Interface Between NATO/ WEU and UN/OSCE

  • Jean Klein

Abstract

Since the crumbling of the Communist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe and the reunification of Germany, the security institutions of the West have undergone significant changes. In spite of the vanishing of the Soviet military threat, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Organization and the withdrawal of the Russian troops from the front lines they occupied during the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remains the defence and security framework for the Western world. So much so that it seems that nobody wants to call into question the usefulness of an institution which is supposed to provide reassurance against a revival of a hegemonic power in the East; to stabilize and pacify the relations among the European coun-tries, especially after the emergence of a united German state, l and to support peacekeeping and peacemaking missions under the aegis of the United Nations (UN) or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). In this respect, the speculations of some analysts and observers who foresaw the dwindling of the Atlantic Alliance after the collapse of the bipolar order have not been con-firmed by the history of the post-Cold War. It is likely that NATO will keep its raison d'être for a long time.

Keywords

Europe Transportation Turkey Defend Dispatch 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

NOTES

  1. 1.
    1. A German historian, Hans-Peter Schwarz, described the united German State as the 'central power in Europe' which may behave in a more assertive way as the former FRG, Die Zentralmacht Europas. Ruckkehr Deutschlands auf die Weltbuhne (Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. See J. Joffe, The Limited Partnership. Europe, the United States and the Burdens of Alliance (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1987); and A. DePorte, NATO in the 1990s (London: Pergamon Brasseys, 1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. The former French ambassador to NATO, Gabriel Robin, expressed this opinion after the summit in Brussels in January 1994, 'OTAN: un sommet instructif', Le Figaro (31 January 1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. General George A. Joulwan, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, expresses his satisfaction about the agreements concluded with general Shevtsov in the framework of IFOR in an article published by the International Herald Tribune, 'NATO and Russia are Working Together and Can Keep It Up' (30 April 1996). According to SACEUR, these agreements permitted the reconciliation of the prin-ciple of the unity of command and the Russian will not to be submitted to NATO military integration.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. See the speech delivered on 29 August 1996 by the French President, Jacques Chirac, at the annual meeting of the ambassadors at the Elysee Palace, Documents d'Actualite internationale, 20 (15 October 1996) (La Documentation frangaise).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    6. See F. de Rose, `Les balbutiements de l'Europe', Le Figaro (4 octobre 1996).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. This point has been stressed by Shashi Tharoor, special assistant to the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations at the United Nations, in his article, 'United Peacekeeping in Europe', Survival, 37:2 (Summer 1995).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. This qualification was coined by a research associate in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. See L. L. Fabian, Soldiers without Enemies: Preparing the United Nations for Peacekeep-ing (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1971).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. This way to settle the contemporary problems of peacekeeping in retreating into the past has been sharply criticized by S. Tharoor, `Should UN Peacekeeping Go Back to Basics', Survival, 37:4 (Winter 1995–96).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. This principle can be deduced from the Charter of San Francisco. See `Towards a Subsidiary Model for Peacemaking and Preventive Diplo-macy: Making Chapter VIII of the UN Charter Operational', Third World Quarterly Journal of Emerging Areas, 17:1 (March 1996).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. Agreement concluded in Geneva, July 1996, Neue Ziircher Zeitung (2 July 1996).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. See the contribution of Vladimir Baranovsky to the SIPRI Yearbook 1994 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 'Conflict Developments on the Territory of the Former Soviet Union', pp. 169–203.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. See, for instance, 'Statement by the President of the Security Council' (S/PRST/1994/22).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    14. See the contribution of Victor-Yves Ghébali, `L'OSCE et la gestation du conflit yougoslave: evaluation d'un role residue! (1991–1995)' to the collection of essays published by the Centre d'Etudes de Defense et de Sécurité Internationale' of the University Pierre-Mend'es France at Grenoble, `Les Institutions de securite face a la crise de l'ex-Yougosla-vie' (sous la direction de Jean-Francois Guilhaudis), Cahiers duCEDSI, No. 17, juin 1996 (hereafter quoted as:`Les Institutions de securitb').Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. According to the concluding document, para 1.5, stability will be achieved 'through the promotion of good neighbourly relations, including questions related to frontiers and minorities, as well as regional cooperation and the strengthening of democratic institutions'. For a comprehensive view on this venture, see the study by A. D. Rotfeld, 'Europe: The Multilateral Security Process', SIPRI Yearbook 1995. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    16. The 31st meeting of the OSCE permanent council (March 1995) speci-fied concrete steps with which the Pact should be followed up. See A. D. Rotfeld, 'Europe: Towards New Security Arrangements', SIPRI Yearbook 1996, pp. 279–322.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    17. For a clear presentation of the peacekeeping function of the OSCE and stimulating remarks on its potential, see J. M. Nowak, `The Organiza-tion for Security and Cooperation in Europe', Challenges for the New Peacekeepers, T. Findlay, ed., SIPRI Research Report No. 12 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. Set up in March 1992 to settle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, it consisted originally of Armenia and Azerbaijan (the parties to the conflict), Czechoslovakia, Italy and Sweden (the three members of the troffca at this time), Belarus, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey and the US.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    19. Decisions of the Rome Council meeting (1 December 1993), section II, para. 2, SIPRI Yearbook 1994 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 260.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    20. Framework for cooperation and coordination between the United Nations Secretariat and the CSCE, constituting an attachment to the letters exchanged on 26 May 1993 between M. Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Mrs Margaretha af Ugglas from Sweden, quoted by J. M. Nowak, op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    21. The Russian `Program of Enhancing the Effectiveness of the CSCE' addressed to the CSCE on 23 June 1994 postulated, `The transforma-tion of NACC into a universal mechanism for military and political cooperation functioning in close contact with the CSCE', quoted by A. D. Rotfeld, 'Europe: The Multilateral Security Process', SIPRI Year-book 1995, p. 298.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    22. See the speeches delivered the same day (28 August 1996) by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Germany, Klaus Kinkel, and of France, Hervé de Charette, respectively in Alpbach (Austria) and in Paris, at the opening of the conference of French ambassadors.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    23. The problems raised by the qualification of the WEU as a regional organization of Chapter VIII of the Charter have been analysed in a well-argued and -researched essay by L. Vierucci, `L'UEO: un parte-naire regional des Nations Unies?', Paris, Cahiers de Chaillot, No. 12 (décembre 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    24. The subordination of the WEU to NATO has been emphasized by M.-C. Plantin, `Les Occidentaux aux prises avec la crise de l'ex-You-goslavie: le role de 1'UEO', in Les Institutions de securite. In describing the monitoring operations in the Adriatic she uses the wording 'con-fiscation otanienne' to suggest the marginalization of the WEU.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    25. See the debates at the Assembly of the WEU in 1996 and the essay by N. Gnesotto, `L,eqon de la Yougoslavie', Paris, Cahiers de Chaillot, No. 14 (March 1994). She reiterated her criticism in an article published just before the opening of the Intergovernmental Conference in Turin, `La defense europeenne au carrefour de la Bosnie et de la CIG', Politique Etrangere, No. 1 (1996).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    26. See the report presented by Mr Roseta to the 41 session of the WEU Assembly, 'Le processus de paix dans les Balkans — La mise-en-oeuvre des accords de Dayton', Document 1526 (14 mai 1996).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    27. On NATO's conceptual approach to peacekeeping, see the contribution by S. R. Rader, 'NATO' to the SIPRI research report quoted in note 12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Klein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations