Title: Strengthening Transatlantic Security. A U.S. Strategy for the 21st Century - Chapter IV: Building Blocks of a Transatlantic Security Network Beyond Nato

CHAPTER IV: BUILDING BLOCKS OF A TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY NETWORK BEYOND NATO



The United States and its Allies can fully achieve the Washington Treaty's objectives only through close partnership with other states across the European continent. For the foreseeable future, there will be no single transatlantic institution that meets the varied security requirements of North America and all of Europe. Therefore, our strategy calls for a multidimensional approach to building the "conditions of stability and wellbeing" noted in Article 2.

"The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being." Article 2 The Washington Treaty


In practice, this means that there exists no single solution-no "one stop shopping"-available to U.S. policy makers to address the wide range of military, political, economic and other problems (e.g., transnational crime, ethnic conflict, violations of human rights, illegal immigration, environmental security) that directly or indirectly affect transatlantic security. In some cases, NATO will be best suited to take the lead in organizing and implementing multilateral efforts that promote stability and security across Europe-for example, through PfP and special relations between NATO, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. In many instances, however, the United States and Allies can work most effectively through bilateral or regional defense cooperation agreements or arrangements. In other cases, the EU, United Nations (UN), OSCE, or multilateral arms control agreements and nonproliferation regimes have important roles to play.

Moreover, the challenge of framing and executing a coherent and comprehensive transatlantic security policy likely will become more difficult in the coming years. Increasingly, the United States, Allies and Partners will need to work with a growing but loosely connected network of intergovernmental institutions, ad hoc "coalitions of the willing," and non-governmental organizations. Getting this network to operate more effectively-in effect, coaxing a disparate team of independent (and independent minded) organizations and actors to pull in the same direction-will not be easy (7). Still, our goal should be to develop a comprehensive set of tools to prevent the outbreak of a crisis in the first place, manage it if our preventive efforts fail, and rebuild conflict-torn societies once the violent stage of the crisis has passed.

This chapter describes the principal "building blocks" of a transatlantic security network that reaches beyond the NATO Alliance.


Partnership for Peace (PfP)

For all countries in Europe that seek closer cooperation with NATO, PfP and the EAPC have provided multiple avenues for practical Political-military cooperation and dialogue with the Alliance. These structures will continue to be of significant benefit not only to those Partners seeking future Alliance membership, but also to those seeking greater familiarity with NATO procedures in order to maximize prospects of successful cooperation with NATO. U.S. strategy looks to build upon these successes and strengthen PfP's role as NATO's principal means of political and military outreach to the rest of Europe.

PfP provides for a wide range of practical cooperation between the 19 NATO Allies and 26 PfP Partners. For example, NATO BI-SCs (Bi-Strategic Command bodies), ACLANT (Allied Command Atlantic), and SHAPE are now extending invitations to PfP nations for participation in regular NATO land, air and naval exercises. PfP also continues to prove its value by enabling aspiring members to build the interoperability necessary for possible NATO membership. PfP's stipulations for consultations between the Alliance and Partners that feel a threat to their security also proved invaluable during NATO's air campaign against Serbia.

Evidence of PfP's practical, on-the-ground success has been the way it has helped prepare Partners to become more militarily capable to participate in NATO-led peacekeeping operations, such as SFOR and KFOR. Partners have made important contributions to both of these operations, which in turn have reduced the burden on the United States and other Allies. This new pattern of Partner involvement, whereby Partners have gained more experience and capabilities through their involvement with PfP structures and operations, has set an important precedent for future NATO-led crisis response operations.



The 1999 Washington Summit saw the strengthening of the NATO-Partner relationship and the further enhancement of PfP through the adoption of a package of measures called the "Enhanced and More Operational Partnership" (EMOP). This package contained four primary components: the Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations; the Expanded and Adapted Planning and Review Process (PARP); the Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC); and the PfP Training and Education Enhancement Program (TEEP). These elements, which are in various stages of implementation, are discussed in detail below. Political-Military Framework for NATO-led PfP Operations. The "Pol-Mil Framework" enhances the military and political role of Partners in the planning and execution of non-Article 5 crisis response operations. It allows for more active involvement in political consultations, decision making, operational planning, and command arrangements. By institutionalizing the scope and nature of contacts between the Alliance and various Partners through each phase of an unfolding crisis, the Framework is improving NATO's ability to work with Partners on crisis response. The premier example is KFOR, where 15 Partners participate in the political guidance and oversight of KFOR in a "NATO+15" EAPC format.

PfP in brief Created in 1994 through the framework of NATO, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) has as its primary goal the forging of a strong, cooperative relationship between NATO members and the 26 non-NATO participating states. In cooperation with the Alliance, Partners pursue several core objectives, including: Facilitating transparency in national defense planning and budgeting processes. Ensuring democratic control of defense forces. Maintaining the capability and readiness to contribute to crisis response operations under an appropriate international mandate. Developing forces that are better able to operate with those of NATO members. Each Partner has a unique and individual agreement with NATO. However, consistent with PfP's overarching goals, in 1997 NATO and Partner states established the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) as a cooperative mechanism bringing together Allies and Partners for political and security-related consultations and enhanced practical cooperation. Partner countries have representatives at the Partnership Coordination Cell adjacent to SHAPE and liaison offices adjacent to NATO headquarters.


Expanded and Adapted PfP Planning and Review Process (PARP). PARP is designed to provide a basis for identifying and evaluating forces and capabilities that might be made available for operations in conjunction with Alliance forces. The expanded PARP is increasingly modeled after the NATO defense planning process. Each cycle has been extended from two to six years (reflecting NATO's process), and, just as defense ministers do for the Alliance's defense planning, NATO and PARP defense ministers are to agree on Ministerial Guidance every two years, in order to provide strategic direction for the PARP. The first ever PARP Ministerial Guidance was developed last year, adopted at the December 1999 Ministerials, and applied in the establishment of Partnership Goals for PARP participants during Spring 2000.

Operational Capabilities Concept (OCC). The OCC aims to improve the military capabilities and interoperability of Partner forces that are slated to participate in NATO-led PfP operations. The OCC will also enable NATO in future SFOR or KFOR-like scenarios to put together tailor-made force packages, which may include Partners, for mounting and sustaining such operations. The OCC provides for enhanced "peacetime working relationships" between Alliance and Partner forces and will help Partners enjoy a greater voice in PfP decision-making.

PfP Training and Education Enhancement Program (TEEP). TEEP is designed to ensure that training and educational aspects of the PfP keep pace with advances in other areas of the Partnership, focussing specifically on the achievements of interoperability. It also seeks to promote greater cooperation and dialogue among a wider set of defense and security communities in NATO and Partner nations.

Based on proposals by Secretary Cohen during the 1998 Defense Ministerials, President Clinton and his fellow Heads of State and Government at the 1999 Summit endorsed three initiatives for improving PfP education and training:


• PfP Simulation Network (SIMNET). SIMNET aims to expand training and lower costs. The Network allows Allied and Partner military command staffs to train together from remote sites via computer simulation. A SIMNET demonstration exercise (with a crisis response/humanitarian assistance scenario) was conducted during the NATO Summit. Simulation technology and practices were further developed at the VIKING '99 simulation exercise hosted by Sweden in December 1999.
  
  
• Consortium of Defense Academies & Security Studies Institutes. The Consortium is dedicated to strengthening defense and military education through enhanced national and institutional cooperation. It achieves this by linking defense practitioners, scholars, and experts into networks that facilitate sharing of knowledge. The Consortium has extended the scope of PfP to include universities and non-governmental institutes in addition to governmental bodies. In the last two years, representatives from more than 200 organizations drawn from 45 nations have participated in the Consortium's conferences and working group meetings.
  
  
• PfP Training Centers: Designated training centers in Allied and Partner countries help enhance PfP activities, education, and cooperation. The goal is to develop a web of training centers, each dedicated to distinctive competence in one or more fields of activity related to the PfP Work Program. Examples of potential training activities include peacekeeping, defense resource management, and field training.

Within each of these areas, the United States will continue to encourage what has been a growing trend over recent years. Specifically, other Allies and Partners-large and small, those with strong economies and those with more limited means-are stepping forward to take a leadership role in organizing, financing, and implementing PfP regional training centers, exercises and simulation activities, and conferences and workshops. This trend has both practical and political benefits. It facilitates cooperation among defense structures that are closer in size, orientation, and experience to each other than to our own. It also demonstrates convincingly that PfP has taken root as a true transatlantic partnership with a committed and effective European pillar.

There exists no preordained limit on future cooperation between NATO and Partners in any security-related area where they choose to work together. Thus, active participation in PfP programs can be equally attractive and important to those Partners who are NATO aspirants, those who wish to keep the membership option open, and those who, for various reasons, choose for now not to pursue membership. PfP's unique flexibility, which allows Partners to exercise "self-differentiation" in their relationship with NATO, should ensure that it remains a worthy effort in and of itself for many years to come.


Southeastern Europe

Twice in the past five years, NATO has been obliged to take decisive action to arrest armed conflicts in the Balkans. Unfortunately, the stability of the Balkans is still precarious and threatened by ethnic hatred, revenge-seekers, and political uncertainty. However, this region is not condemned to be a crucible of war. To build a lasting peace in Southeastern Europe, the United States, its Allies, and Partners need to create positive forces that pull the countries of Southeastern Europe closer to each other and toward increasing integration with the successful economic, political, and security institutions of the transatlantic community.

Although we have successfully deployed military forces to the region and put a stop to ethnic cleansing, longer-term success will require greater efforts to complement military power through the application of more robust economic and political mechanisms. In addition, because the military aspects of intervention do not end when the shooting stops, our security approach to the region must also focus on further enhancing the ability of NATO Allies and Partners to assist with political rebuilding and the normalization of civil society and other functions.

Specifically, we seek to work through the DCI and PfP to encourage the development of "enablers" for mission success-elements of force structure that assist with the normalization of civil society and help accelerate the return to civilian control. Such enablers can include: robust communications, control and intelligence capabilities to assist with the demands of multinational deployments; civil affairs and military police units to replace combat units once conflict has ended; and enhanced public affairs detachments, which can help handle the very high media presence initial operations generate.

Beyond these immediate force structure needs, other enablers include: highly trained personnel who have the language skills and cultural understanding to act as liaison with local communities and factions; and organizations that can address the immediate needs of the local populace, deal with displaced persons and refugees, coordinate humanitarian assistance and economic reconstruction, and help reestablish a civilian police force and judicial system. Until these types of enablers are deployed, in place and working effectively, the intervention of military forces will not be enough to restore civil society-the absence of which will perpetuate the reasons for conflict, imperil the safety of our deployed military forces, and challenge our long-term security interests.

With these requirements in mind, our strategy to bring a lasting and real peace to Southeastern Europe draws upon four mutually supportive processes:


• Stability Pact. Launched in June 1999 by some three dozen countries and international institutions, the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe represents a "grand bargain." (8) In return for a commitment by countries in the region to continue political and economic reforms and increase cooperation with one another, countries outside the region and international organizations have pledged to assist the regional states to move steadily toward integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. Under Stability Pact auspices, participating states and organizations have mobilized new resources and undertaken numerous projects aimed at fostering democratization, human rights, economic reconstruction and development, and fighting corruption. The Stability Pact also contributes to the security environment by mobilizing support for regional cooperation in areas such as border controls against illicit trafficking, destruction of small arms and light weapons, and retraining former military personnel for productive employment in the civilian economy.
  
  
• NATO's Southeastern Europe Initiative (SEEI). Launched at the Washington Summit, the SEEI draws upon existing structures-in particular, the PfP and EAPC-and tailors a range of PfP-related activities to the specific needs of the region. For example, the SEEI facilitates cooperation between NATO and Partners in the region to meet the Partners' security assistance requirements, improve the interoperability of Partner and NATO forces, promote regional transparency in defense matters through exchanges of military and civilian defense and foreign ministry officials, and address specific regional needs such as humanitarian de-mining. In addition, the SEEI provides a forum for NATO consultations with Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is not a PfP member (9). In the future, the SEEI could facilitate a greater interface between NATO and the Stability Pact, following the example of NATO's contribution of technical expertise to a World Bank-funded project, endorsed by the Stability Pact, to retrain former Bulgarian and Romanian military personnel for civilian jobs.
  
