a-weu/GENERAL/weusim94.1 SEMINAR on the point of view of WEU on the security of countries of Central and Eastern Europe Warsaw, 11th and 12th February 1994 Address by Mr. Pierre WINTGENS Rapporteur of the Political Committee Assembly of WEU ________ I first wish to thank Mr. Pastusiak for being good enough to ask me to be the first speaker at the third and last sitting of this important seminar, during which we have already heard speeches on a subject which is both complex and exciting. I realise that our task this afternoon will probably be the most difficult one but perhaps, too, because it is the most interesting one during this seminar, since we have to try to obtain a well-balanced view of our subject and outline the prospects of future co-operation with our partners in the Forum of Consultation and also our future relationship with Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe which are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is still a period of transition: indeed, the various parts of a European security architecture satisfactory to each of the countries concerned have not yet all been brought together. In view of the uncertainty hovering over the evolution of certain areas - and I am thinking in particular of Russia and the conflict in the Balkans - we cannot be certain that the solutions worked out in the European and Atlantic bodies will be enough to avoid us again lagging behind events as was the case between the summer of 1989 and the fall of the Berlin wall and, again, a few years later, when the break-up of Yugoslavia started. What we need above all - and that is most difficult - is a common view of the fundamental factors of our shared security, together with the courage and determination necessary to achieve that goal. We are here, in the capital of a country whose particularly painful historic experience obliges us to do everything in our power to respond to its preoccupations in regard to its security and regained freedom. But this past also gives us an obligation towards our other partners in Central Europe, among which I shall mention in particular our Czech and Slovak friends and the Baltic countries, not to forget Finland. Regarding the special position of the Baltic countries, I welcome the interest my report presented last December to the WEU Assembly on WEU's relations with Central and Eastern European countries aroused at the meeting between our Standing Committee and the representatives of the Forum of Consultation which unfortunately I was unable to attend for reasons of health. I therefore wish to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this seminar to confirm to you today that we are perfectly well aware of the historical reasons for the uncertain situation in which these countries now find themselves: I would mention their annexation by the Soviets in 1940, which, moreover, has never been recognised by the West; we well know that during the Soviet occupation Russian-speaking populations were transferred by force to these countries and now one has to find a fair settlement in terms of the rights of minorities. Furthermore, I can assure you that the prolonged presence of Russian troops in Estonia and in Latvia is a matter of concern to us as much as to yourselves - Mr. Caro already said this - and I refer also to Recommendation 547 adopted last December on a report by Mr. Baumel emphasising that any worsening of the threat to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would at the same time be a danger for Western Europe. We especially welcome the strengthening of political co- operation between the Baltic countries and their decision to create a Baltic battalion in order to take part in peace-keeping operations and this will allow them to co-operate in a practical manner with the appropriate western bodies in an area whose importance is constantly increasing. Much has already been said about the results of the NATO summit meeting and the significance of the partnership for peace proposed to all the states taking part in the work of NACC and other countries of the CSCE capable of and wishing to contribute to its programme. I share in full the assessment made in this respect by our former President and friend, Jean-Marie Caro, and I shall not go back over this ground. I must say, however, that I believe that all the countries invited, and above all those of the WEU Forum, should grasp this opportunity and take advantage of the prospects offered by this initiative: I hope that the number of countries signing this framework document, or prepared to do so, will increase considerably in the near future. It is clear that that will influence Russia's attitude towards this initiative and it is our hope that the latter country will take part in this partnership. We have recently heard quite often that the present United States administration was concentrating too much on developing its relations with Russia to the detriment of its interests and the preoccupations of the countries of Central Europe. Only a few years ago, the governments of Western Europe voiced similar fears at the time of the Soviet-United States summit meeting in Reykjavik and this gave new impetus to the reactivation of WEU and in 1987 resulted in the adoption of the platform on European security interests. The situation is quite different today. The risk is not that the Americans and the Russians will make arrangements to the detriment of Europeans. The real danger is the collapse of democratic structures and economic order in a Russia in the throes of transformation, the consequences of which could be catastrophic for us all. In such circumstances, it can but be in the interests of everyone for the dialogue between American and Russian leaders to be as tightly-knit as possible. In saying this, I do not wish to advocate an American monopoly in handling the Russian problem. On the contrary, I believe all Europeans must contribute to the pursuit of this dialogue with the democratic powers of Russia. Only the Americans, however, have the means allowing them to pursue this dialogue with the necessary firmness and, as long as this dialogue is continued, it will contribute to the stability and security of the whole of Europe. It must be emphasised in this respect that the United States can count on the backing of the whole Atlantic Alliance which, at the NATO summit meeting, again confirmed the importance of the transatlantic link as the basis of NATO and expressed the unanimous wish for the maintenance of the direct commitment of the United States and Canada in matters concerning European security. There is another difference compared with the situation in 1986- 87: the Atlantic Alliance has now officially recognised WEU for the first time in more than forty years, with the agreement of the United States, as a legitimate component of the transatlantic partnership. Furthermore, welcoming the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty and the launching of the European Union, the Atlantic Alliance affords its full support to the development of a European security and defence identity of which WEU is the nucleus. This change of context throws new light on the interest the countries of the Forum of Consultation might have in drawing closer to the European Union and WEU. To our Polish friends in particular, some of whom are wondering what is WEU's true value, and how effective it is, I would answer that WEU is now practically condemned to become a reality which has to be taken into account. According to the declaration of the member states of WEU on the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, states which are members of the European Union are invited to join WEU or to become observers if they so wish. The parallelism thus established between the enlargement of the European Union and that of WEU has again been strengthened in regard to the countries of Central Europe in the Franco-German-Polish