The following was presented at NATO Conference in Toronto.
SMALL COUNTRY´S INTEREST AND CONTRIBUTION IN INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCES
Toronto, Oct., 20, 2001.
H.Tiido Deputy Under-secretary, MFA, Estonia
I would like to start by two references to history, borrowing them from the memoirs of the Grand Old Man of Finnish diplomacy, Max Jakobson:
In 1922 “The Economist” published a map, on which Finland was painted as part of Russia. When the then Finnish ambassador protested, the answer from the editorial office was: “We do not change our maps because of every temporary phenomenon”.
In 1938 British Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain said that Czechoslovakia was a far-away country the problems of which were of no concern for Great Britain.
And a third reference to the history of the Baltic countries: In 1940 Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov advised the leaders of the Baltic countries to understand that the time of small states has come to and end.
So, where are we standing now in relation to these references: Finland is very much in existence and definitely not considered a temporary phenomenon. The problems of Czechoslovakia proved to be very much the concern of Great Britain due to the Second World War and nowadays the impact of events in different parts of the globe is only increasing. And small countries are very much in existence despite the predictions of comrade Molotov, in fact – their number has grown.
European small nations have been seeking a solution to their security problems throughout the previous century and only now there seems to be an opening to bring this search to a successful end. By this I mean the membership in NATO.
From the point of view of small nations they have dual choice – either to join an alliance or try and make it on their own. History proves that for a small country the option of an alliance is definitely more productive. Especially in current world where every country, every nation has to make one basic choice which is the only dividing line between different nations, be it in Europe or somewhere else. Basically this choice boils down to choosing a certain set of values and thus positioning itself on one or the other side of an imaginable line.
No-one is drawing any lines in Europe, it´s the European nations themselves that decide which side they take. We have chosen the set of common values of the Euro-Atlantic community. Byelorussia, for example, has chosen a different set of values. That´s the only division there exists, the rest of the differences spring from this choice.
But what could be the interest of the Atlantic Alliance to have these small countries aboard? From military point of view they can hardly add anything substantial to the common defense. Why bother then?
The answer lies in the fact that security does not mean defense capability only. The issue is wider. Security means first and foremost the capability of avoiding conflicts, that could need military force to solve them.
I think that in fact this is the basis of NATO deterrence factor as well. It´s not only NATO´s military capability, the nuclear weapons and number of missiles or troops that deter the possible aggressor. It´s first and foremost the knowledge that any aggression against any of the members means having all the allies as adversaries.
The growth in the number of allies would increase the zone of stability and security, but at the same time it would also reduce the area of potential conflict. The rationale is that any country, the security of which is undetermined, carries a potential of a conflict. Any security vacuum is bound to be filled sooner or later, and every “gray zone” creates first subtle, then more open contention of outside forces. Any major conflict in Europe, in its turn, would have an effect on the security of the whole Euro-Atlantic area.
That is why it would be useful not only for the Baltic countries but also for NATO to have the security of this region anchored into a common Atlantic Alliance. That is also the reason why the EU-only option or outside security guarantees are not sufficient for these three small countries, if I were to limit the scope of my presentation to the Baltics only.
EU-only option for the Baltics would mean a reduction of the overall regional security, because currently all the nations in the region have both the EU and NATO-option open for them. If one group were to be limited to one option only, it would have negative effect on other countries, first of all Finland, as well. The reason is that Finland can afford to have EU-only choice due to the knowledge that NATO-option is open for them. If the Baltics were denied NATO-option for the reason of geo-politics, it would implicitly mean the same kind of denial for Finland as well.
Both EU-only option as well as outside security guarantees would mean turning this region into a potential “gray zone” with all the implications I mentioned earlier. In this context I´m leaving aside the option of neutrality as there can be no neutrality in current Euro-Atlantic area and neither Sweden nor Finland are neutral either. To be precise – officially both of them are militarily non-aligned with an open NATO-option.
One additional positive result of the Baltic membership in NATO would be a secure and stable neighbourhood for Russia. Throughout the history Russia has viewed weak or undetermined states on its borders as security threats, assuming that sooner or later someone would attempt to fill this security vacuum and endanger Russia´s borders. That´s why Russia has usually preferred to fill the vacuum itself, before anyone else does it.
If the Baltic countries are part of NATO the issue will be solved for Russia, it will have a definite and stable neighbourhood, one temptation less and a possibility of diverting its energy to more pressing issues, be it domestic social and economic development or situation in other neighbouring regions.
In the Europe of today there are two options for securing the security and stability of the continent – the first is enlarging the effective organization called NATO; the second is turning the wide-ranging, but ineffective organization, called OSCE, into an effective one. I think that enlarging NATO would bear definitely more fruit than attempts to develop the OSCE into an effective security alliance.
The current world-wide fight against terrorism only stresses in my opinion the necessity of widening a common zone of stability and security. Taking into consideration the spread of terrorist networks it would boil down in large extent to the exchange of information in order to cut the possibilities of terrorists in moving their finances, weapons, people around, in finding a secure place to contemplate next moves, or in legalizing their money for preparation of terrorist acts.
I think that what we are witnessing today is a certain change of paradigm. We used to have two categories of security threats – soft ones – organized crime, drug trafficking, corruption, money-laundering etc. ; and hard or military threats. But now the situation has changed and in fact the soft security threats have turned into hard ones. It becomes vividly evident while looking at the mechanism of terrorist activities – how they are financed and organized.
Organized crime and terrorist activities are in many respects overlapping and mutually reinforcing. Criminal proceeds from drug-trafficking are used to finance terrorism, terrorist activities in their could be used for the interest of criminal groups worldwide. The annual turnover of organized crime is counted in hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe reaching even a couple of trillions. That big an amount of money is capable of recruiting whole governments in unstable countries, as the example of Afghanistan proves. It could also provide both the criminals and terrorists a possibility of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, keeping their hitmen hidden for long periods of time, organizing their activities on global scale and with the use of most sophisticated technologies.
These phenomena cannot be faced by single countries, they demand concerted efforts and often involvement of military means as well. It means that these former soft security threats have developed into risks that demand the involvement of NATO as well.
In fact these ideas are not new. The role of the alliance in confronting the so-called new security threats has been contemplated for some time already. In NATO Review last Winter issue, You can find an article by Chris Donnely, who deals with precisely the same issues I´m talking about.
I would dare to claim that unfortunately the events have developed faster than the corresponding thinking on counter-measures. It means, in turn, that we have to learn a lesson from these events, and learn it fast. Otherwise we are in danger of fighting a losing battle.
It seems that some principles of this new situation have emerged already.
First, there is no middle ground in the fight against terrorism. You are either for or against it, one cannot be neutral when it comes to the issues of terrorism.
Second, we have to leave the terrorists without any support on governmental or political level. Every nation has to understand clearly that harbouring terrorists turns it into an outcast in the international community.
Third, in order to minimize the possibilities of terrorism we have to deal actively with the different manifestations of organized crime as well. This stresses the necessity of active exchange of information among the countries of the anti-terrorist coalition.
Fourth, we should not provide any signals that the recent terrorist attacks can have a negative influence on international politics. For example – if NATO enlargement plans were to be shelved or cut due to these terrorist attacks, it would mean that terrorists have gained a victory – they have forced the alliance to change its plans for development.
In conclusion I would like to stress that in this field – in the fight against terrorism – all countries can contribute, big as well as small ones. In exchanging information in order to handicap the terrorists, and in providing political support for the anti-terrorist activities every country can and must make their contribution.
Limiting the same issue to the North-Atlantic Alliance I would like to stress that by enlarging NATO we are enlarging the common territory on which, due to the fact that we are allies, it is easier to fight this common enemy, to clean this zone of security from the threats of terrorism. I understand that it is next to impossible to eliminate terrorism altogether, thus we have to try and minimize its possibilities and make it damn hard for terrorists to reach their goals.
Referring to the subject of my short presentation I would like to draw to short conclusions:
- small countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania gain from the membership in the Alliance; - The Alliance in its turn gains from the membership of our countries, we have the intention of contributing, not merely consuming.