  
• Southeastern Europe Defense Ministerial (SEDM). Begun in 1996, SEDM brings together senior defense leaders from four NATO Allies (the United States, Greece, Italy, Turkey) and six Partners (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia.) Although SEDM has no permanent structures-e.g., no founding charter or standing secretariat-its annual meetings at the level of ministers and their deputies have spawned a variety of consultations, exercises, and workshops that build effective cooperation among regional defense leaders and facilitate the interoperability of Partners' forces with NATO. A leading symbol of SEDM's contribution to regional security is the Multinational Peace Force Southeastern Europe (MPFSEE) (10). The MPFSEE will be capable of fielding up to a brigade-level multilateral force for employment in regional conflict prevention and peace support operations. Its force structure, command and control, training, information and logistical structures will be broadly compatible with those of NATO. In addition, the MPFSEE will draw upon capabilities being developed under SEDM to mount regionally based responses to humanitarian crises, natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes), or other emergency contingencies. Examples of these capabilities are: the Crisis Information Network, a computer-based system that allows the SEDM countries to exchange planning data and coordinate multilateral emergency relief efforts; and the Engineer Task Force, on-call units of military engineers able to perform road, bridge, and rail repairs and conduct limited de-mining and unexploded ordnance clearing operations. The SEDM's "can do" spirit exemplifies what the United States and its Allies want to encourage across the board-a growing pattern of cooperation on practical problem-solving and security-building steps that emanate from within Southeastern Europe.
  
  
• Bilateral security cooperation and engagement. Complementing its active role in the Stability Pact, NATO SEEI, and SEDM, the United States employs a variety of bilateral tools aimed at improving the regional security environment. For example, DoD has worked closely with several Partners in the region to conduct defense assessments and meet critical shortfalls in training and equipment (11). Similarly, United States European Command (USEUCOM) has adjusted its exercise planning to support SEDM's Engineer Task Force concept. These engagement activities will have over time a significant impact on improving the Southeastern European Partners' capability to operate with NATO and other Partner forces, thereby relieving some of the burden on U.S. forces.

We welcome the triumph of democratic forces in Yugoslavia and the departure from power of Slobodan Milosevic. We are working with our Allies and Partners to help the Serbian people institute democratic reforms, rebuild their economy, and integrate their nation fully into the international community. Part of this process includes the lifting of international sanctions that have a direct impact upon the people and economy of Yugoslavia. We expect Milosevic to be held fully accountable for the alleged war crimes for which he has been indicted.

Meanwhile, the NATO-led KFOR will remain critical in the near-term to provide security for all the people of Kosovo. Without such security, the difficult tasks of economic reconstruction and building institutions of self-government cannot move forward. Similarly, the NATO-led SFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina will contribute to maintaining the secure environment essential to meeting the objectives of the Dayton Agreement. As effective local institutions and a reduction in ethnic tensions take hold in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the requirements for a significant international military presence in both will be reduced. It would be imprudent to set an arbitrary deadline for such a reduction.


Engaging the Russian Federation

The United States, Allies and Partners share a vital interest in enabling the Russian Federation to become a stable, market-oriented democracy that is ruled by law, at peace with itself, and willing and able to contribute to and participate fully in the security and prosperity of Europe. The transatlantic community cannot be truly secure if its enormous Nuclear-armed neighbor, with its rich human and natural resources, withdraws behind a new curtain of hostility and authoritarian rule or collapses economically.

Our ongoing sustained bilateral and multilateral engagement efforts with Russia in political, economic, and security matters must be continued if we are to reach our long-term objectives. Success on one front will help advance progress on the others. For example, by facilitating Russia in its effort to build a stronger economy through increased trade and investment relations with the United States and EU, we hope to create powerful incentives for improved political and security cooperation.

In the realm of security affairs, U.S. strategy toward the Russian Federation contains three major elements, which should be pursued in both bilateral and multilateral channels:


• First, we seek to minimize Russian perceptions of the United States and NATO as potential threats to Russia's national security. Russian official pronouncements on military doctrine, which are based on such perceptions, have often appeared menacing, particularly to Russia's neighbors. Such threat perceptions also have potentially damaging internal consequences.
  
  
• Second, we seek to expand programs of practical cooperation with the Russian Federation on security-related issues. Through regular contact at many levels, we hope to develop relations wherein cooperation with the United States, Allies and Partners becomes a normal and highly valued activity for Russian military and defense officials.
  
  
• Third, when Russia's actions or policies raise serious concerns about its commitment to values important to the transatlantic and wider international communities, we will not remain silent. We want Russia to realize that negative behavior has negative consequences.

In the bilateral arena, the U.S. commitment to stabilizing reductions in each side's strategic nuclear forces testifies to our desire not to return to the dangerous nuclear competition of the Cold War era. These reductions will be accompanied by nuclear-related confidence building measures (for example, the recent agreement to establish a joint U.S.-Russian center in Moscow to exchange information on ballistic missile launches) that demonstrate our desire to work with Russia to avoid possible misunderstandings. High-level consultations between American and Russian defense and military officials also serve as a primary vehicle to improve each side's understanding of the other's military doctrines and policies.

In the multilateral arena, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC), established in 1997, is an important venue for consultations, cooperation and, wherever possible, consensus-building between the Alliance and Russia.

While we strive to reach a common understanding with Russia, we must also underscore that it is in Russia's own national interest to broaden security-related cooperation with the United States, NATO and Partners. Here, as well, we have an excellent foundation upon which to build. For example, under the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, the United States is enhancing and enlarging existing programs that over the past eight years have helped the Russians to: deactivate thousands of nuclear warheads; destroy hundreds of missiles, bombers and ballistic missile submarines; improve security of nuclear weapons and materials at dozens of sites; prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and associated capabilities; begin safe destruction of the world's largest stocks of chemical weapons; and provide opportunities and inducements for thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists to participate in peaceful commercial and research activities. Several NATO and EU countries are engaged in related bilateral and multilateral efforts to assist Russia in dealing with the WMD-related legacy of the former Soviet Union.

Over time, we seek to develop new areas of cooperation where Russia can become an active contributor to transatlantic security. An important precedent in this regard has been established in the Balkans, where Russian military forces have worked well with NATO and Partner forces in SFOR and KFOR. As part of our strategy, we seek to improve our ability to cooperate with Russia in crisis response operations by arranging joint U.S.-Russian exercises and by cooperating with Russia on theater missile defense technologies.

An integral part of our strategy of engagement involves communicating our expectation that Russia will adhere to international norms and standards. While we acknowledge, for example, the right of Russia to preserve its territorial integrity and its right and responsibility to protect its citizens against terrorism and criminal elements, Russia's use of massive and indiscriminate force against Chechen civilians has raised serious questions about its commitment to international norms and particularly human rights. We will continue to urge the Russian government to pursue every avenue for a political solution to the conflict, including through a substantive dialogue with Chechen representatives.

In the final analysis, our ability to work with Russia to reduce Cold War arsenals, prevent the proliferation of WMD, and ease the transformation of its political, economic and social institutions toward more democratic and free market practices will depend heavily on decisions made by Russia. Because progress in each of these areas likely will be subject to occasional set backs, our long-term success is not assured. That said, taking a "wait-and-see" attitude toward Russia is not an option for Allies, Partners, or the United States.


Engagement with Ukraine

The United States seeks to help Ukraine preserve its independence and sovereignty, fulfill its legitimate security needs, and play a constructive role in regional political, military, and economic stability. Ukraine's long border with Russia and the important and complex-albeit sometimes problematic-relations between them must be taken into account in our overall strategy toward Ukraine. However, we must keep in mind the important differences between the two and not base our policies toward one on the presumed reaction of the other. Indeed, we do not regard our relations with these countries as a "zero sum" game, wherein efforts to help Ukraine move closer to Euro-Atlantic structures must come at the expense of parallel efforts with Russia. If anything, the opposite is true: our efforts with each should be mutually reinforcing.

In the security realm, U.S. strategy focuses on helping Ukraine restructure its forces to make them increasingly interoperable with NATO and other Partners. In this regard we want to assist Ukraine in carrying out needed reforms of its defense establishment. These include the institutionalization and effective practice of civilian control over the military and greater openness in the military establishment as a whole. In addition, Ukraine's defense establishment must be sized and resourced in a realistic manner that reflects a comprehensive assessment of Ukraine's security environment and is consistent with its overall national priorities of economic reform and revitalization.

