Toespraak minister Hennis-Plasschaert bij Annual Baltic Conference on Defence

Toespraak | 24-09-2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

"Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?"

Some of you may know this is the title of a very popular song in Walt Disney's cartoon Three Little Pigs. The little pigs in that 1930s cartoon were scared to death by the big bad wolf's huff and puff and rather bad breath. The wolf, as was in his nature, made plans on the little piggies. As the song goes,

"they [the pigs] all were safe inside
But the bricks hurt wolf's pride
So, he slid down the chimney and oh, by Jiminey
In a fire he was fried"

Ladies and gentlemen,

I was unwittingly reminded of this song when the title of this conference was broached to me: "Who's Afraid of Hybrid Warfare?".

As I see it, NATO, consisting of 28 nations, is the strongest and most successful alliance in history. It has no reason to be afraid of any big bad wolf. However, NATO does need to make sure that if a wolf would slide down the chimney, it will be fried.

The Alliance must therefore show unquestionable solidarity. Article 5 is clear: an attack on one is an attack on all. As the Dutch defence minister, I am here to reaffirm that solidarity on behalf of my nation.

In addition, the Alliance will need to adapt itself to new threats. In some respects, this means that we may need to reinvent the way in which we function as an Alliance, and operate politically and militarily. In other respects, we simply need to relearn what it takes to remain secure in our own realm.

Ladies and gentlemen,

"Who’s Afraid of Hybrid Warfare?"

I must say that I very much like the way the topic of this conference has been framed. It invites the debunking of myths and supports a clear-eyed approach. We should not overreact or act on fear.

Obviously, there is reason for concern and urgent action. But not for panic.

Fact is that we are all vulnerable to hybrid threats. But with a realistic and collective approach, we can find the right answers.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let us first pause briefly at the broad international picture. This picture is grim: the global security environment has not been this unstable since the end of the Cold War. Global disorder has significantly increased.

It is clear that Europe's security agenda has changed dramatically, with two key developments dominating our security agendas:

First, the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in the spring of 2014, followed by military interference in Eastern Ukraine and the unacceptable issuance of nuclear threats to European nations. Russian's aggression in Ukraine has challenged core principles of international law, compromised Ukraine's territorial integrity, and destabilized the larger neighbourhood. Russian behaviour has become unpredictable. There is no consensus on what President Putin's ultimate goal is. But, unfortunately, we have no option but to conclude that our past efforts to integrate Russia in the European security architecture have utterly failed.

Second, the brutal endemic warfare and civil strife in the Middle East and North Africa. In Iraq and Syria the efforts of the so-called Islamic State (ISIL) to establish a new Caliphate have given the word barbarism a new ring. It is mixing regular and irregular forms of warfare without any regard for international borders, human dignity and cultural and religious treasures. In Syria alone a large part of the population is uprooted and around 300.000 people have been killed. ISIL has a worrying appeal to other terrorist groups. And thousands of young people across Europe have been tempted to join the jihad, introducing significant risks once they return home. This is not a problem in some far away country. This threat is directly linked to our national security.

The threats from the East and the South may seem very different, but they are both 'hybrid'. Similar elements are the use of the digital domain, the crass propaganda and the irregular ways of fighting.

ISIL may seem medieval in its brutality, but it uses highly modern media techniques. A major difference, of course, is that ISIL trumpets its acts of barbarism…while Russia continues to deny its involvement in Eastern Ukraine.

Either way: both threats - in the East and the South - are not likely to disappear quickly. I see no quick disintegration of ISIL, nor an end to its appeal to extremist jihadi's. And Russia is likely to continue intimidating its neighbourhood.

Ladies and gentlemen,

What is hybrid warfare?

There is clearly no shortage of definitions...

I see it as the use of various covert and overt tactics, enacted with both military and non-military means. Besides the employment of conventional and irregular forces, hybrid warfare includes intelligence and cyber operations and the application of economic power.

It is not geographically limited. Hybrid methods serve to increase ambiguity, complicating decision making on the opposing side. It employs divide and rule tactics.

And all of this, is supported by a massive disinformation campaign to control the narrative or to dislodge the opponent's narrative.

Is hybrid warfare really new ? No. It is as old as war itself. One of the earliest examples of deceit and masking your intentions is the Trojan wooden horse. And many centuries ago the famous Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tzu, stated that all war is based on deception.

But hybrid warfare is - in a way - new to our generation, which has grown up in the Cold War and post-Cold War period. And what is also new is the use of the digital domain and our dependence of it, including the use of modern media.

In addition, we must remind ourselves that every conflict is different from the one before. Historical experience makes clear that a failure to recognize this will almost certainly lead to defeat.

Ladies and gentlemen,

For me, it is clear that we urgently need policies both for the immediate and for the long term.

In NATO we have been working towards a military response in order to show our willingness to deter and defend against any attack. We have made good progress with the Readiness Action Plan, and the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) in particular. And yes, it was a good decision to increase the size of the NATO Response Force. I think, however, that an increased focus on special forces may be necessary…as these forces are often very well suited to deploy against hybrid threats. And without a doubt, we need to step up our cyber investments and activities.

