http://www.europolitics.info/sectorial-policies/nato-needs-eu-and-eu-needs-nato-art254432-13.html
Europolitics November 18, 2009 Interview with Veronika Wand-Danielsson, Sweden’s ambassador to NATO “NATO needs EU and EU needs NATO” By Paul Ames -Further to our presence in KFOR [Kosovo], Afghanistan has been our biggest troop presence abroad, under a NATO-led command. -Afghanistan is such a clear case where NATO needs the EU and the EU needs NATO. Sweden’s Ambassador to the North Atlantic Alliance since 2007, Veronika Wand-Danielsson is perfectly placed to discuss civil-military cooperation and EU-NATO relations. She is a former head of the Common Foreign and Security Policy section at the Swedish Representation to the EU and a one-time official of the European Commission’s Development Department. She also gets to discuss EU-NATO relations over the breakfast table, since husband Christian Danielsson is Sweden’s permanent representative to the EU. Civil-military cooperation is something that Sweden has long promoted. Do you think that the concept is now finally being given the prominence it deserves? It’s a very interesting time. Over the last eight or nine years, we’ve come quite some way on civil-military cooperation, but I would still say that a lot remains to be done. The advantage is today that there is quite a strong awareness, understanding and commitment to having a civilian-military focus from the outset, from the planning stage. But although we talk a lot about it, we still have not found the ideal tools to implement it. There is still too much separate thinking going on on the military side, separate from the civilian, but those two sides have to meet. The military understands it sometimes even better than the civilian side does, even in a country like Sweden, which is quite a progressive aid donor, and quite active and committed to crisis management operations. Afghanistan is such a clear case, where we need to have a civilian-military approach to how we engage, particularly in a time where we will be reinforcing our civilian engagement. We might have been in a very different situation today if it hadn’t been only the military force, with the civilian side sort of dragging behind and having to convince countries to more seriously address that aspect. On the EU side, when you look at the preparations for a new External Action Service, one of the big advantages will be that you will be merging also the military staff with the civilian staff already at the planning phase and I think that will bring a much needed boost in terms of a more comprehensive approach to future crisis management operations. How does the EU and NATO approach to civil-military cooperation compare? If you look at the latest assessments from the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] Commander [US General Stanley McChrystal], the suggested new approach very strongly defended even by a four-star American commander is that military intervention will not work if we do not boost the civilian support. You have today a military commander of the ISAF operation, who places a main focus on the needs of capacity building, on institution building, on good governance as one of the prerequisites for the military presence and a prerequisite for the military’s, not exit, but transition strategy. There is a clear understanding at every level, be it NATO, be it the EU, of the need to pursue a truly comprehensive civil-military engagement. Although the EU can claim to have a better long-term capacity because they have access to a mix of instruments, the political dialogue-role, the civilian instruments, the military instruments for ESDP operations, I could foresee that NATO may be looking at how to further strengthen its civilian abilities. Isn’t part of the problem that civilian players, particularly in humanitarian and development aid, are wary of working too closely with the military? We need to do more, in many countries, to sell the message to our own constituencies. In the Swedish context, our bilateral aid agency, SIDA, will have to become more open to work and engage with the military side, in places like Afghanistan, where Sweden is present with both military and civilian support. This has been a very sensitive issue in the past. And it is not a question of mixing the roles, but working together side by side, knowing the need for a very clear division of labour of course, and listening to each other, so you understand the role that each side has and can contribute with. I think Afghanistan is quite unique. You will probably never again have a situation where you go in so forcefully with such a major military operation without having a clearer overall political strategy worked out that combines the necessary combination of instruments, political, civilian-wise and military. The EU has been criticised for not doing enough in Afghanistan, using its ‘soft power’ to support the military operation. Is that changing? Further to our presence in KFOR, Afghanistan has been our biggest troop presence abroad, under a NATO-led command. Still, in the EU context, we never pushed Afghanistan as a high political initiative. Nor did other European troop contributors and we therefore started off very late. Now the understanding of that need for political support is much stronger and we were therefore able to present and endorse the new action plan for the EUs engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sweden pushed very strongly for this to happen, and I can tell you it was not always an easy job. The first reaction we had was “Afghanistan is a NATO operation, the EU has other priorities”. We didn’t accept that as a response, and both our prime minister and foreign minister have actively pursued a stronger EU engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a high priority for the Swedish EU Presidency. EU-NATO cooperation has been hostage to the Cyprus situation now for several years. What would be the solution here? EU-NATO cooperation is one of the four key priorities on the agenda of our defence minister. In the area of ESDP, the EU needs key allies, such as the Turks and the Americans. Now with the situation as it is, a lot of work goes on informally. We try to find informal ways of getting people to meet, countries to meet, organisations to meet. Where small pragmatic steps can be taken, we’ve definitely tried to take them. I see today more informal contacts and exchange of information, which is good. When it’s possible and accepted by the key stakeholders to take steps forward, we should exploit this as much as possible. If you don’t meet at all, which happened for a long time, you dig yourself even deeper into the trenches. Afghanistan is such a clear case where NATO needs the EU and the EU needs NATO. Civilian support, election observers, security of the EUPOL personnel are just a few examples of why we need to work together. During my trips to Afghanistan, I have nevertheless been pleased to note that on the ground they do find pragmatic ways of working together. The External Action Service will bring a much needed boost in terms of a more comprehensive approach to future crisis management operations. =========================== Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato Blog site: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ To subscribe, send an e-mail to: [email protected] or [email protected] Daily digest option available. ==============================
