Individual Democratic Institutions Research Fellowships 1994-1996

The research reports reproduced here are the responsibility of the individual authors. Their reproduction does not imply any form of official or unofficial endorsement by NATO. The reports are offered in unedited form, as presented by their authors, with a view to make their findings available to a wide audience. Baltic States: Cooperation on Security and Integration into the European Security System Talavs Jundzis [Back to Index] Part III. Military policies of the Baltic States Chapter 3. Military cooperation of the Baltic states Baltic cooperation in the military sphere, which began already in 1990 soon after declaring independence, has continued through the years, although it would be dificult to cite real accomplishments. During this period regular meetings have taken place between ministers, armed forces commanders, border guard commanders, and specialists in communications, armaments, supply and so forth. To activate previously established work groups and let them achieve their purposes, each country took responsibility for a particular area of cooperation. For example, Estonia led the work groups that dealt with standardization problems of armaments and command systems, and military training systems. Lithuania was responsible for work groups that addressed information and communications issues, while Latvia was in charge of groups dealing with airspace control and border guarding problems. Several joint military field exercises, with specific units from each country, have taken place. Joint sports competitions and seminars and conferences on defence issues have been organized. In spite of the many contacts, meetings, etc. the results are rather modest. Many real issues of a military nature between the Baltic states have not been resolved even after several years. No agreements have been reached on: creating a common airspace control system; principles of cooperation and a system for control of the marine economic zone; standardization of weapons and military equipment; cooperation in munitions and other essential equipment manufacture; creating compatible communications systems. Even though agreements exist on cooperation among the defence ministries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, no such agreement has been signed on defence and security at the country level. The three countries have not even succeeded in exchanging military attaches. Work should also be started on making military law compatible among the three, which at present varies considerably. The future prospects for further Baltic integration in security and defence areas are rated differently, even controversially. One view holds that "Latvia's, Estonia's and Lithuania's unity could in time become a confederation and the creation of common Baltic state armed forces are not ruled out".(79) Dr.J.Gabliks of the USA proposes the formation of a Baltic state union with a common currency, army and foreign policy. The presidency and government could change by rotation. Each country's internal affairs could be handled in the same way as by the states in the USA, with a parliament and a government. Taking into account the fact that in the next few years NATO will not take in new member states, Dr.Gabliks proposes the formation of a Baltic-East European "NATO" which would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Czeck Republic, Slovakia, Poland.(80) In contrast, a number of scholars and politicians have been very skeptical in their judgments on Baltic perspectives for cooperation. For instance, Dr.Piters Vares, Deputy Director of Estonia's Institute of Sociology, Philosophy, and Law insists that Baltic functionaries as well as public opinion consider Baltic cooperation, if not the last then at least one of the less meaningful choices in Baltic foreign policy alternatives. The scholar correctly points out that the Balts have never really been united: not in history, not in the inter-war independence years from 1920 to 1940, nor in the Soviet period.(81) One can agree with Dr.Vares that historically the Baltics cannot take pride in close cooperation, including militarily in the inter-war period. However, one cannot agree with his viewpoint that public opinion is so negative. A survey done in Latvia showed that 75,7% of citizens consider it necessary to create a Baltic military alliance, with a unified command and mutual obligations in case of aggression. It should be noted that respondent attitude was more positive towards a Baltic military alliance than towards joining NATO, which was supported by only 62,6% of Latvia's citizens. Even though the mentioned data characterizes only one of the Baltic states, there is no reason to think that public opinion in Estonia and Lithuania, towards a Baltic military alliance, could be radically different. The "United Baltic States" model proposed by Dr.Gabliks is theoretically possible, but not realizable in today's reality. The Baltic states have too many differences and neither historically, nor ethnically, nor by religion, nor language are they so closely bound as to be able to talk of political integration.(82) Nonetheless, the vulnerable position of the Baltic states, with analogous internal and external risk factors requires the uniting of forces and energies to solve defence issues and to create a regional military alliance with a distinct defence mission. The Baltics acting in unison could gather a numerically significant military force, more effectively control airspace and the marine economic zone, and develop the necessary military industry. For a long time, the creation of a Baltic state military union was not discussed at official levels and great hopes were placed on quick accession to NATO. One of the first official talks on the formation of a Baltic state military union occured in Riga on November 29, 1995, when the commanders of the armed forces of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania expressed their support for the possible creation of a military union. However, the Baltic Assembly (a forum of parliamentary representatives of the three states) on December 1, 1995 in Tallin did not support the proposal for creation of a military union, claiming lack of resources, possible negative Russian reaction, etc.. Yet it seems that the real reasons are deeper. First of all, the Baltic states have unresolved political differences, which showed themselves glaringly while trying to resolve the Russian troop withdrawals and fix mutual marine borders. That makes Baltic politicians wary and cautious, and one may ask if it will be possible to reach such a level of political understanding, which in contrast to the unsuccessful military cooperation of the 30's, could allow to realize a truly new type of military alliance. Secondly, some of the Baltic politicians are concerned that the creation of a Baltic military alliance can elicit a radical worsening of relations with Russia. Besides that, Lithuania's leadership has expressed the opinion that the creation of a Baltic military union could delay Lithuania's entry in NATO. Up to now Russia has not indicated how it feels about a potential Baltic military alliance. It is only known that Russia's military doctrine, accepted on November 2nd, 1993 has listed among military threats, the expansion of military blocs and alliances contrary to the Russian Federation's military security interests.(83) At the same time Russia reserves the right for itself to join any collective security system or to cooperate with it. The creation of the CIS collective security system on Russian initiative is a practical example. Even if it is not possible to wait for Russian understanding and favourable attitude towards the ccreation of a Baltic military alliance, still even Russia should bear in mind that the right to individual and collective self-defence is one of the most important state rights, which is specified in the 51st article of the UN statutes. Even though the creation of a Baltic military alliance cannot be viewed as an easily implemented idea, still its significance cannot be overestimated. Serious discussions should be started on this issue in the Baltics and bilateral consultations should be arranged. Taking into consideration the categorical Russian opposition to NATO expansion and Baltic accession, the West should actively encourage and support the Baltic state military alliance idea. A Baltic military alliance could become a NATO satellite organization, bound to NATO by mutual agreements, with associated rights and responsibilities. In the longer term, such a regional military organization could more realistically seek complete integration in NATO or other European military systems. The creation of a Baltic military alliance should be regarded as today's most important and most real way to strengthen Baltic regional security and stability. The biggest hurdle to the creation of such an alliance could be the cherishing of illusions about Western security guaranties or quick integration in NATO. Baltic politicians should more seriously consider the gravity of the situation and the necessity not to delay to adopt a politically responsible strategic decision.