Good morning, President Zatlers, ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure for me to take part in the opening of the Riga Security Forum 2019. The Latvian Institute of Foreign Affairs is the oldest think-tank in Latvia, dating from 1992, and continues to provide decision-makers, experts and the public with considered analysis on issues important for our democracy, our security and our freedom.
The security of our democracy, our democratic order, our independence depends on many factors. Military defence is only one of them. Of equal and maybe growing importance is the belief and trust of our population in our country, our nation, our values and our democracy. Let me, therefore, begin with hard security.
Our three Baltic States have learned from bitter experience in the past that militarily we cannot stand alone if we have a very large, powerful and aggressive neighbour on our borders such as the Soviet Union in 1939. During the pre-war years, our states each spent about one quarter of our total national budget on defence. This amounts to a great deal more than the NATO guideline of 2 % of GDP.
We had relatively large, modern armies equipped with aviation, tanks and submarines, which were near the top of the range for that time. Nevertheless, in 1939 we were compelled to accept major Soviet bases on our territory and in 1940 were illegally occupied in the same week that Paris fell to the Nazis. Half a century of brutal repression followed with the decapitation of our nations. Our leaders and thinkers, teachers, civil servants were murdered or deported along with large parts of our populations.
Having learned from this painful experience, it is no surprise that our primary goal now, after regaining independence, was to join NATO, the world’s strongest military alliance. It is important to note that the first joint decision made by the three Baltic Presidents on this day – the 13th of September 1993 was to join the North Atlantic Alliance.
Now in 2018 we reached the 2 % of GDP benchmark for defence spending. It is worthy to note that the Parliament’s (Saeima) decision to do this was unanimous – supported by both government and opposition. Additional funding has allowed us significantly to enhance our self-defence capabilities. In addition, we have enacted legislation according to which it is the duty of our armed forces to resist military aggression and occupation. It is illegal to give an order not to resist. In other words, the events of 1939/1940 should not be repeated.
But, most important, the Warsaw Summit decision about the deployment of an enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) in the Baltic States, has made NATO’s deterrence position much more credible without posing a military threat to Russia. Here I would like to express my particular gratitude to Canada, which is the excellent framework nation for Latvia’s eFP battalion, and to Albania, the Czech Republic, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain for the troop contributions that they continue to make. Our strategic partnership with the US is of special importance, and we are proud to be the host to 13 US Blackhawk helicopters in our base at Lielvārde.
I am convinced that eFP is a direct contribution to the security of each of our Allies as well as NATO, because it substantially reduces the risk of conflict. Of course, a great deal more needs to be done, for instance, in terms of rapid reinforcement planning, pre-positioning and air defence, but we have made a good start in terms of hard security.
Let me now turn to the less easily defined questions surrounding societal or soft security. It is axiomatic that a state can only exist and function if its population believes in it. This means that the so-called hybrid threats to our values and rules-based systems are as dangerous as the weapons held by hostile forces. Here I am not referring to the blurring of the line between internal disorder and external aggression. Rather to more sophisticated direct and indirect attacks on our states and our attitudes towards our countries.
These are difficult issues which require careful study. It is encouraging that they are taken very seriously by both NATO and the EU. Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Helsinki-based European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and to hear at first-hand about the important work they are doing. I should also mention our own NATO STRATCOM Centre of Excellence in Riga, which in a short time has earned an excellent international reputation for professionalism in their studies.
So, what are these threats to our societies? Well, they involve a whole range of vectors. Some commentators talk about the weaponization of information, energy, money and corrupt practices. In 1986 I used the expression “cognitive war” in my master’s thesis in the University of Hamburg. My German professors were not at all satisfied with it and only reluctantly allowed me to keep it in, because they believed it wasn’t an academic term. However, it is an expression which accurately reflects the reality, at least today, in which modern technology is used to achieve age-old goals.
We are having to deal with the dramatic technological change which has brought with it completely new way in which people interact, especially using social media. If quite recently we were concerned about cyber-attacks and information warfare, we now have to deal with a combination of the two.
Of course, traditional cyber-threats continue to target our communications, our provision of such essentials as financial services, energy, water and so on. But while fake news or information warfare deals with facts or their distortion, cognitive war aims deeper – that is our interpretation and perception of these facts.
Artificial intelligence, big data, the advent of quantum computing and soon also deep fakes will make our cognitive space even more challenging. We have already seen how populist messages quickly can be spread and become attractive in this new environment. When we add to this the growth of “filter bubbles”, encryption of social media and its fragmentation into like-minded groups, then it is unsurprising that what has been called the “continued influence effect” on perceptions has a huge potential effect to the opinion of our public.
This is a new and growing challenge to our values and our democracies. Article 1 of the Latvian Constitution states that Latvia is an independent, democratic republic. In order for this to work, our citizens should be able to make informed decisions. This implies that they must not only receive objective, accurate information through various types of media but must be equipped with the critical thinking required to make sense of it – to distinguish between fake news, false interpretations and the truth. In other words, having a free and healthy media is a matter of national security.
It is no coincidence that Russia’s reaction to events like the downing of flight MH 17 over Donbas was to produce a flood of alternative theories of what had happened. The aim is to question the very existence of truth as such – to imply that there are simply a number of different interpretations from which we can each choose the one which suits us best.
Social media can be used to undermine trust in the democratic process. That is why I have chosen the digital space, smart technology and ICT among my working priorities. Their misuse and abuse are a direct threat to our social cohesion, our values, our democratic systems and our freedom.
I mentioned earlier that democracies can only function if they have the support of their populations. That entails trust in the state and its institutions. Therefore, belief in the fair interpretation and implementation of the rule of law if fundamental to successful democratic states. This is another way to deal with threats.
Of course, there are many ways in which populations rely on states. This includes education, health care and a reasonable expectation of a retirement pension after working age. All of these are necessary if we are to achieve the level of solidarity, inclusion and trust required for the continuity of our state and democracy. But, in my view, trust in the rule of law is the most important of these.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Having outlined my approach to freedom and security, let me finish by drawing attention to some other challenges which face us all. First of all, NATO – our Alliance. NATO has gone through many challenges in the past and has been severely tested during the Cold War. More recently, there have been ups and downs from the lack of unanimity over the war in Iraq to commendable solidarity with the one and only implementation of Article 5 following the 9/11 attacks in the US.
But now we are seeing challenges to Alliance cohesion. BREXIT may be one (we sincerely hope not). But the questioning of the US commitment to NATO by some Europeans, despite the massive cross-party support for NATO and Article 5 in Congress, could create dangerous fault lines. These must be avoided.
To the three global risks of unforeseen nuclear war, climate change and biological risks we may add possible new, developing challenges. Each of these alone is worthy of a series of conferences. Each will also test the resilience of NATO. Therefore, I believe that we must do everything possible to maintain our valuable Alliance. It is not enough that the so-called front-line states spend 2 % of GDP on defence. This is a very real investment in our own security and for all Allies and members of NATO.
We must stick together in the face of the upcoming challenges I have outlined. If we fail to uphold our democracies and our values, we will ultimately lose our freedom. We should look to the broader “West” in order to confront authoritarianism, whether political or digital. NATO can and should provide a firm foundation upon which to build.
In conclusion, I would like to state that I am an optimist. I was part of the Baltic Way; I saw how the Berlin Wall fell a few months later and I felt at first hand the fragility of the authoritarian system like USSR. We should not forget the lessons of 30 years ago and must continue to stand up for the values on which our freedom is based. Then our Alliance, our countries and our free peoples will continue to live and to prosper.
Thank you for your attention!
