No institution exists for its own sake. If it does not have a useful purpose, it will wither on the vine, as so many have done before. And yet, a decade after the Cold War, NATO is more vibrant than ever. Indeed, it is impossible to have a credible conversation about security in the Euro- Atlantic area without giving pride of place to the Atlantic Alliance.

How is this possible? To my mind, the answer is simple. NATO still plays a crucial role in preserving the safety and security of ail of its members. But today, that mission is being accomplished in a different away.

NATO has moved beyond preventing the worst possible threat to our citizens. Instead, as we enter the new Millennium, the Alliance is engaged in a much broader range of activities, all designed with one fundamental goal - to address proactively the security challenges which could, or already do, affect the safety or the interests of its members and their populations.

And the Alliance is as vital to Euro-Atlantic security today as it is because of its success in accomplishing that mission.

First and foremost: we have built a very different relationship between the West and Russia. We all remember the bad old days - the days in which we could not talk to Russia except in pressure- filled Summit meetings convened around disputes. The days in which disagreements were expressed through proxy wars in far away places, or through expensive and frightening arms races. The days in which each side would see its security interests in simply blocking the interests of the other.

When the Cold War ended, NATO was determined these days should end. What did that require? It meant setting up an organic, permanent relationship between Russia and NATO, so that consultations occur on a regular basis. We have done that. It meant working on certain security issues together, so that we solve them most effectively - from peacekeeping to crisis management to proliferation. We are doing that too. And despite the occasional very real disagreement, the proof of how far we've come is President Putin's recent musings about the day when Russia itself might join NATO. A far cry from the hostility of the past, and a major contribution to European security.

Another major contribution to the stability of the continent is NATO's ongoing enlargement. Last year, we welcomed three former members of the Warsaw Pact as full members of NATO - and we made clear that these new members would not be the last. Here too, the Alliance is making a direct contribution, today, to the safety and security of our citizens.

The logic is very clear. Our enlargement process helps to preclude major conflicts in Europe, because the mere prospect of NATO membership serves an incentive for aspirants to get their house in order.

Just look at Central and Eastern Europe today. NATO's decision to take in new members has sparked a wave of bilateral treaties, and supported the resolution of border disputes. It has also encouraged many serious attempts to resolve minority issues, and to establish proper democratic control over militaries.

The Alliance is also contributing to stability well outside of NATO territory through a third major element of its new agenda: Partnership. NATO has spent the majority of the last decade developing security relationships with, and between, almost all the new democracies of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe.

Why? Because historically, after empires collapse, bad things happen. Nations and countries feel alone, and nervous. In an unpredictable environment, they make fragile and dangerous security pacts with their immediate neighbours. The result is often a volatile security system, with no solid foundation or structure and a real possibility of instability, which all too often spills into violent conflict. This conflict leads to tides of refugees and asylum seekers, which spreads the tension to neighbouring countries. Tension and conflict spawning ethnic hatred, more instability, corruption, drug-running, human trafficking, money laundering, proliferation of weapons - the dark shadows of our time. Conflict which itself visits our own doorsteps, if it spreads too far.

It was to deal with this increasingly stark scenario that NATO deliberately developed our Partnership for Peace Program, and created the little-known, but quite remarkable. Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council to which Belarus also belongs. Today the Alliance is the dynamo at the hub of a profound new set of defence relationships across the continent. Forty six countries - NATO members, all former Warsaw Pact countries, every ex

стр. 43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soviet Republic and the neutrals, including Switzerland which is not even in the United Nations - now train together, talk about security issues together and even carry out peacekeeping operations together.

The value of this Inclusive framework is very clear. Every country in Europe has a structure through which they can enhance and develop their security interests. No small, rigid regional alliances are necessary. No unilateral solutions are required. Through PfP and EAPC, security across Europe has been structured towards inclusion and cooperation. European countries who choose a new path are Included in Euro-Atlantic institutions. That alone is a massive change from the past, and another major contribution to the stability of the continent.

Unfortunately, however, conflicts cannot always be prevented or avoided, despite our best efforts. In Bosnia, and again in Kosovo, the best diplomats in the world tried to head of the violence - but were unable to deter leaders who would not listen. Sanctions were employed - but had little effect. Even light peacekeeping and unarmed observers weren't enough to stop the worst violence and the most appalling violations of human rights from taking place, on the very doorstep of modern Western Europe.

It is in these circumstances that NATO has played its most visible role. Only NATO had the robust military capability necessary to bring these conflicts to an end, and enforce the peace afterwards.

Too many times, in the past decade alone, the international community waited far too long to take action - and the results were horrific. In Bosnia, we waited almost three years before using force to enforce peace, and those three years saw 3 million refugees, two hundred thousand deaths, mass killings and rapes, concentration camps and deportation trains.

We gave peace every chance. But despite our best efforts, diplomacy failed. So, in the face of all the evidence of an impending explosion of violence, which would betray our humanitarian and democratic values, damage our interests and spill over well beyond Kosovo - NATO had no choice but to act.

The results, over a year later, vindicate that decision. Today, Kosovo is different and better. The hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned, schools and homes have been rebuilt, multiethnic Institutions are slowly getting off the ground, and elections are planned for just a few days from now. Despite some continuing tensions and hotspots, Kosovo is a success story, not only because most Kosovars no longer fear a knock on the door in the middle of the night, but because the international community has delivered a message: that where we can be decisive, massive violations of human rights will not go unopposed.
Today, more than ever, I believe our decision, to oppose the brutal policies of the Milosevic regime, has been vindicated by the overwhelming decision by the Yugoslav people to choose a new leader, and a new direction. I remember very clearly how many so-called experts suggested that the Kosovo operation would only strengthen support for Milosevic; that the people of Yugoslavia would rally around him as a hero. Instead, they saw Milosevic for what he is: a man who has led them progressively, over ten years, to four lost wars, political isolation, and economic ruin.

Now, there is one simple lesson we have learned expensively for Bosnia and Kosovo - and from European wars before that. It is that diplomatic credibility requires military capability. If diplomacy is to be successful in preventing tensions from degenerating into crises, then credible military resources have to be available to back it up.

As we enter the 21 st century, we still need capable forces - but we need them to do very different things. They need to be able to go to a crisis before the crisis comes to us. Before the refugees and the asylum seekers are forced to flee. Before weapons go flooding into the conflict region, and then further afield. Before the chaos of conflict is exploited by organised crime, which inevitably and Inexorably comes to London or Paris as easily as to Moscow or Warsaw. And before the idea of violence as a tool of ethnic hatred becomes accepted as common currency in Europe - something which we know too well can happen.

In today's world, there is no credibility without capability. And NATO goes into the 21 st century as the most credible security organisation in the Euro-Atlantic area precisely because we are capable. Capable of building a strong new relationship with Russia. Capable of encouraging reform in new democracies. And capable of managing crises, when they occur. That is why the Alliance is in such good shape. And as NATO's members continue to improve their defence capabilities and effectiveness, the Alliance will make an even more significant contribution to the security of its members, and the safety of future generations.

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: