|
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>Ukranian Foreign Minister Hennadiy Udovenko...European Security: A
Ukranian View</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+4">European Security: A Ukrainian View</FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+3">Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Hennadiy
Udovenko </FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">INTRODUCTION</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>Two recent NAC and NACC Ministerials in Berlin and Brussels made very
important decisions on how to carry out the ongoing adaptation of the
North Atlantic Alliance and the development of the NACC/PFP processes. It
is very symbolic that one of these Foreign Ministers meetings took place
in the capital of the reunited Germany. The unification of Germany, along
with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the emergence of a
number of newly independent states, including Ukraine, are among the most
remarkable events of 20th century history. These transformations started
radical geopolitical change throughout the world, creating the conditions
for a unified Europe. The Warsaw NATO Workshop is just as symbolic. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">BUILDING A NEW EUROPEAN SECURITY ARCHITECTURE</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>The disappearance of such geopolitical realities as the Warsaw Pact and
the USSR has removed the old totalitarian pressure from over half the
European continent, giving many nations the chance to integrate with
Western society. But it has also created a "security vacuum" in
this part of Europe, where ethnic tensions, border disputes, and difficult
economic and social situations have actually lowered the general level of
stability from that of the Cold War period. </P>
<P>While it will take some time to complete the ambitious transformation
process now taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, it is necessary to
deal immediately with present instabilities and to prevent additional
instabilities from developing. This requires the creation of a new
reliable and flexible cooperative security system-which will secure the
lasting peace and stability that the transformation process needs in order
to succeed. </P>
<P>The idea of a comprehensive all-European security system is not a new
one; it has reappeared often in the international politics of the 20th
century. However, it is only now, when the principles of openness and
cooperation are gaining practical ground, that a European security system
seems to have a chance for success. </P>
<P>The complexities of developing modern international security, even when
compared with the periods of the Yalta Conference and the Cold War, make
it impossible, from a practical point of view, to design a fixed security
scheme for Europe. The emergence of a dozen newly independent states,
striving for democratic development, will easily break any rigid model.
The national identities, cultural and historical experiences, and
interests of these new post-communist democracies, including Ukraine, must
continually be taken into account. And I do not even mention the
implications of the disappearance of the bipolar system in world affairs.
</P>
<P>Europe, as well as the rest of the world, is now multipolar. We must
avoid the worst possible development: a new division of the European
continent. While multipolar, Europe is also united, indivisible, and our
only "common house." We must comprehend this reality that both
multipolarity and unity can now be seen in all the complex integration
processes ongoing in Europe today-within the EU, WEU, and NATO. </P>
<P>We Europeans have already come to accept this wisdom not only on a
practical level-of economic and political integration-but on a
philosophical level as well-in a common recognition of the need for a
broad and comprehensive approach to European security. For this reason,
Ukraine believes that international institutions capable of contributing
to regional security, such as OSCE, NATO, NACC, PFP, WEU, EU, and the
Council of Europe, should become the pillars of the new European security
architecture. The task is now to coordinate these organizations'
activities and to divide the responsibilities equally and fairly,
according to the principle of complementarity. </P>
<P>With many years of experience establishing norms of behavior, and with a
fundamental value system in place, the OSCE and the Council of Europe are
already playing important roles in promoting peace, democracy, and respect
for human rights across the continent. OSCE preventive diplomacy
mechanisms such as activities undertaken by the High Commissioner for
National Minorities and by OSCE field missions and groups, as well as
experience implementing civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, prove the ability of this organization to become an
essential element in a future European security system. However, the lack
of enforcement mechanisms in the OSCE framework, which makes its
effectiveness completely dependent upon the political will of conflicting
parties, proves that OSCE can operate successfully only by working with
other security structures, such as NATO or WEU as we see now in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">NATO IN THE NEW EURO-ATLANTIC SECURITY
ENVIRONMENT</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>NATO's recent development has proven its effectiveness, vitality, and
strategic vision. This new effectiveness brings with it the need for the
Alliance, along with other security organizations, to take on a major part
of the responsibility for the future of Europe. For at least the first
period of post-Cold War development, NATO has successfully coped with the
challenges of the changing security environment. NACC and PFP, developed
under the principles of openness and inclusiveness, have also started a
process of post-Cold War unification of Europe. These organizations have
already become permanent determining elements of the Euro-Atlantic
security architecture. </P>
<P>The last decisions of the Berlin Ministerial on further development of
the CJTF concept in its WEU and PFP implications have shown us that the
Alliance's adaptation to the new European security environment has moved
forward. We especially appreciate the Council's decision to increase
Partners' involvement in NATO efforts to promote security through regional
cooperation, including facilitating participation in CJTF at an early
stage. This is a great step in transforming and widening NATO's collective
defense profile toward collective security and cooperative security. The
recent success of the IFOR operation-the largest and most ambitious
military operation in the Alliance's history-proves the importance of such
transformation. The IFOR mission has been the first multilateral
arrangement among European security structures to demonstrate the
possibility of achieving interoperability on a complementary and
supportive basis. </P>
<P>The Berlin Ministerial also reconfirmed NATO's decision to open its
membership to Central and Eastern European countries, as well as to "further
enhance its strong relationship with Ukraine." Ukraine regards NATO
enlargement as part of a broad and comprehensive process of building up a
new European security architecture, which itself represents part of an
overall European integration process that includes EU enlargement as well
as regional European cooperation development. Standing firmly against the
creation of new dividing lines in Europe, Ukraine is convinced that with
enough political will, it is possible to find appropriate, mutually
advantageous modalities of European integration, including different
levels of integration for new European democracies into such basic
structures as EU, WEU, and NATO. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">A NEW UKRAINE IN A NEW EUROPE</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>The strategic aim of Ukraine, as President Leonid Kuchma stated recently
in Paris, is full-fledged integration into European and Euro-Atlantic
institutions. This aim, as President Kuchma said, is not political
romanticism, but a very pragmatic decision. On the one hand, our desire
for integration is based on our deep feeling that Ukraine is a natural
historical and cultural part of Europe and on a strong wish for historical
justice-Ukraine's return to the European fold and to former ties and unity
with the rest of the continent. On the other hand, our wish for
integration is also based on very objective reasons and very urgent
needs-security concerns as well as the need for economic transformation.
