [154 PC 13 E] was adopted unanimously.
III. Consideration of the draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations on Security in the High North: NATO’s Role [156 PCTR 13 E] by Jadwiga ZAKRZEWSKA (Poland), Rapporteur, presented by John Dyrby PAULSEN (Denmark), Chairperson
10. Due to the absence of the Rapporteur, the draft report was presented by John Dyrby Paulsen (DK), Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations. Several Committee members commended Mr Paulsen and the Danish delegation for the very successful SubCommittee visit to Greenland recently. Members highlighted the dynamic changes the High North is experiencing due to climate change, the need for continued co-operation among Arctic countries, and whether or not an increased role for NATO would lead to a “militarisation” of the Arctic region. Members agreed on the need for continued and improved co-operation in Searchand-Rescue (SAR) as existing, primarily military, capabilities were limited and the number of ships crossing through the region and the number of incidents were on the rise. While there was also agreement on more co-operation with Russia, different views were expressed on whether NATO’s engagement in the Arctic should be expanded. The need for NATO to develop a comprehensive Arctic strategy was strongly supported by several Committee members. Members agreed that NATO’s engagement should not lead to a militarisation of the High North but could help partners and Allies manage the human impact of resource exploitation and cope with the environmental implications of greater tanker traffic in the region.
The draft report [156 PCTR 13 E] was adopted unanimously.
IV. Presentation by Dr Bichara KHADER, Director of the Arab Study and Research Centre (C.E.R.M.A.C.), DVLP, Professor at the Faculty of Political, Economic and Social Sciences Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium on Recent Developments in the MENA Region
11. Dr Khader started his presentation by noting that there was no coherent European policy towards the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. He then addressed three main points: the resilience of authoritarian regimes in the region, the root causes and the impact of the Arab revolutions and the challenges transitional governments were facing on their path to consolidating democracy.
12. As to the notion of “Arab exceptionalism” and the resilience of authoritarian regimes in the region, the speaker reminded the Committee that most of these regimes had come to power as a result of revolutions. As they became increasingly more autocratic in the 1970s-1980s, there was a tacit accord between the populations and the regimes in which populations refrained on their democratic claims as long as the regimes were providing subsidies and welfare. The legitimacy of these autocratic and paternalistic regimes was thus based on wealth distribution, he suggested. However, as the regimes became increasingly authoritarian, their main focus was personal enrichment and maintaining control of state institutions at all costs. In the 1980s they also started to take on a dynastic approach - that of preparing their sons and close family relatives for succession. Despite the appearance of stability and societal obedience - result of the increasingly repressive means and services employed by the regimes - social unrest was fermenting underneath appearances.
13. In 2011 the revolution in Tunisia generated a domino effect in the region. There are several reasons to why Tunisia was the first country where the “Arab Spring” started: a “geographic component” (a small country and a homogenous society), high levels of unemployment versus a well-educated and inclusive society and finally the fact that regional actors had no personal stakes or interests in Tunisia.
14. According to Dr Khader, the “Arab Spring” panned out in different ways in other Arab states because of their different parameters in each of the countries, particularly a different ethnical and sectarian composition, different levels of economic development and unemployment, as well as different roles played by military and security forces in the initial phases of the revolutions. Another factor which influenced the revolutions in Arab countries in different ways was the influence of external actors, including military interventions such as the NATO operation in Libya.
15. Turning to the difficult transition towards democratic processes and institutions, the speaker noted that Islamist parties were best placed and best organised to win the first round of elections in Egypt and Tunisia. However, Islamist dominated governments failed to meet the needs of the population, especially in terms of governance and economic development. Populations therefore became increasingly polarised and impatient with the policies of the Islamist governments, he explained. The current difficulties would, however, not implicitly mean that Arab countries were not ready for democracy. Rather, the transition period in each of the countries would be gradual and painful, and political and economic adjustments were likely to last several decades.