'Russia's behaviour in Georgia united Nato,' says Obama's man in Brussels

As Obama goes to Moscow for his first US-Russian summit, NRC Handelsblad spoke with his new ambassador to Nato, Ivo Daalder. "The United States comes to Europe to listen, to learn and to lead."

US president Barack Obama wants to improve relations with Russia, but Moscow needs to understand that they crossed the line last year in Georgia, says Ivo Daalder, the new US ambassador to Nato. "All 28 Nato-allies agree, what happened in Georgia was unacceptable, the current situation in Georgia is untenable.”

Daalder (49) is only just settling in at Nato headquarters in Brussels and expectations are high. Not only has the new US administration made it clear that it puts a high value on concerting with its allies in Nato, but Daalder is also part European himself. He grew up in the Netherlands and studied in Italy and Britain before settling in the US and acquiring US citizenship. Under president Bill Clinton he coordinated US policy on Bosnia from 1995 until 1997. Later he worked at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, and he wrote books and articles about foreign policy. He supported Barack Obama early in his run for the presidency.

Daalder: "Wherever I come to speak, I repeat what the president said when he came to Strasbourg this spring: the United States comes to Europe to listen, to learn and to lead. The essence of what we need to do is to spend time listening to other countries. And that is my spirit in working with my 27 colleagues."

Will that make it easier to achieve unity within Nato now?

"It should make life easier. We have a new leadership, we have a new secretary-general, we have a new SACEUR [the most senior Nato commander], we have a new American administration, and we have a commitment to a new strategic concept to lay out what this alliance is for. Then there is a shared assessment of the problems we face - most importantly Russia, which is a big issue for the alliance. It is a country that challenges some of our members, and we must all to figure out how to deal with them."

The Nato-countries in eastern Europe feel threatened by Russia.

"That is one of the most important issues we face: to reassure the new allies that we take their security as seriously as the security of countries that have been part of Nato for sixty years. The first day I arrived at Nato, I invited the representatives of the three Baltic states and Poland and the Czech Republic. I told them: 'I just want you to know that your security is as important to us as our security."

"The president, when he was told that there were no contingency plans in Nato to defend the Baltic states, he objected. If there is a contingency plan for the defence of the Netherlands, why not for the Baltic states or Poland? Now some allies don’t agree, they think it would be provocative. Let me tell you: those allies hear from me every day. I think this is totally fundamental."

Is it possible to improve relations with Moscow, while at the same time continuing the expansion of Nato, which Russia so strongly opposes?

"Yes, because we had times when we had that disagreement, during most of the 1990s, while we still had good relations with Russia. There is the fundamental principle, that countries can choose their own alignment. Any country can join the alliance that fulfills the standards of membership. The enlargement of both the European Union and Nato have contributed enormously to the stability and democracy of vast numbers of people in Europe."

Russia doesn’t see it that way.

"We’ll argue with them. Russia is better off with a democratic and stable Poland as a neighbour than with the alternative. And also, the prospect of enlargement can often resolve issues. It resolved the longstanding territorial dispute between Hungary and Romania. That is something for Russia to remember."

What do you see as the most important lesson of the Georgia-war?

"It was an important signal. Russia decided that is was okay to use its overwhelming military force to violate one of the most fundamental principles of both international and European security: not to forcefully change borders. They were looking for a pretext and the found a pretext and they did it.

"But if there was one way to unite the alliance, it was this kind of behaviour. A year ago there still was a huge debate within Nato about the nature of our relationship with Russia. There is no debate about that anymore. The need to stand up for principles is widely shared. At a recent meeting of the foreign ministers of Nato and Russia on the island of Corfu, all 28 members told foreign minister [Sergei] Lavrov so. At the same time, there are many challenges that require us to work together: piracy, counter-terrorism, military cooperation."

Will this new president, who advocates a nuclear free world, put arms control back in the international agenda?

"It will be an important issue in Moscow. The previous administration didn’t believe in arms control, this administration does, in a very fundamental way. Arms control was a huge fissure in this alliance. There was a group of countries that wanted to push arms control much harder than other countries."

The Netherlands still has some nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it be a nice gesture to do away with them?

"The Russians have significantly more nuclear weapons of this kind. So if doing away with them allowed the Russians to do away with all of theirs we might have something to talk about. But this is an alliance issue, this is not a decision that any one country can take, including the United States."

Will you lead the allies in sending more troops to Afghanistan?

"I’ll do my best. We now have a new strategy, and that requires more troops, more trainers and more money. The Dutch are intending to at least stay until 2010 and we are grateful for that. There is no doubt that Holland has been punching above its weight for quite a while. It is now time for others to start punching at their weight. There are many ways in which the Netherlands can contribute: sending more trainers, providing more money for the trust fund, continuing the extraordinary expenditure in development assistance…"

Nato is at a crossroads. Will the new Nato be globally active, will there be more Afghanistan-like operations?

"We need a Nato that can speak to the current and future realities. Our strategic concept was drafted in 1991 and updated in 1999: before [the attacks of] 9/11, before Nato had deployed the largest military operation in its history 4,000 miles from the centre of Europe, before we had cyber attacks... We need a strategic concept that relates this alliance to that world, and we need an alliance that can speak to a new generation. We all knew what Nato was for. That is more difficult today. The kids that now go to college were born after the Berlin Wall came down."

Is protection against cyber attacks a task for a military alliance?

"It is a Nato-task to defend us. And they are an attack. But how do you react if you don't know from where it is coming? It is very difficult to figure out where a cyber attack is coming from. Article 5 of the Charter, the core commitment that an attack against one is an attack against all, is still at the heart of what Nato is about. Is reacting to a cyber attack an article 5 task? And energy strangulation? We really have to debate how to deal with these kind of threats."

Within Nato you’ll be listening, learning en leading, you say. Will that be easier because you grew up in Europe?

"Do you mean if I speak Dutch with the secretary-general? I do. It’s now almost an official language, with four native Dutch speakers: three ambassadors and the secretary-general. I lived here half my life. I understand the Europeans' reluctance to use force, I get the political nature of the debate that leads to that. As any good American ambassador would."