|
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>President of the Czech Republic Václav Havel...NATO-The
Safeguard of Stability and Peace In the Euro-Atlantic Region</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+4">NATO: The Safeguard of Stability and Peace In the
Euro-Atlantic Region</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+3">President of the Czech Republic Václav
Havel</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">THE CREATION OF NATO</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>The communist takeover of my country in 1948 was a brutal victory for
the forces of darkness, crushing freedom and democracy in the very heart
of the European continent. Like many other events in Czech and
Czechoslovak history, it left its mark on the whole of Europe. In fact, it
sparked action by Western democracies to establish the North Atlantic
Alliance as a bulwark against the further expansion of totalitarianism and
against further attempts by the Soviet leadership to dominate the world.
</P>
<P>The creation of the Alliance had two dimensions. The first was its
underlying idea--a common defense of the values of the Western democratic
world against any threat, as embodied in the Washington Treaty. The second
was the reality out of which that idea was born. The determining factor at
the time was the threat of Soviet and communist expansion; the existence
of that strategic threat meant that everything else had to be subordinated
to it. This explains why NATO sometimes had to admit countries that then
could have hardly been considered democratic. The adherence of these
countries to democratic values, or their lack of it, had to take second
place to their strategic importance. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">NATO IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>Four decades later, the reality radically changed; the kind of threat
that led to the founding of the Alliance disappeared with the fall of the
Iron Curtain. Many now wonder whether the Alliance still makes any sense.
</P>
<P>Those harboring such doubts see only the second dimension behind the
Alliance's birth, that is, the circumstances that called it into being in
the first place, while ignoring the primary dimension--the Alliance's
central idea. I am deeply convinced, as you all are, that the Alliance
remains a meaningful instrument. The fact that circumstances have changed
has not consigned NATO's underlying idea to the dustbin of history. Quite
the contrary: the changed circumstances have breathed new relevance into
the idea. They virtually call for the renaissance and fulfillment of that
concept in its pure form, not dictated by strategic interests alone.
Without a clear and powerful strategic adversary, the Alliance has less
reason to let itself be pressured by reality into making exceptions to its
standards or its fundamental principles. The reality now invites the
Alliance to rededicate itself to these principles in their entirety. </P>
<P>Indeed, it is only now that the Alliance has a chance to become exactly
what the Washington Treaty meant it to be--an open alliance of all
democratic countries in the Euro-Atlantic region, protecting its area and
its shared values. This central concept is not to be changed; it is to be
infused with new life. </P>
<P>This, I believe, is what NATO should declare again in no uncertain terms
before the end of this year. There are many reasons why this is necessary;
for one thing, such affirmation would make it clear that those who pose no
threat to Alliance member states have not the slightest reason to fear
NATO, nor have they any justification for playing upon such fears for
political ends. </P>
<P>While the danger of global conflict is rapidly diminishing, the danger
of regional conflicts is, unfortunately, increasing at least as rapidly.
Loosening the straitjacket of power blocs, combined with the loss of the
unity that was derived from a common threat, has unleashed a potential for
many small-scale confrontations. Unless a new, solid security order is
built in Europe in a timely fashion, there may be more of these. NATO, in
my opinion, should therefore restate itself as the principal guarantor of
internal stability and peace in the Euro-Atlantic region. Furthermore, it
should, as much as possible, adapt itself and its doctrine to the new
situation. This involves confronting the danger of regional and local
conflicts in effective ways, even when this may include--under certain
explicit conditions--action outside member-states' borders, such as the
operation undertaken recently in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Combined Joint
Task Force concept is heading precisely in this direction, and should
therefore be given complete support. </P>
<P>Moreover, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere--for
instance in the Middle East--reveal that it is becoming less and less
possible to distinguish clearly between local armed conflict and
terrorism. NATO, therefore, should also give thought to whether, or how,
it can deal with such security risks, because they may play an
increasingly important role in the years and decades ahead. </P>
<P>Another principle that the Alliance, in keeping with its original
Treaty, should unequivocally restate is that it is open to all
Euro-Atlantic countries that share its values and are ready and willing to
defend them within NATO's structures. Yet such a statement is no longer
enough. In the foreseeable future the Alliance will have to state how it
means to expand, whom it intends to admit, and when. It should announce a
timetable for its enlargement and explain the logic of that timetable.
Every person of sound judgment understands that if NATO wants to retain
its capacity to act it cannot take in all the countries aspiring for
membership overnight. On the other hand, no one should be led to think
that the admission of a particular country means the end of the
enlargement process. Each applicant country should be offered assurance
and hope, and know the requirements it would have to meet and the rational
reasons why the opportunity for admission may come sooner for some than
for others. The formulation of such guidelines can undoubtedly benefit
from the initial experiences gained through NATO's current individualized
dialogues with its Partners. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">DEFINING AND STRENGTHENING THE NATO-RUSSIA
RELATIONSHIP</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>I know there are many doubters who question the purpose of an enlarged
NATO, and I know of the wide variety of arguments with which they support
their case. I shall not enter into a polemic with them. I shall just say
that doubting the purpose of enlarging NATO amounts to one of two things:
either the doubters are dubious about the idea behind the Alliance or they
want to perpetuate the situation brought about by the Cold War, and refuse
to recognize that the world we live in now is different. </P>
<P>One major issue of our time is the relationship between NATO and the
Russian Federation, or the entire Commonwealth of Independent States. Few
people in the world, I believe, would not wish to see the best possible
partnership between these two large bodies. Perhaps their relationship
might be given some formal status, articulating and reaffirming the vital
importance of this partnership within today's interconnected global
civilization. The Russian Federation is and will always remain a power
with great gravitational potential and with security partners of its own.
World peace is hardly conceivable without good cooperation between the
Euro-Atlantic region and this large and influential Euro-Asian entity.
</P>
<P>Yet, these two entities can cooperate creatively and build a deepening
partnership only if both are clearly defined, have distinct boundaries and
fully respect each other's identity. Unclear regional boundaries, or zones
of states that are unsure of where they belong, always lead to trouble. It
can spell instability, struggle for influence, mutual suspicion, and,
eventually, confrontation. It is above all a matter for every state or
nation to say where it feels it properly belongs and to decide about its
allegiances. Similarly, the different regional groupings can and must
define themselves on their own. No one else has the right to do this for
them, or to veto their choices. Any social and political order can
function and remain stable only as long as it is fair, that is, only as
long as it respects the will of all, regardless of size, and pays heed to
everyone's security interests. Whenever the large and powerful decide the
fate of the small and less powerful, the outcome is always war rather than
peace. The atrocities of the two World Wars give us ample evidence. </P>
<P>I think this is what the Alliance should tell Russia clearly in the near
future. NATO should affirm its desire to strive for the best conceivable
partnership, but it should also stress that such a partnership can be
built only when each of the parties knows its true identity and when
neither attempts to dictate how the other should define itself, or whom
the other may or may not accept as allies. </P>
<P>Starting out from the belief that NATO should not expand because its
enlargement would jeopardize Russia's security interests is the same, in
fact, as saying that NATO is directed against Russia and that Russia's
concerns in this regard are legitimate. This line of thinking leads only
back into the past and to confrontation, not ahead into the future and to
peace, regardless of whether such views are put forward in Russia, Western
Europe, Eastern Europe, or America. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE NEW NATO</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>We will soon be remembering the fiftieth anniversary of the communist
coup in Czechoslovakia, and the North Atlantic Alliance will soon be
observing its fiftieth birthday. I would like to express my wish that
Czech Republic will celebrate the latter anniversary as a full member of
the community whose founding was once prompted by our land's bitter fate.
</P>
<P>Living in the very center of Europe, on a traditional crossroads of
European history, we experienced many unfortunate developments that proved
detrimental to the entire continent. Could not this be a time for our
country to be the scene of events to pave the way toward a better future
for the whole of Europe? </P>
<P>I would be delighted if I could welcome you all to Prague in June 1997
for the Fourteenth NATO Workshop. I promise that the conditions for your
deliberations would be as favorable as those that were so kindly prepared
for us in Warsaw by our Polish hosts, to whom I extend my heartfelt thanks
for their hospitality. </P>
<P><A HREF="Havel.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>