Unofficial transcript
The planned missile defense is, in the first place, an eminently political issue, and only in the second place a military one.
At NATO level, it was decided at the Riga Summit of last November to push forward with the study on missile defense.
The conclusions of this study are not available yet. In an interview to the Financial Times last Monday, the Secretary General of NATO suggested that discussions at NATO should focus on both the political and the military dimensions of this issue.
So far, we do not have any clear indications, including of a technical nature, that would allow us to assert that rockets, on the assumption that they were launched from Iran or North Korea, would have to be intercepted so close to Russia.
Geographically speaking, we share this continent with Russia, and we therefore have to live together, and not the opposite, as it has long been the case.
The EU and NATO have entered into a partnership with Russia to make this possible. That does not mean that we like everything we see in Russia, or that we take on face value every word from Moscow, but it cannot either mean that European security can be organised without consultation and cooperation with Russia.
In a nutshell: a military defense mechanism that is meant to increase security in the hypothetical case of attacks from outside of Europe must not, as a consequence, jeopardize stability on this continent, as it was the case during the 20th century.
Fears frequently originate in misunderstandings; we have to avoid all misunderstandings. This goes for the United States, for Russia, for NATO and for the EU.
Europe needs the US to work together to create a more peaceful world.
The US needs a strong Europe, based on mutual solidarity, which works not in a bilateral logic, but where European interests receive European answers, in conformity with article 11 of the Treaty.
This is the position of the Luxembourg Government, and I will do everything, in my position as Foreign Minister, in the EU and in NATO, to prevent the danger of a new arms race as well as the danger of sending the wrong signals.
Politics and diplomacy have to deal with the perception that could arise in our countries, as well as in third countries. And this has to happen through fair and transparent consultation.
Fears and instability lead to diminished security.
The Transatlantic dialogue has to strive, more than ever, for more security through political stability.
This is a time for partnership, not confrontation.