As important as the military response, is the political message we have sent. All members of the Alliance showed their continued solidarity. And for me this remains crucial for the future: we have to remain united, we have to act in unity, show our mutual commitment and solidarity. Every NATO member is protected by our Alliance, and every NATO member must carry its share in our Alliance. This is the responsibility we have towards each other.

Better intelligence is also crucial. In order to make the right decisions we need sufficient and reliable information on what is happening on the ground and on the intentions of our opponents. Our strategic awareness should be enhanced. The EU and NATO can work on joint situational awareness and understanding, and establish more robust information-sharing practises.

Another element is responsiveness. If there is a crisis looming, we want to be able to move our troops at very short notice. Therefore, we have to improve not only our readiness, but also our responsiveness. Make the right decisions swiftly, both in Brussels and in our own capitals. And exercise procedures. It has to be moved to the political level. This is why I am very much in favour of table top, scenario-based political exercises, also at ministerial level.

An essential precondition for the necessary military readiness and responsiveness measures is that we should not shy away from the fact that our defence needs resources. Our security comes at a price. And our need for security justifies paying that price. The majority of Allies is now acting accordingly. The Netherlands too is stepping up its defence effort, following up on last year's Wales Summit declaration.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Military responses and increasing defence budgets alone do not suffice against hybrid threats. The way we choose to act on external threats, does affect our internal security, and vice versa. In other words: a strong link between our internal and external security strategies is of the greatest importance.

And within this framework it is crucial to understand that all of us will have to reduce our own vulnerabilities, that all of us will have to build resilience.

These vulnerabilities may vary from economic and energy dependencies, weak border control, cyber, infrastructure, to issues such as corruption, the treatment of minorities and human rights issues more in general.

Ways to reduce our own vulnerabilities and to build resilience include the integration of minorities, early warning systems, energy security, cyber defence, critical infrastructure protection, border control and counter-terrorism. We must strengthen our capacity, both at the national and the EU level.

Strategic communication is also crucial.

We must be pro-active and assertive rather than reactive. As SACEUR, General Breedlove, aptly said during a recent conference in The Netherlands: "We have to drag lies into the limelight!"

The answer should not be counterpropaganda, but facts-based information. Against a hybrid threat, reliable information is a powerful weapon. Speak the truth.

And yes, of course, it will be a challenge. How can we reach out to the right audiences, in a heavily state-controlled media environment, or in an environment where media access is simply very difficult?

Ladies and gentlemen,

Hybrid threats require integrated responses. And within that context, it is crucial to take a new look at the relationship between the EU and NATO. A new situation requires a renewed relationship. In my view it is absolutely essential that the EU and NATO align their responses to the hybrid threats from the East and the South, building upon each others strength.

Currently, the relationship between the EU and NATO is governed by the so-called Berlin plus arrangement. This arrangement clearly is outdated, but focusing on agreeing on a whole new set of formal arrangements will probably be a waste of time. So let us start working together pragmatically and informally.

The contacts between the two institutions are good, but we should definitely speed up the efforts, and deepen the cooperation. I wil leave you with three ideas:

First, the EU and NATO could transmit the same strategic message to the opponents in the East and the South, underlying the common principles and norms of both organisations. The deliverable could be a joint informal meeting and a common statement by Heads of State and Government at the European Council or NATO summit next year. This will send a strong political message of Euro-Atlantic unity and solidarity.

Second, better sharing of information is obviously crucial. We need to develop an EU-NATO method, like a cell or joint meetings of two coordination groups to share and analyze information.

Third, we need a toolbox approach in order to stave off hybrid threats. This toolbox should include a very broad range of options. Both military and non-military. Partly national, partly multinational.

In the military realm, the Readiness Action Plan already gives us instruments such as the VJTF, but (as I said) we should also utilize our Special Forces to their full potential, and even expand these capabilities.

The EU will provide crucial economic tools such as sanctions and ensuring energy security.

And nationally, we have to build resilience in many areas. Such as offering the alternative narrative in various ways and languages, for example through dedicated TV-channels for minorities. It is furthermore important to build and maintain strong democratic institutions and civil societies.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We should bear in mind that a key characteristic of hybrid warfare is its ever changing nature. The threat will evolve and we will have to monitor this closely and to stay ahead of the game.

So yes, it would be too much to ask this conference to come up with solutions to all the challenges we face today. However, I do hope that you will come up with actionable ideas.

Since the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia in the spring of 2014, hybrid warfare has become a buzzword. Some even have called it the Hybrid hysteria!

That qualification goes too far as a certain sense of urgency is definitely necessary. Down-to-earth realism is justified. And we must move to the next phase of devising responses. In other words: we have to get away from the theoretical discussions and work towards practical solutions, at the national and international level.

I am convinced that, if we cooperate well, we will find the effective answers. I do wish you an inspiring exchange of views!

Whatever happened to the three little piggies in Disney's cartoon? They lived happily ever after!

Thank you.