Close
Back
Download NATO’s broadcast-quality video content free of charge
Log in
No account?
Forgot your password?
NATO MULTIMEDIA ACCOUNT
Access NATO’s broadcast-quality video content free of charge
Create an account
Check your inbox and enter verification code
We have sent a verification code to your email address.
.
Enter the code to verify your account. This code will expire in 30 minutes.
You have successfully created your account
From now on you can download videos from our website
Subscribe to our newsletter
If you would also like to subscribe to the newsletter and receive our latest updates, click on the button below.
Reset password
Enter the email address you registered with and we will send you a code to reset your password.
Reset password
We have sent a verification code to your email address.
Enter the code to verify your account. This code will expire in 30 minutes.
Create a new password
The password must be at least 12 characters long, no spaces, include upper/lowercase letters, numbers and symbols.
Your password has been updated
Click the button to return to the page you were on and log in with your new password.
Agenda Item I: Co-operation Activities (NACC/PfP) and Ways to Further Strengthen Them
Today, on the eve of the 5th anniversary of the creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, we are pleased to give due merit to the achievements of the cooperation and partnership process. NACC, and subsequently the Partnership for Peace, have assumed an essential role in structuring the new European security architecture and have indeed become a permanent feature of this architecture. We share the most positive assessment of the cooperation and partnership process reflected in the paper developed in the course of the Review of NACC at 5 Years. The review was a valuable exercise which helped to streamline our deliberations on the achievements, and most importantly, on the prospects of the partnership.
The positive record of the cooperation activities is also reflected in the other reports on our table. We have jointly developed effective capabilities for political consultation, some tools for defence planning and management, some potential for joint contingency planning. There are good signs for an increasing Partners' integration into the decision-making process. The enlarged committees are working in a very efficient manner not hindering the coherence of the Alliance. There has been a further opening of NATO structures to the demands of the partnership and in this respect I would like to refer in particular to the very positive trends in the cooperation developed within the Defence Support Community, the NATO C3 Board, the Partnership Coordination Cell, which provide a sound pattern for future partnership arrangements. As a whole, the areas of cooperation are getting better structured in a comprehensive strategy for the future.
A lot of political merit and interest was vested in the intensified dialogue on the enlargement. This extremely valuable experience contributed immensely to a better understanding of the process, its implications, and of what it entails for prospective members. We expect this type of dialogue to be preserved and reinforced within the enhanced partnership arrangements thus becoming an important element of the pre-accession strategy. We are fully committed to the enlargement process and willing to contribute to this major transformation.
Looking to the way ahead, we should seek to preserve and build on what has been achieved both in terms of substance as well as institutionally.
The new arrangements should remain open, inclusive and interactive, and reinforce the principle of self-differentiation. Simplistic quantification of individual commitments, including financial aspects, should not prevail over the ultimate political criteria of the Partnership maturity. The new arrangement should provide the partnership with a clear mandate, adequate settings, final objectives and equal status for all participants.
Among the priorities, I would like to underline the need for a closer political consultation on security and defence issues, going beyond the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Framework Document. While not providing a de jure security guarantee, this arrangement is valuable for Partners as it involves an indirect security assurance from the Alliance. But we need more than crisis arrangements which hopefully nobody will be compelled to initiate. Regular dialogue and consultation, including with interested individual Partners would allow to identify, at an early stage, common concerns which might lead to developing common political objectives and, eventually, coordinated action.
Consultation of a regular type would also enhance Partners' adaptation and preparation for undertaking commitments of a new nature, and will be instrumental for achieving interoperability at the strategic level. Future meetings at Ministerial, Ambassadorial and other level should be focused on discussions and decision-making concerning the political agenda of the partnership, assessment and oversight of the cooperation process, including the development of principles and providing relevant guidelines, establishing and mandating various joint settings.
