Excellencies, Professors, dear students, ladies and gentlemen, dear guests,

I would like to start by thanking Mr Jonathan Holslag for organizing this guest lecture. It’s a pleasure to be here today and to address so many young students, gathered here because they are interested in the world of international relations and politics. I will start this lecture with a quick overview on how our international environment has undergone numerous and fundamental changes in the past century, not in the least in the field of security and defence. Followed by elaborating my view on how the Belgian Armed forces fit into this new evolving context. Afterwards, I hope to have an interesting exchange of ideas and views with all of you, in the form of an interactive debate.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Politics is about thinking ahead; it’s about anticipating moves and it requires one to make difficult decisions for the greater good. Politics is about people, about being there for people. However, thinking ahead in this rapidly changing world is not an easy thing to do. The past hundred years in particular, the world has changed at top speed. In about a year from now, we will commemorate the centenary of the beginning of the First World War. The political context in which Belgium found itself back then, was very different from now. At that time, the top priority of Belgium’s Armed forces was to ensure the nation’s sovereignty and to protect its physical borders. At that time, we strictly adhered to a policy of neutrality, being a small country squeezed between superpowers such as France and Germany. At that time also, Belgium had the 3d GDP per capita on a world scale. But our strategic location as a pathway to France made Belgium an invasion target for Germany in 1914 and once again in 1940, clearly showing the limits or even the failure of this neutrality policy.

After the Second World War, Belgium, under the impulse mainly of Paul-Henri Spaak, drastically changed its policy and became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of the United Nations, and of what later has become the European Union; the same organizations that still play such a prominent role in international relations today. Ever since, Belgium has continued to focus on strengthening ties with its allies.

Cooperation, solidarity and interdependence were essential. The United Nations, successor to the failed League of Nations, had to ensure that mankind would solve conflicts in a peaceful manner. But the ink was barely dry on the UN-Charter when the world was already being divided into two spheres of influence: the Western Bloc, guided by the United States and NATO, and the Eastern Bloc, dominated by the Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact. In 1946, Winston Churchill spoke for the first time in his ‘Fulton’ speech about an ‘Iron Curtain’ that divided Europe, an expression that would dominate international relations for almost half a century, and what was a very bitter part of the Yalta heritage.

The two major powers never met in direct military combat, although indirect confrontations through proxy wars regularly took place, and tensions sometimes did become conflicts as was the case during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a democratic country in Western Europe and a NATO-member, Belgium has played its part during the Cold War. For our Armed Forces, that also meant deploying outside our borders. In 1950, for example, more than 3,000 Belgian volunteers fought under the banner of the United Nations in the Korean War. Suddenly, we didn’t have to focus only on our own national boundaries no longer. New alliances made us part of a much larger entity with new borders and values to defend, and we played our role in safeguarding a common sovereignty, together with our allies. And, just like our allies and our adversaries, we were prepared for the worst-case scenario.

Although the bipolar constellation in global politics lasted for more than four decades, no large-scale exchange of hostilities ensued. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, we quickly evolved to a more unipolar system with only one remaining superpower: the United States of America. Some thought that this would bring more peace and stability. Moreover, the breakdown of state control in ex-Soviet countries produced new conflicts and a huge arsenal of weapons was left beyond the control of the former superpowers. The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact marked also the end of the main adversary of NATO.

However, the North Atlantic Alliance did not fall apart. NATO adopted its strategic concept in 1991 to cope with the new realities of numerous former Soviet satellites struggling with their newly gained independence. NATO reoriented itself, expanded to Eastern Europe where it brought stability, and it adjusted its structure and transformed itself in order to be able to cope with the new context. The Belgian Armed forces evolved along. Early 1990’s, they were still prepared for a large-scale conflict, both in terms of personnel and equipment, and training and tactics. In order to adapt itself to the new context, Belgian Defence underwent a period of fundamental changes. A huge down-scaling in numbers and the suspension of military service, so-called conscription, were undoubtedly the most visible consequences. Within our alliances, we took our responsibility by participating in the most important peace missions in the world. This was a process of trial and error, for us as well as for our allies.

At the mid 90’s, these operations often lacked a comprehensive mandate; neither were they underpinned by the necessary military capabilities.  Remember the much-discussed role of the Belgian Army during the Rwandan Civil War in 1994. This high-profile peacekeeping operation came under heavy criticism as peacekeepers faced situations where warring parties failed to adhere to peace agreements, or where the peacekeepers themselves were not provided adequate resources or support. Yet, we also proved repeatedly that we could play a significant military role as a relatively small country, in former Yugoslavia for example.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

But at the beginning of the new millennium, it became more and more clear that a unipolar world was only an illusion. The reality was much more complex, with a large number of newly founded states and quickly emerging powers, shifting balances in international politics and creating new tensions. Who-ever was hoping for a peaceful beginning of the new millennium faced disappointment when on September 11, 2001, hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was a terrorist attack, not large-scale hostilities by the Red Army, that activated for the first time in NATO’s history Article V of the Treaty. Indeed, the threats to our stability had clearly undergone an important evolution. Symmetrical, clear and well-defined threats gave way to a much more complex situation. “New” and asymmetric threats emerged and soon took the upper hand: international terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons, piracy, arms- and people trafficking, international organized crime, cyber-attacks, and so on. The time was over when the enemy wore a uniform and took its orders from a capital city. Today’s threats are often stateless actors and disregard national borders. What followed was a decade of military interventions and operations in several unstable countries that formed a breeding ground for these new threats.  

Perhaps the most well-known example of such a foreign military presence in an unstable country is the ISAF-mission in Afghanistan, which was a direct consequence of 9/11, with the objective of restoring peace and stability in this troubled and Taliban-penetrated territory. A mission conducted parallel with the US-led Counterterrorism Operation Enduring Freedom that aimed to neutralize Bin Laden and other key Al-Qaeda figures. In the past decade, NATO has gradually taken over command of ISAF, which made it the largest NATO-led operation at the moment and the first operation of such magnitude being conducted outside of NATO’s territory. The process of strengthening cooperation that started among Western countries after the Second World War resulted in the fact that Europe’s and North-America’s borders were no longer threatened by conventional armies. Since then, guaranteeing our security often starts in regions that are thousands of miles away from us. Meanwhile, our presence in in the actual constellation in Afghanistan has entered its final, but also decisive phase. In the upcoming years, we will hand over responsibility for ensuring security in the country to the Afghan security forces. Yet, we will of course continue to monitor the situation very closely and ensure that our arduous efforts will not have been in vain.

I can comprehend that this foreign military presence in Afghanistan might have evoked mixed emotions amongst some of you.  This is partly a result of the shift from ‘traditional’ military missions to complex multidimensional operations. Today, a military operation is part of a complex set of different factors. Maybe we should ask ourselves what would have happened if we did not have the courage to intervene in Afghanistan. Today, we would have been, without any doubt, confronted with an utterly failed and isolated state that would provide a safe harbor for a multitude of radical groups and criminal organizations. The situation in Afghanistan would only have deteriorated, with disastrous consequences, both for the local population as for regional stability. On the contrary, a stabilized Afghanistan can have a positive influence on a region where tensions are never far away. (Just think of the role of Iran in international relations and the continuing tensions between Pakistan and India). And of course, a purely military intervention is not sufficient. Along with this effort, we ought to invest in a political solution and in economic development through a cooperation effort. In other words: modern crises need a comprehensive and all-encompassing approach.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The choice whether or not to intervene militarily is never an easy one, and certainly not in the current context. It is about much more than protecting our own borders and safeguarding our own sovereignty. Of course, we have to defend our interests and values, but interventions also often stem from moral considerations: to ensure the respect for human rights and rule of law and to restore peace and stability in countries that are no longer able to do this by themselves. By acting in this way, these interventions are based on an idea of being a “security provider”. So we try to make the right choice in this highly complex world. We do not know what the future brings, but can only seek to assess the consequences of our actions in the best possible way. And, of course, this is not an easy reflection, as recent developments demonstrated.

By setting himself on fire as a protest on December 17, 2010, Tunisian street vendor Mohammad Bouazizi also ignited a fuse across the entire Arab world. The period of protests, regime changes and unrest that followed, still hasn’t subsided. Where will this eventually lead to? No one can predict this. And of course, we are talking about substantial changes, happening just outside of Europe’s borders. So what should be our role in these events?

First of all, each country must try to solve any internal conflict by itself. If it fails to do this, it must ask the help from allies or regional and international organizations. This is exactly what happened in Mali, where the government asked for foreign aid in fighting the rebels that took over the country. The UN Security Council approved this demand; several African countries sent help and the French, assisted by other willing nations including immediately Belgium, launched the military operation ‘Serval’ which succeeded in restoring stability in a very short amount of time.