To achieve these goals, we are proceeding on a bilateral track that involves a range of activities agreed by USCINCEUR and the Ukrainian Chief of Defense that includes:


• Bringing together senior U.S. and Ukrainian commanders and their staffs to discuss issues such as the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the defense ministry and general staff in a manner that promotes effective civilian control.
  
  
• Providing military education and training enhancements for Ukrainian officers and noncommissioned officers. This includes Ukrainian participation in courses at the George C. Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany and at Harvard University's "Generals' Program." This also involves sending U.S. teams to Ukraine for short-term programs (e.g., on civil-military affairs, military medicine, and air defense) or bringing Ukrainian military personnel to the United States (e.g., for familiarization with U.S. military education methods and technologies.)
  
  
• Supporting Ukraine's force contributions to SFOR and KFOR. Through joint planning and the conduct of live exercises, we are helping Ukraine to learn U.S. and NATO-compatible procedures and skills that will improve its capabilities to participate in such NATOled crisis response operations. Under our State Partnership Program, U.S. National Guard units from California and Kansas conduct training and exercises on civil-military emergency preparedness with Ukrainian border troops, internal troops, and Ministry of Emergency units.
  
  
• Maintaining a Military Liaison Team in Kiev, with representatives from EUCOM and the National Guard State Partnership Program, to facilitate continuous dialogue and a robust military to military exchange program.

At the same time, the United States is working closely with Ukraine, under the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, to strengthen cooperation in the area of nonproliferation. Our efforts include improved training for border security and customs personnel and assistance to redirect the expertise of Ukrainian weapon scientists to work on peaceful scientific and engineering projects, such as improved safety and security for civilian nuclear installations and managing the environmental and health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.

Our bilateral efforts are complemented by those of NATO, which reached agreement with Ukraine in 1997 on a Charter on a Distinctive Partnership. The Charter established a NATO-Ukraine Commission that meets at least twice a year for consultations on subjects such as peacekeeping, technical cooperation on armaments, economic and environmental aspects of defense-related activities, civil-military emergency planning, and combating terrorism and drug trafficking. The NATO-Ukraine relationship has also been enhanced considerably by the establishment of a NATO Information and Documentation Center as well as a Military Liaison Office in Kiev.

We also seek to encourage closer multilateral engagement between Ukraine and its regional neighbors. For example, Poland and Ukraine recently have formed a joint peacekeeping battalion, which has been deployed to KFOR. This unprecedented arrangement between a new NATO Ally and a Partner is a hopeful example of how the NATO enlargement process and PfP can work hand in hand to improve security and stability in Europe.

Ukraine, of course, must do its part. In particular, our efforts to assist Ukraine in its desire to move closer to integration with the transatlantic community will not succeed if its government is unable or unwilling to implement needed defense reforms and, more broadly, vital economic and political reforms to free up markets and combat corruption.


The Baltic States

The Baltic Sea region was spared the mass violence, repression, and economic free-fall that afflicted parts of Southeastern Europe and the former Soviet Union during the first decade of the post-Cold War era. After some 70 years of occupation by a totalitarian system, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania reclaimed their cherished independence and set their course squarely toward full integration in the political, economic, and security institutions of the transatlantic community.

Their progress to date has been very encouraging. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have become solid democracies with promising market-oriented economies, which have made them viable candidates for admission to the EU. In addition, they have demonstrated their commitment to promote stability and security in Northeast Europe and beyond in several ways:


• National efforts. A decade ago, all three countries were faced with building a defense establishment literally from scratch. Each has made important-albeit not identical- strides toward developing a comprehensive national military strategy, a defense force structure integrating regular and national guard/volunteer units, and training, infrastructure, and procurement programs to support that structure. Democratic and civilian control of the defense establishment is firmly rooted in all three governments.
  
  
• Regional cooperation. In 1994, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania formed the Baltic Battalion, a joint peacekeeping unit that has deployed three light infantry company rotations to SFOR. The three countries also have formed: a Baltic Naval Squadron, which enhances minesweeping and coastal defense capabilities in the Baltic Sea; a Baltic Regional Airspace Surveillance Coordination Center, with national radars and a regional center that shares and manages data needed for a comprehensive airspace picture; and the joint Baltic Defense College, which offers combined command and general staff training.
  
  
• PfP-related activities. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been active participants in a wide range of PfP-related programs and exercises. As declared aspirants for NATO membership, they are fully engaged in the MAP process as well.

In recognition of the United States' special relationship with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the four countries signed a Charter of Partnership in 1998. The Charter reaffirms, inter alia: our common commitments to a transatlantic community of free and democratic nations; America's "real, profound and enduring interest in the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity" of the Baltic states; and the Baltic states' determination to promote the security, prosperity, and stability of the region, including through close and cooperative relations with their neighbors. The Charter also highlights our shared goal of "the full integration of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into European and transatlantic political, economic, security, and defense institutions."

Within the security and defense area, U.S. engagement with the Baltic states will continue to be multidimensional:


• Bilateral mechanisms. The DoD will work closely with each of the states to implement the recommendations of our defense assessments. This effort will be complemented by the Foreign Military Financing, International Military Education and Training, and Foreign Military Sales programs managed by the DoD, training and exercises conducted under USEUCOM auspices, and annual high-level bilateral working groups on defense issues.
  
  
• Regional bodies. Consistent with the Charter of Partnership's emphasis on regional cooperation, the United States will continue to work closely with Allies and Partners in the region to support Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian defense efforts. The Baltic Security Assistance Coordination Group (BALTSEA)-consisting of the 3 Baltic states, the United States, and 13 other Allies and Partners- serves as the umbrella forum to provide the Baltic states advice on defense plans, coordinate efforts among security assistance providers, and assist in the implementation and oversight of the Baltic regional cooperative projects. Over time, BALTSEA's role in helping to guide the regional projects will diminish as the Baltic states take on greater responsibility for their day-today planning and operation.
  
  
• NATO/PfP. Together with its Allies, the United States will continue to encourage the Baltic states to take full advantage of PfP activities and the MAP process. We will provide fair and straightforward feedback to the Baltic states on their MAP submissions, noting their accomplishments as well as areas where improved efforts will be necessary. As stated in the Charter, the United States supports the efforts of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join NATO, and our efforts will be designed to help each of these countries become as strong a candidate as possible.

It is difficult to predict when a consensus will be reached within the Alliance to invite one or more of the Baltic States or other Partners to join. This ultimately will depend upon their respective efforts to prepare for the burdens and responsibilities of membership. On one point of particular importance to the Baltic states, the principles regarding enlargement adopted at the Washington Summit and reflected in the Charter of Partnership are clear: no non-NATO country will have a veto over Alliance decisions.


Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Other Contributors to Transatlantic Security

A number of international organizations contribute, in various ways, to building a more stable security environment across the European continent. As described earlier, the EU, for example, has provided the lion's share of international assistance resources devoted to the reconstruction and revitalization of war-ravaged economies in the Balkans. The UN and several of its specialized agencies have played an important role in organizing and delivering humanitarian relief and assistance in civil administration to several Balkan countries (12). The intergovernmental Council of Europe promotes democratic governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law-three essential pillars for enduring security and stability- in its 41 member states, with a particular focus on cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The OSCE, a body of 54 states stretching eastward from "Vancouver to Vladivostok", has a useful role in building security and stability in the transatlantic community. In the past few years, the OSCE has fielded dozens of advisor teams on short and longer-term missions across parts of Europe and Central Asia to monitor and promote respect for human rights and democratic processes (e.g., free and fair elections, media freedom, and the rule of law). OSCE representatives have facilitated the resolution of issues between participating states, as was the case in the successful closure and destruction of a major Russian radar station in Skrunda, Latvia. In Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, OSCE representatives have helped organize elections, mediated disputes among ethnic communities, and provided specialized assistance to improve local civilian administrations and police forces-all of which rendered important support to implementation of the Dayton Agreement and the security-building efforts of SFOR and KFOR. The OSCE also provides a significant forum wherein its members can be called to account for their failure to abide by international norms of behavior in the use of military force.

In the years to come, the United States will continue to support the development of the OSCE as an important and useful forum for European security, based on the Charter on European Security agreed at the November 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul. The Charter commits members inter alia to establish Rapid Expert Assistance and Cooperation Teams (REACT). Full implementation of the REACT initiative will make the OSCE more operational by giving it the capability to develop and deploy trained, professional civilian conflict prevention forces that can respond to and contain threats to peace on short notice, before the outbreak of large-scale violence and resultant mass refugee flows.


