|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation NATO Summit, Prague, November 21-22North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Summit Meeting of Heads of State and Government, Prague, Czech Republic, November 21-22. Note: for comprehensive coverage and documentation, see NATO, http://www.nati.int/docu/comm/2002/0211-prague/index.htm.
I. Summit Declaration, November 21'Prague Summit Declaration, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Prague on 21 November 2002', NATO Press Release (2002) 127, November 21. 1. We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, met today to enlarge our Alliance and further strengthen NATO to meet the grave new threats and profound security challenges of the 21st century. Bound by our common vision embodied in the Washington Treaty, we commit ourselves to transforming NATO with new members, new capabilities and new relationships with our partners. We are steadfast in our commitment to the transatlantic link; to NATO's fundamental security tasks including collective defence; to our shared democratic values; and to the United Nations Charter. 2. Today, we have decided to invite Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to begin accession talks to join our Alliance. We congratulate them on this historic occasion, which so fittingly takes place in Prague. The accession of these new members will strengthen security for all in the Euro-Atlantic area, and help achieve our common goal of a Europe whole and free, united in peace and by common values. NATO's door will remain open to European democracies willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, in accordance with Article 10 of the Washington Treaty. 3. Recalling the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and our subsequent decision to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, we have approved a comprehensive package of measures, based on NATO's Strategic Concept, to strengthen our ability to meet the challenges to the security of our forces, populations and territory, from wherever they may come. Today's decisions will provide for balanced and effective capabilities within the Alliance so that NATO can better carry out the full range of its missions and respond collectively to those challenges, including the threat posed by terrorism and by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 4. We underscore that our efforts to transform and adapt NATO should not be perceived as a threat by any country or organisation, but rather as a demonstration of our determination to protect our populations, territory and forces from any armed attack, including terrorist attack, directed from abroad. We are determined to deter, disrupt, defend and protect against any attacks on us, in accordance with the Washington Treaty and the Charter of the United Nations. In order to carry out the full range of its missions, NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, upon decision by the North Atlantic Council, to sustain operations over distance and time, including in an environment where they might be faced with nuclear, biological and chemical threats, and to achieve their objectives. Effective military forces, an essential part of our overall political strategy, are vital to safeguard the freedom and security of our populations and to contribute to peace and security in the Euro-Atlantic region. We have therefore decided to: a. Create a NATO Response Force (NRF) consisting of a technologically advanced, flexible, deployable, interoperable and sustainable force including land, sea, and air elements ready to move quickly to wherever needed, as decided by the Council. The NRF will also be a catalyst for focusing and promoting improvements in the Alliance's military capabilities. We gave directions for the development of a comprehensive concept for such a force, which will have its initial operational capability as soon as possible, but not later than October 2004 and its full operational capability not later than October 2006, and for a report to Defence Ministers in Spring 2003. The NRF and the related work of the EU Headline Goal should be mutually reinforcing while respecting the autonomy of both organisations. b. Streamline NATO's military command arrangements. We have approved the Defence Ministers' report providing the outline of a leaner, more efficient, effective and deployable command structure, with a view to meeting the operational requirements for the full range of Alliance missions. It is based on the agreed Minimum Military Requirements document for the Alliance's command arrangements. The structure will enhance the transatlantic link, result in a significant reduction in headquarters and Combined Air Operations Centres, and promote the transformation of our military capabilities. There will be two strategic commands, one operational, and one functional. The strategic command for Operations, headquartered in Europe (Belgium), will be supported by two Joint Force Commands able to generate a land-based Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) headquarters and a robust but more limited standing joint headquarters from which a sea-based CJTF headquarters capability can be drawn. There will also be land, sea and air components. The strategic command for Transformation, headquartered in the United States, and with a presence in Europe, will be responsible for the continuing transformation of military capabilities and for the promotion of interoperability of Alliance forces, in cooperation with the Allied Command Operations as appropriate. We have instructed the Council and Defence Planning Committee, taking into account the work of the NATO Military Authorities and objective military criteria, to finalise the details of the structure, including geographic locations of command structure headquarters and other elements, so that final decisions are taken by Defence Ministers in June 2003. c. Approve the Prague Capabilities Commitment (PCC) as part of the continuing Alliance effort to improve and develop new military capabilities for modern warfare in a high threat environment. Individual Allies have made firm and specific political