At the meeting of the EAPC at the level of Foreign Ministers Luxembourg 29 mai 1998

Presentation by First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus Sergei Martynov Exactly one year but one day has passed since the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council was established in Sintra. It has been conceived as a cooperative mechanism for political consultations and practical partnership. Today 1 would like to stress that without any doubt the EAPC is up for a good start. Having worked together allies and partners managed to approve an ambitious EAPC Action Plan for 1998-2000. A meaningful political dialogue developed within the EAPC on the most topic al issues of European and regional security. A Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Center is about to be established and 38 officers from thirteen Partner countries are to serve at NATO Military headquarters - to mention just two achievements of the EAPC in the field of enhanced practical cooperation. The EAPC has already proved its value as an instrument of confidence building and conflict prevention. The most important thing is that everybody around this table knows that if there is a need and if a decision is taken to apply certain measures to prevent or curb a conflict, forces and resources will be there. The very knowledge of this might stop potential conflicts from surfacing. The Republic of Belarus does not participate in SFOR in Bosula but we politically support its efforts and recognise its invaluable contribution to peace and security in Europe. We appreciate the discussions in the EAPC on Kosovo issue and will support bringing peace and stability based on the principle of territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. As much, as curbing conflicts in Bosnia and Yugoslavia is important today I do not see these conflicts as a typical or recurring model for Europe. In the coming century, in my opinion, we may expect three main security challenges: conflicts in the regions adjoining Europe., threats from international terrorism and related illegal activities like drug trafficking (including threat of use of weapons of mass destruction); - non-military threats such as: natural or man-made disasters, climate change, flows of illegal migration, etc. In view of this, we consider that the long-range prevention of conflicts could be best performed by methods of confidence and security-building and by multinational security mechanisms and organisations such as: United Nations, OSCE, NATO/EAPC. Modem conflict prevention should include military and increasingly non-military means. Among the military ones 1 should stress the importance of preventive deployment. Of course, its timing and modus operakdi should be carefully chosen in order not to add fuel to security risks in the regional and wider context. Among the non-military ones 1 would like to mention the use of the OSCE missions which proved to be very effective under different circumstances. Under the current security situation in Europe Belarus would like to promote the concept of "mutually reinforcing institutions" when every institution should do what it does best. OSCE should be more heavily involved in conflict prevention and restoration of the elements of civil society. Council of Europe has an important role to play in the post-conflict rehabilitation. NATO used to be a "hard" defense mechanism and still is but it managed to develop a broad range of cooperative military and non-military partnerships through EAPC, PfP, Charters with Russia and Ukraine. As Greek Minister for Defence Apostolos-Athauasios Tsohatzopoulos put it recently in his speech in the Greek Parliament before the Accession Protocols of new members were ratified, "NATO in its new form evolves into an organisation of Euro-Atlantic security". Belarus would like very much to enhance its relations with such a NATO. Belarus is often accused of being not very active in the EAPC and PfP. Well, there are several factors which restrain us from larger participation. Public opinion in Belarus, particularly in elder segments of the population, while positively accepting good-neighbourly and constructive relations with NATO, is not quite ready yet for full-blown military interaction with the Alliance. Legal environment in Belarus in this area is also substantially affected by a decision of the Parliament not to allow any Belarusian troops abroad. This decision taken in 1990, when no one could have imagined such a tremendous military cooperation program like PfP, was a reflection of the society's grief over loss of lives of young men in the Afghanistan war. Belarus was disproportionately heavily affected by the Afghanistan conflict because of a large number of Belarusian draftees sent to that war. The Parliament was and continues to be adamantly opposed to any, even innocuous, involvement of Belarus' military into even remotely conflict fraught situations. This does not, of course, mean that we are dead-locked in the peace-keeping area and that there is no way out of this situation. We do have ways but overcoming legal obstacles takes time. But nothing compares to the budget problem. Inadequate financing obviously slows down the intensification of our participation in PfP and reduces the percentage of the IPP activities' implementation. Our interested agencies have difficulties to fund their participation even in those activities which are partly subsidised by NATO. Frankly, it is hard to persuade the parliamentarians to allocate special budget provisions for PfP cooperation which is doubtless worthy and important but definitely, has in their view lesser priority then any social program or liquidation of Chernobyl disaster consequences. Our participation in PfP is based on the perception that Belarus becomes a neighbouring country to the largest military and political advance in history. While we will take all measures that are feasible and acceptable for a European and world community to ensure our security, Belarus is more than ready for a meaningful contribution to avoid confrontation and new dividing fines between the East and the West of Europe. Belarus regards its increasing participation in PfP as a goodwill contribution to the European and regional security. We are ready to share the responsibility for the continent's future. We are convinced that there will be no all-European security system without Belarus. Due to its geographic location Belarus is becoming an increasingly significant country for a new NATO, especially in the context of enlargement. And I take this opportunity to emphasise that we are ready for a dialogue. On the Alliance's part we expect further steps towards the NATO's external and internal adaptation to new realities, evolution of its strategy and military doctrine to be much more in sync with the times when they are now and its eventual transformation into rather a political then a military union. We would Eke NATO to seriously take our security concerns into account, including through Pfp. As you know, Belarus is not going under the NATO's <>. This is why, in Practical terms, our PfP objectives are somewhat different from those which a number of other Partners may have. The areas of cooperation we determined have a two-fold objective: gain experience of military cooperation with NATO and Partner countries; enhance mutual understanding and confidence. in other words, we want to be politically and, partly, militarily compatible but not competitive with NATO. A few words about the enhanced PfP. We found interesting and promising most elements of the enhancement, particularly, the regional cooperation. Politically, Belarus supports the ongoing process. But practically, we are not well prepared for an active participation. To participate in the enhanced PfP Belarus must enhance its current cooperation within the existing IPP. But I should emphasise that Belarus has a big potential of cooperation and tries to move forward. The PfP Political dimension can be strengthened through the EAPC. The EA.PC current geostrategic space virtually encompasses the area from Vancouver to Vladivostok. All EAPC members function within the OSCE region. Therefore, in our view, the emerging OSCE model of European security should take into account and call upon EAPC and NATO while general rules or principales should be forged by the OSCE. Our common aim both NATO and non-NATO countries, should be to build a security system which must be really universal, indivisible, devoid of confrontation and spheres of influence, able to reduce the chances of any crisis or conflict ever happening on our continent. We need a security system that gives the opportunity to each and every Partner country to feel secure at home. Thank you for your attention.