NATO Enlargement -- Time For A New Paradigm?
37 Conference on Security Policy, Muenchen 2-4 February 2001
The Addres of Dr. Dimtrij Rupel, Minister of Foreign Affairs Republic of Slovenia
Let me at the very beginning ask a rhetorical question: Has the
time finally come for a new paradigm for the future enlargement of
NATO? Are the reasons, conditions and circumstances of the Madrid
round of enlargement still valid, and are they sufficient for the next
round? What should remain, what should be changed and what is new? Is
there a need for a new paradigm?
Without any doubt, we can conclude that the basic reasons,
conditions and circumstances for a further enlargement of the area of
security and stability of the Transatlantic Alliance will remain valid
and up-to-date in the future, too. However, there are new elements to
be added which did not exist at the time of the Madrid Conference: the
experiences of preparations for membership and of newcomers to the
Alliance - Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Closely connected
to that is the Membership Action Plan - the mechanism and tool for
direct preparations of aspirant countries for membership. In this
period, NATO, for the first time in its history, has carried out a
military intervention, in the operation against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, and then in Kosovo continued the operation in support
of peace. Since St. Malo, we have been witnesses to an
extraordinarily dynamic process of development of a common European
security and defense policy and formation of common European forces.
The general standpoint of the Russian Federation is by no means a
new and an unknown element. However, what is unknown is its practical
and concrete policy at the next enlargement round, in general, and
after the decision by the Allies on which country will be invited into
the Alliance next year, in particular. The aspirants are also not new,
but have indeed changed considerably since the Madrid and Washington
Summits, learned a lot, invested a great deal (of knowledge, people,
financial means) in order to prepare for membership. It is also
possible that in the not so distant future, new candidates may emerge
and by that considerably contribute to various geo- political and
geo-strategic elements of enlargement.
Both the new and the changed elements will have an important
influence on further discussion on enlargement and on the appearance
of a new paradigm.
When the aspirants last year tried - individually or all together -
to encourage discussion on further enlargement, part of the answer as
a rule was "wait for a new American administration". Now it
is here and as far NATO is concerned, its policy is clear and
unambiguous: President Bush will pay a visit to the NATO Headquarters
in Brussels as early as this June. We believe that this is not only
strongly symbolic for the Euro-Atlantic Alliance but also pragmatic
search for an early consensus on the basic definition of the future
Alliance, including its enlargement dimension.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his confirmation hearing before
the Senate Committee for International Relations, strongly emphasized
his belief in NATO as a "sacrosanct bedrock of our relations with
Europe". As far as further enlargement is concerned, Secretary
Powell has left open the question of how many and who. Not for long,
though. He has announced that, before summer, a comprehensive analysis
will be done of the present criteria, proposals for their adaptation
to the new circumstances and enlargement by new ones, such as military
capabilities, geo-strategic situation, engagement of the candidates in
their own preparations, credibility in implementation of adopted
obligations. And Powell emphasizes that it is not only a matter of a
"quantitative approach" (large powers, big area and
"rightsizing, defense budget and public support") but also
of a "qualitative dimension", i.e. the power of NATO as a
political alliance, and thus the difference which "appears in the
strategic environment with respect to whether one is in NATO or
not".
Senator Jesse Helms, in his speech at the American Enterprise
Institute a few weeks ago, stressed the need for "righting the
wrongs of Yalta", proposing admittance into the Alliance of the
three Baltic candidates. Some in the US Committee on NATO stress that
further NATO enlargement is primarily a matter of the political vision
of the Euro-Atlantic community and transatlantic bonds, so to say, a
political imperative of the new time. Henry Kissinger asked in a
recent "The Washington Post" whether NATO was still at the
center of the common transatlantic destiny. His answer was that here
is a rich agenda for dialogue before us, which should give answers to
the new view on the Alliance. This should also contain a new
assessment of the strategic priorities, which he sees on NATO's south
flank. Senator Jospeh Biden, after his return from Kosovo, called in a
recent "The New York Times" on the new Administration not to
forget that security in the Balkans means the security of Europe,
which is, at the same time, the security of the USA.
General Weisser, the key defense advisor to the German Defense
Minister Ruehe at the time of the last round of enlargement, writes in
a last week's "The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" that the
time has come to work on general guidelines for the next enlargement
round, which must contribute to the security and stability of Europe.
