Opening of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Sintra, Portugal 30 May 1997

Statement by H.E. Mr. Toomas Hendrik Ilves Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

Mr. Secretary General, Dear colleagues, Let me begin by welcoming the recent signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act. We believe that this is a good document which recognizes Russia's importance to Europe. We believe that the Founding Act is a good complement to the enlargement of the Alliance. The recognition both of Russia's achievements during the past few years - notably the withdrawal of its troops from Central Europe in accordance with international obligations - and of the character of a new NATO provide a good basis for lasting cooperation between Russia and a changed and enlarged Alliance. In this positive context it strikes us as particularly odd that despite the clear reference in the Act to the right of each European country to choose its own security arrangements we have recently heard numerous statements that echo the past more than speak of the future. Once again some people wish to draw a line, albeit a more restricted line, on who may allowed to join NATO and who may not. As you know neither Estonia nor its Baltic neighbours have ever been parts of the Soviet Union. However, I would like to make it quite clear that we consider the apparent attempt to prescribe to countries whether they may or may not join the Alliance as completely misplaced. This does not it in today's world and goes both against the letter and the spirit of the NATO-Russia agreement. It is neither constructive nor sustainable. By avoiding such statements and by finally accepting the new realities of today's world as set down in the NATO-Russia Act today we will be able to prevent messy and necessary disputes in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, Today we will inaugurate the EAPC. Equally, we all have to consider how best manage the enlargement of the Alliance when it decides to invite new members in one month's time. The NACC has proven its value over the past few years. In 1991 a vision was needed on how to best manage the enlargement of the Alliance when its decides to invite new members in one month's time. The NACC has proven its value over the past few years. In 991 a vision was needed on how to bring Europe from confrontation to cooperation following the end of the Cold War. This NACC and PfP achieved and I am convinced that the EAPC will be equally successful. What we need today is a plan for making sure that the first round of NATO enlargement continues in this spirit and truly enhances every European country's security. In particular the interests of those applicant countries not invited in this round must be taken into account. I would like to make three points: The Madrid Summit should announce a clear strategy for dealing with these applicant partners, emphasizing that every applicant partner is being considered; The next round of enlargement should be announced in the near future to avoid any perception that these applicant partners abandoned to a limbo or a vacuum; The European Union's enlargement must take place according to its own criteria and must clearly be decoupled from NATO's plans. I would like to expand on these three points. First: I said one month ago in my address to the North Atlantic Council that it is high time to start to look beyond the July summit. Madrid should be a meeting to design further steps. In addressing future enlargements, the Madrid Communiqu has to go beyond article 10 and I welcome the decisions of yesterday's NAC to do so. A continuation of the intensified dialogue is a minimal - an absolutely minimal - means to reassure applicant countries not yet invited. It would indicate to these countries whose democratic governments decided to apply for NATO membership that the Western community has not turned its back on them. These dialogues should not be held in the framework of EAPC since the question on enlargement and of membership is an intimate dialogue between applicant countries and the Alliance. These talks are, in principle about article 5 and EAPC is not about article 5. Point number two: The next round of enlargement must clearly be a near-term prospect. This is important in order to emphasize that those applicant partners not included in the first round are not consigned to a "grey zone" or a zone of reduced security. The dialogue process with applicant partners must be kept under regular review with a view to issuing new invitations as soon as the time is considered ripe. The 1999 Summit would be a good time to do this. Setting a clear date for the beginning of the next round of enlargement would also dispel any ideas of the misunderstandings and would instead build on the principles enshrined in the NATO-Russia Act of a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area. In this context we are encouraged that the US authorities share our aspiration for an early signing of the US-Baltic Charter. As more and more countries recognize the importance of the Baltic region, I would also like to express our appreciation for the increased French involvement in our area. Now to point number three. The EU and NATO enlargements are two independent processes and they must remain so. Any Linking of the memberships of these two distinct organizations is wrought with potential danger. We cannot allow the criteria set down in Copenhagen, Madrid and Dublin to be watered down or ignored in favour of extraneous geopolitical considerations. Therefore we are extremely worried by indications coming from some quarters that do wish to link these two processes by making membership in one organization conditional on membership in the other. Ladies and Gentlemen, such an approach could be extremely be damaging both to the credibility of the EU's decision-making process and to the reform efforts in Central and Eastern Europe. Thus far one of the major incentives of radical reform in Estonia as well as in the other 9 Central European applicant countries has been the prospect of early EU membership based on an evaluation through objective criteria. If these criteria were to be seen to have ignored or tampered with in favour of a perceived politically biased decision-making process it would send all the wrong signals to both applicant countries and the wider world. The Associated countries - both those that are invited in the first round as well as those that are shut out - would assume that the progress of reform is not a decisive criterion and could therefore slow down their national reform and harmonization processes. The outside world would draw its own conclusions from such a political decision. Mr. Secretary General, NATO must have a bold strategy for Madrid. It must be ensured that the enlargement process will continue. The EU enlargement decisions have to be kept entirely separate from the decisions of NATO. These are essential elements for building a secure, inclusive and stable Europe. As I said to the NAC on 23 April: "Of all the applicants the Baltic states have often been singled out by people who do not believe that the Cold War is over. They have become a symbol of the desire to veto the legitimate security solutions sought by European democracies. Thus Baltic membership in NATO is the best means to signal to both western, eastern and central Europe that the Cold War is truly over. It will signal that we have made a jump into a new era that no-one would have believed in but 10 years ago, into an age where dividing lines, whether old or new, no longer exist." Let us be visionary and let us understand the geographic location of the Baltic states for what it truly is: a major opportunity rather than a handicap. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General.