A Future Security Agenda for Europe

A Future Security Agenda for Europe Report of the Independent Working Group established by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute October 1996 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI is an independent international institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of arms control and disarmament. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden’s 150 years of unbroken peace. The Institute is financed mainly by the Swedish Parliament. The staff and the Governing Board are international. The Institute also has an Advisory Committee as an international consultative body. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. Governing Board Professor Daniel Tarschys, Chairman (Sweden) Sir Brian Urquhart, Vice-Chairman (United Kingdom) Dr Oscar Arias Sánchez (Costa Rica) Dr Ryukichi Imai (Japan) Professor Catherine Kelleher (United States) Dr Marjatta Rautio (Finland) Dr Lothar Rühl (Germany) Dr Abdullah Toukan (Jordan) The Director Director Dr Adam Daniel Rotfeld (Poland) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Frösunda, S-171 53 Solna, Sweden Cable: SIPRI Telephone: 46 8/655 97 00 Telefax: 46 8/655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet URL: http://www.sipri.se A Future Security Agenda for Europe Co-chairmen of the Independent Working Group on A Future Security Agenda for Europe Daniel Tarschys, Chairman of the SIPRI Governing Board Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Director of SIPRI A Future Security Agenda for Europe Report of the Independent Working Group established by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Stockholm, October 1996 © SIPRI, 1996 Contents Preface vii Findings of the Independent Working Group 1 1. The European security agenda towards the 21st century 2 Establishment of the Independent Working Group 2 The mandate 2 The new security environment 3 2. Risks and challenges 4 3. Goals and principles 6 4. What kind of institutions and for what? 7 Improving the functions of institutions 8 Crisis response 8 Military-related export controls 8 Transformation of NATO 9 Transformation of the EU 9 The Commonwealth of Independent States 10 The OSCE 10 The Council of Europe 10 5. Conclusions 11 Recommendations 12 Appendices* 1. Conflict prevention and peacekeeping missions in Europe 15 2. Multilateral security structures in Europe 23 3. Military activities in Europe 24 4. Reductions of heavy weapons under the CFE Treaty 26 5. Reductions of manpower under the CFE-1A Agreement 27 6. European security: the nuclear dimension 28 7. Military expenditures of the OSCE countries, 1986–95 31 8. The trade in major conventional weapons 34 9. A Security Model for Europe for the 21st Century: excerpts from 37 CSCE (1994) and OSCE (1995) documents 10. List of the participants of the Independent Working Group 40 * Appendices 1–9 are included in the printed version of this report. Preface This report seeks to make a specific contribution to the ongoing debate in Europe on a future security system. It reflects the deliberations of the participants of the Independent Working Group (IWG) on A Future Security Agenda for Europe established by SIPRI. In all, nearly 60 participants from various regions of Europe, Russia and the United States were engaged in the work of the IWG. The participants of the three meetings often expressed differing views on a number of specific issues under consideration; however, our intention was not to negotiate a single agreed document but to make an intellectual contribution to the ongoing debate. The issue of a new system of security for Europe is both the subject of numerous studies carried out in various research institutions and the focus of attention of the multilateral intergovernmental security structures, such as NATO, the European Union (EU), the Western European Union (WEU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. Participants in the talks and negotiations carried out within these organizations concentrate, naturally, only on the aspects which correspond to their respective mandates. Our intention was to point out the new problems and challenges which are of a multidimensional nature and go beyond the framework of the structures existing in Europe. This found its expression in both the background papers and the discussions of the Independent Working Group. The first, ‘brainstorming’ session took place in Budapest (2 December 1995), in cooperation with the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs and the Central European University. It involved the participation of about 25 researchers and officials, including Hungarian Prime Minister Gyula Horn and Foreign Minister László Kovacs. The meeting was chaired by Professor Daniel Tarschys, Chairman of the SIPRI Governing Board. The second IWG meeting was held in Moscow (12–13 April 1996), in cooperation with the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), and involved politicians, representatives of research centres, and experts from Russia and