The candidates must prove worthiness for membership by achieving basic
criteria like functioning democracy, successful market economy, civil
and democratic control over the armed forces, military capability to
contribute to the common (collective) security, credibility of the
armed forces etc. In the geo-strategic environment, he, too,
underlines the increasing importance of NATO's south flank.
This fleeting glance at the statements and comments of leading
politicians and experts from both sides of the Atlantic in the first
month of this year shows clearly enough that a constructive and
all-round discussion has already begun. The Munich Conference, this
traditional gathering place of experts in the field of international
security and defense, could therefore not take place at a more
suitable time. I believe that it will make a significant contribution
to the further course of preparations for the NATO Summit in Prague in
the year 2002.
The rhetorical question from the introduction is indeed just a
rhetorical one. The new paradigm is already emerging. The Madrid
Conference was in its basis a political one, founded on the NATO
enlargement study, which has highlighted as the necessary criteria
functioning democracy, market economy, human rights, state of law and
good-neighborly relations. The experiences from the preparatory period
and the first years of full membership of Poland, the Czech Republic
and Hungary show that these criteria must be further developed and
upgraded.
To develop means to depart from the broadest political point: the
continuation and completion of the process of the democratic
transformation of Europe into "a Europe whole and free",
including "righting the historic injustices". This also
means a struggle against corruption, elimination of judicial backlogs,
completion of the privatization process, restitution of the
nationalized property, abolishment of all kinds of injustice, better
civil service, foreign investments and investing abroad, settled
legislature in the field of international security obligations,
protection of classified information, etc.
The upgrading means in the first line preparation for concrete
assumption of the obligations of an allied country, i.e. a reform and
modernization of the defense system in accordance with the NATO
standards, rightsizing of the armed forces, NATO- comparable defense
budget and positive public opinion, which is all included in the
Membership Action Plan. A credible enlargement paradigm will thus have
to be at the same time political and practical one.
Before the Madrid Summit the Allies offered us the Enlargement
Study, in the preparation of which the aspirants were not
involved. Before the next Summit the aspirant countries wish to
co-operate actively and to contribute to the new paradigm. The
"Vilnius Statement", signed by the foreign ministers of the
nine aspirants in May 2000 and the activities the
"V/ilnius-9" or "A/spirant-9", which were carried
out at different levels and on different occasions in the past year
and which will continue all the time until the Prague Summit, are our
constructive contribution to the further development of the Alliance,
full members of which we wish to become sooner or later.
At the Washington Summit, NATO reiterated its commitment to its
further enlargement in accordance with the principle of the "Open
Door Policy". This gives aspirant countries, among them Slovenia,
the hope that they will be invited at the next Summit, presumably in
Prague in October 2002. Slovenia is counting on becoming one of the
first new members and has been working very hard for that goal, which
is one of its national strategic priorities. However, at the same
time, Slovenia is well aware that in order to accomplish that goal it
will also have to provide an appropriate defense budget and carry out
the required "right-sizing" of its armed forces.
Not only is NATO membership Slovenia's official national strategic
priority, which enjoys the broad support of the majority of the
political parties and of the public, but it has also carefully planned
and implemented a number of activities in order to meet the
criteria. Thus the Government confirmed the national strategy for
integration into NATO as early as in February 1998, which was later
passed by the National Assembly and presented to the Alliance. In
October 1999, the Government passed the Annual National Program for
the Implementation of the Membership Action Plan (MAP) and submitted
it to NATO. On the basis of assessment of the implementation of the
first Membership Action Plan and the NATO Report on Slovenia's
progress, in September 2000 the Government adopted the Annual National
Program for the Implementation of the Membership Action Plan 2000-2001
and submitted it to NATO.
The Prague Summit will take place five years after the Madrid
Summit, when invitations to three Central European countries to join
the North Atlantic Alliance were extended. It seems that the Prague
Summit will be both high time and a symbolic venue for a new decision
on further invitations.
Slovenia was one of the initiators and, together with Lithuania,
co-organizer of the ministerial conference of the nine aspirant
countries in Vilnius. The "Vilnius Declaration", which
states that Europe should become whole, democratic and free, is a sign
of political solidarity among the aspirant countries, which are aware
that synergy of efforts will lead us to our common goal -
fully-fledged membership in the Alliance. Slovenia is, however, of the
opinion that each country should be assessed individually for meeting
the criteria and admitted to membership "on its own merit",
as stipulated in Article 8 of the Madrid and Washington Declarations.