But when things go wrong, a regime does not always call for help. The civil war in Libya was a completely different situation, where Gadhafi’s regime considered the Libyan people as a legitimate target. In such a case, the International Community has to assume its responsibility. This is based on the principle of R2P or Responsibility to Protect, promoted by many Member-States of the United Nations. This principle is a direct consequence of modern threats and is in many ways diametrically opposed to the principle of non-intervention. Yet, it is growing exponentially in importance. A UN-Resolution authorised member states to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to use all necessary measures to prevent attacks on civilians. A coalition of states, including Belgium and several other European nations, Canada, the United States, but also Qatar, responded to the call of the Security Council. From a military point of view, this intervention was an absolute success. Although, as we all know, the situation in the country today remains far from stable.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The point is that each conflict is different and that conflicts have spill-over effects. With the Syrian Civil War, we are yet again faced with a new dramatic situation that entails severe humanitarian ramifications and geo-strategic interests. We can no longer look the other way! Although the International Community has taken several important steps, they unfortunately did not succeed yet at stopping the violence. Last week, during an official visit to the Republic of Turkey, I had the opportunity to discuss the problem, both with Turkish authorities as with Mr. George Sabra, president of the Syrian National Council, the main opposition group in Syria. Let me be very clear: the situation in Syria is absolutely untenable. In the meantime, more than 1,3 million Syrian people have fled the conflict. One in four Syrians have been forced to leave their homes. The massive refugee flows have a very destabilizing impact on neighboring countries. This problem needs to be addressed in different ways. Humanitarian aid must surely continue to meet the most urgent needs of the Syrian population. But, even more importantly, the International Community needs to increase the political pressure to stop the violence. In all our international efforts, we must fully take into account the complexities arising in the field. These include the sectarian aspects of the conflict, as the civil war is not only a struggle against the regime, but an amalgam of long-rising tensions between Sunnis and Alewites. In addition, many extremist Islamic groups are taking advantage of the conflict to forward their own destabilizing agenda. A consensus must therefore be found within the United Nations Security Council, and more importantly among the main players, on how to tackle this problem, taking fully into account all local ethnic, religious, and sectarian sensitivities. I fully support the proposals of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, whose recent visit to Russia gave hope that an imminent diplomatic breakthrough is on the horizon.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These are but some examples of the highly unpredictable global context; a context that is very difficult to estimate in a correct way; a context in which many factors are involved. As mentioned and illustrated by history, one often faces unpredictable and unexpected situations, even if the global context of the world has been thoroughly analysed by hundreds of experts. Today, threats are no longer confined to a single country. Conflicts influence each other, just look at the Arab Spring: a chain reaction triggered by some isolated events. In recent conflicts, there are not always clear and well-defined adversaries. New threats are often trans-boundary, they do not wear uniforms and they do not adhere to rules of conduct.

Here, we have known peace ever since the ending of World War II.  Last year, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision was based on the stabilizing role the European Union played in transforming Europe from a continent of war into a continent of peace. Today, we do not longer have to fear a large conventional conflict, yet asymmetric threats continue to pose a clear and present danger to our own population. Peace, security and stability are certainly no guarantees, even not for Western countries. We must always stay sharp. Former US President Lyndon B. Johnson once said that “Peace is a journey of a thousand miles and it must be taken one step at a time”.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that power also brings responsibility. Europe and North-America are able to change things, to intervene in conflicts, and to stop atrocities. So it is our duty to answer the calls by the International Community whenever we can contribute. We may never forget that we could count on the assistance of many faraway countries during the darkest periods in our history. We do have a greater role to play in this world than just securing our borders and our own interests. Over the past decades, we have shown that it is possible to overcome differences and to come together across borders. The same organizations that enabled this pacification process continue to remain by far the most important values in this fast evolving world: 

Universal level: the United Nations

Northern hemisphere: NATO

Regional level: the European Union

It goes without saying that these three certainties have played a pivotal role in ensuring our safety. So it is within these international legal frameworks that the Belgian Armed Forces will have to continue to develop.

