Opinion Edited
By Javier Solana
NATO Secretary General
Exactly one year ago, NATO and Russia embarked upon a fundamentally
new relationship when President Yeltsin joined NATO's Heads of State and
Government in Paris to sign the NATO/Russia Founding Act.
Why do I regard this as a step of historical importance? Why do we believe
that Russia and NATO should work together more closely? Let me give you
three reasons - and back them up with facts:
First, because the world will be a safer place when NATO and Russia
consult with each other. We are engaged in a NATO-Russia relationship
because all of us - Allies and Russia - wanted not just the end of the
Cold War but something more. After years of division, we saw the possibility
of transcending the past to get to where we should have been were it not
for half a century of futile ideological and military confrontation.
It took a lot of time and patience to come this far. Many misperceptions
had to be overcome, many obstacles had to be cleared. Ultimately, however,
both Russia and NATO realised that in this new world there is no alternative
to cooperation. The NATO-Russia Founding Act is a reflection of this fundamental
reality.
The potential of this relationship is enormous. But of course, one cannot
simply declare better relations; they must be embedded in the day-to-day
working environment. They must enshrine mutual respect, transparency and
reciprocity. So NATO and Russia set up the Permanent Joint Council (PJC)
as a forum for regular consultation on all matters affecting our security.
The result? Let me just give one example. A few weeks ago, Ambassadors
of NATO and Russia for the first time discussed nuclear weapons issues,
including doctrine and strategy and nuclear safety. This meeting demonstrated
that NATO and Russia are not shying away from exchanging views on sensitive
matters. This month we have had consultations on strategy, defence policy,
the military doctrines of NATO and Russia, and budgets and infrastructure
development programme, and exploratory meetings on armaments-related cooperation
have taken place. So, by dealing with real issues of considerable political
importance to both sides we are gradually building confidence and trust
and correct misperceptions.
Second, because there are many things NATO and Russia can do better
together. NATO and Russia may not always agree, but they do share important
security interests. We would be foolish not to take advantage of this
fact.
Let me illustrate what I mean. Last December, NATO and Russia agreed
a very extensive Work Programme for 1998. It covers questions of peacekeeping,
defence conversion, defence-related environmental issues, and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. These are surely areas that our public
would want us to pursue together to find solutions. Another issue of vast
importance to many Russian families: retaining of retired military officers.
Here NATO countries are sharing their experience in an effort to help.
In the military domain we have to overcome decades of isolation and
mutual suspicion. NATO and Russia are in the midst of setting up reciprocal
Military Liaison Missions in Moscow and at NATO Headquarters. Russia's
participation in the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia alongside NATO
Allies and other Partners has been an eye-opener to all sceptics. NATO
and Russian troops have worked together effectively, shoulder to shoulder,
sharing the risks and some successes in a difficult mission. NATO is more
than pleased that Russia has indicated her willingness to continue her
contribution after SFOR's mandate expires in June.
Bosnia offers a unique experience we must build on. There may be other
occasions in future when NATO and Russia embark together on joint peacekeeping
missions. After all, cooperation in peacekeeping, including possible joint
operations, is provided for in the NATO-Russia Founding Act.
Another example: In the field of civil emergency planning, NATO and
Russia have launched a pilot project on the "Use of Satellite Technology
in Disaster Assessment and Response". We have also opened the new NATO
Science for Peace Programme to Russian scientists. And, as you read this,
NATO and Russian Foreign Ministers are about to sign in Luxembourg a Memorandum
of Understanding on Scientific Cooperation.
Third, because we need to build a joint future. We cannot master the
challenges of the future with the mindset of the past. This message must
be brought across in particular to our leaders of tomorrow. They must
learn that Europe has changed, that we can live together in peace, and
that security is not a zero-sum game in which one can gain only at the
expense of others.
The beginning we have made in promising. Thanks to the new NATO-Russia
relationship, countless Russian journalists, students and government officials
have visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels over the last few years to
see and discuss NATO close-up. Indeed, we at NATO publish more now in
Russian than ever before. The North Atlantic Assembly - the parliamentary
arm of the Alliance - and the Russian Duma are actively developing contacts
to allow our legislatures to communicate effectively with one another.
And in early February, the NATO Documentation Centre was inaugurated in
Moscow. This Centre - located on the premises of the prestigious INION
Institute - will make information on NATO and general European security
matters accessible to a wide range of Russian organisations and citizens.
All these developments seemed unthinkable only a few years ago. NATO
and Russia have come a long way in a very short time. However, as we celebrate
the first anniversary of the NATO-Russia partnership, I sense that NATO's
decisions to admit new members is met with suspicion. Too many in Russia
still see NATO as an anti-Russian organisation.
In fact opening NATO's doors to new members and opening an intense dialogue
and cooperation with Russia are simultaneous steps inspired by the same
vision: an open society of democratic states joined by common interests
and common interests and common values spanning the Euro-Atlantic area.
NATO inspires confidence in a region historically prone to instability:
Central and Eastern Europe. It was the free choice of the countries in
this region to become members of a group of liked-minded sovereign democracies,
who have decided to organise their security in the most effective way
- through cooperation and integration. It was their choice to join NATO
that undergoing process of fundamental reform - and that has made cooperation
with Russia a central part of its political and military agenda.
In the Founding Act, NATO's 16 Heads of State and Government solemnly
reiterated the statement of 14 March 1997, that in the current and foreseeable
security environment, the Alliance will carry out collective defence and
other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration
and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing
of substantial combat forces. I think this statement speaks for itself.
Moreover, NATO Heads of State and Government also reiterated that they
have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on
the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's
nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need
to do so. In one word: Enlarging NATO does not mean moving a military
machinery eastward.
I fear that such statements may not convince the most hard-nosed sceptics
in Russia. Perhaps this is too much to ask, given the long history of
mistrust throughout the Cold War. But I hope that people with an open
mind are willing to listen. And I trust that the more cooperate, the less
the old suspicions will linger: we are anchoring a new Russia in a new
Euorpe. The seeds have been planted. If we make full use of the opportunities
we can soon bring in the harvest: a stable Europe facing the 21st century
with confidence.
|