We by no means see the enlargement process as some kind of a beauty
contest. On the contrary, aspirant candidate countries have already
invested utmost efforts to put in place an effective democratic
leadership and a fully functioning market economy, and to contribute
to the Alliance's endeavors to secure peace and stability in the
Balkan region.
Some of these countries are no longer mere partners, since they
showed Alliance-like behavior during the Allied Force Operation back
in 1999. And Slovenia is one of these countries.
In addition, as a member of the Partnership for Peace, Slovenia has
been actively contributing to stabilization in Bosnia and in Kosovo by
participating in the operations of KFOR, SFOR and UNMIK. It has also
supported Croatia in its bid to join the Partnership and will do the
same for the candidacy of Bosnia. This is how we already contribute to
the stability and security in South-East Europe.
Slovenia is also in the final stage of negotiations with the
European Union and hopes to complete them by the end of the current
year. Slovenia is strongly convinced that its EU-membership would
contribute to stability and security in Central Europe and also
project them into the South-East European region. Also in this
respect, Slovenia closely follows the process of establishing common
European security and defense, and believes that these are indivisible
and closely connected with the transatlantic dimension otherwise
represented by NATO. Slovenia also believes that the common European
security and defense policy does not mean a diminished role or
weakening of NATO but rather its completion and a new
dimension. Slovenia's active participation in building the common
European Security and Defense Policy therefore also reflects its own
security interests.
Although we expect an intensification of the enlargement debate
only in the next fall, we believe that some signs are promising. It
seems that the question of further enlargement is slowly moving from
the back to the front burner.
However, one must not forget that every candidate country should be
judged on its own achievements and merits, as was also clearly
expressed by the Allies at the Madrid and Washington Summits.
The Washington Summit launched the Membership Action Plan, thus
providing aspirant countries with a more systematic, focused and
result-oriented process. Successful fulfillment of the MAP itself
certainly does not imply an automatic invitation. We are fully aware
that, at the end of the day, the decision will be a political one.
We still have to do our homework to the best of our abilities,
resources and knowledge. The remaining time until the Prague Summit
will be crucial for prioritizing our resources, both financial and
human. Public support in Slovenia for our endeavors has been
maintained at a high level, but no one can say how the public will
react tomorrow should Slovenia not be invited, after investing a lot
but gaining little or nothing. The MAP of today is different from the
MAP of April 1999 when it was adopted. It has grown up. So have we. We
have learned a lot and so have the Allies.
If the MAP process, together with the whole PARP and IPP process
had been as clear to us in April 1999 as it is today, we would have
prioritized our activities better and earlier. However, the time and
effort invested so far are not lost. We understand that the criteria
according to which we will be judged have been "upgraded"
since Madrid, now including more than before the security bonus that
each new nation will bring into the Membership. We accept that,
because we also want the Alliance to remain strong and able to respond
to tomorrow's threats.
We hear about different scenarios for the Prague Summit decision on
the issue of new invitations. Two of those four scenarios are not,
frankly speaking, very encouraging for the aspirants. The scenarios of
prolonging the decision to the years 2005, 2006, or no invitations and
no mention of the future possible dates will undoubtedly undermine the
Alliance's credibility about the declared continuation of the Open
Door Policy. I believe that those two scenarios should be discarded
without any hard feelings.
It is not so important whether all nine aspirant countries or only
a smaller number of them are invited. Of paramount importance is that
the invitations are extended at the Prague Summit. This is the only
credible confirmation of the Alliance's declared Open Door Policy. In
this scenario, those countries not invited should be given a
streamlined, more goal-oriented "MAP 2", and not just
continue with the MAP in its present form.
We believe that there cannot be any veto by non-NATO nations or any
behind-the- scenes deals on the question of who should be invited and
who should not, or even whether to extend new invitations at all. The
key issue is fulfillment of the required criteria and the concrete
contribution of each nation to the security of the Alliance. These
two things should be the "fil rouge" for those preparing the
decisions when the time comes. And the time will surely come in
Prague. And Slovenia will be waiting prepared, as it is was waiting
prepared in 1997 in Madrid.
VIR: Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve, Služba za odnose z javnostmi
tel.: 01 478 2354
faks: 01 478 2355
|
