Crossroads for NATO: How the Atlantic Alliance Should Work in the 21st Century with The Right Honourable David Cameron MP.
David Cameron will consider the key challenges facing NATO at this important time in the organization's history. His speech comes ahead of the Bucharest Summit that will take place on 2-4 April.
Many commentators and analysts have observed that if the wrong decisions are taken at Bucharest - or if no decisions are taken at all - then the Alliance will face not only deep internal disagreement, but also questions over its future role and relevance- Chatham House
Prime Minister David Cameron
David Cameron is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the Treasury, Minister for the Civil Service and Leader of the Conservative Party. Cameron represents Witney as its Member of Parliament.
Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University, gaining a first class honours degree. He then joined the Conservative Research Department and became Special Adviser to Norman Lamont, and then to Michael Howard. He was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years.
A first candidacy for Parliament at Stafford in 1997 ended in defeat, but Cameron was elected in 2001 as the Member of Parliament for the Oxfordshire constituency of Witney. He was promoted to the Opposition front bench two years later, and rose rapidly to become head of policy coordination during the 2005 general election campaign. With a public image of a young, moderate candidate who would appeal to young voters, he won the Conservative leadership election in 2005.
In the 2010 general election, the Conservatives gained a plurality of seats in a hung parliament and Cameron was appointed Prime Minister on 11 May 2010, at the head of a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. At the age of 43, Cameron became the youngest British Prime Minister since the Earl of Liverpool 198 years earlier. The Cameron Ministry is the first coalition government in the United Kingdom since the Second World War.
Dr. DeAnne Julius is a respected British-based American economist, notable as a founder member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. She has also worked at the World Bank and extensively in the private sector, and since July 2003 she has been Chairman of Chatham House in London.
She is currently a non-executive director of Lloyds TSB, BP, Serco and Roche Holding Ltd and a vice president of the Society of Business Economists.
David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, comments on the inclusion of Balkan and Eastern European nations in NATO and the relationship of Alliance countries with Russia.
David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party in Great Britain, argues that the military capability of NATO would improve if the costs and burdens were more evenly distributed across member countries.
Tomorrow, NATO Heads of Government will meet in Bucharest forthe NATO Summit.When I first entered politics in 1988, this would have been almost unthinkable.Then, Bucharest lay behind the Iron Curtain. President Ceausescu waspreparing to host what would turn out to be the Warsaw PactÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s final summit.NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s armies faced East to deter invasion.In Afghanistan, the Soviet Army was fighting the Mujahadeen, nearly a decadeafter their invasion.Months later, everything changed, as freedom rolled East across Europe, thethreat of invasion disappeared and a brave new world was born that theexperts predicted would be safer and more ordered than the old.I learned some powerful lessons from those heady days about our nationalsecurity: how rapidly the global scene can change; never to take theconventional wisdom for granted; and to dare to hope that apparentlyimmoveable structures and forces can change.As NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s leaders begin their summit tomorrow, they will have plenty on theiragenda.The vital missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo.NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s enlargement.Its relations with Russia and with key institutions like the European Union.And the pressing need to fill gaps in AlliesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ military capability.But underlying those important items lies a much bigger question: what isNATO for in the modern world?Next year, NATO will be sixty years old.This is a key opportunity.The opportunity, working with the United States, and a more AtlanticistNATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s shield - to renew our Alliance for the twenty-first century.President in France, for our generation - which grew up in freedom underThe opportunity to modernise it to protect us as effectively now as it did in thepast.The opportunity to come together as Allies, to renew our commitment todefending, together, our values and way of life, and to championing that taskwith our peoples.Let me make my position clear right at the outset. What I stand for, and what Ibelieve. I am a liberal Conservative: liberal - because I believe civil rights,democracy, pluralism and the rule of law are the source of progress and a keycomponent of lasting security.But Conservative too: because I recognize the complexities of human nature,am sceptical of grand utopian schemes to remake the world, and understandthat you have to be hard-headed and practical in the pursuit of your values.And a crucial part of that liberal Conservative tradition is recognizing theimportance of NATO.I believe that NATO remains as essential to BritainÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s security, and to Westernsecurity, in the age of global terrorism as it was in the era of Sovietexpansionism.The Conservative Party has always been a staunch supporter of NATO.We remain a NATO-first party. We believe in the primacy of NATO.Not for reasons of nostalgia or sentimentality.But because defending our nationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s security must come before everythingelse, and NATO remains the best guarantor of our safety, even though thecircumstances which led to its formation have altered dramatically.Atlanticism is in my DNA and in the DNA of the Conservative Party.We have always believed in the cardinal importance of the relationshipbetween Britain and the United States, a relationship which, in the securitycontext, is anchored in NATO.The next Conservative Government will be a Government that makes the casestrongly for NATO.But we will also be the champion of a NATO that is fit for purpose today.The world has changed almost beyond recognition since NATO came intobeing.It now includes most members of the former Warsaw Pact, and finds itselfengaged in the biggest combat operation in its history in, who could haveimagined it, Afghanistan.We are living in a different age, in which ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ as the US Ambassador to NATOput it ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“every school-kid on each side of the Atlantic can tell you what AlQaeda is but few remember the Soviet Union. And one where we are onceagain asking ourselves whether the structures we built to take us through theCold War ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ our NATO Alliance, the EU, the World Bank, the UN ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ are up tothe 21st century challenges we face today.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢During the Cold War, NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s basic purpose was straightforward: to containand counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its allies and to deterSoviet aggression against Western Europe.As the House of Commons Defence Select Committee put it in their recentreport, this common threat ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“served as a glue, binding the Alliance together.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢But when the Soviet Union collapsed, that single overarching purposedisappeared with it.In 1962, the former American Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, famouslydescribed Britain as a country that had lost an Empire but had yet to find arole.Some argue that NATO, with the welcome demise of the Soviet Empire, is in asimilar predicament today.I think thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s unfair.I think that NATO does have a role today ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ a vital one.But I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t think itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s been sufficiently clear about what that role is.This lack of clarity has brought two unwelcome consequences.First, a weakening in the solidity of the Alliance.And second, a decline in its popular support.The challenge for NATO leaders today is to articulate clearly the AllianceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢stwenty-first century role, thereby both strengthening NATO and buildingsupport for its operations.So what is that new role for NATO?In recent years, the Alliance has transformed itself from a reactive defencealliance into one which, with the EU, has exported stability across central andeastern Europe.It has proved ready to use its military power to enforce peace in Bosnia andhalt ethnic cleansing of European Muslims in Kosovo.But it is true that September 11th 2001, although long in gestation, awoke theworld to a new kind of threat.Just as the shot fired by Gavrilo Princip ushered in a new and dreadful era atthe start of the last century, so this one was marked by its own brutalequivalent of Sarajevo 1914.Having emerged unscathed from the era of Mutually Assured Destruction, nowwe were entering a new age in which a fanatic in a cave in Afghanistan ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ farbeyond the North Atlantic area - could orchestrate destruction and masscasualties on the streets of Western cities.NATO responded by invoking its mutual defence clause ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Article 5, in whichan attack on one is regarded as an attack on all - in a powerful symbolicgesture of solidarity with the United States.But it was not immediately obvious what practical contribution NATO couldmake in responding to this new kind of threat, and many predicted thatNATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s days as a valuable defence alliance were over.And yet with the passage of time, it has become clearer on both sides of theAtlantic that although the threats may be new, the principles we need to applyin responding to them are not.I would argue that there are four in particular:First, just as transatlantic unity was vital in defeating Nazism and then SovietCommunism, so we must stand together today in protecting our societies andthe values we hold dear.Second, just as Europe needed a strong America engaged in the world then,so we need strong American involvement today.Third, just as we needed to make our European voice heard in Washington inthose days, so we must help shape American policy today.And fourth, just as the US was entitled to look to its Allies to make ameaningful contribution then, so it is entitled to expect them to carry their fairshare of the burden today, especially if they want to be listened to.All of these issues are evident in microcosm in NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s operation today inAfghanistan.Many criticisms are made of NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s efforts in Afghanistan. I have expressedfor many months my serious concern about how that mission is progressing.But we should acknowledge up front how far NATO has had to come.In the Cold War, it never had to fight a war or operate out of its area. Now it isdoing both.NATO is having to learn fast.The campaign in Afghanistan is teaching some hard lessons about what ittakes to wage a 21st century counter-insurgency ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ a combined civil militaryeffort in which soldiers operate alongside development workers, diplomats andpolice trainers.As the US Ambassador to NATO put it: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“Whether flying helicopters across thedesert, embedding trainers with the Afghans, conducting tribal shuras withvillage elders or running joint civil military Provincial Reconstruction Teams,most of our Allies are reinventing the way they do business.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢It is often said that if NATO fails in Afghanistan, that is the end of NATO.To my mind, the danger is not that NATO would collapse. It is that the USwould no longer regard it as having any utility. To echo General Macarthur ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“the Alliance would not die; it would gradually fade away. The threats and thedangers would remain: but we would have lost our framework for managingthem.The blunt truth is that the NATO mission in Afghanistan has thrown up somefundamental problems which NATO leaders simply must face up to inBucharest.These range from:- uncertainty about the AllianceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s objectives there and how these relate to itsraison dÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢etre;- a dangerously unequal sharing of the burden in the dangerous south of thecountry;- the corrosive effect of national caveats on fighting ability and unity within theAlliance;- a chronic lack of key pieces of equipment such as helicopters, despite thehundreds that NATO has available on paper;- competing and un-coordinated chains of command, which Senator McCainand I spoke about when he was here;- and difficulty in working with other organisations such as the UN and EU,essential to delivering a comprehensive approach, a point I have discussedwith Chancellor Merkel.NATO needs to tackle these problems not just to succeed in Afghanistan, butif it is to be an effective military Alliance in the years to come.Afghanistan is not the only state in danger of failing ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ not the only state whichcould provide a haven from which terrorists could plot and strike.We must hope that in such cases we shall be able to avert by other means theneed for military action. But the reality is that future NATO operations aremore likely to involve defending ourselves, as in Afghanistan, againstextremist violence, than checking an onrush of tanks across the plains ofEurope.When President Truman inaugurated the Alliance in 59 years ago tomorrow,ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“What we are about to do here is a neighbourly act. We are like a group ofhouseholders, living in the same locality, who decide to express theircommunity of interests by entering into a formal association for their mutualself-protectionÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢.That is as true today as it was then.NATO membership remains an insurance policy in an uncertain world, a worldthat is constantly changing and where, as we have seen, new dangers canemerge as suddenly as old ones can pass.So we must stay vigilant; and we must be ready to adapt to tackle these newthreats.Let me set out some practical steps we might take.If NATO is to be effective in the digital age we need to bring its bureaucraticmachinery up to date.It needs to be able to take decisions more quickly.This is far from easy in an Alliance of 26 members where political decisionsare rightly taken by unanimity, and whose cumbersome political structure is illsuitedto swift political military requirements of today.It is time for change.For example, we should look at devolving operational command to the NATOCommander on the ground. A number of former Defence Chiefs ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ includingour own former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Inge, General Shalikashvili,have suggested this.This would allow more decisions about military requirements to be made in thefield.It could also be combined with a streamlining of the NATO chain of command.The aim should be to make it easier for the NATO Commander in the theatreof operations, like in Afghanistan, to deal directly with the Supreme AlliedCommander without having to go through an intermediate headquarters.Another issue requiring urgent attention is the abundance of national caveats,under which national governments impose restrictions on how their forces canbe used on operations.National caveats are causing immense damage in Afghanistan ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ complicatingthe task of theatre commanders and breeding resentment amongst thoseAllies that are bearing the brunt of the fighting.As General McNeill, the US Commander of ISAF has said, national caveatsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“are frustrating in how they impinge on my ability to properly plan, resourceand prosecute effective military operationsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢.The problem is not with a national caveat per se.The decision to deploy troops in combat is the most important decision asovereign government can take, and it is inevitable that they should wish ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“and are sometimes constitutionally obliged ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ to be able to retain an ultimatesay in how their troops are deployed.The problem is with the proliferation of national caveats that started in NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢sBalkan operations and has got completely out of hand in Afghanistan.Last month the Times reported that examples of national caveats currentlyrange from a ban on deploying out of area, to no night flying, to no flying inpoor weather, no involvement in riot control and no venturing from baseswithout the maximum force protection or too far from the nearest hospital.This is no way to fight a war.Decisions in NATO are unanimous. No enterprise can be undertaken unlessevery member agrees.But once a government has agreed to send troops on an agreed enterprise,there has got to be a basic doctrine, that if youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re in, youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re in.The more flexible a country can be in the tasks its troops may perform, thegreater their value to the operational commander ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ or, as the Polish ForeignMinister, Radek Sikorski, has said: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“He who gives without caveats, givestwiceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢.But we have to be frank: the problems are not only about structure andprocess. We have to improve NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s military capability.The fact that of the 2.4 millions soldiers Europe has under arms, only 3-4%are deployable in expeditionary operations.The dramatic disparity on defence spending not just between the US andEurope, but within Europe itself. 80% of defence research spending is byBritain and France.As President Sarkozy has said: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“European security cannot rest on theshoulders of 3-4 countriesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢.Some of our NATO allies certainly need to spend more.The benefits of common defence imply that every ally carries a fair share ofthe burden.How could this be done better, beyond the familiar appeals and exhortation? Ihave two proposals.Under current arrangements, those who do the fighting also do the funding ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“bearing both the risks of casualties and the financial strain. This is neither fairnor sustainable in the long term.We have seen how it has led to large disparities in the funding of the currentmission in Afghanistan.When Article 5 was invoked in the wake of 9/11, all NATO members agreedthat international terrorism did not just threaten some of us, but all of us. Andwe all agreed to stand together in confronting that threat.Can it be right in an alliance which is underpinned by the principle of collectivedefence ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ all for one and one for all ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ that there can be such wide differencesin how the costs for the funding of that protection fall?Or that those nations that make the biggest investment in modernising theircapabilities and as a result deploy most frequently should end up carrying thegreatest financial load?We need to look, as Lord Inge and others have argued, to abandon thecurrent arrangement ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ known as ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“costs lie where they fallÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ and replace it witha common cost sharing formula for operations, to which all Allies contribute.Surely the time has come to set up a Common Operational Fund forexpeditionary operations. Not only would this help offset the costs of thosewho are making a substantial military contribution to operations. It would alsoprovide a way in which allies who wanted to participate but currently lack thefunding to do so would be able to take part in missions. It would give everyonea chance to make a contribution.But money is only part of the answer.We also need to find ways of making more of NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s stock of equipmentavailable for our common defence.For example, as Robert Kaplan has suggested, one area NATO could domore is at sea. Navies make port visits, police sea lanes and providehumanitarian access. The Norwegians, the Germans, the Spanish and othershave been investing heavily in new ships, especially frigates. Kaplan arguesthat, with the US Navy concentrating increasingly on the Pacific, NATO couldbecome the primary naval force to patrol the North Atlantic and theMediterranean.Which brings me to two related issues: the relationship between the EU, andspecifically European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), and NATO; andthe question of how much further NATO should be ready to include newmembers.I warmly welcome both President SarkozyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s intention to send a further 1000French troops to Afghanistan, as I told him last week. I welcome too as hisreadiness for France to re-enter NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s integrated military structure.France is one of the Allies that can put real military capability on the table, andthe more France is in a position to contribute to our joint endeavours thebetter. In the case of Afghanistan, I very much hope that Paris will removeoutstanding French caveats and place the forces under NATO command.As far as the development of ESDP is concerned, I think we need to look veryhard at what has actually occurred in the last 10 years since St Malo, andapply the lessons as we go forward from here.A Conservative Government would have three key principles that wouldgovern our approach.First, what matters is that European nations that are members of NATOshould make a greater military contribution to European and global security.That requires greater military capability, not new pillars or elaborate wiringdiagrams in Brussels.Second, we must at all costs avoid the development of separate chains ofcommand. But there is a real danger of that happening.Third, what we need in Brussels and in theatre is good and close workingrelations between the EU and NATO, and indeed between NATO and otherplayers like the UN.ESDP to date has not produced a close and harmonious relationship betweenthe two organisations. It has not delivered greater military capability.Part of the reason for that is a pre-occupation with process over substance,which has contributed to a feeling that the EU is more interested inbureaucratic empire building and less in making the hard choices ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ likespending more money ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ that would actually deliver greater military clout.At the same time, the friction it has engendered has made it more difficult forthe EU and NATO