commitments to improve their capabilities in the areas of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defence; intelligence, surveillance, and target acquisition; air-to-ground surveillance; command, control and communications; combat effectiveness, including precision guided munitions and suppression of enemy air defences; strategic air and sea lift; air-to-air refuelling; and deployable combat support and combat service support units. Our efforts to improve capabilities through the PCC and those of the European Union to enhance European capabilities through the European Capabilities Action Plan should be mutually reinforcing, while respecting the autonomy of both organisations, and in a spirit of openness. We will implement all aspects of our Prague Capabilities Commitment as quickly as possible. We will take the necessary steps to improve capabilities in the identified areas of continuing capability shortfalls. ... d. Endorse the agreed military concept for defence against terrorism. The concept is part of a package of measures to strengthen NATO's capabilities in this area, which also includes improved intelligence sharing and crisis response arrangements. Terrorism, which we categorically reject and condemn in all its forms and manifestations, poses a grave and growing threat to Alliance populations, forces and territory, as well as to international security. We are determined to combat this scourge for as long as necessary. To combat terrorism effectively, our response must be multi-faceted and comprehensive. We are committed, in cooperation with our partners, to fully implement the Civil Emergency Planning (CEP) Action Plan for the improvement of civil preparedness against possible attacks against the civilian population with chemical, biological or radiological (CBR) agents. We will enhance our ability to provide support, when requested, to help national authorities to deal with the consequences of terrorist attacks, including attacks with CBRN against critical infrastructure, as foreseen in the CEP Action Plan. e. Endorse the implementation of five nuclear, biological and chemical weapons defence initiatives, which will enhance the Alliance's defence capabilities against weapons of mass destruction: a Prototype Deployable NBC Analytical Laboratory; a Prototype NBC Event Response team; a virtual Centre of Excellence for NBC Weapons Defence; a NATO Biological and Chemical Defence Stockpile; and a Disease Surveillance system. We reaffirm our commitment to augment and improve expeditiously our NBC defence capabilities. f. Strengthen our capabilities to defend against cyber attacks. g. Examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to Alliance territory, forces and population centres in an effective and efficient way through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts, along with deterrence. Today we initiated a new NATO Missile Defence feasibility study to examine options for protecting Alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats, which we will continue to assess. Our efforts in this regard will be consistent with the indivisibility of Allied security. We support the enhancement of the role of the WMD Centre within the International Staff to assist the work of the Alliance in tackling this threat. We reaffirm that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation make an essential contribution to preventing the spread and use of WMD and their means of delivery. We stress the importance of abiding by and strengthening existing multilateral non-proliferation and export control regimes and international arms control and disarmament accords. 5. Admitting Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia as new members will enhance NATO's ability to face the challenges of today and tomorrow. ... We will begin accession talks immediately with the aim of signing Accession Protocols by the end of March 2003 and completing the ratification process in time for these countries to join the Alliance at the latest at our Summit in May 2004. During the period leading up to accession, the Alliance will involve the invited countries in Alliance activities to the greatest extent possible. ... 8. We welcome the significant achievements of the NATO-Russia Council since the historic NATO-Russia Summit meeting in Rome. We have deepened our relationship to the benefit of all the peoples in the Euro-Atlantic area. NATO member states and Russia are working together in the NATO-Russia Council as equal partners, making progress in areas such as peacekeeping, defence reform, WMD proliferation, search and rescue, civil emergency planning, theatre missile defence and the struggle against terrorism, towards our shared goal of a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe. In accordance with the Founding Act and the Rome Declaration, we are determined to intensify and broaden our cooperation with Russia. ... 15. We remain committed to the CFE [Conventional Forces in Europe] Treaty and reaffirm our attachment to the early entry into force of the Adapted Treaty. The CFE regime provides a fundamental contribution to a more secure and integrated Europe. We welcome the approach of those non-CFE countries, which have stated their intention to request accession to the Adapted CFE Treaty upon its entry into force. Their accession would provide an important additional contribution to European stability and security. We welcome the significant results of Russia's effort to reduce forces in the Treaty's Article V area to agreed levels. We urge swift fulfilment of the outstanding Istanbul commitments on Georgia and Moldova, which will create the conditions for Allies and other States Parties to move forward on ratification of the Adapted CFE Treaty. ... II. Declaration on Iraq, November 21'Prague Summit Statement on Iraq, Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Prague on 21 November 2002', NATO Press Release (2002) 133, November 21. We, the 19 Heads of State and Government of NATO, meeting in Prague, have expressed our serious concern about terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Concerning Iraq, we pledge our full support