|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/96Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.04 (Macintosh; U; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Latvian Foreign Minister Dr. Valdis Birkavs...Security of Latvia:
Historical Parallels and Current And Future Challenges</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+4">Security of Latvia: Historical Parallels and
Current And Future Challenges</FONT></CENTER>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><FONT SIZE="+3">Foreign Minister of Latvia Dr.Valdis
Birkavs</FONT></P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">INTRODUCTION</FONT></B> </CENTER>
<P>I would like to give the Latvian point of view on the regional security
landscape during a period when the most important determinants of the
regional security equation, namely NATO, the European Union, and Russia,
are in the process of redefining their future roles and missions. I will
begin by sharing some learning experiences from our recent history, then
outline our vision of the challenges of the regional European security
landscape, and finally discuss Latvia's contribution to collective
security and our current and future responsibilities. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">HISTORICAL PARALLELS</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>We have all been so impressed by the changes of the last five years that
we have forgotten that one thing has not changed: we remain prisoners of
geography. Located on the border between the East and the West, Latvia has
always sought to be part of the West while being pressed to be part of the
East or a transitional zone. Though at the convergence point of two
different cultures and systems of order, Latvia and the other Baltic
States clearly realize that they are and always have been part of Europe.
</P>
<P>At the crossroads of Eastern and Western interests, Latvia has witnessed
numerous wars on our land. We have also seen two very different worlds
face each other on our borders: worlds that encompass Western democracy
and Eastern authoritarianism, European rationalism and Byzantine
mysticism, market economy and communism, German cultural heritage and
Slavic tradition. These conflicting concepts explain much of Latvia's
history. Now, in the new world order, we no longer wish to be caught in a
turmoil of contradictions or to act as a buffer zone. As always, we seek
to be an integral part of the West, as well as a friendly partner with our
Eastern neighbors in their efforts to build a solid relationship with the
West. </P>
<P>It is only natural that Latvia join NATO and the European Union since we
share the values, legal system, religion, democracy, and culture of the
member-nations. We are ready to take on the full risks, costs, and
responsibilities of membership. Yet it has been more difficult for Latvia
to return to the European fold than it was to leave it in 1940. During
critical periods of history, the economic, political, and security
interests of major powers have prevailed in certain security decisions
over the sense of shared values. </P>
<P>During 1918 and again in 1991, the Baltic people triumphed through
self-determination efforts. But in 1939 and 1945, decisions concerning our
future were made without our participation. All four dates show, however,
that we were and are an essential part of the European security strategy
because these dates were times when the European map was redrawn. At
Yalta, the Great Powers decided the fate of the Baltics and Central Europe
without taking into account the wishes of these countries and their
people. Indeed, at Yalta, the Baltic States seem not to have been
specifically mentioned. Our fate was decided through omission, not
commission. For Baltic and Central European states, our ability to decide
our own future was destroyed. </P>
<P>Now, as we make new post-Cold War determinations, Latvia prays, "Make
no decisions about us without us, without our participation and our
consent." We welcome the West's statement that the new security
construction, the work of its architects and carpenters, will be
transparent and known to all. No blueprint will be kept confidential. Yet,
we must be actively involved in European security dialogue and participate
in this dialogue as an integral part of the Western community. </P>
<P>Another experience we have learned from is the past lack of Baltic-wide
cooperation. During the inter-war years, jealousy and pride often stood in
the way of close cooperation among the Baltic States. But now we have
learned that this is to our detriment. Security and defense are the fields
in which Baltic cooperation is currently most visible. Coordination
between the nascent defense forces began even before our return to
independence in 1991 and has developed steadily ever since. All three
states now have the same foreign and security policy objectives and all
three Presidents recently reaffirmed that the Baltic countries will take
the required steps toward joining NATO and the EU not in competition with
each other but together. We now strive for <I>Partnership for integration</I>
instead of <I>unhealthy competition.</I> </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">CHALLENGES</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>With the new European security environment, direct large-scale military
threats have been replaced by more complex challenges. While Latvia faces
no immediate military confrontation, we still must deal with the legacy of
the Soviet Empire in our security environment. In Latvia there is crime
and corruption. There is an illicit flow of funds, not necessarily to the
Baltics but through the Baltics. In the immediate vicinity of our borders
there is also the possibility of political insecurity and economic
instability. Eastern natural or man-made disasters Chernobyl can cause
refugee flows to move westward toward us. </P>
<P>To counter these problems, we intend to make the Baltic area secure in
cooperation with our neighbors. We will participate Baltic crisis
management, air space control, and information and intelligence sharing.
We will also make a very strong and concerted effort to establish safe
borders in concert with an intense fight against crime. Latvia and the
other Baltic States will place themselves in a position where they cannot
be accused of being <I>exporters of trouble.</I> </P>
<P>Security can no longer be viewed as an exclusively military matter, and
it will not be achieved by pointing guns at each other. Of course, the
military component of security will remain and we will not ignore it. But
we believe that security is no longer gained by confrontation, threat, or
the use of military force. </P>
<P>Security must be posited on three essential elements: democracy and
human rights; a free market economy; and a defense-oriented military
capability. Our security concept is stability-oriented, not
threat-oriented, as is our aspiration to be integrated with the Atlantic
Alliance. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">Integration with NATO and EU</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>The most acute security problem Latvia now faces is being left out of
the real--not theoretical--NATO enlargement process. Such a development
could create a serious potential for destabilization in Northern Europe.
The main arguments against inviting Baltic States to join the Alliance are
connected with or derived from the strong Russian opposition to
enlargement and to Russia's sensitivities regarding the so-called Near
Abroad. </P>
<P>This opposition is based on the assumption that NATO enlargement is
directed against Russia, though NATO has continually stated that
enlargement is not directed against any country. </P>
<P>But would not the exclusion of the Baltics during the first stage of
enlargement be an indirect acknowledgment that NATO enlargement is--at
least to some extent--directed against Russia? And would the Baltic
governments be able to explain to their people that in one case NATO
enlargement to Russia's borders is seen as an enlargement of the zone of
stability in Europe but in another case a move that unnecessarily
irritates or provokes Russia? </P>
<P>Our feeling is that in Western countries there is growing recognition
that instability in the Baltic region could directly threaten the security
of Europe as a whole. Provocation against the Baltic States would place
NATO in an extremely difficult political situation. </P>
<P>We are therefore happy to see that an intensive process to find
solutions to the Baltic security dilemma, of which this Workshop is a
part, has started. Many ideas have already been discussed, including: </P>
<UL>
<LI>Facilitating the admission of Baltic States to the EU</LI>
<LI>Encouraging Baltic defense cooperation and creating a Baltic-Nordic
security and defense arrangement</LI>
<LI>Upgrading Partnership for Peace and keeping NATO's door open</LI>
</UL>
<P>Some of these ideas have already been rejected, both in Baltic and
Nordic countries. This is because the experience of recent years clearly
proves that there is no consensus on security and defense issues among
major European nations, there is no effective crisis management without
NATO and the United States, and there is no surplus of security in
Northern Europe, no financial resources, and no historical preconditions
for a subregional security arrangement. </P>
<P>I would like to stress, however, that Nordic-Baltic security cooperation
has been and remains extremely valuable. The Baltic Battalion could not
have been established and trained without assistance from the Nordic
countries; this assistance has enhanced regional security. Still, regional
cooperation cannot be a substitute for full membership in NATO. Neither
can membership in the European Union. </P>
<P>Although the process of integration into the EU leads to a certain
increase in our security--let us call it <I>deterrence through
integration</I>--the Union remains basically an economic community whose
perspectives on security and defense policy remain unclear. We see our
integration into both the EU and NATO as mutually reinforcing and
complementing components of one process, and feel that uncertainties in
one of these components could slow down the entire development. </P>
<P>There are indications that our friends in the West are coming to the
conclusion that the only possible <I>Baltic strategy </I>is one aimed at
full integration of the Baltic States into the Atlantic Alliance.
