![]() |
Updated: 02-Nov-2000 | NATO Speeches |
Vienna,
|
Interventionby Secretary General at the OSCE Permanent CouncilMr. Secretary General,Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is no surprise that our two organizations were somewhat estranged from each other during the Cold War. Given the political context, there was no other option. But since the early 1990s, we have had the opportunity to move ever-closer together, in two important ways. First and foremost, NATO and the
OSCE have moved closer together philosophically.
Of course, the OSCE represents a longstanding
framework for Euro-Atlantic arms control,
for early warning, for preventive
diplomacy, for democracy building
and for addressing the myriad of minority
issues in Europe. And the OSCE remains
the sole organisation capable of setting
standards of security behaviour through
the commitments and obligations which
all OSCE member states take on as
they join the Organisation. This in
itself has much reduced the scope
for go-it-alone, zero-sum security
politics -- politics that once were
the bane of European history. And
throughout its history, NATO countries
have supported and participated in
the OSCE and its operations -- even
as the Alliance itself focused principally
on its main tasks of preventing a
major regional war in Europe. Through its enlargement process, for example, NATO contributes to overcoming the vestiges of Europe's erstwhile division, in line with the principles of self-determination and the free choice of security arrangements. The special roles of Russia and Ukraine are being taken into account by privileged bilateral partnerships. A new relationship with the European Union will lead to a stronger Europe and to a more balanced transatlantic relationship. And a dialogue with nations from the Southern Mediterranean shores is seeking to build trust and confidence in this important region. Two other innovations on NATO's
post-Cold War agenda are of special
significance for furthering the aims
of the OSCE: the Partnership for Peace
programme and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership
Council. Because with these mechanisms,
the Alliance has created a framework
for military cooperation and political
consultation that reaches across the
entire Euro-Atlantic space. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) provides a political link with Partner nations. For example, regarding Bosnia and now Kosovo, meetings of the EAPC bring together the troop-contributing nations for consultations on a regular basis. This provides the important political dimension to the close military co-operation already taking place on the ground within SFOR and KFOR. In the three years of its existence the EAPC has already demonstrated its value as a forum for consultation and cooperation in many areas critically important to European security: regional issues, arms control, peacekeeping, defence economic issues, civil emergency planning, and scientific and environmental issues. In addition, the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre has played a very important role, for example in alleviating the refugee crisis caused by Milosevic last year. All in all, that is an impressive list for such a young forum -- a list, I may add, that mirrors the aims and aspirations of the OSCE. Indeed, the OSCE has been involved in some of the EAPC's activities. But there is still much untapped potential. We should use the EAPC's flexibility to explore innovative ways of addressing security challenges. It is precisely the open nature of the EAPC that distinguishes it from other fora -- and this openness could serve us well in contributing to a solution. The evolution of the OSCE and of NATO is therefore proceeding on complementary tracks. Both institutions have adapted to change by broadening their security agenda; both have reached out to the wider Europe, and both have diversified the specific tools at their disposal to cope with a new set of challenges. And both institutions -- each in its unique ways --have adopted policies of conflict prevention and crisis management. And it is because of our efforts to prevent or manage crises that NATO and the OSCE have moved closer together not only philosophically, but also practically -- in day-to-day cooperation, with a view to enhancing our joint crisis management capability. Bosnia and Kosovo have demonstrated that our two institutions not only pursue common goals, but can actually pursue them in common. A great deal of practical cooperation in theatre has developed between IFOR/SFOR and OSCE in Bosnia over the past years of cooperation in implementing the Dayton Peace Agreement. This was reinforced in the period between October 1998 and March 1999 when NATO and OSCE were assigned complementary verification tasks under the Holbrooke/Milosevic Agreement on Kosovo. NATO supported the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission, and staff relations in the field and at Headquarters were taken to a qualitatively new level of depth. Unfortunately, that novel form of
co-operation was cut short by Milosevic's
ethnic war. But the entry of both
KFOR and OSCE into Kosovo has seen
the start of a new phase of cooperation,
as each discharges its own responsibilities
in this troubled region. NATO, together
with troops from many Partner countries,
is taking the lead in creating a safe
environment. The OSCE, by organising
and supervising elections and by running
the Kosovo Police Academy, is helping
to create the foundation for a functioning
civil society, and thus for true reconciliation.
UNMIK-KFOR relations are a good example
of how institutions can bring their
unique capacities to bear to make
progress in extremely challenging
situations. Bosnia and Kosovo are valuable examples of real cooperation on the ground. But we should not have to wait until a real crisis forces us to cooperate. If we are serious about our common aim of preventing crises, then our practical cooperation on the ground should also be reflected on the institutional level. Indeed, one of the central lessons we learned from Kosovo was that NATO should develop more institutionalised relationships with relevant international organisations. Such closer cooperation between our institutions is only logical. After all, strengthening the OSCE's operational capability has been a consistent policy of NATO's Allies. From the very early ideas of institutionalising the CSCE process, NATO nations have been at the forefront of giving this body an operational dimension. The Charter for European Security, the emphasis on the OSCE's role in peacekeeping; the implementation of the REACT concept; the strengthening of the Secretariat and the Conflict Prevention Centre -- much of the conceptual input for these important steps has been provided by NATO countries. Now that the OSCE's operational dimension has been enhanced, the stage is set for the OSCE and NATO to explore and deepen the areas of concrete cooperation. We do not have to start from scratch.
The Alliance has engaged operationally
with the OSCE in peace building in
the Balkans, is working with the OSCE
on confidence-building measures for
the Bosnian armies and has worked
on conceptual aspects of conflict
prevention and peacekeeping in general.
Moreover, the OSCE participates actively
in the work of the EAPC Ad Hoc Working
Group on Peacekeeping. And, as part
of regular staff-level contacts, the
OSCE's Operations Centre has already
established contact with NATO's Situation
Centre. These are mechanisms on which
we can build as we deepen our relationship
further. Some of these ideas may be implemented in the short-term, some may take a longer time to come to fruition. But one thing is clear: closer NATO-OSCE relations are a strategic imperative. We live in a time when democratic norms are acquiring an ever greater weight in international relations. The OSCE remains the standard bearer of these norms. This organisation is thus bound to play an ever more visible role in European security. But like NATO, it cannot achieve its goals in isolation. Only in the broader framework of a system of interlocking institutions can NATO and the OSCE bring their unique capabilities to bear effectively. That is why the strategic Partnership between our two institutions is becoming ever-more valuable.
Ten years ago, when the Cold War came to an end and institutions started to adapt, some concerns were raised that we might enter an era of institutional rivalry. My presence here today shows how wrong those fears were. Today, we can see more clearly. Our institutions are not rivals but partners. The emerging Euro-Atlantic security architecture is not a system of competing institutions, nor is it a Darwinian system of "survival of the fittest". Of course, our institutions are continuing to evolve; and of course, the relations between them are evolving as well. But this is a very positive evolution: towards common philosophies, common approaches to problem solving, and -- I hope -- regular institutional links between our two organizations. Because nothing could be better for Euro-Atlantic security than a truly effective Partnership between NATO and the OSCE in pursuing our common and complementary goals together.
|