for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and call on Iraq to comply fully and immediately with this and all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We deplore Iraq's failure to comply fully with its obligations which were imposed as a necessary step to restore international peace and security and we recall that the Security Council has decided in its resolution to afford Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council. NATO Allies stand united in their commitment to take effective action to assist and support the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq, without conditions or restrictions, with UNSCR 1441. We recall that the Security Council in this resolution has warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. Note: in St. Petersburg on November 22, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin issued the following 'Joint US-Russia Statement on Iraq' - "We have expressed our serious concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In this context, we pledge our full support for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1441. We call on Iraq to comply fully and immediately with this and all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, which were adopted as a necessary step to secure international peace and security. We firmly support the efforts of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Chairman and the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General to fulfill their responsibilities under UN Security Council resolutions. We call on Iraq, in strict compliance with UNSC resolution 1441, to cooperate fully and unconditionally in its disarmament obligations or face serious consequences." (Joint US-Russia Statement on Iraq, St. Petersburg, Russia, November 22, 2002', The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.) III. NATO-Russia Council, November 22'Statement by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, in his capacity as Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council, at the NATO-Russia Council Meeting at the Level of Foreign Ministers', NATO Press Release, November 22. Today, Foreign Ministers of the NATO-Russia Council:
As NRC Chairman I am looking forward to my visit to Moscow on 8-10 December 2002 for further discussions with the Russian leadership as an opportunity to further develop NATO-Russia cooperation. IV. 'Great Evil is Stirring in the World': Speech by President Bush, November 20'Remarks by the President to Prague Atlantic Student Summit, Hilton Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, November 20, 2002'; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. This NATO summit that convenes tomorrow will be the first ever held at the capital of a Warsaw Pact. The days of the Warsaw Pact seem distant - they must seem to you; after all, the Warsaw Pact ended a half a lifetime ago for you. It was a dark and distant era. The years since have brought great challenge and great hope to all of the countries on this continent. And tomorrow in Prague we will have reached a decisive moment, and historic moment. For, tomorrow, we will invite new members into our alliance. It's a bold decision - to guarantee the freedom of millions of people. At the summit, we'll make the most significant reforms in NATO since 1949 - reforms which will allow our alliance to effectively confront new dangers. And in the years to come, all of the nations of Europe will determine their place in world events. They will take up global responsibilities, or choose to live in isolation from the challenges of our time. ... Because America supports a more united Europe, we strongly support the enlargement of NATO, now and in the future. Every European democracy that seeks NATO membership and is ready to share in NATO's responsibilities should be welcome in our alliance. The enlargement of NATO is good for all who join us. The standards for membership are high, and they encourage the hard work of political and economic and military reform. And nations in the family of NATO, old or new, know this: Anyone who would choose you for an enemy also chooses us for an enemy. Never again in the face of aggression will you stand alone. A larger NATO is good for Russia, as well. Later this week I will visit St. Petersburg. I will tell my friend, Vladimir Putin, and the Russian people that they, too, will gain from the security and stability of nations to Russia's west. Russia does not require a buffer zone of protection; it needs peaceful and prosperous neighbors who are also friends. We need a strong and democratic Russia as our friend and partner to face the next century's new challenges. Through the NATO-Russia Council we must increase our cooperation with Russia for the security of all of us. Expansion of NATO also brings many advantages to the alliance, itself. Every new member contributes military capabilities that add to our common security. We see this already in Afghanistan - for forces from Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and others have joined with 16 NATO allies to help defeat global terror. ... Our NATO alliance faces dangers very different from those it was formed to confront. Yet, never has our need for collective defense been more urgent. The Soviet Union is gone, but freedom still has enemies. We're threatened by terrorism, bred within failed states, it's present within our own cities. We're threatened by the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons which are produced by outlaw regimes and could be delivered either by missile or terrorist cell. For terrorists and terrorist states, every free nation - every free nation - is a potential target, including the free nations of Europe. We're making progress on this, the first war of the 21st century. Today more than 90 nations are joined in a global coalition to defeat terror. We're sharing intelligence. We're freezing the assets of terror groups. We're pursuing the terrorists wherever they plot and train. And we're finding them and bringing them to justice, one person at a time. Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom. Last week Saddam Hussein accepted UN inspectors. We've heard those pledges before and seen them violated time and time again. We now call an end to that game of deception and deceit and denial. Saddam Hussein has been given a very short time to declare completely and truthfully his arsenal of terror. Should he again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his final stage with a lie. And deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences. America's goal, the world's goal is more than the return of inspectors to Iraq. Our goal is to secure the peace through the comprehensive and verified disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Voluntary, or by force, that goal will be achieved. To meet all of this century's emerging threats from terror camps in remote regions to hidden laboratories of outlaw regimes, NATO must develop new military capabilities. NATO forces must become better able to fight side by side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed. The allies need more special operations forces, better precision strike capabilities, and more modern command structures. Few NATO members will have state-of-the-art capabilities in all of these areas; I recognize that. But every nation should develop some. Ours is a military alliance, and every member must make a military contribution to that alliance. For some allies, this will require higher defense spending. For all of us, it will require more effective defense spending, with each nation adding the tools and technologies to fight and win a new kind of war. ... The United States proposes the creation of a NATO response force that will bring together well-equipped, highly ready air, ground and sea forces from NATO allies - old and new. This force will be prepared to deploy on short notice wherever it is needed. A NATO response force will take time to create and we should begin that effort here in Prague. ... Great evil is stirring in the world. Many of the young here are coming up in a different world, different era, a different time, a different series of threats. We face perils we've never thought about, perils we've never seen before. But they're dangerous. They're just as dangerous as those perils that your fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers faced. The hopes of all mankind depend on the courage and the unity of great democracies. In this hour of challenge, NATO will do what it has done before: We will stand firm against the enemies of freedom, and we'll prevail. ... When future generations look back at this moment and speak of Prague and what we did here, that name will stand for hope. In Prague, young democracies will gain new security; a grand alliance will gather a strength and find new purpose. And America and Europe will renew the historic friendship that still keeps the peace of the world. V. Briefing by US National Security Advisor, November 21'Press briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Hilton Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, November 21, 2002', The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Dr. Rice: ... [L]et me just say that it was an historic summit today, really the most historic summit since NATO's founding in 1949. It as extraordinary to see around that table the new entrants, the seven new countries. It was remarkable to do this in Prague, which, of course, has been a site of one of the pitched battles of the Cold War, when Soviet tanks invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 to set aside or to end the attempt to find socialism with a human face, and eventually leading, over time, then to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the dissolution of communism in East Central Europe and ultimately in the Soviet Union, itself. The remarkable thing about this is that it has been done in a framework that allowed not just the entry of the seven new states into NATO, but the reconciliation of NATO with Russia in the new Russia-NATO Council, and of course, a long discussion today of the transformation of NATO to deal with the threats of the 21st century - an important discussion of capabilities; the importance of a rapid reaction force, which was an American proposal that was adopted by NATO today; a very strong statement about one of the first threats of the 21st century to deal with a hostile state like Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and attempting to further that arming of weapons with weapons of mass destruction - a very strong statement on Iraq, supporting the UN Security Council resolution, supporting effective action against Iraq should Iraq fail to disarm. So, all in all, a very important summit, historic summit. And I think when the President said that not only did today add to the military capability of the alliance, but it refreshed the spirit of this great democratic alliance. I can tell you that you certainly felt that in that room this afternoon. Question: Two quick ones. Number one, what does it mean, the mission shift for NATO, what does it actually mean, that NATO is going to be taking on this anti-terror role? And, second, the President said yesterday that if - that there will be a reduced chance of a war with Iraq if there is the assurance that NATO is willing to step up and play its part, should military action be required. Does the President leave here assured that his NATO partners would play their role if it comes to that? And if so, in what way did he receive that assurance? Dr. Rice: What the President said - and I think it was echoed by several leaders in the room and certainly during other sessions - is that Iraq is only going to be convinced to disarm, and therefore create us a possibility of a peaceful resolution to this crisis if Iraq believes that the world is united in insisting on disarmament of Iraq. And what you saw in the NATO summit statement was an insistence by the world that Iraq disarm. Many people talked about the importance of a strength of that statement, of the unity of that statement as a signal to Iraq that it doesn't have any other option, that no one will support Iraq's lack of compliance or the kind of behavior in which Iraq has been engaged over the last several years. The alliance made this very powerful