Arms Control

The United States and its NATO Allies will continue to have a shared interest in arms control regimes that enhance security and stability at the lowest possible level of forces consistent with preserving Alliance capabilities for collective defense and other security-building missions. Among the arms control regimes applicable specifically to European territory, none is more central than the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). Signed in November 1990 by the 16 members of NATO and 6 members of the Warsaw Pact, the CFE Treaty established equal East-West (i.e., "bloc-to-bloc") limits on five key categories of conventional armaments-battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery pieces, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters. This approach was appropriate at the time, since it eliminated the Warsaw Pact's longstanding and destabilizing numerical superiority in armor and artillery. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and breakup of the Soviet Union, those former Soviet states in the area covered by the Treaty (Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals) acceded to the CFE Treaty, which now covers 30 Treaty Parties.

The CFE Treaty's accomplishments to date are remarkable. More than 70,000 pieces of Treaty-Limited Equipment have been destroyed, more than 3,500 intrusive onsite inspections have been conducted, and those inspections-along with the CFE Treaty's detailed reporting requirements-have provided unprecedented transparency and predictability of military forces in Europe.

The CFE Adaptation Agreement signed in November 1999 updates the original CFE Treaty. Once it has been ratified and enters into force, the Adaptation Agreement will create a new, highly stable, transparent set of limitations on conventional forces and bring the CFE Treaty into line with today's European security environment.

The CFE Final Act associated with the Adaptation Agreement contains several significant political commitments by Treaty Parties, including agreements on the complete withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Moldova and partial withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. The Final Act also reaffirms Russia's commitment to bring its equipment levels in the "flank" region, which includes the North Caucasus (and Chechnya), back down below the "flank" limits set forth in the adapted Treaty. President Clinton has stated that he will only submit the Adaptation Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification when Russian forces have been reduced to these levels, and Allies have taken similar positions.

In addition to the CFE Treaty, the United States will continue actively to support full implementation of, and compliance with, other arms control and Confidence Building Measures (CBM) regimes that help to build security and stability in Europe. These include:


• The Vienna Document, updated at the 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul, which builds trust and enhances stability among OSCE members through various measures, such as inspections of military units, base visits, observation of exercises, and notifications of military deployments.
  
  
• The arms control and transparency provisions of the Dayton Agreement, which draw upon CFE Treaty and Vienna Document principles and practices, and are aimed at stabilizing reductions of military forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and the FRY.
  
  
• The Open Skies Treaty, which upon entry-into-force will allow the United States, Canada, and 25 European signatories to conduct reciprocal, unarmed observation flights over their entire territories to gather information about each other's military forces and activities.




---

7. The complexity of this task is illustrated by the fact that an estimated 300 non-governmental organizations of various sizes and abilities have participated in humanitarian assistance efforts related to Kosovo.
8. Participants in the Stability Pact include all of the Southeastern European countries (including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), plus the United States, European Union, Canada, Japan, Russian Federation, Turkey, and numerous international organizations (e.g., UN, NATO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and OSCE.
9. This was the case for Croatia, as well, before its accession to PfP in May 2000. Indeed, Croatia's positive transition over the past year-its democratic elections, improved relations with Bosnia-Herzegovina, unilateral commitment to accept returning refugees, and cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia-is a hopeful sign of progress for the entire region. It also demonstrates the transforming power of PFP membership, which encourages nations to pursue reform efforts.
10. The MPFSEE was established by a formal agreement signed at the SEDM ministerial in Skopje, Macedonia in September 1998. All SEDM countries joined the MPFSEE, except the United States and Slovenia, who have observer status at MPFSEE activities. The first headquarters of the MPFSEE's military organization (known as the Southeastern Europe Brigade, or SEEBRIG) was activated in Plovdiv, Bulgaria in August 1999. The headquarters site and nationality of officers holding key SEEBRIG positions rotate among the participating countries according to an agreed schedule.
11. See also USEUCOM section in Chapter V.
12. Non-UN bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (based in Geneva, Switzerland) also have played an important role in humanitarian efforts in the Balkans.