</P>
<P>Because of our sensitive geopolitical position, stability and security
have very special value for Ukraine. They are an indispensable basis for
radical economic and social transformation. And with the growing
uncertainty in the East, including further political development of Russia
and the CIS on the one hand and the development of European integration
processes in the West on the other hand, Ukraine must have stability and
security to ensure that it does not become a buffer zone between the two
communities. This will only happen by activating its relationship with the
European structures, including NATO. We expect our position and our
interests to be understood. </P>
<P>Ukraine is completely convinced that the enlargement of the Alliance
would play a positive role in extending the Western zone of security and
stability to the East and in enhancing security for all countries of the
region. To ensure this stability and to avoid creation of new dividing
lines in Europe, NATO's enlargement should be in line with the economic
integration processes that are part of the EU framework of enlargement as
well as the widening and deepening security cooperation the Alliance has
with all interested parties in the region. This course would decrease the
possibility for security competition among more and less successful
applicants and non-applicant countries. </P>
<P>NATO's arithmetical enlargement based on collective defense and without
special assurances will inevitably lead to misunderstandings. It is not a
problem of the enlargement, it is a problem of the nature of the Alliance
itself. The formula is simple: the more countries that join the collective
defense, the wider will be the internal sphere of security and stability.
If only a few countries are left out of the collective defense system,
they will have great discomfort. </P>
<P>This is not a unique view on the problem. For example, a package
solution to the NATO enlargement issue has been put forward, which
includes formal arrangements with the Alliance for a number of countries
in the region, applicants and non-applicants alike. To achieve success,
which is unity and stability in Europe, any solution should include such
an arrangement for Ukraine and Russia. The formal NATO partnership
arrangement with Russia should certainly become part of the new European
security package solution. </P>
<P>As for Ukraine, which is moving toward NATO as an international
organization but not joining it during the NATO enlargement transition
period, we have proposed a Special Partnership Agreement. While I do not
want to get into its specific provisions and it is understood that there
is no associate status membership in NATO, in concentrated form this
Special Partnership could be described as a sort of associated status for
Ukraine within NATO. That does not mean that Ukraine is putting in an
application for membership. But such a strong, intensive, bilateral
relationship between Ukraine and the Alliance could neutralize possible
and, to some extent, negative effects of its limited enlargement on
geopolitical stability in the region. This proposal should supplement the
development of the NACC/PFP multilateral process, which seems to remain an
important stabilization factor in modern Europe. </P>
<P>The special Partnership agreement should also include an Agreement on a
Nuclear Free Zone in Central and Eastern Europe. We believe that the
creation of a nuclear free zone in Central and Eastern Europe can
definitively improve confidence and stability in the region. In this
regard, I would like to point out that Ukraine will never agree to the
possibility or even the hypothetical presumption of discussing the problem
of nuclear weapons deployment on the territory of new members. This issue
has special significance for the Ukraine since it only recently completed
the process of eliminating its nuclear potential, which had been the third
greatest in the world. We are convinced that a nuclear-free Central and
Eastern Europe could soften the impact of enlargement on the situation in
the whole region. The creation of such a nuclear free zone in Central and
Eastern Europe would be in line with the general direction of world policy
to decrease the overall nuclear threat throughout the world and would
correspond with NATO policy on denuclearizing Europe. </P>
<CENTER><B><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUDING REMARKS</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P>With the end of the Cold War, the cessation of the great ideological and
political confrontation between the East and the West, and the
disintegration of the former Soviet Union has come a unique opportunity to
overcome the artificial divisions of Europe and to build prosperity,
stability, and security throughout the continent. Working together we can
build up the new undivided Europe and lay down a solid foundation for
long-term peace and stability. We, in Ukraine, believe we can attain this
long-hoped-for dream, and feel that we must not miss this historic chance.
Perhaps because of our geopolitical situation, we feel it more distinctly
than others. </P>
<P><A HREF="Udovenko.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>