Remarks
by H.E.
Jri Luik, Minister of Defence of Estonia
EAPC in Defence Ministers Session
Mr Chairman, dear colleagues,
Let me also begin by welcoming the Defence Minister of Croatia at this
table.
Our today's meeting is focussing on the effective use of the EAPC and
PfP, including in Conflict Prevention and Crises Management. As COMSFOR
and COMKFOR have dealt with the latter and Estonian foreign minister presented
my country's view on this issue in Florence, I'll limit myself to the
former and look at the Partnership of Peace from that viewpoint.
MAP was not created on an empty space, its foundations were laid in 1994.
MAP builds on partnership, it complements partnership, it provides a framework
where an aspirant country can use the partnership in its preparations
for membership. If we understand that, we'll avoid any concern that the
MAP process may occur as incompatible with the Partnership for Peace.
EAPC and PfP will carry on indefinitely - only MAP is a programme with
an intended final - an invitation to join the Alliance. Three different
layers of the development of NATO's co-operation with partners - classical
PfP of 1994, PARP and finally MAP - generate different value for different
countries. Pertaining to the various degrees of involvement by a specific
partner country, the level of co-operation ranges from marginal to all
encompassing.
We have to retain that allurement of over-arching partnership - of being,
we could say, tailor made to each individual partner's needs and aspirations.
It seems to become a common feature to see new countries added to this
table every ministerial or so - we could call it an ALLURING PARTNERSHIP.
Secretary General,
For us, it is obvious, that partnership efforts should be streamlined,
otherwise it will be difficult to respond to all specific requirements
to be really effective and operational. This is important since effective
use of the EAPC and PfP is the one, which produces security. In that sense
it is the conflict prevention that is the ultimate goal.
Further membership of many Central European countries in NATO is also
conflict prevention. As of today we can say that MAP has not just been
a collection of 9 success stories but a co-operative push for a more stable
and secure Europe. A Vilnius statement signed by 9 aspirant countries
is a vivid example of that. A political decision to enlarge the Alliance
does not grow out of nowhere - it is based on facts on the ground. And
those facts are arranged in the framework of MAP. Politically and practically
aspirant countries have clearly put their eggs into the MAP-basket.
Dear Colleagues,
Our participation in the PfP grows stronger since PfP helps us to fulfil
our MAP-related goals.
Thank you, Secretary General
|
