Future
Role of the EAPC
Remarks
of Mr. Jerzy Szmajdzinski,
Minister of Defense of Poland
Meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council
Today's meeting is part of the process of preparing decisions
that will be made at the NATO Summit in Prague. That meeting
will be - to large extent - the Summit on NATO transformation.
The Summit will be also devoted to new relationships or -more
accurately - deepened partnership relationships and their future
development.
We launched the debate on the future of initiatives constituting
the Euro-Atlantic Partnership on the 10th anniversary of establishing
of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council (the predecessor
of the EAPC). Thanks to ten years of Partnership policy and
effective activities we can talk today about the success of
the EAPC and PfP. Established as a defence project aiming to
share expertise and experience in the reform and restructuring
of armed forces, Partnership has proven its value in a much
broader area. PfP and EAPC have made a great contribution to
creating a stronger security community within the whole Euro-Atlantic
area. From Polish perspective, PfP was a very effective mechanism
assisting our internal reforms, aiming to gain NATO membership
and familiarising us with its procedures. As far as we can observe,
it has not lost its attractiveness for candidates and other
Partners.
We expect that the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council will be adapted to the current needs of
the Alliance, as well as Partners, as they are important mechanisms
of practical Partner co-operation. In this context, we expect
the recent recommendation by NAC Foreign Ministers to prepare
a workplan to renew the Partnership to result in concrete proposals
at the Prague Summit for the further development of EAPC and
PfP, so as they better fit our needs.
Meeting effectively the threat of international terrorism is
a crucial new challenge. We have all understood the need for
fast and determined responses which had to be taken by a large
coalition of states to achieve its goal. In this context, the
need to enhance and further develop the EAPC and PfP has become
crystal clear, as these mechanisms can play an important role
in the multinational approach and response to this kind of asymmetric
threats.
We were pleased to host in February in Poland a conference
which was devoted to the EAPC role in the fight against terrorism.
Representatives of EAPC member agreed that the institutions
of Partnership have a large potential which can be used in counteracting
and countering new asymmetric threats, particularly terrorism.
The EAPC construction is favourable to such activities as it
was created as the broad forum of states united by common democratic
values and goals. The EAPC is an association of states of different
regions, characterised by differentiated potential and experience
in response to this kind of threats. It includes states which,
due to their geographical location, are the most vulnerable
to terrorist attacks and which have knowledge and expertise
that could be invaluable in our activities. The importance of
such experience was evident during coalition counter-terrorist
operations in Afghanistan.
The first step towards undertaking effective action against
asymmetric threats is improving the interoperability and effectiveness
of military capabilities of both Allies and Partners. We therefore
attach particular importance to the full implementation of the
Operational Capabilities Concept, and its further development.
Although it was created to build capabilities for NATO-led peace
support operations, it can be also used for other tasks, according
to our current needs.
We have similar approach to the possible use of other instruments
of the Enhanced and More Operational Partnership. The Political-Military
Framework has proven its utility in this field. This consultation
mechanism elaborated for common peace operations has served
as an important mechanism for sharing with Partners information
on the Alliance's response to terrorist assaults and then, on
counter-terrorist operations. Further broadening the spectrum
of PMF application would contribute to the scope of areas of
political co-operation.
It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the Planning
and Review Process, which is a fundamental instrument for reviewing
and developing Partner forces and capabilities in the context
of their interoperability with Allies' forces and capabilities.
In the further development of PARP we should take into account
the development of counter-terrorist capabilities, for instance
by their inclusion to the Partnership Goals. This issue also
needs to be addressed in PfP exercise policy.
Deepened co-operation within PfP, especially in the operational
sphere, can be useful in NATO-led PfP operations. In this context,
the formula of co-operation at 19+1 and 19+n is promising as
it creates opportunities to lead specialised actions on definite
areas in the framework of sui generis coalitions of the 'willing
and able'. Such formula of individualised co-operation is in
accordance with the 'EAPC Basic Document'. Co-operation at 19+n
formula has potential to direct the Partnership towards specific
contributions and needs of Partner states.
This formula of co-operation within variable functional geometry,
adapted to current needs and capabilities of involved states,
including military ones, can be highly effective. We have to
take care to preserve rules of openness and transparency in
relations with other Partners.
EAPC and PfP are open for all states that are ready to co-operate
according to established rules. PfP instruments can be used
to deepen and intensify co-operation with states of Caucasus
and Central Asia. This is a region where the formula of regionalisation
of the Partnership could be applied. It would contribute to
counteracting terrorism with the use of mechanisms and means
which are the most appropriate taking into account the specifics
of a region. If PfP rules concerning openness of actions are
preserved, the co-operation based on the regionalisation formula
will not lead to weakening of the Partnership. Rather, it will
contribute to filling it with substance that is the most important
for the group of involved states if the region.
In that context, we welcome the decision of the Reykjavik session
concerning the elevation of relations within the Mediterranean
Dialogue to a higher level, inter alia by consultations in security
matters of interest for both parties, including issues connected
with terrorism. Another issue to be considered in this context
is the cooperation between the EAPC and other institutions of
Euro-Atlantic security, notably EU and OSCE as well as the regional
structures. What really needs to be preserved as the basic rule
of such co-operation is complementarity of endeavours of both
sides, which should be mutually reinforcing. With the aim to
strengthen PfP, the fields of future development of inter-institutional
co-operation could include joint sessions of bodies of these
organisations, joint training and exercises as well as joint
actions and exchange of information.
In conclusion, the Partnership has already played an important
role in the development of the Euro-Atlantic security landscape.
Given the emergence of new security factors and challenges it
seems obvious that the Partnership and its institutions will
be crucial elements of our future security community.
|