Yet, notwithstanding the successful actions taken, we are still clearly experiencing difficulties to act in a consolidating way. The result is that we do not always throw our full weight into the scales. We are indeed having severe difficulties to provide an appropriate answer to new and unpredictable threats. If we want to maintain and even spread the peace and stability that we have worked so hard to achieve, we have to be able to cope better with crises and unpredictable events. Due to the nature of current crises, we have to be prepared for a very wide range of security threats. In other words: today the need for state-of-the-art military equipment and transnational cooperation is greater than ever before. However, the circumstances that we are faced with now do not, at first glance, seem to encourage the development of such capabilities. We are hit by a financial and economic crisis that is one of the most severe in recent history and this is having obvious repercussions, also for the defence budgets of the Western countries. Yet, this context should be seen as an opportunity to join our efforts and enhance the cooperation between armed forces of allied countries.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

When I was appointed Belgian Minister of Defence in late 2007, I have identified a number of key priorities. Under my policy, the Belgian Armed Forces underwent a profound transformation which focused on restoring the financial health of the department and investing in state-of-the-art military equipment. Despite an important downsize of the military personnel, this enabled Belgian Defence to increase significantly its participation in international operations and to become a reliable, important and respected partner in the field of international security and defence within the three pillars for our security: the UN, NATO and the EU.

Furthermore, I have focused on strengthening the ties between armed forces of allied nations. In September 2010, during the Informal Meeting of European Defence Ministers, the ‘Ghent Framework’ or ‘Ghent Initiative’ was launched. It gave a new impetus to the concept of ‘Pooling & Sharing’, a concept that has been accepted in a short amount of time as the way ahead. In this concept, ‘Pooling’ stands for the collectively organizing of similar military capabilities which remain under national control and ‘Sharing’ means the creation of one capability in joint possession of the participating states. The same concept is applied within NATO, where it is known as ‘Smart Defence’.

At Ghent and subsequently, Defence Ministers have demonstrated that there is a real will at political level to change the way we do business.  We all agree now that doing more together is a very effective response to both the financial and military pressures we are facing today and that it’s better to have excellent collective capabilities rather than unsustainable or non-existent national ones. If anything, the requirement to cooperate is all the more pressing today. Security challenges across the world being on the rise, we see our military capabilities wane further and further because of one-sided national budget cuts.

We need to substantially strengthen our military cooperation to maintain and increase our capabilities to deploy abroad, for none of us is able to tackle the 21^st century security threats single-handedly. Important projects have been set up, with often very productive results. I am proud of the fact that Belgium plays a leading role in this process. During the past years, we have greatly strengthened the ties with our neighbouring countries and our European and NATO-allies. Our current achievements may serve as an example for others who still have doubts.  

However, this is also a learning process, a process of trial and error. There are still several major challenges that we will have to overcome. Let me give you a few examples:

Close cooperation and especially ‘sharing’ military capabilities have an impact on the sovereignty of a country. All too often, European member states are lacking a multinational mind-set in the field of security and defence and still stick to the idea that military cooperation implies a loss of national sovereignty. However, in my view, a shared sovereignty among allied nations may be much stronger and sure.

Recent conflicts have also demonstrated that we have to be careful to avoid a division between ‘willing or capable nations’ and ‘unwilling or incapable nations’. Therefore, Europe must increase its efforts to act in a consolidated way as one single entity in this world.

The increasing participation in operations also showed some other weakness. Allies were often willing to cooperate, but this wasn’t always obvious because of various procedures and different equipment. Significant progress has already been made in this area, but there is still a long way ahead of us.  

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Not only are the effects of economic and financial crises felt around the whole world, conflicts also spread out towards other countries and regions. The long-term challenges are even greater. The continuously growing population in densely urban settings will only aggravate existing tensions within countries, between countries, and between regions on the economic, social, cultural and military level.

To avoid tensions escalating into open military conflicts, we can continue to do but one thing: strengthen our bonds, cooperate where possible and settle our differences in a diplomatic way. But whenever our security is at stake, or whenever a state is not capable anymore to protect its own population from violence, we must be ready to intervene, wherever in this world.

Three organizations have been of a paramount importance for our security and stability, and their importance will only increase in the future. We must continue to enhance cooperation within the UN, NATO and the European Union. If we want to remain a strong and reliable global player, we have only one option and that is to join our efforts.

- - - The spoken word alone prevails - - -

Environ 1300 militaires belges issus principalement du Bataillon 12 de Ligne Prince Léopold - 13 de Ligne de Spa, de la Brigade Légère ainsi que de diverses unités des Composantes Terre, Air et Médicale participent à cet exercice de grande envergure. Pour maintenir le scénario aussi réaliste que possible, la Défense compte sur la participation d’environ 250 civils qui joueront le rôle des ressortissants évacués. Des membres du personnel du SPF Affaires Etrangères contribueront également à cet exercice.

Cabinet du Ministre de la Défense

6 rue du Lambermont

Dans le domaine de la sécurité et défense, la Belgique et le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg travaillent également en étroite collaboration. Le Vice-Premier Ministre et Ministre de la Défense Pieter De Crem entretient des contacts réguliers avec son homologue luxembourgeois, le Ministre de la Défense Jean-Marie Halsdorf, afin de renforcer encore la coopération entre les Forces armées des deux pays, tant au niveau bilatéral que, par exemple, au sein du Benelux, de l’Eurocorps, de l’Union européenne et de l’OTAN. 

Dans le cadre de ce sommet conjoint, les deux Ministres ont signé un arrangement technique concernant la mise en place d’un représentant national luxembourgeois au sein de la composante air belge. Cette nouvelle fonction vise à assurer une coopération efficace entre les deux Forces armées dans le domaine du transport aérien militaire. En effet, le Luxembourg et la Belgique ont opté pour l’acquisition de l’Airbus A400M comme avion de transport militaire. Un achat en commun qui offre de vastes possibilités de coopération étroite.

« De tous les corps de réaction rapide, l'Eurocorps est à ce jour celui qui a été le plus sollicité », rappelle le futur lieutenant-général. « Il a été déployé en Bosnie-Herzégovine, a commandé la mission KFOR au Kosovo en 2000, la mission ISAF en 2004-2005 et 300 personnes ont été réengagées en 2012, en deux rotations. Il a également été intégré deux fois dans le NATO Response Force (NRF). Six rôles déterminants en 15 ans : aucun autre corps de réaction rapide ne peut concurrencer le nombre de ses participations. »

L'unité, composée d'un millier de militaires issus des cinq pays contributeurs, entamera prochainement un nouveau cycle d'entraînements.

Artikel van www.mil.be

Le Ministre y a visité IDEF ’13. Ce salon de défense internationale s’est déroulé du 7 au 10 mai à Istanbul et a rassemblé les acteurs principaux de l’industrie de défense, y compris plusieurs entreprises belges auxquelles le Ministre a accordé une attention particulière. Par la suite, le Ministre s’est entretenu avec le Sous-Secrétaire d’Etat pour l’industrie de défense au sein du Ministère turc de la Défense, Monsieur Murad Bayar.

Le Ministre a également eu un entretien avec son homologue turc, le Ministre de la Défense Ismet Yilmaz. Ils ont parlé des relations bilatérales entre la Turquie et la Belgique et ont échangé leurs points de vues sur les tensions actuelles et les menaces pour la sécurité dans la région.

Enfin, le Ministre a rencontré une délégation du Conseil national syrien (Syrian National Council – SNC), composé d’entre autre George Sabra, président du SNC et président ad interim de la Coalition nationale des forces syriennes de l’opposition et de la révolution. Cette rencontre avec des acteurs qui sont directement impliqués dans le conflit syrien, a permis au Ministre De Crem de suivre la situation en Syrie de plus près. La guerre civile syrienne continue à avoir des conséquences néfastes, non seulement pour la sécurité de la population syrienne, mais également pour la stabilité dans toute la région. 

Photos

Le DHC est un commandement regroupant, sous ses ordres, tous les hélicoptères néerlandais. Bien que la Belgique ne possède pas d'équivalent, elle lorgne depuis un moment vers son voisin du Nord afin de suivre la même voie.  « Depuis août dernier, nous rencontrons régulièrement nos collègues néerlandais à propos d'un avenir commun pour nos hélicoptères  », a déclaré le Colonel Geert De Decker. La visite batave d'aujourd'hui à Beauvechain constitue donc une étape logique. « Nous sommes pour l'instant dans la phase virtuelle, ou théorique. Où sont-ils et où en sommes-nous ? Quels hélicoptères pouvons-nous utiliser pour quelles tâches? Ce sont toutes des questions auxquelles nous cherchons aujourd'hui  des réponses. »

En tant que responsable pour les groupes de travail belgo-néerlandais, le Colonel De Decker  connaît mieux que quiconque la nécessité de créer un partenariat. « Tant pour nous que pour les collègues néerlandais, les moyens et le personnel diminuent à vue d'œil », a dit le Colonel De Decker. Du fait que la Belgique et les Pays-Bas ont acquis les mêmes hélicoptères NH90, les possibilités de travailler ensemble dans  différents domaines augmentent. Exercices d'entraînement, quick reaction alert, échanges de procédures, de connaissances et de personnel : autant de domaines dans lesquels nous collaborons.

Article du www.mil.be