Substituting or compensating for non-admission cannot be acceptable. And
such a Baltic strategy should be elaborated before answering the questions
of the <I>who</I> and <I>when </I>of NATO enlargement. </P>
<P>Postponement of such integration or a halfway solution would create a
<I>gray zone</I> that could become an area of misunderstanding leading to
conflict. Hesitation and vacillation will increase the scale of the Baltic
problem. However, the Baltics should not be a par<FONT SIZE="+0">t of the
problem but part of the solution</FONT><B><FONT SIZE="+1">.</FONT></B>
</P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+2">Relations with Russia</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>One of the most important factors in our security environment is Russia.
Internal developments there as well as the dynamics of our bilateral
relations are vitally important to stability in Latvia. Despite the fact
that Latvia and Russia have quite different visions of the future European
security architecture, we believe our relations with the present Russian
government are developing in a really <I>positive</I> direction. We also
believe that the results of the first round of Presidential elections are
a hopeful sign that reforms in Russia will be continued and that they will
lead not to restoration but to democracy. </P>
<P>I would like to strongly emphasize that we do not see our membership in
NATO as a means to create a new Iron Curtain on our eastern border. We
also do not consider it as a means to strengthen our position in any
imaginable disputes with Russia. As a fully integrated member of the
Europe-Atlantic community, Latvia, with its unique history and citizenry,
will be a strong facilitator of East-West dialogue. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">LATVIA AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY:
RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>Latvia supports the premise that one should not enjoy--or <I>consume</I>--security
without participating in <I>producing</I> it. Therefore we have begun to
make a modest contribution to international peace. In Bosnia, a Latvian
platoon has been integrated into the Danish Battalion within the U.S.-led
1st Armored Division. With an eye on future membership in NATO, our
participation in IFOR will give our forces invaluable experience operating
within an integrated NATO military structure. </P>
<P>Our most successful contribution to European security to date, which is
also an example of Baltic cooperation, is the formation and training of
the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion (BALTBAT). Later this year we plan to
have the Latvian BALTBAT company participate in IFOR within the Swedish
Battalion. </P>
<P>During this year, Latvia also plans to participate in 8 Partnership for
Peace exercises and 19 military study programs. In July we will host
Baltic Challenge `96, the first field exercise on Latvian territory in
which forces from a NATO country will participate. United States Marines
and soldiers from the three Baltic countries will train together at the
BALTBAT training area in Adazi. This undertaking not only demonstrates the
United States' commitment to Baltic security, but also projects stability
across the northeastern region of Europe. From the very beginning Latvia's
participation in the PFP program has been aimed at developing the
necessary conditions for our integration into NATO. In this context we
attach great importance to participation in the PFP Planning and Review
Process. </P>
<P>Now at the eve of answering the <I>who </I>and the <I>when</I> of
enlargement, we also feel it is of crucial importance to develop new forms
of PFP cooperation with Partner countries who have expressed their desire
to join the Alliance. We are carefully considering proposals that
emphasize cooperation between Partners and <I>regional</I> NATO commands
and the establishment of PFP offices in Partner countries that are working
toward Alliance membership. Such proposals would enhance PFP activities
aimed at Partners' integration into NATO and help to focus on specific
security needs in particular countries and regions. We also welcome
Latvia's early integration into NATO planning. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUDING REMARKS</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>The security concerns of Latvia and the Baltic region require a
consistent, comprehensive strategy to resolve them. Latvia is ready to
engage in the work that will create such a strategy. Given what is at
stake, we are also ready to begin implementing the strategy--the sooner
the better. With such a strategy in place, we will be able to look ahead
to the future with optimism. </P>
<P><A HREF="Birkavs.htm">Go to top of page</A> <BR><A HREF="Workshop96.htm">Return to Warsaw '96</A> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>