NATO's Parlamentariske Forsamling 2011-12 NPA alm. del Bilag 8 Offentligt

STANDING COMMITTEE

264 SC 11 E Original: English

NATO Parliamentary Assembly

SUMMARY

of the meeting of the Standing Committee Sala N Iorga, The Parliament (Chamber of Deputies and Senate) of , Romania

Sunday, 9 October 2011

International Secretariat November 2011 264 SC 11 E i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Agenda Item Page

- Attendance list ii

1 Opening of the proceedings 1

2 Adoption of the draft Agenda [196 SC 11 E] 1

3 Adoption of the summary of the Standing Committee meeting held in Varna, 1 Bulgaria, on Friday, 27 May 2011 [162 SC 11 E]

4 Procedural matters: 2

 Consideration of Proposed Candidates for the Bureau of the Assembly [201 SC 11 E]  Organisation of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Monday, 10 October 2011  Draft Amendment to the Rules of Procedure [199 SC 11 B]

5 Assembly Activities in 2011; Draft Calendar and Report Subjects in 2012 2 [219 SC 11 E]:

 Information document on NATO’s Lisbon Summit Decisions and their Implementation: an Update [225 SC 11 E]

6 The Assembly’s Public Outreach: an Update [223 SC 11 E] 5

7 Finance 5  Draft budget for 2012 [118 FIN 11 E rev. 1]

8 Future sessions and meetings: 6

 Distribution of Assembly Sessions and Standing Committee Meetings [063 SC 11 E rev. 2]  Sessions and Meetings from 2012 [057 GEN 11 E rev.2]  Early Spring Standing Committee meeting, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30 March-1 April 2012  Spring Session, Tallinn, Estonia, 25-28 May 2012 [207 SESP 11 E]  58th Annual Session, Prague, Czech Republic, 9-12 November 2012

9 Miscellaneous 7 264 SC 11 E ii

ATTENDANCE LIST

President Karl A. LAMERS (Germany) Vice-Presidents Petras AUSTREVICIUS (Lithuania) Hugh BAYLEY () Mike ROSS () Treasurer Pierre Claude NOLIN (Canada) Former Vice-Presidents Assen AGOV (Bulgaria) Jane CORDY (Canada) Secretary General David HOBBS

MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS Albania Leonard DEMI Belgium Gerald KINDERMANS Bulgaria Kostadin YAZOV Canada Leon BENOIT Jane CORDY Croatia Marija PEJCINOVIC BURIC Czech Republic Not represented Denmark Not represented Estonia Marko MIHKELSON France Loïc BOUVARD Germany Karl A. LAMERS Ulla SCHMIDT Greece Not represented Hungary Not represented Iceland Björgvin G. SIGURDSSON Ragnheidur E. ARNADOTTIR Italy Sergio DE GREGORIO Antonio CABRAS Latvia Imants LIEGIS Lithuania Petras AUSTREVICIUS Luxembourg Nancy ARENDT KEMP Netherlands Han TEN BROEKE Norway Erna SOLBERG Poland Not represented Portugal José LELLO Romania Sever VOINESCU-COTOI Slovakia Juraj DROBA Slovenia Not represented Spain Jesus CUADRADO Ramon ALEU Turkey Ali Riza ALABOYUN Muzaffer BASTOPCU United Kingdom Sir Menzies CAMPBELL Lord JOPLING United States Mike TURNER

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Civil Dimension of Security Jo Ann EMERSON (United States) Defence and Security Joseph A. DAY (Canada) Economics and Security Hugh BAYLEY (United Kingdom) Political Raynell ANDREYCHUK (Canada) 264 SC 11 E iii

SECRETARIES OF DELEGATION

Albania Dritan DELIJA Belgium Frans Van MELKEBEKE Bulgaria Borislav PENCHEV Canada Not represented Croatia Maroje KATALINIC Czech Republic Iva MASARIKOVA Denmark Flemming Kordt HANSEN Estonia Tania ESPE France Frédéric TAILLET (National Assembly) Guillaume RENAUDINEAU (Senate) Germany Claudia RATHJEN (Bundestag) Annemarie BÜRSCH (Bundesrat) Greece Vassiliki IOANNIDOU Hungary Károly TUZES Iceland Arna Gerdur BANG Italy Alessandra LAI Latvia Sandra PAURA Lithuania Snieguole ZIUKAITE Luxembourg Isabelle BARRA Netherlands Arjen WESTERHOFF Norway Henrik MALVIK Poland Not represented Portugal Patricia GRAVE Romania Irina BOJIN (Chamber of Deputies) Slovakia Jarmila NOVAKOVA Slovenia Tamara GRUDEN-PECAN Spain Mercedes ARAUJO Turkey Yesim USLU United Kingdom Jyoti CHANDOLA United States Riley MOORE (House of Representatives)

ACCOMPANYING THE DELEGATIONS

Belgium Patrick DELODDER Canada Melissa RADFORD France Sylvie BIZZOZZERO Germany Harald BERWANGER Yvonne BOLLOW Andrea BOU-SAID Italy Elena di PANCRAZIO Luxembourg Pia BISENIUS Netherlands Frederieke den HENGST Spain Josefina MENDEZ United Kingdom Kathryn WICKHAM United States Gregory McCARTHY Todd HARMER Jessica TURNER

INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT Robert ADAMEK Andrius AVIZIUS Henrik BLIDDAL Sébastien BOTELLA Paul COOK Dwight GRISWOLD Christine HEFFINCK Michael HENNESSY 264 SC 11 E iv

Susan MILLA Jacqueline PFORR Ruxandra POPA Andrea PRETIS Steffen SACHS Svitlana SVYETOVA Alex TIERSKY Vincent VIVES 264 SC 11 E 1

1. Opening of the proceedings

The President, Dr Karl A. Lamers (DE), opened the meeting at 15.10. He thanked the Head of the Romanian delegation, Sever Voinescu-Cotoi, for the delegation's hosting of the Annual Session.

Sever Voinescu-Cotoi (RO) thanked the President.

The President welcomed Manuel Correia de Jesus and Ali Riza Alaboyun to the meeting in their new capacity as Heads of the Portuguese and Turkish delegations respectively. He also informed the meeting of the apologies for absence he had received from Dobroslav Dimitrov, Head of the Bulgarian delegation, and Norbert Haupert, Head of the Luxembourg delegation.

2. Adoption of the draft Agenda [196 SC 11 E]

The draft Agenda was adopted.

3. Adoption of the summary of the Standing Committee meeting held in Varna, Bulgaria, on Friday, 27 May 2011 [162 SC 11 E]

The President thanked Kostadin Yazov, Deputy Head of the Bulgarian delegation, for his delegation’s outstanding hosting of the Spring Session, and asked the Committee to approve the minutes of the Standing Committee meeting held in Varna.

Referring to point 6 of the summary (Update on the Participation of the Delegation from the Russian Federation in Assembly Activities [124 SC 11 E]), Sir Menzies Campbell (UK) asked whether the President met with the Russian delegation in Varna and, if yes, what the outcome of that meeting was. He also requested confirmation that, as agreed at the Standing Committee meeting in the Azores in April 2011, relations with the Russian delegation would be reviewed at the early spring Standing Committee meeting to be held in Slovenia in April 2012.

The Secretary General, David Hobbs, confirmed that the President met with the Heads of the Russian delegation, and that the meeting was constructive. The Heads of the Russian delegation agreed to hosting a Bureau visit to in 2011 and a possible Committee visit in 2012.

The President explained that a further meeting with the Heads of the Russian delegation took place in Bucharest to discuss the forthcoming visit of the Assembly’s Bureau to Moscow.

Both the President and the Secretary General confirmed that, as agreed in April 2011, relations with the Russian delegation would be reviewed at the next meeting of the Standing Committee meeting in Slovenia in 2012.

Raynell Andreychuk (CA) asked to change the word “retorted” with “replied” in point 6 of the summary.

