[MUSIC] Very much welcome again to the week in which we actually deal with NATO in a Changing World. I have the privilege of introducing to you former Secretary General of NATO, and Professor of International Relations and Diplomatic Practice here at Leiden University, Jaac de Hoop Scheffer. Thank you very much for being with us here today. The first question that I would like to ask you is, while you were Secretary General of NATO, we assume that there were a multitude of challenges to deal with. What would you personally say was the biggest challenge that you incurred? >> I think the biggest challenge, was Afghanistan. A huge NATO operation with that a certain stage more than 150,000 troops underground in Afghanistan. Far away country, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, different culture, different village and different background, different history. All 28 NATO allies participating. Many partners of NATO participating. Sweden, Finland, Japan, the United Arab Emirates. Combining the military with the political rebuilding trying to help to rebuild that nation and at the same time fighting a war. There's no other word for it. Was a highly complex matter for NATO, a highly complex challenge for NATO. The operation is now winding down, but that has dominated my mandate as Secretary General between 2004 and 2009 without any doubt. >> I assume that actually coordinating the visions of as many members as NATO has must be a challenging endeavor sometimes. Now, the changing membership of NATO, would you say that this is very much determining the new avenues of NATO or do we essentially see the similar ways in which NATO has been operating also going on now? >> Well, the changing membership is certainly a, a, a very important development. The bigger number of NATO partners participating in Afghanistan, is a challenge in the sense that NATO allies take the decisions, but partners want to collectively shape the decisions, which was also quite an interesting challenge in Afghanistan. At the same time, also during my mandate in NATO enlarged. I started in 2004 with 19 allies, when I left in 2009 there were 28. With all their own interests. If I say again, with their own geography, with their own history. Many nations having suffered tremendously under Soviet dominance and, and, and domination. So, when I left it was in that regard, not only geographically, but also politically. It was a different NATO than when I started. >> I can imagine that these are huge changes in such an organization. Actually talking about the kind of changes. We have seen the European Union as a reach organization, changing in terms of membership, actually enlarging, and the question of course that we can raise is, is there any avenue in which nature and you and [INAUDIBLE] could be operating much more closely than they are now? >> They should, and they do to a certain extent. But in my opinion, not enough. They're both in Brussels. Both headquarters are located in Brussels. But they are far apart. Not geographically, but mentally. That has a number of reasons which have to do with the Cyprus problem. The position of Turkey inside NATO. The position of Cyprus in Greece inside the European Union. I'll save you those details. But sharing 21 members, its, is an imperative in my opinion, that NATO and the European Union work more closely together. European Union will without any doubts having to face more responsibilities, when the Americans as we see now happening, have many other areas and regions of the world on their minds. The American president Obama has qualified himself as a pacific president. He is dealing with the [UNKNOWN] with the, with the pacific. That means that more of the responsibility and the burden will fall on European NATO allies and on EU members, for that matter. So, it's really an imperative that they should work more closely together. But we hear very far from the ideal situation in my opinion. >> Thank you. Actually some people have claimed that what we see now in the European union is a slight trend since the treaty of Lisbon towards increased inter-governmentalism. Notably the European Council being a very dominant and prominent institution in the setting. Now, what is your opinion? This is a general trend we are witnessing. >> Yes, it's definitely a general trend. You do not only see that in the European Union, but the European Council the, the institutions where the heads of states and government meet. All by themselves, by the way, without, without collaborators, which brings the confusion from time to time as we've seen in the recent past. Where they have claimed we are the crisis mechanism. We are heads of states in government, we are the highest level there is, I mean there's nothing above us. And you see that in, in the United Nations framework, in the NATO framework as well. NATO has more frequent summits than had in it's, in history. You see it in, in other international institutions as well. That slowly but definitely heads of states and government take over decision making. That has pluses, because they can really at, at, at the final stage come to a decision. Because that's their responsibility as the highest in the land. It can also have minuses because from time to time decisions are not properly prepared by defense ministers, foreign ministers, finance ministers. And that has also led to confusion from time to time and, and to a sort of, strange [UNKNOWN] down process. Where normally you would have finance ministers decide. And if they can't agree bringing up two heads of states in government. And now you see a decision by heads of states in government going down to finance ministers, who say, who say why have you decided it's your half? In other words, it can lead to some form, forms of confusion as well. >> Mm-hm. Yes. You can imagine that this would happen. Actually this brings me to the question, there's another organization of which some have claimed that it has become extremely important in today's structure of global governance. The G20. What kind of role do you think is there for the G20? And is it actually reflected sufficiently in the institutional global framework that we have today? >> As long as the institution we all know, the rules based international Institutions. We all know since the Second World War and after. As long as they do not reform as long as nations like Japan or India or South Africa or Brazil or Turkey do not have the voice in the international domain, they should have politically on the base of their economies. If it's [UNKNOWN] the United Nations, which is the most important institution in deciding about war and peace. Still reflects the situation in the world as it was in 1945, where the, where the nations who won the Second World War are coming together [INAUDIBLE] China in 1971. As long as the IMF and the World Bank International Monetary Fund and World Bank do not perform to give China, India and all those nations I mentioned. A, a voice and a vote which is congruent to their position, you'll see G20 type of organisations emerge. Where they, where they have a place at the table. And the G20 is a very important organization. They do a lot of good work and positive things, in the first financial crisis. There you see them sitting around the table, there they have a voice the problem is it's not rules based. And in normal rules based organizations, it's usually the strongest nation prevailing. Why do we have rules? Because we also want to give a voice to the very small nation. The medium sized nations, that's the idea of rules based. Fair rules for everyone. So, I'm not, le, le, let's say, judging the G20 in a negative sense because they represent the majority of the world population, the majority of world trade, it's a very important group of nations sitting together. But it's all rules based and, and that's why I keep pressing for fundamental reform of the institutions and organizations we know. It's very difficult, there're all kinds of political blockages. If, if I say, India should definitely be a Security Council member, the big regional rival China will say, well, well, well, I don't know if that's, if that's a good decision. Probably some will say, I don't know if that's a good decision for all kinds of political reasons, good or bad ones. And that has brought that process to a, to a standstill, through the frustration of,of, of Kofi Annan, whom I respect and admire tremendously. I mean he couldn't do it in the UN, so you'll see G20 types of organizations and institutions popping up. Numerals based, but necessary never the less. >> Thank you. Actually that builds a bridge to a topic we will deal with next week. Security Council Reform. The challenges we have, the needs there may be other question, what can we do in order to increase, maintain and even increase the legitimacy of this institution in global affairs. Well this rounds off today's interview. Thank you very much Professor Jaac de Hoop Scheffer. >> Pleasure, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