statement. It is really too early to talk about what military action will be needed or what military contributions might be needed. The important thing right now is that this is, along with the UN Security Council resolution, a strong statement to the Iraqis that the world is united in the demand that Iraq disarm. And as to the transformation of NATO for the future...many of the speakers today spoke about September 11th as a new watershed, a new chapter in understanding the threats of the post-Cold War period; understanding that any nation that loves freedom could have sustained the kind of attack that the United States did on September 11th; and that the countries that love freedom - and NATO, as an alliance, of course, is dedicated to those values of freedom and liberty - any nation that loves freedom has to be committed to dealing with terrorist threats, to dealing with threats of weapons of mass destruction. The rapid reaction force rapid deployment force, is for specifically the purpose of being able to be flexible, to be facile. You will hear, I think, a lot more about the transformation of NATO's capabilities. And, of course, intelligence is an important part of that. But NATO began this transformation today. It was a strong statement of support for that, but it has a ways to go. ... Question: You said that it was too early to talk about military capability. Can you comment for us or provide us any information on the half-dozen or so countries that are confirmed receiving a letter from the United States asking for specific military assistance? Dr. Rice: The United States is at this point talking to countries, consulting about what might be necessary, what capabilities might be necessary if military action takes place. But, as the President said, military action is not his first choice and we are trying very hard to send a strong signal to the Iraqis that there is only one way out of this, and that is to disarm fully. Question: The December 8th deadline will be very important as the President discussed it. To what extent are you worried that Saddam Hussein may try to file something of a misleading report, that he may put a lot in there in terms of declarations, may make a public display of destroying some weapons... How do you anticipate it, how do you deal with it if it happens? Dr. Rice: Well, the UN resolution is very clear that this is to be a full and complete declaration. Now, we've had experience with Saddam Hussein in declarations before, and it is true that he's not tended to file ones that are anywhere that one could concern or one could call fair and full and complete. But he has an opportunity to do that. There are many sources for evaluating that declaration and we would expect that we will - that the inspectors and others will take a look at what he files. But the first test clearly is that he should not as the President said, he should not begin this with a lie; he should begin this with a full and complete declaration of what he has. Question: Could I just follow up on one point? If there are omissions or half-statements in that declaration, is this government prepared to prove that lie today, or will we have to rely on the work of weapons inspectors on the ground? Dr. Rice: I think...it's not the time to get into hypotheticals. There's a whole range here of what could happen with this declaration. But the best thing that could happen with this declaration is that Saddam Hussein could finally demonstrate that he's prepared to cooperate. What this declaration does is it starts to set the stage for whether or not he's prepared to cooperate. Because we have said several times, we do not expect the burden of proof to be on Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei to go and hunt and peck all over Iraq looking for weapons. We expect Saddam Hussein to give a full and complete declaration - that's the demand in the UN resolution - and to therefore demonstrate that he's prepared to cooperate. Because if he's not prepared to cooperate, we have to be careful about wasting the time in the world and hunting and pecking all over the country. We will take our time and see what he does on December 8th. ... Question: Have you seen any difference, any change in the German position on Iraq during this meeting? Dr. Rice: I'll have to let the Germans speak for themselves, but there is a UN Security Council resolution, and there is a NATO statement. And since NATO works by consensus, the Germans are, of course, a part of that consensus that produced the statement. Question: These consultations with 50 or 52 nations - are any of them turning us down? Have any of them said, we really don't want to be a part of this? And can you further quantify the ones that have given us support? Dr. Rice: I'm not able to do that at this point. We are in the process of talking with a number of countries. I think you will find that, as the President says, that you will find a coalition of willing nations that want very much, but we all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way; understand that there will have to be consequences for Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime if they decide not to carry through this time. One of the very important themes that emerged from this meeting is that everybody understands that this is a test of Saddam's willingness to cooperate, but it's also a test of the credibility of the international community, of the UN, to be able to act and to have that action taken seriously. It's an important signal to a lot of other states around the world that might want to go the route that Saddam Hussein has gone. ... Question: What is your understanding of the phrase "effective action" in the NATO statement, and why shouldn't we view that as being deliberately ambiguous? Dr. Rice: Well, "effective action" means action that will be effective - (laughter) - and what's going to be effective is to do whatever it takes to make sure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. It's in that context that one has to understand "effective action." I think that we have to realize that we're not yet at the stage of talking about military action. The President has