The summary of the Standing Committee meeting held in Varna [162 SC 11 E], as amended, was adopted. 264 SC 11 E 2

4. Procedural matters:

 Consideration of Proposed Candidates for the Bureau of the Assembly [201 SC 11 E]

The President explained that he was eligible for re-election and was the only candidate. Of the Vice-Presidents, only Jean-Michel Boucheron (FR) was not eligible for re-election. In addition, Mike Ross (US) had decided to stand down. The other three Vice-Presidents, Petras Austrevicius (LT), Jadwiga Zakrzewska (PL) and Hugh Bayley (UK), as well as the Treasurer, Pierre Claude Nolin (CA), were eligible for re-election and all received nominations for re-election. Nominations had also been received for Julio Miranda Calha (PT) and Jeff Miller (US). According to the Rules of the Assembly, the Vice-Presidents had to be of different nationalities, and one had to come from the Canadian or US delegations. There was only one candidate for each position, and nominations complied with the Rules. All candidates could therefore be elected at the Plenary Sitting by acclamation.

The President noted that the Secretary General was also eligible for re-election.

David Hobbs, reappointed unanimously as Secretary General, thanked members of the Standing Committee for their confidence in him.

Hugh Bayley (UK) informed the Standing Committee that, due an administrative oversight, nominations of US delegates for officer positions in the Economics and Security Committee (ESC) had not been received on time. However, there were two vacancies for the positions of Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee on East-West Europe Co-operation and Convergence and Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Economic Relations, and Jeff Miller and Gus Biliriakis had expressed an interest in filling these vacancies traditionally reserved for US members. He therefore asked the Standing Committee if their nominations to these positions could be approved.

The Committee agreed to the proposed candidatures and changes.

 Organisation of the Plenary Sitting to be held on Monday, 10 October 2011

The Secretary General outlined the arrangements for the Plenary Sitting.

 Draft Amendment to the Rules of Procedure [199 SC 11 B]

The Secretary General explained that the proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure would simply delete the reference to the Assembly of the Western European Union following that Assembly’s dissolution.

The proposed draft amendment to the Rules of Procedure [199 SC 11 B] was adopted.

5. Assembly Activities in 2011; Draft Calendar and Report Subjects in 2012 [219 SC 11 E]

 Information document on NATO’s Lisbon Summit Decisions and their Implementation: an Update [225 SC 11 E]

The President drew the Standing Committee's attention to the documents presenting proposed Assembly activities and report subjects for 2012, including adjustments resulting from the Co-ordination Meeting and Committee meetings held during the course of the Bucharest Session.

The Secretary General raised some of the remaining activities in 2011, including the first Assembly visit to Djibouti, a seminar in London on Afghanistan, and a Bureau visit to Russia. For 2012, he envisaged that the key themes would be Afghanistan, developments in the Middle East and North 264 SC 11 E 3

Africa (MENA) region, and NATO’s post-Lisbon/pre- agenda. In relation to Afghanistan, it was hoped that two visits could be organised there. A visit was also envisaged to Pakistan.

The situation in the MENA region was still changing rapidly, the Secretary General noted, and therefore flexibility and common sense would be necessary when trying to organise Assembly activities there. In addition to dialogue and political engagement, Assembly members had also expressed an interest in assisting with the region’s democratic transformation. In this regard, one proposed activity for 2012 was a seminar bringing representatives from the MENA region together with representatives from various organisations involved in assistance to democratic transition. In essence, this activity would combine the Rose-Roth programme and seminars of the Mediterranean and Middle East Special Group (GSM). The Secretary General informed members that France had volunteered to host this activity in April 2012. Ideally, this would lead to specific proposals for further assistance and engagement which could be implemented in subsequent activities such as seminars, visits, and training programmes.

Also regarding activities in the MENA region, the Secretary General stressed that it was important to keep in mind political sensitivities when choosing between different locations. In this sense, a visit to Bahrain, where popular pro-reform protests had been suppressed, could be more difficult to justify than visits to Qatar and Kuwait. The Secretary General also reminded members that a proposal had been put forward to visit Iraq and that this was still under consideration by the members of the Political Committee as an alternative to one of its activities currently proposed for 2012.