other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), including Nikolai Afanassevskiy, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, as well as scholars and officials from other European countries and the USA. The meeting was co-chaired by Academician Vladlen Martynov, Director of IMEMO, and myself. In connection with this meeting, the Foreign Minister of Russia, Academician Yevgeniy Primakov, met informally with a group of the participants. The third meeting was held in Geneva (23–24 May 1996), in cooperation with the Programme for Strategic and International Studies (PSIS) of the Graduate Institute of International Studies. It involved the participation of scholars and officials, including the representative of the Swiss OSCE Chairman-in-Office, viii A FUTURE SECURITY AGENDA FOR EUROPE Ambassador Benedikt von Tscharner, and the OSCE Secretary General, Dr Wilhelm Höynck. This meeting was co-chaired by Professor Curt Gasteyger, Director of the PSIS, and myself. The findings of the IWG will be presented to the Swiss OSCE Chairman-in- Office in October 1996, with a request to make this report available to all the members of the OSCE. * * * There are many people to acknowledge in a collective effort such as this. I wish to thank all the scholars and officials who accepted our invitation and took part in the meetings of the IWG. I reiterate my thanks to the co-organizers and co-host institutes in Budapest, Moscow and Geneva. The entire group of SIPRI researchers participated actively in the work of the Independent Working Group. I am particularly grateful to those who prepared the appendices to this report: Ian Anthony, on European arms transfers; Olga Hardardóttir, on conflict prevention and peacekeeping missions; Shannon Kile, on the nuclear dimension of European security; Zdzislaw Lachowski, on military activities and conventional arms reductions in Europe; and Evamaria Loose- Weintraub, on the military expenditures of the OSCE states. I would like to express my warm gratitude to Shannon Kile, SIPRI Research Assistant, whose assistance at all stages of the work was invaluable. His summaries of the discussions have been made available, at the request of the OSCE Secretariat in Vienna, for the prepara- tion of the draft consolidated document and the catalogue of ideas on the security model under negotiation for the Lisbon Summit Meeting. My special thanks go to Connie Wall, Head of the SIPRI Editorial and Publications Department, for her work on this report, and Carol Barta, my secretary, for her assistance in organizing all the IWG meetings. Last but not least, I wish to thank the Swedish Foreign Ministry and the Swiss OSCE Chairman-in-Office as well as the Ford Foundation, whose generous grants made the IWG meetings and publication of this report possible. Adam Daniel Rotfeld Director of SIPRI Findings of the Independent Working Group • The most serious threats to security in Europe after the cold war no longer arise from conflicts between states but from conflicts within states. Therefore, a fundamental change of security principles and procedures is needed. • The new principle of solidarity should be recognized as an integral part of the set of rules governing security relations among the European states. The international community should have the right to ‘cooperative inter- vention’ in order to protect populations subjected to large-scale violence in domestic conflicts. • The right to self-determination cannot be reduced to the right to secession. There is a need to define domestic rules for implementation of the principle of the self-determination of nations. • The foundation of a new security system should be mutual reassurance rather than mutual deterrence, as was the case in the past. This will require sovereign states to cooperate on decisions about national security. • Security institutions should follow the problems, and not the other way around. No single organization can handle all the security problems; nor is there a hierarchy among the security organizations. • Pluralistic democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities, are the basic prerequisites for international security. • There is an urgent need for Western countries to enter into a dialogue about security-related issues with Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states. The enlargement of NATO and the European Union must be carried out in a transparent, cooperative, non-threatening and non-provocative way. • European organizations should be prepared to consider new types of rela- tionship with non-member countries, including association, treaty relation- ships and other means of outreach to open a dialogue with countries from regions which are adjacent to Europe. 1. The European security agenda towards the 21st century Seven years since the Berlin Wall came down, the process of defining a new agenda for European security remains unfinished business. The new security system now taking shape is not being formed as the result of war, in the wake of which victors impose on the vanquished a new order and new rules of conduct.

Load more