clearly said and stated all the way back on September 12th, that there are really only two ways that this ends. Either Saddam Hussein cooperates and thereby voluntarily disarms, or we're going to have to disarm him. And so you keep your eye on the goal here, which will be to disarm Saddam Hussein. This is a statement, I think, that we will need to do what we need to do to disarm Saddam Hussein. Question: Is it still the view that in order to disarm him, you have to remove him from power? And was that discussed today? And is that definition of disarmament, removing him from power, is that something that the NATO statement endorsed today... Dr. Rice: The NATO statement endorsed the UN Security Council resolution. And you know what the terms are of the UN Security Council resolution. The policy of the United States has been regime change for one important reason, which is that it has the United States, going back to '98 - and I think this administration certainly agrees with the statements that were made in '98 - has been skeptical that it is possible to get disarmament and compliance with the UN resolutions with this regime in power. We're going to have several tests of that. The first thing that needs to happen is Saddam Hussein needs to make up his mind that the world is united against him, and if he is going to take advantage of this last chance, it's time to do so, and it's time to do so in a way that doesn't try to drag this out, play cat-and-mouse and play the kinds of games that he has in the past. But I don't think there's any - we've tried to make a secret of the fact that we're deeply skeptical that this regime is ever going to fully live up to the UN Security Council resolutions to which it signed. ... Question: A senior American official briefed right after the President's UN address, asking whether you really thought whether - anyone thought he would really disarm. Has that estimate changed or modified? Dr. Rice: We haven't seen anything yet which suggests that Iraq - that this is a leopard that's changing its spots. We will know because there are several opportunities for the Iraqis to cooperate and cooperate fully. But I want to be very clear: If Iraq tries to shift the burden of proof on to the inspectors, that would be a great mistake, because the burden of proof is not on the inspectors, the burden of proof is on Saddam Hussein to show the world that he not possessing programs for weapons of mass destruction, that he's destroyed everything that we know that he has had and pursued, and that he doesn't ever intend to pursue them again. That's a pretty tall order. I might mention that there are other UN resolutions to which he also signed on, and none of us should forget, as we sit here today to celebrate the spread of freedom across this European continent, we should not forget that there are people in the world who still live in tyranny and despotism, and of course, the people of Iraq are among those people. ... VI. Russian Comment, November 20-23Press Conference by Russian Foreign Minister, November 22'Transcript of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov Remarks at Press Conference Following Russia-NATO Council Meeting, Prague, November 22, 2002', Russian Foreign Ministry Document 2421-23-11-2002. Foreign Minister Ivanov: Half a year has not yet passed since the meeting of the heads of state and government of Russia and NATO in Rome. But one can already say with confidence now that the Council at 20 is becoming an effective instrument of cooperation and joint activity. By our common efforts a comprehensive program has been launched which promises practical results in the very near future. Today's meeting of foreign ministers has confirmed that all the Council's members are determined to promote the formation of a new security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space and to bear joint responsibility for decisions to be adopted. The realization of the work program of the Russia-NATO Council has already made it possible to arrive at a number of important concrete decisions. I would single out the political concept of joint peacekeeping and the weighty documents on ensuring the security of borders in the Balkans and on the combating of terrorism. All the ministers noted that the exercises in Russia of civil defense forces in countering terrorist acts with the use of chemical weapons had passed off successfully. It is equally important that we have also managed to advance military cooperation. Nearing completion is work on a framework document on rescue of crews of submarines in distress. Prospects have emerged in work on theater missile defense. At the concluding stage are the preparations for the 2nd Conference On the Role of the Military in Fighting Terrorism, which will be held in Moscow on December 9, this year. You will agree that to do that much work in the six short months is indeed a success, and all the ministers taking part in the Council's work referred to this. The recent tragic events in Moscow, of which Mr. George Robertson spoke, have once more demonstrated the scale of the threat which terrorism presents for the international community. That is why the fight against terrorism and other threats and challenges will by mutual agreement continue to be priority in the Council's activities. Just as throughout the world, the processes of formation of a new architecture are going on in the Euro-Atlantic space, primarily in the field of security. This architecture must replace the military-political confrontation of the period of the Cold War. The Russia-NATO Council is a living embodiment of just this new era. And we would greatly like that in the very near future, the Council would become one of the supporting elements of the new system of Euro-Atlantic security. ... Question: NATO has invited seven European countries to entry. Thus, the boundary of NATO will now run along the Leningrad and Pskov regions. Is the Russian side going to react to this some way or other, whether in the diplomatic area, demanding treaty guarantees, or by military measures, through redeploying military units to these borders? Foreign Minister Ivanov: First of all, as I already