Speech by the Chairman of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Prof. Vytautas Landsbergis
Vilnius, 19 May 2000
 

In Close Proximity to Volcano

Your Excellencies Ministers and Ambassadors,
Distinguished Participants of the Conference,
Ladies and Gentlemen!

Those who live at volcano should consider and project the steps to be made if necessary.

Do not be in trouble, and discard the idea of danger, because your concern may irritate the volcano - listening to such an advice would be a mistake, Security should be a constant concern, in particular when you live close to volcano. Such concern means responsibility, responsibility of the heads of states to their nations,

Europe and the whole North Atlantic area are taking care of its collective security. To that end the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been established, as open to all democracies of Europe. It is an efficient structure, which was able to secure a long- term peace and stability within its own and, to some extent, broader area. No alternative to it does exist. The ideas to weaken NATO in order to build up a different structure in its place would seem to lack rationale. A complimentary or regional structure, embracing part of the continent and adding to the strength of NATO, would be practical; although talking real security today, we first and foremost have in mind NATO. This organisation could be called United Democracies.

Indeed, NATO does not safeguard the immunity of aggressor or immunity of perpetrators of genocide in case an aggression or genocide had to be brought to a halt; and this is how it should be: they must be restrained, The Belgrade dictator should not have been allowed to expel a million of other nationals with an aim to destroy them and to plant a demographic bomb in the neighbouring countries. The world of double standards - if aggression and annihilation of nations were to be permitted in it by a silent consent - paves the way to demise.

The issues l wish to discuss concern the overall decisions on NATO enlargement and the particular course of this process. As you know, it is not the same. Both of them include mechanisms of decision-making.

Membership of NATO is open for countries, wishing to accede to the Alliance as well as to secede from it (or to suspend themselves) of their own free will. Decision on accession is based on the criteria of readiness and democracy as well as the benefits of new accession for the Alliance. It is the member states who take such decision. A criterion for secession from the Alliance seems not to exist, and such considerations sound purely theoretical; however, the issue of acceptation demands more than just compliance with membership criteria. New membership is a political issue, which calls for a political decision. Such decision is taken by members of the Alliance, and it is in this context where the issues of the readiness of the Alliance itself for enlargement and its political will become important. A candidate country, irrespectively of how well prepared it is, does not stand a chance of being accepted if the Alliance is not ready for a political decision and lacks the necessary political will. Therefore, with a view to avoiding a psychological challenge of candidate countries, they should be encouraged, even issued a partial guarantee or at least a promise that their efforts are not In vain and achievements in the field of democracy and development of defensive capabilities will be taken into account in the first place. On the other hand, a possibility should be foreseen for the democratic countries faced wi1h a threat from outside to be extended an immediate invitation to the protection-extending Alliance for the sake of regional stability, even if their individual defensive capabilities would not yet meet the required standards. Prevention of aggression, of destabilisation and the inter-state conflicts should be the issue of utmost concern in a situation of such threat. In this regard, a decision taken on the basis of political considerations could take a priority over the decision of defence experts.

When we are told "you are indefensible", we identify in this postulate a pre-established aggression of Russia and are surprised at such one-sided statements, We believe that the political protection - being in the Alliance - is the most reliable method to maintain good relations with neighbours and avoid the possible dilemma of military defence. Insecurity, as the opposite situation, causes instability and even stimulates aggression.

Opponents and sceptics of NATO enlargement are eager to take advantage of enlargement elsewhere - in the European Union, which can be displayed as a slow alternative, postponing for a distant future the issue of real security in Europe. Should NATO abandon its principles of openness and their implementation, this would shatter the confidence on unimaginable scale. To avoid this the Summit of 2002 must take next step bringing further enlargement. Enlargement of NATO and the EU are simultaneous processes, however, if anybody were to associate them, there is only one scenario of positive logic to be envisioned. Membership in NATO boosts the security of markets, it enhances confidence and promotes the investment (especially in a secure area!). In this way it speeds up the process of preparation for membership in the European Union. It is impossible to imagine that membership in NATO could stand in the way of membership in the European Union. Thus, the alternative proposal to choose between "the EU or NATO", moreover, "first the EU, then NATO" admit defeat to criticism. The only explanation of efforts to stimulate or force the insecure states to join the European Union but not NATO will speak about making of concessions to Russia of the past, embracing a projection of its prospective zones of influence.

Unfortunately, Russia is still suffering from the dual syndrome of the past. Free- will-based accession of candidate countries to NATO for the sake of collective security is interpreted as a horror scene: the enemy is on our land! The old thinking makes a double mistake, because NATO is not and never will want to be the "enemy" of Russia, while candidate countries are not part of Russian lands. However, toleration of this mistake implies support to it and even its consolidation, a suggestion to continue to live in the world of dangerous myths, Anyone wishing Russia well should not promote the expansionist myths of the past.

The last issue I wish to raise concerns the propaganda wars, both global and local, They pose danger because the local propaganda wars may be a preparatory part of the plan for an armed conflict, which, once incited by an aggressor, helps him to win his local war through a threat of global war issued to a broader environment (in case somebody would be trying to protect the victim), and, thereby, achieve his goal through resort to violence. Therefore, a propaganda and psychological war must be treated very seriously as a potential start of aggression. Anything, which in international relations takes the shape of an abusive relationship among people, must raise concern and present a matter to which an international response is issued. Whose task is it? Organisations of international security and international co-operation, concerned with stability, peace and progress, could set up structures similar to those of Ombudsman institution, which could effectively respond to aggressive behaviour of states displayed towards their neighbours, even in situations where bloodshed is not taking place or is not yet taking place. NATO is such an organisation and it could undertake the preventive continuous monitoring, as well as analytical and diplomatic functions. It is the so-called crisis prevention, significance of which, as vvell as openness, must be enhanced. Against the evidence of the mounting tension or intentional efforts to bring it to the boiling temperatures in any area, such empowered Ombudsman could invite the countries to broader consultations and seek to obtain public assurances and guarantees that, for example, a propaganda war waged by one big country against a smaller neighbour is not a prelude to some other actions, but a performance staged for the purposes of internal consumption, - which often is the version, which the observers deployed within some distance believe or want to believe.

Mistakes made in the process of establishing a diagnosis are the costliest; thus, such agency would simply be a measure of saving - a way to avoid losses of human lives and expenditure on a large scale. In December 1990 the US President did not trust the diagnosis that the USSR was preparing to attack us, Lithuania, but the Soviets did. Diagnostic services of today should work more effectively giving their conclusions to the public use: are the bubbling of the volcano or its separate ejections already a dangerous phenomenon or not yet.

Thank you for your kind attention.

/