Nato has chosen a Dutchman, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to succeed a Briton, George Robertson.

Now, some of the countries from which Nato imagined Soviet tanks rolling are members of the alliance. And, with Nato troops on peace-keeping duty in Afghanistan, the organisation's focus has shifted from the North German plain to an altogether wider world - which rather raises the question of what it's for.

Jeremy Paxman spoke to the next Secretary General of Nato, who takes up his new job in January. He began by asking him what he thought Nato was for.

Watch the interview

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
NATO is for, as we see in Afghanistan, as we see in Iraq, as we have seen in the Balkans, a very important alliance linking the United States, Canada and the Europeans and being in the forefront of where it concerns peacekeeping operations. Almost, one could say, in areas where we had never expected NATO to operate before.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
So who is the enemy of this alliance?

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
The enemy is not the traditional enemy any more. The enemy, for instance, is international terrorism. The enemy is instability, the enemy is insecurity, that's the reason why NATO is, for instance, in Afghanistan, why NATO is supporting the Polish division in Iraq. That's the new enemy.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
But isn't what you're saying a classic example of an organisation whose time has passed desperately trying to find something to do?

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
I don't buy the word "desperately." The alliance is relevant and alive and kicking as ever. The only thing is that the international security surroundings and scene and structure has changed drastically and dramatically but to jump to the conclusion that by saying that NATO is irrelevant, you should name me another alliance, there is none in the world which is capable of doing what the Atlantic alliance is doing at the moment.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
It's not a question of whether there's a comparable or more powerful alliance, it is a question of whether these inflexible alliances are any longer relevant in the modern world and don't just take it from me. Donald Rumsfeld says it is not the coalition that makes the mission, but the mission that makes the coalition.

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
Well, if there is a coalition, if there is a mission, as we've seen, let me take the Afghan example again, we have seen the UN playing an important role, still playing an important role, we have soon individual nations taking the lead, amongst them mine together with Germany. Now you see the alliance doing what you and I would never have expected the alliance to do even three or four years ago. So I mean I'm not so much interested in the question, who is defining the mission or the coalition, I'm interested in what alliance, and that is the NATO alliance, can do the job. NATO is doing the job.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
The question is what that job is. Everybody understood in the days of the Cold War, the basic principle upon which NATO was built, that an attack upon one was an attack upon all. We live in an entirely different world now where NATO is unable even to agree within itself about whether the invasion of Iraq was legitimate.

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
I disagree, I disagree. I agree of course with you because that's a fact. That between major NATO allies there was a difference of opinion in the run-up to the Iraqi war. But I do not agree if you say that in the aftermath of this war, the alliance does not play a role, and as an appointed Secretary-General, what is of the utmost importance of course, and I agree there is room for discussion and debate there, is that this alliance which is of course basically an alliance defending values which are the same values at either side of the ocean, this alliance keeps the bridge between Europe, this big Europe at the moment with so many NATO nations, and the United States and Canada intact.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
But it's not just that it is so much bigger and that it found it so difficult to agree even on something as close to its own doorstep as Kosovo, it is the fact that since then, as far as we can see, the United States and say the French and the Germans, are at utter loggerheads.

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
Well, they have their differences, I very much agree. But there is nothing new in difference of opinion in the Atlantic alliance. The Atlantic alliance in it's entire history has of course seen differences of opinion. But on balance and in the long- run you will see that despite the difficulties and the differences in the alliance, for instance on the future of European security and defence policy, it will be overcome.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Well you're a diplomat and therefore a professional optimist. Let me ask you one factual assessment as a military observer, Is it necessary for European states to spend more of their GDP on defence?

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
I think there is a capabilities gap between Europe and the United States. It is a big one. So I think that if the European Union, and this is nothing new, I've said as Netherlands Foreign Minister, over and over again, if the prior commitments which were taken by the alliance last year in Prague, at the summit meeting in Prague, are not fulfilled that gap might widen which is not good for the alliance.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Thank you very much indeed.

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER:
Thank you.

This transcript was produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.