The Council of Euro-Atlantic Partnership and Relations Belarus- NATO

Актуальные публикации по английскому языку. История Великобритании и других англоязычных стран. Публикации, книги, статьи, заметки на английском языке.

NEW АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH)


АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH): новые материалы (2024)

Меню для авторов

АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH): экспорт материалов
Скачать бесплатно! Научная работа на тему The Council of Euro-Atlantic Partnership and Relations Belarus- NATO. Аудитория: ученые, педагоги, деятели науки, работники образования, студенты (18-50). Minsk, Belarus. Research paper. Agreement.

Полезные ссылки

BIBLIOTEKA.BY Беларусь - аэрофотосъемка HIT.BY! Звёздная жизнь


Автор(ы):
Публикатор:

Опубликовано в библиотеке: 2014-04-29
Источник: "БЕЛАРУСЬ В МИРЕ" No.02 07-01-97

On 30 May 1997, at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in Sintra, Portugal, Foreign Ministers decided to dissolve the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) and to establish a Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The EAPC incorporates in a single structure political consultations, which previously were held in the NACC, and an enhanced programme of practical cooperation under Partnership for Peace (PfP).

First Mechanisms of Cooperation

In November 1991, at the NATO Summit in Rome the NACC was established to develop a dialogue between the Alliance and its former adversaries from the Warsaw Treaty Organisation. NACC activities played a major role in overcoming stereotypes of the Cold War confrontation, particularly among the military. However, it became clear that political dialogue and consultations, conducted by the NACC, are considerably overlapping the issues, discussed in Vienna in the framework of the forum on security-related cooperation (the code of conduct of the states in the military field), as well as other bodies of the OSCE. The necessity to complement the rhetoric of cooperation with practice was also realised in the course of debates within the NACC.

In 1994, NATO's Partnership for Peace programme was launched, under which partners were able to decide for themselves the format and scope of practical cooperation with the Alliance. On 11 January 1995 V.Senko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, signed the Partnership for Peace Framework Document, making Belarus one of the 27 PfP participating states.

On the whole, both NATO Allies and Partners evaluated highly cooperation in the PfP programme. However, analysis of a number of practical events, particularly those related to the implementation of the joint peacekeeping mission in Bosnia (where along with the members of the Alliance 15 partner countries participated), brought about a number of questions. In particular, regret was expressed that Partners had not taken part in the planning for the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

Consequently, many participating states found it difficult to make a political decision to contribute their forces because of the lack of clarity concerning the NATO operational plan.

Some partners noted that they were not aware of the existing NATO planning procedures. That is why it is necessary to provide for some degree of interoperability to give Partners a better idea of goals and types of their future joint operations.

The PfP participating states almost unanimously emphasised that their representatives should be directly involved in the decision making process at the earliest possible stage, regarding the operations where participation of their forces is anticipated. It was also stressed that Partners must be involved in the political control over the operations, and that decisions should be made jointly on the ways to continue or adjust operations conducted by NATO Allies and Partners.

Many participants noted the necessity of Partners' access to NATO closed committees and working bodies, since without such admission practical cooperation would not be of full value.

A New Cooperative Mechanism

Realising that political consultations on the general issues relating to the European security in the NACC framework are becoming less relevant, Russia suggested the merger of NACC and PfP into a single joint cooperative structure. On 31 May 1995, Andrei Kozyrev, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, made this proposal at the NACC Ministerial Meeting in Noordwijk, The Netherlands. Account was taken of the proposal; however, it was not discussed.

At the end of 1995, the United States made a similar proposal. The U.S. put forward their concept of an Atlantic Partnership Council that would synthesise NACC and PfP. This concept was discussed at the NACC Ministerial Meetings in December 1995, June and December 1996. The drafting of the basic document, setting out principal aims and objectives, as well as principles and structure of a new Council, began in January 1997.

When creating NACC, the NATO Allies invited the former adversaries to start a dialogue, and defined the format and framework of suach a dialogue themselves. Now, when drafting the Basic Document of the EAPC, all its provisions were adopted on a consensus basis both by the Allies and Partners. The representatives of the Republic of Belarus actively participated in this process.

The following was reached as a result of deliberations at the meetings of the NATO Senior Level Group, as well as during numerous informal consultations attended by Belarusian representatives:

it was noted that that all working groups, created in the EAPC framework, would be open for all members (with the exception of groups in which details of peacekeeping operations are discussed only by representatives of countries contributing their military contingents);

the position of an Honorary President from a partner country entitled to deliver a speech at the opening of every EAPC session, was established;

a possibility of expanding the involvement of the Partners in the decision making process related to the joint operations with NATO was laid out;

transparency in EAPC activity, including keeping all EAPC members informed about the results of meetings of a limited format was confirmed;

the proposal on the institutional basis for the "regional format" in the EAPC was blocked;

the proposed name for a Council was changed: "the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council" was adopted instead of the originally proposed "the Atlantic Partnership Council."

At the same time, a special Steering Committee to assist EAPC activity was not created. However, this issue was not removed from the agenda: the Basic Document points out that the EAPC will consider, based on an analyses of its practice, whether such committee should be established.

On May 30, 1997, the NACC Foreign Ministers adopted the Basic Document of the EAPC. The Basic Document says, "The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council will be a new cooperative mechanism which will form a framework for enhanced efforts in both an expanded political dimension of partnership and practical cooperation under PfP."1

Specific subject areas on which Allies and Partners would consult in the framework of the EAPC, might include European security issues; crisis management; arms control issues; fighting international terrorism; nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) proliferation; defence planning and budgets and defence policy and strategy; regional matters; as well as more specific issues of cooperation in such areas as civil emergency and disaster preparedness; armaments production; nuclear safety; scientific and technological cooperation and so on.2

Therefore, an all-European organisation-the EAPC-was established to deal with military aspects of security. As soon as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) limits its activity to preventive diplomacy and post-conflict restoration, division of labour is possible, and the EAPC will undertake settlement of crises which degenerated in a violent form. The EAPC will also be capable of providing military escort to humanitarian missions (similar to the one currently conducted in Albania).

The New Position of Belarus

The Republic of Belarus, actively participating in the NACC activities, kept a low profile in PfP. Because of several reasons, including financial constraints, Belarusian military units did not take part in joint exercises conducted by NATO and Partners. The drafting of the Belarusian Individual Partnership Programme was unjustifiably delayed.

In the beginning of this year, concurrently with the elaboration of the EAPC Basic Document, the work over Russia-NATO Founding Act was under way, and the negotiations on the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine became more active. Some of Belarus' neighbouring states-Poland, Lithuania, Latvia- insisted on their admission to NATO, and others-Russia, Ukraine- had an intensified dialogue on the establishment of a distinctive relationship with the Alliance.

In March 1997, this situation was discussed at the meeting of the Security Council of the Republic of Belarus. After considering this situation a new position with regard to NATO was defined. The position encompasses the following points:

NATO is being transformed and actively adapts itself to the European realities of post-Cold War era;

the decision on NATO enlargement is a mistake, and can result in the emerging of new dividing lines in Europe;

no non-NATO country has a right of veto over NATO expansion;

Belarus is ready for active constructive political dialogue with NATO and for consultations under the EAPC;

Belarus is ready for a wider participation in PfP (on 30 May 1997, Ivan Antonovich, Foreign Minister of Belarus, presented to NATO officials Individual Partnership Programme for Belarus);

Belarusian leadership believes it is necessary to conclude a Charter on Partnership between NATO and Belarus.

The main aspects of this new position were underlined in the statements by President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. They were also spelled out by Ural Latypov, Assistant to the President of Belarus, Ivan Antonovich, Foreign Minister of Belarus, and Sergei Martynov, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Belarus, in the course of their meetings with NATO officials. On May 12, 1997, Belarus submitted a draft Charter on Belarus-NATO Partnership to the NATO representatives.

Format and Prospects for Belarus-NATO Partnership

All partner states welcomed the signing of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation on 27 May 1997. It was also stressed in the Final Communique of the Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council of May 29, 1997, that the signing of this act "marks the beginning of a new strong, stable and enduring partnership which will be of vital importance for European security."3

As far as Belarus is concerned, there is no doubt that the implementation of the provisions of the Founding Act and operation of the Russia-NATO Permanent Joint Council will, in terms of strategy, meet the national interests of Belarus. Tactically, there are two opposite approaches. The proponents of the first one believe that the precedent set by the signing of the Founding Act and the initialling of the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine at the end of May 1997 give grounds for the signing of a similar agreement with Belarus. The advocates of the other approach think that since Belarus and Russia created a union, there is no need for a separate agreement between NATO and Belarus.

Some NATO representatives note that the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership is not developed just according to somebody's wishes. It should be a merit based deal, as with Russia and Ukraine. Their representatives actively participated in the work of practically all committees and programmes under NACC and PfP. They sent their military units to Bosnia; annually they conduct several PfP exercises in their countries and participate in joint exercises in the NATO countries; both Russia and Ukraine set up Liaison Offices in the NATO Headquarters and so on.

The scope of the strategic interests of the Republic of Belarus is not comparable with that of Russia and Ukraine. Nevertheless, having become a state bordering on the NATO territory (the issue of admitting Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO has practically been solved), Belarus has every right to raise the question of instituting its relations with the Alliance. The government of Belarus has proposed the expansion of its practical cooperation with NATO concurrently and in parallel with the negotiations on the development of a Charter on Partnership. Under such an approach the following becomes the key points: firstly, approval and implementation of the Individual Partnership Programme; secondly, an active participation in the main cooperation forums under the EAPC, including setting up a Liaison Office in the NATO Headquarters; thirdly, participation in joint military exercises on the territory of Belarus and in the neighbouring states, beginning with sending small-size units to such exercises.

Talking about the prospects for Belarus-NATO relationship, a few factors can be highlighted that make the development of a separate agreement between Belarus and NATO not just necessary for Minsk, but also beneficial for Brussels.

First of all, with due tribute to the importance and significance of the Russia-NATO Founding Act to prevent the emergence of new dividing lines in Europe, this document contains several conditional issues. Its Article 2 , Chapter 4, has been considerably enhanced at Russia's insistent request. However, it doesn't ban explicitly the possibility of changing "intentions and plans" concerning the deployment of nuclear weapons in new member states directly, should causes for that arise.

Article 3 of Chapter 4 is actually conditioned by the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe to the new military-political realities in Europe.

Secondly, on the eve of the signing of the Founding Act and immediately after, a number of Russian leaders voiced the idea that the nature of the relationship with NATO would be reconsidered, should former Soviet republics join the Alliance.4

Thirdly, Belarus is interested to formalise certain measures of transparency and guaranties associated with the NATO plans for the modernisation of the armed forces, first of all, of Poland and, possibly, in the future - of the armed forces of the Baltic states.

Fourthly, NATO itself should be interested in the enhancement of the relations of confidence and cooperation with Belarus which is not just any other country, but a member of the Union between Belarus and Russia. Temptation for some Russian strategists to use the Belarusian "black hole" in order to make certain moves which would bypass the Founding Act can therefore be neutralised.

Lastly, NATO should not be indifferent to the principles and directions of the evolution of the armed forces of the Republic of Belarus which are among the most combat capable armies in Europe.

Summing up, one can note that objectively both Belarus and NATO should be interested in Belarus' active participation in the EAPC, and in signing a Charter on Relationship with the Alliance. Although not from the very beginning, the emergence of this objective necessity was realised in Minsk. Now, the Belarusian proposals are being considered in Brussels.

1Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Annex to NACC/PFP (c)D(97) 5, p.1.

2 Ibid., p.3.

3 Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Sintra, Portugal, 29 May 1997. Final Communique. Atlantic News, No 2922 (Annex), 31 May 1997.

4 In particular, Valery Nesterushkin, press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, announced, "As far as Baltic states are concerned, you have probably noticed what our President ... said at the meeting with Duma leaders. It was made clear that in case such ideas (concerning the admission of the Baltic states to NATO-A. B.) assume ever concrete shape, then Russia would have both a possibility and grounds to reconsider the nature of its relationship [with NATO]".

See Atlantic News , No 2919, 23 May 1997, p. 3.

Новые статьи на library.by:
АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH):
Комментируем публикацию: The Council of Euro-Atlantic Partnership and Relations Belarus- NATO

© Aleksandr Baichorov, Ph.D., professor, Minsk () Источник: "БЕЛАРУСЬ В МИРЕ" No.02 07-01-97

Искать похожие?

LIBRARY.BY+ЛибмонстрЯндексGoogle
подняться наверх ↑

ПАРТНЁРЫ БИБЛИОТЕКИ рекомендуем!

подняться наверх ↑

ОБРАТНО В РУБРИКУ?

АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК (ENGLISH) НА LIBRARY.BY

Уважаемый читатель! Подписывайтесь на LIBRARY.BY в VKновости, VKтрансляция и Одноклассниках, чтобы быстро узнавать о событиях онлайн библиотеки.