said, with respect to the decisions of yesterday's NATO summit we are carefully studying the documents and decisions and after this will draw the appropriate conclusions. We have taken note of the statements which were made in the course of the summit, as well as by the leaders of individual NATO states. In these statements it is emphasized that NATO does not regard Russia as an enemy but rather as a partner in the struggle against new threats and challenges. It was also emphasized that NATO must rebuild its military strategy of the Cold War period into one for countering the new challenges and threats. We consider that such a transformation of NATO has a fundamental significance, and that it must fit in with the general efforts of the world community in promoting international stability and security. As to the question of the NATO expansion, our position on that score is well known and it has been repeatedly stated. We have always emphasized that a mechanical NATO expansion with the preservation of the previous military focus is unlikely to meet the interests of security and cooperation, including in the Euro-Atlantic space. Yet, if the declared transformation is realized in practice, if in its activities NATO tackles the same tasks of countering new threats and challenges as Russia is now, then the possibilities of cooperation between NATO and Russia will, beyond any doubt, expand. And, of course, we believe that NATO will adhere to the agreements and documents which we have together worked out. It is, above all, the documents governing the Russia-NATO relations. We expect that all the new NATO members, when they enter this organization, will adhere to them and be guided by the same principles. In this regard, we attach special importance to ratification of the adapted CEF Treaty and to the new members of the Alliance joining this treaty as well. ... Question: What can you say in answer to the claim that the accession to NATO of new countries, in particular, the Baltic states, will deal a blow to Russia's positions in the world arena as a global power and how will you comment on the statement of Mr. Vaclav Havel that he does not assume the possibility of Russia ever becoming a member of NATO because Russia as an Eurasian power does not fit into the NATO structure? Foreign Minister Ivanov: You know, cynics or skeptics will always be there casting doubts on some or other processes. Mr. George Robertson has just said that before and during the establishment of the Russia-NATO Council there were also many cynics and skeptics who called into question the future of this mechanism. These cynics and skeptics, evidently, either do not want to understand the processes which are occurring in the world, or are incapable of comprehending them. We are jointly making efforts to get rid of relapses of the Cold War and to build jointly a secure, democratic and equitable world. The understanding grows in the world that in the conditions of globalization we are faced with common threats and challenges, and that we ought to counter them only by concerted efforts, through combining our possibilities. Therefore I think that life will ultimately disappoint those skeptics. As to a possible or impossible entry of Russia into NATO, Russia has never raised this question. And once Russia hasn't raised this question, then there is no subject for discussion. ... Interview With Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, November 20'Transcript of Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Vladimir Chizhov, Interview with Czech Television, Moscow, November 20, 2002', Russian Foreign Ministry Document 2396-21-11-2002. Question: Why does Russia not welcome the NATO expansion? Deputy Minister Chizhov: The decision on expansion is far from the only and, perhaps, not the most important one which is planned to be adopted at the NATO summit opening in Prague. I would like to confirm that we consider the decision on expansion, regardless of the circle of states being invited, profoundly erroneous. A mechanical expansion of NATO cannot add to the security of either the old members, including the Czech Republic, or new. The new security challenges and threats demand new answers. And the NATO expansion is an answer to the challenges of the Cold War era. Of course, we recognize each state's right and that of NATO to make a mistake, but this does not change our negative attitude. Question: If the decision to expand the North Atlantic Alliance is taken, will that affect relations between Russia and NATO? Deputy Minister Chizhov: I hope not. The new quality of the relationship between Russia and NATO, which was formalized by the signing of the Rome Declaration this May, is the exact adequate answer to the challenges of today. Moreover, it is an element of the transformation of the Alliance itself. I hope that relations between Russia and NATO will not deteriorate. But for that we must be certain that the NATO expansion will not inflict harm upon the security of Russia. As far as I can see, the North Atlantic Alliance has awareness of this task. Question: Do you consider that the admission of new members does not correspond with the new policy which NATO has declared? Deputy Minister Chizhov: I consider that the main thing in the Prague summit is decisions on the adaptation of the Alliance and transformation of its political and military mechanisms. We have heard of NATO's intention to transform itself and we will judge by concrete results. Question: What do you think NATO should do to effectively wage the struggle against international terrorism together with Russia? Deputy Minister Chizhov: The threat of terrorism bears a global character - all acknowledge that. It equally concerns the security of all states. And so the answer to this threat can only be joint. This is the aim of the work within the established Russia-NATO Council. Question: How can the differences between Russia and the West be resolved over what comes under the definition of international terrorism? The question of Chechnya is often being raised in this connection. Deputy Minister Chizhov: This is a question of terminology. The notion West, just as the notion