proposal of 12th November and in the statement of the WEU Council of 22nd November last. In my report last December, I defended the view that WEU would not be following a valid policy if it favoured relations with one or other of the countries of the Forum of Consultation, thus automatically discriminating against others. I added that our organisation should avoid anything that might exacerbate rivalry between the countries in question in their efforts to rejoin the West. I am still of this opinion but I have to note that the views of the governmental leaders, not only in the West but also among the countries concerned, are not always coherent in this respect. Some do not exclude a case-by-case procedure, whereas others favour a grouped approach such as the Visegrad one as Chancellor Kohl said recently at the Munich forum on defence and security. It would therefore be highly desirable for the speakers representing the executive organs of WEU who are to speak this afternoon to offer some enlightenment regarding WEU's future concepts in this respect. As I see things, all the countries of the Forum of Consultation should benefit from the prospect of joining the European Union sooner or later. That is why I am in favour of recent initiatives for enlarging the mandate of the European Commission so that it might also negotiate association agreements with the Baltic countries. With this in view, it would therefore be necessary to see how they too could be granted an enhanced status in WEU, in accordance with the studies now being pursued by the Council. Regarding the level of this status, which everyone hopes will be offered to the countries concerned next May by the WEU Ministerial Council, indications recently gleaned from representatives of the Council seem quite encouraging. Here, I am counting on Mr. van Eekelen, Secretary-General of WEU, and Ambassador Linster, representing the Chairmanship-in- Office, to provide us with additional details regarding the final outcome of this step: would it in the long term be accession to WEU and its treaty? Many questions still remain to be resolved in this context. One is the parallelism that must be established between the European Union and WEU in the development of relations with the countries of Central Europe. To my mind, in spite of this parallelism, WEU must preserve its decision-making freedom in order to adapt the enhanced status to the specific position of each of the countries concerned. Parallelism must not mean that WEU will have to follow purely and simply the development of the Union, but that it should also be able to act as a pioneer and prepare the way. Once the enhanced status is established, the future of the Forum of Consultation raises another question. Will the Forum continue to operate and if so what will be its task? In this respect, allow me to recall the proposals of Recommendation 548 drawn from my report of last December with a view to associating Slovenia with the work of this Forum and giving that body a structured programme of work. Furthermmore, a coherent doctrine must be established in face of the multiplication of the various specific relationships that WEU is developing with third countries along two sets of parallel lines, one with NATO, the other with the European Union. The number of states associated in one way or another with the work of WEU without being signatories of its treaty will soon be greater than the number of full member countries. To avoid the fundamental obligations stemming from the treaty in terms of mutual assistance and consultation in the event of a threat to peace being forgotten, I believe the goal to be pursued must be accession to the treaty by all the countries of Europe that are prepared to and able to shoulder the obligations. This approach calls for determination and patience and I know how difficult this requirement is in face of the deep-rooted desire of the nations of Central Europe to accelerate the process of rapprochement between their countries and the West. I am convinced, however, that your countries can do much to overcome the real or possible obstacles standing in the way of the achievement of their aims. It has sometimes been said that the conference planned to be held in Paris next April with the task of working out a stability pact guaranteeing the rights of minorities and the inviolability of frontiers has given rise to perplexity in some of your countries: indeed, doubts have been expressed about the need for such a conference which some saw as an artificial obstacle intended to slow down their rapprochement with Western Europe. This is not at all the case. I would remind you of the experience of Western Europe as expressed in a message from our former President, Mr. Hartmut Soell, during a visit to Romania: "What enabled Western Europe to develop an efficient security system is the homogeneity of its states and peoples. None would have undertaken to help its neighbours in the event of an attack from outside without being certain that its neighbours would not use the additional power afforded them by the alliance for the pursuit of specific aims. The texts of treaties are not enough to give this assurance which is based above all on the continuity of a policy backed by democratic practices in each nation. Countries wishing to benefit from the guarantees offered by NATO and WEU must provide proof of internal stability, the deep-rooted backing of the majority of the population for democratic practices, the continuity of foreign policy that takes precedence over national ambitions, however legitimate they may be, and the requirements of maintaining and consolidating peace in Europe." These are very similar considerations which played an important role at the time in discussions on enlarging WEU to include other countries of Western Europe. I am convinced that your countries can make a significant contribution to accelerating their rapprochement with the structures of Western Europe by settling between themselves their various problems with neighbouring countries. They might thus facilitate to a very great extent the task of the Paris conference in April. Poland, for instance, has succeeded in solving once and for all its frontier problems with Germany. It has also concluded bilateral agreements with most of the surrounding countries. Would such arrangements not also be possible between Poland and Lithuania? If this were so, it would no longer be necessary to proceed with settlements under the aegis and control of the European Union. In like manner, I might mention the resolution of questions between Slovakia and Hungary, Hungary and Romania, Romania and Ukraine, etc. The good offices of multilateral organisations will be even less necessary for your countries if they succeed in better handling their problems between each other. These good offices will be available to you nevertheless so that the European Union and WEU will be able to retain their homogeneity after enlargement. As for defence, the process of rapprochement means adaptating military structures, equipment and command to western standards, which will also be a not-negligible financial burden. We are consequently faced with considerable challenges if we wish to solve all the problems that arise, but I am optimistic and remain convinced that, if we pool our efforts and show like determination, we shall succeed. A FRENCH ELECTRONIC VERSION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. ------- For information, please contact: Yves ROBINS, Press Counsellor _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ | ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ | 43, avenue du President Wilson _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | F-75775 Paris cedex 16 France _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ | Tel 331-47235432; Fax 331-47204543 _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ | E-mail: 100315.240@Compuserve.com