Everyone cares about image. NATO created the Public Diplomacy Division for this very purpose. This division is headed by Dr. Stefanie BABST, assistant to NATO’s General Secretary on questions of civil diplomacy at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels. Dr. Babst recently visited Ukraine with a delegation and gave an interview to our staff reporter.
How does NATO promote the image of the alliance? Are there any grounds to believe that the globalization of NATO may destroy this organization? These and other questions are answered in the following interview with Stefanie BABST:
“I DO NOT AGREE THAT NATO’S IMAGE IS BECOMING LESS ATTRACTIVE”
Doesn’t it seem to you that in view of recent events, such as the war in Afghanistan and the missions in Iraq, where some NATO members have taken part, the image of the North Atlantic alliance is becoming less attractive in the world?
I can say that NATO’s image has never been completely unified. And NATO has changed dramatically in recent years. It is clear that countries that are NATO members and partners have different perceptions about what the image and activities of the alliance are. I do not agree that when NATO starts its activity abroad, for example, the mission in Afghanistan or participation in the educative mission in the preparation of Iraq’s Armed Forces, it becomes more and more challenging to explain what NATO is doing, and explain about its goals. So I would not say that NATO’s image has become less attractive. It has become less controversial. I would also add that it becomes more and more difficult to explain why such NATO members as Germany, France, and Turkey should be defending NATO’s security in such remote corners as Afghanistan. And that is an intellectual effort to be made as well as a political one.
Who should make this effort to improve NATO’s image and bring information to the public? Should it be the government or certain organizations?
Communicating like NATO is doing is very much a joint effort. It is a joint effort between the governments of countries and to a large extent the Public Diplomacy Division.
Were any concrete tasks assigned to the Public Diplomacy Division, for example, at the Riga Summit, concerning what should be done in order to improve NATO’s image?
I can say that there have been no specific tasks assigned at the Riga Summit concerning the Public Diplomacy Division, but there is a strong interest and willingness on the part of NATO member countries to make more and more effective use of the instrument of diplomacy. The division has been tasked by NATO member countries to develop dedicated communication strategies, for example in support of the mission in Afghanistan, and support of our relations with partner countries and other issues, which are very much at the top of NATO’s agenda.
“MORE AND MORE COUNTRIES HAVE DECLARED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DEVELOP CONTACTS WITH THE ALLIANCE”
Recently, the former president of the Parliamentary Assembly, Pierre Lelouche, said at the conference in Munich that the globalization of NATO may destroy this organization. Are there any grounds for such a pessimistic end of the alliance?
There have been many discussions that NATO is dead or redundant. But it is keeping alive and remains important as long as NATO member countries want to use its resources and preserve this organization. If I look at NATO’s military-political agenda, it appears to me I can’t detect any signs that NATO member countries are not interested in discussing and cooperating on transatlantic security issues. But on the other hand, I can also say that NATO is becoming a more attractive organization not only for partner countries but also for countries that are even not partners, countries like Australia, North Korea, and Japan, which want to develop their relations with NATO.
And as far as NATO’s enlargement policy is concerned, I mean as long as the “open door policy” remains valued, as long as NATO member countries want the door open, we will be seeing new countries entering NATO, I mean not necessarily now, but in years to come.
Does this mean that the door remains open for Russia as well?
Actually, the door remains open for any country as long as it is ready to share our values and principles, and is interested in organizing the defense and security in the transatlantic collective system of security. As for Russia, President Vladimir Putin some time ago had some aspirations that Russia would become a NATO member country. Now it does not appear to be a current topical question for discussion. I don’t know how Russia will look in 10 to 15 years from now, and in which way the alliance will change. Maybe then we will discuss this issue in a more serious manner.
“I DON’T SEE ANY REASON FOR A SPLIT IN NATO”
Do you think that recent events surrounding the deployment of American missile defense systems in NATO member countries, Poland and the Czech Republic, will cause a new split among the old members: France, Germany, and the new NATO member countries? Would it be desirable for NATO if the US leads the negotiations with Brussels first and with concrete countries afterwards?
As a matter of fact, the US has had consultations both with NATO headquarters and all 26 allies, and with Russia. After the consultations with all the member countries the technical possibilities of this project’s fulfillment were analyzed. So it cannot be said that US plans to place the elements of its national missile defense on the European continent were not known or discussed, so it cannot be viewed as a surprise.
And on a possible split among old and new NATO members. I know that some people are very eager to discover this. And among them, many journalists are asking about this. In reality, some countries may have some different positions or interests in some issues, and this a completely normal process. Finally, the allies -all 26 countries — will decide jointly whether they want to take part in such projects, like the deployment of missile defense systems. Thus, if we continue the dialogue in Brussels, we will definitely come to a final decision. I don’t see any reasons for any split.
Does this mean that Brussels has a voice and will use it?
Yes, as I said, we have discussed all the physical possibilities for the deployment of the missile defense systems. We have an appropriate committee to do that, and US senior representatives have many times informed NATO about their plans concerning the deployment of the missile defense systems on a regular basis. Discussions that we had in Brussels are very much part of the regular process of consultation, and NATO has the right to express its opinion.
And what will be the opinion concerning the US plans?
Of course, the consultations will continue in the NATO format. All 26 allies and the US have the right to conduct consultations with Poland and the Czech Republic or other countries. I would like to stress that the alliance — the organization of 26 countries — does not aim to create any programs that would be a threat to Russian security.
RUSSIAN POLITICIANS’ STATEMENTS DO NOT REFLECT THE REALITY OF TODAY’S SECURITY
Why, then, in your opinion, has Russia, especially Russian military men and parliamentarians, so sharply criticized the US plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe? Russian generals even made some threats of a military response if they are deployed.
