Article in "Nezavisimaia Moldova" Feb. 1997

Article By Javier Solana The extent to which the security situation has changed can be judged not by rhetoric but by deeds. There are many signs of a new spirit and mentality at work. In and around the Bosnian city of Tuzla, it has become a regular feature to see American and Russian soldiers patrolling together as part of an international peacekeeping force organised by NATO. It has become equally common today that a meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels brings together Foreign Ministers of over 40 countries. And it is no longer novel when a military exercise brings together soldiers from NATO and non-NATO countries, including Moldova. All this reflects the fundamentally changed nature of European security. Countries which were once portrayed as adversaries are now natural partners. For the first time in modern times, European countries can ensure peace and security by working with each other, rather than against each other. There is a genuine common interest in working together to find solutions to shared problems. The fact that NATO and non-NATO countries are cooperating so closely and so frequently, also reflects the fundamentally changed nature of NATO itself since the end of the 1980's. Instead of being focused on a single mission - collective defence - NATO has turned into a motor of European security cooperation and a catalyst for political change. It has adopted a new approach to security based on the principle of cooperation with non-member countries and other institutions. Our successful peacekeeping effort in Bosnia is only the most visible sign of this new approach. How exactly has NATO changed to adapt to the New European Security environment? Let me first describe the political dimension. In 1990, we offered the hand of friendship to all countries of the Warsaw Pact. A year later, we created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council as a forum in which NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries could discuss issues of common security. That year, 1991, marked a real turning point. NATO adopted a new Strategic Concept which recognised that future risks to security would come from local crises rather than large-scale aggression. NATO, in its new strategy, declared itself ready to cooperate with others in preventing the development or spread of such crises. The dynamism of a process can be judged by its growth and development. Since starting on the road of cooperation, NATO has not stood still. Like any successful relationship, we have moved from familiarity to warm friendship and to geeuine commitment of common values. In 1994 we invited all countries of the OSCE area to develop with NATO's 16 member countries the Partnership for Peace. The goal of the Partnership is to improve the capacity of our armed forces to cooperate in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Twenty-seven countries, including Russia, have taken up this offer. Through the practical measures offered by the Partnership, relations between Allies and Partners have deepened to a point almost unimaginable a decade ago. NATO's changed policies have resulted in major changes in military structure and reduction in overall military capability. NATO nations have cut defence expenditures and considerably reduced and reconfigured their armed forces into smaller, more mobile units to better carry out the new missions of peacekeeping. Levels of military forces in NATO countries have gone down considerably; U.S. forces stationed in Europe have been cut by over 60%. Overall readiness levels of forces have been lowered. NATO's nuclear forces have been cut by over 80%. All nuclear artillery has been withdrawn. And we have withdrawn and destroyed all land-based nuclear missiles from Europe. In fact, NATO has no nuclear missiles on European soil at all: no cruise missiles, no ballistic missiles. We have come a long way in a very few years. The North Atlantic Alliance, an organisation which was once geared to meeting solely the defence purposes of Western Europe, is now transforming into a bulwark of stability across the whole of Europe. The Bosnian experience shows that NATO has adapted very well to the new security environment. NATO's role in the Balkans demonstrates that while we cannot impose long-term peace and stability from outside, at least we can create the stability necessary to initiate the reconstruction of these shattered societies. Of course, the significance of the new NATO goes beyond Bosnia. If we want to turn our goal of a Euro-Atlantic security architecture into reality, NATO must continue to evolve. It must demonstrate its relevance for wider European security by intensifying our links with non-NATO countries, and further develop the capacity for joint action. This will require NATO to adapt further, and make further changes in our military structure, so that Partners can involve themselves in planning, as well as exercising, for peacekeeping missions with NATO. This is precisely what we are doing. Indeed, this year, in July, we will have a Summit meeting in Madrid which will set the course for the 21st century, consolidating Euro-Atlantic security. The Summit will see NATO taking the most important decisions since the founding of the Alliance a half century ago. This meeting will strive to erase completely any trace of the past lines of confrontation that separated countries in Europe. Our decisions should be seen for what they are intended - a real benefit to the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area. First, we are working on a new military structure for NATO. For four decades, NATO's command structure was extensive and static, designed to repel a massive attack against NATO members' territory. Today, the continent is no longer divided on military ideological lines. Today, all countries can make a contribution to European security. In NATO, we are therefore developing a new military structure better able to allow Partners and Allies to respond together to the new demands of crisis management and peacekeeping. It will be a structure which will be more streamlined and more flexible. Most importantly, it will be a structure which will involve Partner countries from the outset in future crisis management operations. We will also invite one or more countries to enter into accession negotiations. Our goal is to welcome the first new members by 1999. Opening the Alliance to new members should be seen - and appreciated - for what it is: a natural part of the wider process of European integration, a means of reinforcing in all the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe the confidence in their democratic destiny and responding to their sense of belonging. All of Europe will benefit if the new democracies are safely anchored in the institutional frameworks of NATO and the European Union. But in order to ensure that enlargement increases security and stability for all of Europe we will also have to take into account the needs of all our Partners, including those who have no intention to join the Alliance. This is why we are working on ways to strengthen the Partnership for Peace. Within the three years of its existence, Partnership for Peace has become the most successful military cooperation in European history. We are going to intensify PfP to allow our Partners to become increasingly involved with NATO and its military organisation in our consultations and planning for emerging crises. This new "PfP plus" will provide additional reassurance that they will remain closely tied to an enlarged Alliance. As a further step in the process, we will work with Partners on the initiative to establish an Atlantic Partnership Council (APC) as an overarching framework for our cooperation. Our goal is to inspire a more productive consultative and cooperative process, in which Partners would be even more deeply involved. We will also develop a durable relationship with Russia. European security would be ill-served by a Russia locked into a mindset of isolationism and hostility. We want Russia in Europe - not as a passive bystander, but as an active and responsible security contributor. The constructive Russian role in IFOR is proof that a more comprehensive NATO-Russia partnership is no longer a matter of theory, but an emerging reality. We need to build on this experience. In the coming months, we will work to establish a permanent mechanism of consultation and possibly joint action. I would envisage a relationship in which NATO and Russia would consult on each and every issue that would affect their common interests, whether these relate to crisis management, arms control, or non-proliferation. Such a NATO-Russia relationship is good for Russia, for NATO and for European security as a whole. Such a relationship also implies that NATO and Russia keep to the highest standards of international behaviour, respecting the rights and independence of all the newly-emerged countries. The Alliance is also committed to its cooperative relationship with Ukraine. Ukraine, as Europe's second-largest country, occupies a key strategic position. Her independence could be regarded as a litmus test for the state of European security at large. NATO is looking at ways by which NATO-Ukraine cooperation can be enhanced to help Ukraine consolidate its evolution into a stable democracy. Moldova is currently facing the many challenges of independence. Like many other states facing similar challenges, there are difficult choices to make. In NATO, we are pleased that Moldova has resisted the temptation to become inward-looking. We respect Moldova's constitutional neutrality as an important principle. But this should not, and does not, prevent Moldova's engagement in wider security processes. In becoming a Partner for Peace in March 1994, Moldova demonstrated that its policy of strict neutrality is compatible with seeking friendly ties with other countries and organisations. As a partner, Moldova also demonstrates its commitment to the Alliance's goal of promoting peace and stability throughout Europe. Since then, our relationship has been gradually evolving into one marked by a spirit of practical cooperation, trust, and the development of ever closer ties. Moldova has participated in a range of activities, including 10 military exercises. Moldova's neighbours have also joined the Partnership. This is an important demonstration of that throughout Europe, there is a common interest, an interest that finds its expression in PfP. Europe can only be secure and stable, if we all adhere to the same rules and the same principles. A new Europe requires new approaches to its security. It requires a comprehensive approach, one that brings together political, economic and military means to prevent and manage crises, and to protect and promote our core values. NATO is playing its part in fostering such a new approach. But it is only through the trustful cooperation with its valued Partners, such as Moldova, that we can hope to succeed.