Taking into account these considerations, uncertainties over the Assembly’s activities in the MENA region might only be resolved at a later date, possibly by the time of the Joint Committee Meetings in Brussels in February.

The Secretary General also mentioned the following proposed activities for 2012: - a Rose-Roth Seminar in Montenegro, and another in Azerbaijan – a location which was also interesting because of the country’s common border with Iran; - a proposed seminar on Belarus hosted by Lithuania; - a proposed meeting of the -NATO Interparliamentary Council in Brussels on the margins of the Joint Committee Meetings in February; this would address the apparent slight “deficit” in activities relating to Georgia in the current draft programme of activities.

The Secretary General explained that after looking at different options for the Joint Committee Meetings in Brussels in February 2012, as directed by the Standing Committee, he would suggest returning to the former format, but holding all meetings at The Hotel, with the exception of the joint meeting with the North Atlantic Council for members of the Standing Committee which always took place at NATO Headquarters.

Finally, the Secretary General pointed out that two of the proposed visits departed from the usual pattern and therefore ought to be explicitly brought to the Standing Committee’s attention: the Political Committee’s Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships (PCNP) proposed to visit Pakistan, and the Defence and Security Committee’s Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Security and Defence Co-operation (DSCTC) proposed to visit Djibouti, the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain and the military base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. He reminded members that, when organising such visits in unfamiliar locations, it was important to be able to identify an effective and willing organizing partner, i.e. a host parliament or government, or a NATO Contact Point Embassy which would be willing to take on the burden of assisting with the organisation of the visit. This was the case with Pakistan, but it would still be prudent to take advice on issues such as security. For the DSCTC visit, its Chairman had undertaken the task of identifying organising partners who could also provide the necessary logistics.

The early spring Standing Committee in Ljubljana in 2012 would provide the next opportunity to review the Assembly’s proposed calendar of activities. At that meeting, the Standing Committee 264 SC 11 E 4 should also examine the new format for sessions. The Secretary General encouraged members to provide feedback.

The President reported that the Russian delegation was looking forward to the upcoming Bureau visit to Moscow. He agreed with the Secretary General that developments in the MENA region should be a key priority for the Assembly. As a result of his recent visit to Tunisia, he was convinced that people there were eager to receive assistance. Once NATO’s Operation Unified Protector was completed, it would also be important to help Libya build its institutions. Afghanistan also remained of critical importance as the country headed towards the 2014 scheduled end of the transition process. It would be important to send the Afghan people a clear message that our nations would continue supporting them after 2014. Finally, he confirmed that Belarus and Georgia would also feature on the Assembly’s agenda.

José Lello (PT) asked the Secretary General for clarification regarding his comment about the proposed seminar in Azerbaijan and the link with Iran. He also urged members of the Assembly to pay greater attention to developments regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, as this had the potential to be a game changer for the region. He suggested that the Assembly could hold a seminar in Jordan focusing on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Lord Jopling (UK) stressed the importance for the Assembly to follow developments in Libya and visibly put these on its agenda. The Secretary General confirmed that efforts would be made to organise a presidential visit to Libya, and that this featured on the official draft calendar.

Joseph A. Day (CA) clarified that the planned joint visit by the Defence and Security Committee and the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security to Russia in 2012 would likely take place towards the end of the year due to the presidential elections in that country. The President confirmed that this was indeed the Russian delegation’s preference.

Hendrik Jan Ormel (NL) reminded members that, in a context of financial crisis, the Assembly needed to carefully determine the number and location of its activities. It was important that all delegations retained the ability to travel on Assembly fact-finding visits.

Sir Menzies Campbell explained that Sir John Stanley, Chairman of the DSCTC, was making a strong case for his Sub-Committee’s proposed visit to Djibouti, Bahrain and Diego Garcia. He asked for clarification as to whether that visit would remain on the official calendar until further discussion in February 2012 in Brussels or at the Standing Committee’s next meeting in Slovenia later in the spring.