Future steps could include expanding the areas of cooperation to address new challenges. A promising sign was the recent exchange of view on possible cooperation in the area of combating terrorism, illicit arms trafficking and organised crime. Another important area to be further developed is consultation on security aspects of economic development. In this respect, we attach a special importance to the invitation extended by the Bulgarian Government for a meeting of the enlarged Economic Committee in Sofia in 1997.
Expanding the PfP Planning and Review Process and bringing it closer to the Force Planning cycle of the Alliance is also of major interest. This might imply closer cooperation between the Alliance and individual partners involving joint contingency planning, expanding the list of Interoperability Objectives and further opening of the relevant policy and procedures for its implementation. Regular Defence Ministerials on the issue could be an option providing greater coherence and credibility to the process. In addition, an early and substantial involvement of Partners in CJTFs and the related opening of NATO commands at different level as well as regional headquarters for interested partners would be appropriate.
Institutionally, merging NACC and PfP under one hat - the Atlantic Partnership Council - will introduce more coherence and logic in the overall process.
Different formats of discussions deserve a particular attention. We believe that regional and functional considerations may support ideas of 16+n meetings in order to foster more open discussion. Of course, these would be open to all interested partners. We also believe that a closer involvement of Russia, as well as Ukraine, in the Atlantic Partnership Council is very important.
There is a positive record of efficient work of some NATO committees and agencies which involve partners' full or partial participation. The APC should enhance this process and develop the arrangements needed for the full involvement of interested partners. We see a significant merit in greater transparency and feedback to partners concerning the Alliance's work at 16.
Finally, we believe that the Atlantic Partnership Council will provide a stable framework of cooperation within which NATO enlargement will proceed as an evolving, stable, and transparent process.
Agenda Item II: Political and Security Related Issues (The situation in and around Bosnia and Herzegovina and Prospects for Regional Cooperation)
The peace implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a visible demonstration of the new cooperative approaches in the field of security involving effective interaction among the relevant international institutions. This joint effort which has no precedent in its magnitude and determination reflects a most promising trend in building the new co-operative security arrangement on the continent.
The successful mission of the NATO-led IFOR is one of the most remarkable achievements of this truly multi-national effort. Bulgaria has offered its full support and willingness to contribute to the joint endeavour of this broadest coalition for peace. We firmly believe that the Alliance should remain engaged in the further effort of the international community to consolidate the peace and the reconstruction process in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bulgarian Government has expressed its intention to contribute to the implementation of the new tasks of a NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) and is currently involved in intensive contacts and consultations concerning the modalities of a possible Bulgarian contribution.
We are well aware of the importance of the strict implementation of the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina and the tasks within the consolidation period as defined in Paris by the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council and endorsed last week by the London Peace Implementation Conference.
The London one year Plan of Action and the consolidation period for Bosnia and Herzegovina during the next two years can not be seen in isolation from the developments in the region and in the broader context of regional stabilisation and cooperation. Having said that, I would like to draw your attention to the results of the Sofia Meeting of Foreign Ministers of countries of South Eastern Europe which took place last July. The participating states adopted a comprehensive document - the Sofia Declaration on Goodneighbourly Relations, Stability, Security and Co-operation in the Balkans which is the result of the own initiative and efforts of all countries of the region. It thus provides a clear evidence that the Balkans are far from being only an area of conflict but rather hold a significant potential for cooperation and peaceful development as well as the willingness to maximise this potential.
The Sofia Meeting has relaunched the multilateral regional cooperation which shall be unfolding as a continuous process in different areas. A further important step in this direction will be the meeting of Defence Ministers of countries of South Eastern Europe in Sofia in early 1997. This meeting will provide another valuable forum to discuss practical ideas and ways to strengthen security and confidence and relevant future arms control measures in the region.
We welcome and support the development of other initiatives contributing to stability and cooperation in South Eastern Europe such as the Royaumont process and the Southeastern European Cooperation Initiative. We believe that the potential of these regional cooperative efforts should be fully exploited in a mutually supportive and reinforcing way. All these regional endeavours represent integral building blocks designed to support the efforts of the international community to stabilise the peace and to promote the reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina.