|
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>U.S. Ambassador Robert E. Hunter...The Further Development of
Partnership for Peace</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+4">The Further Development of</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+4">Partnership for Peace</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+3">Ambassador Robert E. Hunter</FONT><FONT SIZE="+2"></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT SIZE="+1">United States Permanent Representative to NATO</FONT></I></CENTER>
<P>I think that it is extraordinarily remarkable that the Thirteenth NATO
Workshop is <I>not </I>remarkable. It is only one of many recent
opportunities for a full range of people from the West and from the East
to become deeply engaged in a wide ranging debate. There may still be
limits on the NATO map, but there are no limits on discussion and no
limits on participation. What <I>is</I> remarkable is that the Workshop
took place about two hundred meters from where the Warsaw Pact was signed
in 1955. It is also important to note that this Workshop includes not just
government officials but also representatives from the private sector. The
private sector has a very special role in enabling us to maintain our
Alliance and to prevent what we call the "renationalization of
defense." It is industry in the 16 current NATO nations that will
help to denationalize the Central European security structures and help
them all to work together. </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">WAYS IN WHICH NATO HAS CHANGED</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>Before I begin talking about the changes NATO is now undergoing, let me
first review what happened in NATO over the last six years. During that
time, NATO became acknowledged as <I>the</I> instrument of security in
Europe, one in which the United States was deeply engaged and prepared to
lead when our friends and Allies in Europe wanted us to. NATO also built a
clear and coherent architecture, as well as the foundation for a European
security structure that can endure in the future. </P>
<P>First, 16 countries do see NATO as the bedrock for security in Europe.
Security continues to matter. NATO is the key player in making it happen.
Second, NATO works when the United States is committed and when it leads.
My country is doing both and will continue to do so. President Bill
Clinton has taken the lead and shown the commitment. But that commitment
is also shown by key members of the Republican Party, including Senator
Bob Dole. Thus my country has already made its transition to a firm,
bipartisan commitment to this institution for the indefinite future. </P>
<P>In addition, we managed to take an institution founded for a single
purpose to contain Soviet power and turn it into an extraordinary
organization involved in a number of challenges, including peacekeeping.
All 16 Allies are now working together in Bosnia, and doing it right. We
have developed a powerful underpinning for everything we do in the future.
</P>
<P>Finally, at NATO we made the fundamental decision to become involved in
Central and Eastern Europe, and we made political and strategic
commitments to assume responsibilities in our common interests and our
self interest. Partnership for Peace is one such commitment. Enlargement
is perhaps the centerpiece commitment. </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">CURRENT NATO CHALLENGES</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>Now I am going to speak about the challenges NATO is currently facing.
One of them is enlargement. We have completed all the work on the "how"
and the "why." Now we must work on making sure that NATO will be
as strong if not stronger when it is larger. We must also determine what
countries must do to become real Allies producers and not just consumers
of security when they join the Alliance. </P>
<P>This year we are conducting deep individual dialogues with some 12
countries, and we will soon be moving to decide which countries will be
accepted first and when. As we go through this process, we must remember
that it is enhancing security for Allies and Partners alike. We must also
remember that, at the same time we are enlarging, we are also reaching out
to Russia to try to draw that country out of its shell and into the
outside world. The invitation to them and their participation in IFOR has
sent a powerful message throughout Russia that, if they play by the rules,
they will have a full and legitimate part to play within European
security. </P>
<P>NATO is also fully engaged in internal adaptation. Based on a long term
study of our command structure, we have made the choice to downsize and to
modernize. We are continuing to develop the Combined Joint Task Force
concept, mostly for use by NATO but also for use by the Western European
Union (WEU). And we are working on the European Security and Defense
Identity, so that we can eliminate any conflict between a transatlantic
system of security and a European one. This difficult, last piece of the
architecture fell into place or rather was pushed there, if I may say so
in Berlin in early June. </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE </FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">A CRITICAL PART OF EUROPEAN SECURITY</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>We are now confident that NATO's future is clear. The architecture is
complete, and much of the foundation has been laid to give us a secure
future. Partnership for Peace is a critical part of that future. I want to
underscore the point that Partnership for Peace is not a second-class
substitute for enlargement. It is a first-class instrument for creating
real, permanent security for current Allies, Partners, and new Allies as
well. It is an essential part of NATO's strategic perspective and of the
European Atlantic security space. Indeed, it is the tool that creates
military structures within the NATO security family and enables new
countries to be part of NATO. As Ambassador von Richthofen of Germany
mentioned at the Workshop, it is the device whereby countries newly
accepted to NATO will be able to stand up before the parliaments of the 16
NATO countries and demonstrate that they are ready to bear the full costs
and obligations of the Alliance. </P>
<P>Partnership for Peace also gives us the opportunity to maintain an
association with everyone who is ready, willing, and able to work closely
and carefully with us. We are determined to make the difference between
being an Ally and a robust Partner as small as possible razor thin if we
can make it. For example, while Partners will not receive Article V
guarantees, they will receive constant engagement with us and the
equivalent of Article IV consultations. They will not join the integrated
military structure, but they have already joined us in IFOR in Bosnia, and
they will train with us, exercise with us, and take part in expanded tasks
with us. And while they will not have a vote at the North Atlantic Council
table, they will be Partners within the North Atlantic Cooperation
Council, and they will be able to join various NATO committees. In effect,
they will be integrated into just about every functional NATO area, short
of membership itself. </P>
<P>Ideas for further developing Partnership relationships are now coming
from Partners as well as from Allies. One of the critical Partner ideas is
a proposal by Hungary to incorporate lessons learned from IFOR to make the
Partnership work even more effectively. This proposal will not just help
PFP, it will also ensure that both Partners and Allies will be able to
handle the next Bosnia, if there is a next Bosnia, even better than we did
this time. The role of Partners is thus becoming deeper and broader. </P>
<P>Minister Birkavs of Latvia has discussed how essential it is that any
decentralization within PFP still be connected strategically to NATO. We
do not want the Partnership to be regionalized, but instead to enable
countries that are working on their own and together to be like spokes of
a wheel of which NATO Headquarters is the hub. </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUDING REMARKS</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>While I could discuss several other specific points, what they all
amount to is that NATO security has arrived, and it will keep on
deepening. Its growth is almost like the World Wide Web it no longer has a
single author, but continues to enrich itself even as we speak. </P>
<P>But though NATO security has arrived, it has not completely developed;
we are not there yet. We are not there because we in the Alliance are not
yet taking all the practical work as seriously as we have to. To do this
we must understand that we all have a stake in the success of the
Partnership program. </P>
<P>More countries in the Alliance must also realize that they need to take
part in the program more deeply, and be more willing to take the lead.
Denmark, Germany, and the U.S. are already deeply engaged, but all 16
countries are not yet out there pressing for new ideas and new leadership.
We need to do more "in the spirit of" PFP, and individual Allies
need to do far more on a bilateral basis with individual countries in
Central Europe. We also need to expand our clearinghouse process so that
various efforts reinforce rather than duplicate each other. </P>
<P>Finally, we must put more resources into the Partnership program. My
country is providing $100 million this year under its Warsaw Initiative
for the second year in a row, following the commitment of President
Clinton in this city two years ago to put tangible resources into the
efforts by Partner states to adapt themselves to NATO. That sum is being
matched by no other country. But if we are all serious particularly as we
head into the critical decisions on enlargement we must have a Partnership
that is up and running and well financed. Otherwise, we're going to find
that none of this is going to work very well, no matter how much we want
it to. The United States and other countries are going to kick into higher
gear this fall to help make PFP work. All of us at NATO invite everyone to
be engaged in that effort, because Partnership for Peace is the magic
bullet and we must make it work. </P>
<P><A HREF="Hunter.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>