I cannot comment on the statements made by the Russian generals. I can only say that I very much regret that statements like you’ve mentioned were made. Such statements do not favor a normal dialogue and cooperation. For within the framework of the Russian-NATO partnership we are discussing all the issues that are in our common interest, including the missile defense issue. The idea did not appear overnight, and does not come as a surprise to our Russian partners. On the other hand, such thinking as “you do that and we do that” is looking very much like one-side thinking. It is so much like Cold War thinking and does not reflect today’s security realities.
We in NATO are definitely interested in advancing our partnership with Russia. And you see, this year is the fifth anniversary of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) and the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. I can understand the irritation of some people, NATO representatives and representatives of NATO member countries or NATO headquarters, when our Russian partners state that they are ready to cooperate with us, to be our partners, on the one hand, and on the other, they make statements incompatible with a normal partnership. It can be compared with two people who have decided to dance together, and then one of the partners refuses to dance or is dancing in such a manner that it cannot but be irritating.
NATO EXPECTS A CLEAR SIGNAL FROM UKRAINE CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP PLANS
Let’s talk about Ukraine. Since May 2006 you have been heading the Public Diplomacy Division. Taking this period into account, how would you assess Ukraine’s steps and intentions concerning NATO integration? Has the process of integration become slower since then or perhaps somewhat deeper?
While I have been in Ukraine, I have had several meetings with our political partners in different ministries and organizations. I can only say that all my interlocutors admitted that there is opposition between the presidential and the prime minister’s camps. It is something that we observe in NATO headquarters. We see that the events taking place in Ukraine in some way influence integration into NATO and EU integration. I remember when Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych visited NATO headquarters, he stated that in general he supports President Viktor Yushchenko’s efforts concerning Ukraine’s entry into NATO in the long term, but the Ukrainian public needs more time to prepare for that. Of course, the decision about the time when Ukraine will be officially ready to apply for membership is primarily a decision that Ukraine will take. What would be helpful, however, is to get a clear signal from the Ukrainian government as to its further plans. I want to stress that the cooperation that Ukraine and NATO have established is very constructive and takes in many spheres and aspects of life, and this is something that we will put in efforts to continue.
You have met with many officials and Ukrainian politicians who have some relation to the country’s security sector. Have you heard any assurances from them that they will do what Yanukovych promised to do — to inform the public about NATO and create a positive image of the alliance among Ukrainians?
I have met Eduard Prutnyk, who is heading the State Television and Radio Committee. I was encouraged by what he said about the development of an action plan. And he said that the action plan will be carried out with the help of interdepartmental work between the government, other ministers, and information agencies. I was also encouraged by the sum allotted for the information programs — 20 million hryvnias. Mr. Prutnyk also said that this action plan will be the guideline for all governmental bodies in the regions. And it is very important not to concentrate efforts only in Kyiv. I also spoke to the presidential adviser, Mr. Rybachuk, and this afternoon I will speak to the prime minister’s advisor, Mr. Andrii Fialko.
So, whatever the government undertakes is an effort, a well-funded effort. The NATO Information and Documentation Center in Ukraine and our department in Brussels, in NATO headquarters — we are ready to unite our efforts with those of the Ukrainian representatives and give any possible aid.
“OUR AIM IS NOT TO PROMOTE NATO TO THE UKRAINIAN PUBLIC”
How would you interpret the statement of one of the prime minister’s advisors, who suggested that Ukraine make a pause in the integration with NATO? Will this be in the interests of Ukraine and average Ukrainians?
I appreciate your question. It is not up to me to advise the Ukrainian government about whether Ukraine has to make a pause in Euro-Atlantic integration, in particular — accession to NATO. My interest is to help to undertake broader educational information. I would also like to stress that I don’t like the words “information campaign,” because it reminds one of supporting some propaganda. It should not be a propaganda action campaign. This should be an effort to help Ukrainians make an intelligent choice and make up their minds. And you can only make up your mind once you have all the information on your table, once you know what you are talking about.
TWO PROCESSES THAT SUPPLEMENT EACH OTHER
Do you think that some foreign experts’ suggestions are helpful to Ukraine? I am thinking in particular about the advice of the German expert, Alexander Rahr, who recommends that Ukraine separate EU integration and integration into NATO?
I have been working in NATO since 1999. And one of the first vivid memories I have is when Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary joined the alliance and when their flags were raised at NATO headquarters. Ever since then I’ve always been a witness of more members that have come in. I think it is a very important and very moving moment in history. And I can’t recall any country, of those that recently joined, that didn’t have on their policy agenda to get into the European Union and NATO. I think that both of these are complementary processes that are close to each other. Thus, I understand that Ukraine wants to become, in a wider sense, part of the whole transatlantic community. I don’t know when Ukraine may expect to join the EU or NATO, or what you will do first, or how many years from now — this is something difficult to predict. But what I will argue is that these processes are very similar, they are a single process. And this is what I said to the students that I lectured to at the Institute of Foreign Relations: “You must think where you want to see your country in five to seven years from now. How do you want to live in five years from now?” I think this is a fundamental question that should be answered. And I think that the Ukrainian public already answered this question some time ago.
YOUR COUNTRY MAY APPLY FOR THE MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN IN 2009
Where do you see Ukraine in 2009, when the jubilee summit of NATO will take place? Will it join the Membership Action Plan at that time?
It’s hard to predict. But I can say at the present stage that the answer to this question is in Kyiv. But first of all, it depends on whether the Ukrainian government wants to apply for NATO membership. I can say that if the transformational and transitional process in Ukraine continues, I can predict that your country may apply for the Membership Action Plan already in 2009. It depends on Ukraine’s willingness.