to work together in those areas where the EU can delivercrucial contributions to operations on the ground, through the provision ofdevelopment aid, police trainers, and so on.A Conservative Government would focus relentlessly on the practical thingsthat need to change.NATO should be honing its fighting capabilities for future conflicts which areinevitable though unpredictable, and more likely to be outside Europe than in.The EU for its part should be concentrating on how to deliver more effectivelyon the ground the police trainers, the development workers, the customsofficers and so on that are such a vital to the success of these modernmissions.And the two institutions must work out how they can work seamlessly togetherin common cause, both in Brussels and in the field.My basic position is clear: defence is too important to waste resources onpolitically inspired duplication of effort ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ doubling up on institutions whiledoubling down on capabilities.The other subject that will occupy leadersÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ attention at Bucharest is thequestion of NATO enlargement.As I indicated, the enlargement of NATO has helped to entrench Europeanstability.It was far from certain that the collapse of the Soviet Union would result ingreat swathes of Europe making the transition from oppression to democracywith ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ on the whole ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ relative ease.The gradual incorporation of the new democracies into NATO underpinnedthat process, and paved the way for their later membership of the EuropeanUnion. And, as with the EU, the process of qualifying to join NATO acted as amotor for reform.The forthcoming entry into the Alliance of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia isfurther evidence of that, and will help anchor the Western Balkans to modernEurope.I hope that other countries, such as Sweden, which could bring a lot to theAlliance and which already works closely with it will in due course feel able tojoin it as a member.Further afield, Georgia and Ukraine have expressed a wish to join NATO.Their mere aspiration has provoked outrage in Moscow, and threats thatnuclear missiles will be re-targeted in their direction.I hope that the arrival of President Medvedev will make it possible to move onfrom this sort of bellicosity, and towards a more productive relationshipbetween Russia and NATO, and Russia and the West more generally.Russia wants to be treated with respect. But bullying does not earn respect.If Ukraine and Georgia decide that they wish to join NATO, as democratic,sovereign governments, and if they meet NATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s standards, then we shouldsupport them.Russia cannot have a veto over their decisions, any more than it can overNATOÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s.Equally, Russia should understand ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ and be re-assured ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ that NATO and theWest pose no threat to Russia.We understand RussiaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s historic concern about its security.We must persuade Russia of our shared interests ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ in a stable Europe towhich Russia can export her energy, in a stable world in which we confrontshared threats ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ such as the threat of a nuclear armed Iran ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ together.Russia may be big. But she needs allies too.So we should be clear with Russia that if she wishes, the offer of a cooperativerelationship is there, as President Bush has made clear on missiledefence.That choice is RussiaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s, not ours, to make.In the meantime, it is inevitable that the more strongly the chill wind ofautocracy blows across the Russian steppe, the more those in its path willseek shelter in the AllianceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s protective embrace.When President Truman inaugurated the Alliance in 1949, little could anyonehave imagined the world that it would inhabit six decades later.A world of unparalleled opportunity, in which people are being lifted out ofpoverty faster than at any time in human history.A world in which the global balance is shifting Eastwards, and we must worktogether to persuade China that the higher her star rises, the greater her stakein global stability.A world in which the threats we face today range from terrorism to weapons ofmass destruction, from climate change to our dependence on fossil fuels, fromcyber-attack to nuclear proliferation.A world in which our protection no longer depends on static barracks inHanover, but often on our ability to deploy the right mix of forces ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ military andpolitical ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ to tackle extremism on the Hindu Kush.But Truman would surely recognise that the fundamental tenet on which theAlliance was founded ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ the belief that we are much stronger together thanalone ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ is as valid today as it has ever been.So what are the tests for this summit at Bucharest?It must deliver what is needed in Afghanistan, including a clear expression ofour strategy there that the public can understand.It must start to resolve the relationship between NATO and the EU.But as the Alliance approaches its 60th birthday, its nations are looking formore than that: they are looking for leadership.Leadership to fashion a modern mission statement for the Alliance for the 21stcentury, rooted in the mutual defence pact with which it began.Leadership to modernise the way the Alliance operates.Leadership to make the case for the Alliance to the new generation on bothsides of the Atlantic.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