East in its classical form, is hardly applicable to the present-day world. As to the definition of terrorism, this problem does exist but globally, not in relations between Russia and the West. As of now, there is no uniform definition of terrorism legally formalized and recognized by all states. Work in this direction is being conducted both globally within the UN and at the European level. The Council of Europe, for example, is elaborating legal aspects of the notion "terrorism." But your question is connected more with a political assessment. Examples, apart from Chechnya, could be cited many. There are terrorists in the Balkans, in Spain, in Northern Ireland. As to the assessment of what is happening in Chechnya, it was given in Brussels by Russian President Vladimir Putin. We are dealing precisely with a manifestation of international terrorism. Awareness of this reality now extends to an ever greater number of countries. The latest example - US President George W. Bush in an interview with the newspaper Izvestia also noted the link between the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization and what is occurring in Chechnya. Question: What is your idea how Russia and NATO should cooperate further? Deputy Minister Chizhov: Russian-NATO relations have their own history, and not simple at that. It is not our fault that in the previous years cooperation between Russia and NATO did not go smoothly. There was a period when it was frozen altogether. The circumstances of this are well known. At this stage, however, the very course of world events dictates the necessity of developing cooperation between such major participants of the Euro-Atlantic security system as Russia and NATO. The Rome Declaration, signed by the leaders of 20 states this May, just marked the emergence of a new quality of this relationship. Since then, of course, there have been some hitches as the new mechanisms were being shaped, but on the whole we consider the experience of the past five months positive in that we are really working in the Council at 20 on an equal footing in our national capacity. That is, from the previous "19+1" format, which often tended to gravitate towards a "19 versus 1" format, we have now moved to a full-fledged and equal Council at 20, where all are working in their national capacities. This does not mean that now we have full agreement on all issues. Differences do arise. But in a majority of cases they are not differences between Russia and the rest of the members of the Russia-NATO Council. Question: How could you define Russia's priorities with regard to the Council at 20? Deputy Minister Chizhov: I can enumerate some of the areas of cooperation. It is the struggle against terrorism, the issue of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, problems of crisis management, of an emergency civilian nature. We have conducted joint exercises in the combating of terrorist acts involving the use of chemical weapons. ... Question: Russia is said to be placing its bets precisely on cooperation with the United States as regards its security. Is that so? Deputy Minister Chizhov: With regard to its own security, Russia is placing its bets on Russia. Militarily Russia is a self-sufficient state. We are in a position to ensure our military security. We have no need for guarantees from NATO. Whether NATO is prepared to offer such guarantees is another matter. But we have no requirement in such guarantees. That's why we do not enter NATO. It's another thing...[to think about] European security, for which we and the NATO countries and other states all bear responsibility. Important here are not only declarations, but also arms control mechanisms and mutual commitments in the military field. ... Question: You said NATO must convince Russia that the expansion will not inflict harm upon the security of Russia? Deputy Minister Chizhov: Absolutely true. I shall give a concrete example the fate of the adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. We know that several of the countries invited to Prague are not parties to the Treaty. Naturally Russia would not like to see the appearance of a "gray area" from the point of view of measures of military restraint, which are provided by the Treaty. This doesn't mean we see this as an immediate threat for ourselves. The arms limitation and control mechanisms may be imperfect and not quite adequate to all of the new threats. But thus far more perfect mechanisms have not been elaborated. And so they retain their relevance. Herein lies the philosophy of the recently signed Russian-US Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. This is also our position in favor of the countries which will become NATO members acceding to the adapted Treaty. The early ratification of the Agreement on Adaptation and its entry into force are needed for that. Question: Why are so many Eastern European countries trying to join NATO? Deputy Minister Chizhov: Each has a right to his choice. We consider that among their motives is not so much an awareness of a threat to their security, as a wish to join a kind of "elite club," and they see NATO as such a "club." But any international organization is effective to the extent to which its participants are capable of that, to which it is capable of answering the challenges of our time. Therefore we will be watching with special interest the Prague summit decisions concerning adaptation and transformation of the Alliance. Question: If the Baltic states enter NATO, will that worsen their relations with Russia? Deputy Minister Chizhov: I expect that this will have no adverse effect on our bilateral relations. Moreover, I expect that NATO will exert positive influence on these countries because in the fundamental documents of the Alliance much is said of attachment to democratic values and to the observance of human rights, including the rights of people belonging to national minorities. Therefore we have a right to hope for a certain beneficial influence of the future allies of these countries on the situation directly affecting our compatriots living in the Baltic states. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |