Speech made at the Partnership for Peace Consortium’s 14th annual conference
June 19-20, 2012.
Radisson Blue Hotel, Tbilisi, Georgia
Ladies and
Gentlemen, Excellences, dear Guests!
It is an honor and privilege to address this
distinguished audience here in Georgia. We are proud that severe security
challenges notwithstanding, Georgia manages to keep peace, steady progress and goal-driven
business environment in all spheres of public life.
Because this is opening speech, let me be little
philosophical about the role of partnerships in promoting peace and security.
Of course, partnership is nothing but reality for this audience, and we all
know that mutual interest and
cooperation are the two core aspects for any partnership. Peace and security,
as some of the most complex goals, cannot be achieved without wider consensus
and cooperation. Partnerships help both to achieve consensus and to carry out
consensus-based decisions, once they’re made.
When asking whether
consensus and cooperation matter for peace and security, we ask about the type
of peace we may desire. In essence, here is the choice between the so called pax
Minoica and pax Romana - the two cases in history usually used to illustrate
examples of peace by culture and peace by force.
It is true that these
examples apply to a relatively restricted area of land, and it is also obvious,
that a challenge of maintaining peace widens with geography. Today we deal with
challenges that are global in scope, and this means that be it force or
consensus, they should be same global in nature, to succeed.
Here again, we are
faced with the civilizational choice. What is our best dream for future – a
peace based on fear and enforced by a terrible warlord, or the one based on
conscious choice and enforced by a policy, equipped by a legitimate force?
In this room and in
our respective societies, in our histories and cultures, this choice is long
made. However, the strength of the consensus is not equal everywhere and it is through
various partnerships, that we observe the process of gradual convergence of the
societies, of cultures and values. Thus, cooperation and partnerships acquire
even greater role in the era of globalization. Partnerships bring us together
in cultural and physical terms, enhance communication, enable negotiated and
informed decisions, facilitate teamwork and sharing of responsibilities, enrich
experiences of those involved, allow compromise, etc. etc. In short,
partnerships are the best tools for global community to become reality.
Because we choose
legitimate solutions, the end goal of this journey toward global peace is something
we may call global community, i.e. international community with enhanced
communications and intertwined by mutual interests, where peace can be
negotiated. Legitimate peace is the one based on freedoms, because for all
humans freedom is the only goal in itself. Peace and security describe the
environment where freedoms are best exercised, and global community is the only
possible form of civilization where freedom can become a fundament for such an
environment of peace and security. It is only when our interests become
intertwined when we all agree on mutual security, it is our freedoms that make
us value freedoms of others, and it is mental awakening that makes us realize
the value of compromise.
***
As said,
partnerships are the vehicles driving us to global freedom, bypassing the
jungle of history. Freedom is a goal of every battle that the free societies
would ever resort to, and it is consensus, not fear of sheer force, that makes
societies act. Freedom is the only goal for which peace has ever been sacrificed
and one great function of any partnership is to ensure that negotiated
solutions get realistic.
However,
partnerships cannot exist in vacuum. Since partnerships happen between living parties,
the role of leadership cannot be underestimated here. It is trust in an
example, trust to leadership, that drives communication between the parties,
and it is trust that any partnership is being built upon.
A sociological
theory of trust provides helpful view of this phenomenon as composed of attitudes
toward one’s intentions and capabilities. We may trust in one’s intentions and
not in capabilities, or trust in capabilities but not in intentions, or trust
in neither of the two, or trust in both. Of four possible combinations, only
one is truly effective. Good leader is trusted in both capabilities and
intentions and this is what drives people to follow the leader.
In other words,
nothing happens without power. Capabilities and intentions have parallel
meanings of hard and soft power which lead us to the conclusion that leadership
and power are also near synonyms. Declared goals, charisma, skills and physical
might make up the combination of factors that define leadership and drive any
partnership. This is how partners would see NATO and this is how PfP would remain
successful ever further.
***
Partnerships like
PfP have a role of extraordinary game-changer. This is a program of the
Alliance that aims at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe
and the former Soviet Union. Based on NATO’s underlying democratic principles, the
purpose of PfP is to increase stability, diminish threats to peace and build stronger
security relationships between individual Euro-Atlantic partners and NATO, as
well as among partner countries. But first and foremost, PfP was aimed at
creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet
Union.
PfP has turned out to be remarkably successful
and developed maybe even beyond the expectations of its architects. The Initiative
provided connection to the Alliance for the European non-NATO members and
played an influential role in preparing Central and East European countries for
the membership; PfP format has also appeared very helpful for those interested in
Defence reform and it also ties far-away regions like Central Asia to NATO.
In every it’s manifestation, the effectiveness
and attractiveness of the Alliance has a central role for PfP. Strong Alliance
is a hope for partners that lasting peace and security is not utopia, that
partnership retains meaning and has a potential to deepen over time.
We live in the turbulent world, where conflicts
of the past interact with the conflicts of future, where different cultures and
civilizations compete for centuries and each leaves its own legacy. Most of
modern conflicts are rooted in this past. Past grievances, mistrust and fears
fill up the content of these conflicts. Of course, geography and geopolitics still
matter but it is also obvious that for friends, geography is a challenge to
overcome, while it is a weapon to leverage for enemies.
PfP brings together societies who have good
potential of partnership. Many former partners now became full members of the
Alliance. As we all know, enlargement of the Alliance on the expense of central
European countries was perceived as tragedy in Moscow. Now Kremlin wants to
stop this. Unfortunately, equipped with nuclear defenses, Russia leverages partition
policy as weapon.
Understanding of Geography is fairly advanced in
Kremlin: physical, ethnic, religious, and economic geographies make up very
advanced partition strategies of Moscow in the realms of information,
diplomacy, military, economics, transport, and energy. Starting from Baltics,
along Moldova and Ukraine, South Caucasus and Central Asia – Kremlin supports
and then leverages ethnic and religious divide and corruption to spur new
conflicts, heat up the old ones, manipulate public opinion, overthrow elected
governments and appoint puppet ones.
Russia is a PfP member state, but their actions are
far from the spirit of PfP. There is functioning NATO-Russia commission and
declared attempt of NATO to engage Russia, but we get frustration and enmity in
exchange. Yes, there is cooperation as well, of which the most visible is perhaps
in logistics for the ISAF. However, there are parallel attempts by Moscow to
cut off the Alliance from all other routes to Afghanistan and make allies
heavily dependent on Moscow. This is clearly not a position and policy of a
good partner. We may continue to talk about Russian policies toward Syria, Kremlin’s
deeds in my own country, their flirting with nuclear issues etc., but there is
no need to inform this audience about “Russian style” and Russian political behavior
– it is well known to all.
Of course, destructive behavior of any partner is
a serious problem to any partnership. But this doesn’t mean that stubbornness
is better policy than flexibility. Over the years, a range of PfP tools and
mechanisms have been developed to support cooperation through a mix of
policies, programs, action plans and arrangements. These tools provide
excellent opportunity to further converge the standards and policies of
aspirant partners and for engagement of more reluctant ones.
However difficult it be, engagement is a worthy
strategy. It should be kept in mind though, that only clear posture and
consistent policies can bring results, and it should never be allowed that the very
nature of partnership gets undermined by any bad partner. We need to ensure that
the partnership is never drained of principles, and it does not become
ceremonial only. Partnerships work only when their underlying principles are
firm and long-lasting, and these principles should be kept almost sacred.
As said, any partnership is about consensus and
cooperation; it is driven by trust and leadership, and provided for by power. In
other words, PfP will be a lasting tool with the strong Alliance, with strong
consensus within the Alliance and strong image and attractiveness of NATO. It
is a duty of every true partner to contribute to this strong image, to uphold
the core principles of the Alliance and to help increase the effectiveness of
the Alliance whenever required.
It is this understanding that made a small
country like my own, to commit to the maintenance of international peace and
security by its active engagement in the peacekeeping operations. Being the
largest non-NATO contributors to the ISAF mission, and the largest per capita
contributors from this fall, we believe to be doing our best to set just
another example of responsible partnership with and within the Alliance.
At the same time, in relation to its internal
problems, Georgia has unilaterally committed itself to the non-use of force policy
in the process of restoring of its territorial integrity.
Our overarching goal is a liberal democracy which
is a natural member of the Euro-Atlantic family, and has its clear value for
other members. As we have declared many times, we are not, and will not be just
consumers of security provided by the Alliance, but also providers of this
security.
We think this approach is very realistic, because
we see our partnership with NATO as clear demonstration of comprehensive
approach. Partnership with NATO has made huge changes in this country and
elsewhere in the world. These are the partnerships that develop political,
civilian and military instruments in unison, and produce proper leaders
elsewhere in the world. It brings the understanding that military means,
although essential, are not enough on their own to meet the many complex
challenges of regional and international security.
Because partnerships may be viewed as one type of
crisis management, comprehensive approach now matters not only for NATO itself
but also for partnerships. Quality defense institutions, education, security
management, political systems, economics, civil-military relations, strategic
thinking and human rights are equally important for the effectiveness of future
partnerships. Hence, these should make up the content of these partnerships in
future.
I think it is very clear that the role of PfP
Consortium is simply huge in this process. Importance of education and
awareness, prioritization of systemic change is what makes PfPC immensely
important and why PfPC stands out by its scope and nature. PfP and PfPC bring
about gradual, durable change and really act as vehicles of history.
As you know, Georgia now has much more than
general partnership with NATO. We have NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC) and Annual
National Program (ANP) since 2008; we actively participate in Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council (EAPC) and we very actively participate in ISAF mission.
NATO has made very clear at Bucharest summit that Georgia will become the member
of the alliance, and last month in Chicago Georgia was named aspirant country
along with three Balkan states.
These developments make PfPC even more important
for Georgia, and I believe this should be the case for any country that aspires
for deeper partnership and membership in the Alliance.
Finally, let me stress that in the wake of the
Chicago summit, which provided us a new opportunity to reaffirm and refine the
vision of future NATO development, we have to set on a new course to maintain
and enhance the capabilities that NATO needs to remain an essential source of
global stability and give the new boost to NATO enlargement.
Thank you
Andro Barnovi
Deputy Minister of Defense of Georgia
19/06/2012
Comments