The Treasurer pointed out that a firm decision could only be made once a cost estimate for travel to Diego Garcia was provided. Sir Menzies Campbell agreed to pass on this message to Sir John Stanley and was confident he would be able to provide all necessary details.

The President concluded that: - the Assembly needed to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict; the Standing Committee could discuss at its next meeting in Slovenia how to include this on the agenda; - it was important for the Assembly to have Libya on its agenda; - it was the Standing Committee’s responsibility to review activities, and check that each proposed visit was necessary and politically relevant; - two issues need to be considered when discussing the proposed visit to Djibouti, Bahrain and Diego Garcia: the political aspect – was this visit relevant – and the financial aspect.

On the last point, the Secretary General commented that from a political point of view, the Assembly needed to be sensitive to concerns regarding the perception by the media of such visits. Ultimately, it was up to members to balance these political considerations. As for logistics, it was Mr Hobbs’ understanding that these were being taken care of by the DSCTC Chairman, who would be consulting with US and UK authorities. There were no commercial flights to Diego Garcia; the 264 SC 11 E 5 delegation would therefore have to rely on military transport. Since the visit was currently scheduled for October 2012, the Secretary General supported the proposal of discussing this again at a later stage, once the DSCTC Chairman had had time to look into the details of this proposed visit. The President agreed that this should be discussed again once further information and a concrete plan could be provided by the DSCTC Chairman.

With these provisos, the Committee agreed to the revised list of proposed reports and activities.

6. The Assembly’s Public Outreach: an Update [223 SC 11 E]

The President reminded members that a first fruitful exchange of views on this item took place in Varna in May 2011, where several interesting proposals had been put forward to help enhance the Assembly’s profile. Document [223 SC 11 E] summarised these proposals, as well as other initiatives taken by the International Secretariat. The President mentioned in particular that a filming crew was present in Bucharest shooting images and interviews which would be used to produce a short video presenting the Assembly and its work.

The President also recalled that one of the conclusions from the Standing Committee’s discussions in Varna was that better promoting the Assembly required effort at different levels: each member of the Assembly individually; national delegations; Assembly bodies – Committees and Sub-Committees, the Bureau, etc. –; and the International Secretariat. He encouraged members to continue to raise ideas with him or with the Secretary General.

7. Finance

 Draft budget for 2012 [118 FIN 11 E rev. 1]

The Treasurer was seeking approval of the draft budget for 2012.

The Treasurer explained that member delegations had been satisfied with the draft budget presented in Varna which would have represented an increase of 1.5% against the 2011 budget. However, in view of the ongoing economic crisis, over the summer he had decided to present a 2012 budget with zero nominal growth compared with 2011. This would mean “absorbing” inflation.

Regarding how this could be achieved, he pointed out that salaries represented the largest budget item, standing at 68% of the total budget. As salaries follow inflation by law in Belgium, it is clear that a “flat” budget would automatically mean a shortfall in funds. However, he believed that the anticipated inflation rate in Belgium of 3% could be absorbed by the transfer of funds from other budget chapters and – if need be - by using reserves that had been built up over the years.

Savings had been achieved due to the shorter session format, through the renegotiation of contracts for telecommunications, photocopying machines etc. and by reductions in areas such as the library, office supplies, representation, and research assistants.

Even so, with the inflation rate in Belgium standing at 3%, it would still likely be necessary to transfer funds from the Assembly’s reserves. This, he stressed, could not be repeated indefinitely because the annual inflation would rapidly erode the reserves. Because inflation was cumulative – it would “snowball” – the use of funds from the reserves must be undertaken cautiously. However, the Treasurer explained that he had looked carefully at staff costs. Due to the age profile of staff at the International Secretariat, reserves could – exceptionally – be used to fund a short-term shortfall in the salary budget without running the risk of long-term structural problems in the budget. 264 SC 11 E 6

He also pointed out that NATO had lowered its discretionary budget subsidy, and he had reduced the overall 2012 budget proposal by the same amount to avoid increasing the total contributions requested from member delegations.

He concluded by noting that NATO had adopted a new Civil Budget key at the end of September 2011 and in accordance with the Assembly’s financial rules, this new key would apply to the 2012 budget. This new key would result in an increase in some delegations’ contributions and a decrease in others.

As far as the current financial year was concerned, everything was proceeding according to plan.

The draft budget was approved.

The President thanked the Treasurer for the important role he played, particularly in these difficult financial times.

8. Future sessions and meetings:

 Distribution of Assembly Sessions and Standing Committee Meetings [063 SC 11 E rev. 2]  Sessions and Meetings from 2012 [057 GEN 11 E rev. 2]  Early Spring Standing Committee meeting, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 30 March-1 April 2012  Spring Session, Tallinn, Estonia, 25-28 May 2012 [207 SESP 11 E]  58th Annual Session, Prague, Czech Republic, 9-12 November 2012

The President confirmed that the Assembly had received firm offers to host sessions until and including autumn 2014, and that hosts were being sought for the early spring Standing Committee meeting and the two sessions from 2015 onwards.

Leonard Demi (AL) reminded members that a year previously his delegation had offered to hold the 2013 Spring Session in Tirana. This offer was accepted before being later rejected in favour of Luxembourg. As a new NATO member, it was very important for Albania to hold this meeting, and extensive preparations had been made. Leonard Demi insisted that the Albanian offer for 2013 remained, and urged the Standing Committee to consider it, with permission from the Luxemburg delegation. Albania was now the only member which had not hosted an Assembly meeting.

The Secretary General reminded members how the decision had been made to hold the 2013 Spring Session in Luxembourg: in late 2010, the previous hosts for both sessions in 2013 were compelled to withdraw their offers. Albania and Luxembourg had both come forward with offers to host the spring session in 2013. The Standing Committee, at its meeting in the Azores on 2 April 2011, had decided to accept Luxembourg’s offer and at this point, there was no flexibility at all to shift the Luxembourg session. However, as had been made clear, any offer by Albania to host another Assembly session would of course be welcomed.

Leonard Demi responded that the Albanian offer, presented at the Warsaw Session in November 2010, had come first, that the budget for the session had been approved in Tirana, and preparations had been put underway when the offer was rejected in favour of Luxembourg.

Marko Mihkelson (EE) looked forward to welcoming delegates in Tallinn, Estonia, for the spring session in May 2012. 264 SC 11 E 7

9. Miscellaneous

Hendrik Jan Ormel drew the members’ attention to the letter he had distributed from the Netherlands Court of Audit to the Dutch Parliament regarding the distribution of audit reports prepared by International Board of Auditors for NATO (IBAN) on NATO’s various bodies. The letter noted that NATO is making limited progress in terms of the transparency of its finances and financial management and that the North Atlantic Council would not permit the publication of many IBAN reports. Mr Ormel insisted that it was the parliamentarians’ duty to control the use of funds paid from national budgets into the NATO budget. Hendrik Jan Ormel indicated he would raise this issue with the NATO Secretary General during the Plenary Sitting the following day, and asked members to also support a more transparent accountability of NATO’s finances in their national parliaments.

The President supported the proposal to address a question to the NATO Secretary General on this issue during the Plenary Sitting on the following day. He also agreed that, depending on the answer, this could be discussed further at a future meeting.

The Treasurer suggested that the background for this letter might have to do with a significant shortfall in the budget for the Afghanistan operation which had been uncovered a year and a half ago, which IBAN had later been asked to investigate.

José Lello asked for more information regarding IBAN. The Treasurer and Hendrik Jan Ormel explained that IBAN was composed of representatives from the audit authorities of each of the member states. This was also the institution in charge of auditing the Assembly’s accounts.

Hugh Bayley noted that the Economics and Security Committee (ESC) was examining the issue of defence budgets and burden-sharing in NATO. The ESC was planning to discuss a report from NATO on this issue at its next meeting. Hugh Bayley suggested inviting a representative from the Netherlands General Accounting Office to comment on this NATO report, as well as on the issue of publication of IBAN audit reports, at the ESC Committee’s next meeting. Hendrik Jan Ormel thanked Hugh Bayley for this invitation.

The meeting closed at 16.40.

______