USIA Transcript: Defense Official Smith At Greek-US Conference (96-05-08)

Miscellaneous Directory

From: The U.S. Information Agency (USIA) Gopher <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>

(Urges military cooperation in Southeastern Europe) (1640)

Frederick C. Smith, principal deputy assistant secretary for international security affairs, told a Conference on the Greek-U.S. Relationship and the Future of Southeastern Europe May 8 that the region would benefit from "preventive defense" efforts aimed at strengthening military cooperation and "building a stable peace in a region historically hampered by ethnic and national suspicions."

He cited measures agreed to by Defense Secretary William Perry and his counterparts from Albania, Bulgaria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Italy, and Turkey at a ministerial last month.

Following is the text of Smith's remarks as prepared for delivery:

John Kornblum has provided you an excellent picture of U.S. diplomatic efforts in the region and current thinking on how to enhance political relations among allies and Partnership for Peace partners.

I would like to complement his remarks with a perspective from the Department of Defense. Secretary Perry has taken a personal -- and intense -- interest in European security. Over the past two years he has visited the theater numerous times and met regularly in Washington with European leaders. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of his tenure has been his emphasis on what he calls "preventive defense," that is, measures that increase cooperation and transparency among regional militaries to avert crises and conflict.

Drawing on Secretary Perry's ~"preventive defense" theme and recognizing that the focal point of this conference is Southeastern Europe, let me approach the main issues from three directions: (1) from a broad perspective of European security as exemplified by the Partnership for Peace program and NATO Enlargement; (2) from a more focused perspective of Southeastern European security as highlighted by the recently conducted South Balkan Defense Ministerial; and (3) from the specific perspective of the U.S.-Greek security relationship.

Partnership for Peace and NATO Enlargement

First, the Alliance itself has changed. Since 1990, we have radically realigned our force structures, taken on new military missions (as in Bosnia/IFOR), developed new command mechanisms to handle non-traditional military roles, and added new Alliance structures to engage former military adversaries.

Most notably, we have created the Partnership for Peace program. In barely two years, we have developed a growing network of 27 Partnership countries who are participating actively in several hundred major activities each year with the Alliance. Over half these countries have established liaison offices at Mons to work in the Partnership Coordination Cell, which helps them work closely with NATO forces. As a direct result of PFP activities, we now find ten countries contributing units to the Implementation Force in Bosnia. Since 1994, the number of exercises, joint training, military exchanges, and other activities has risen significantly. In the first months of PFP's existence, NATO organized three major exercises for Partner nations -- one in Poland, one in the Netherlands, and one in the North Sea. In 1995, NATO sponsored 10 PFP exercises and 150 exercise-related activities. This year even more exercises and activities are planned as more nations get involved.

I will not attempt to summarize all the things that are under way in PFP. The Defense Department has just issued a two-year progress report that lays out such activities in detail. But the key point that Secretary Perry has often mentioned is that PFP is changing the European security architecture by bringing new democracies closer to the Alliance. By all measures, PFP has been a resounding success story.

NATO Enlargement is an issue under much consideration. This process, too, will change the face of European security. We are spending this year in close dialogue with Central East European countries interested in NATO membership. This process has been transparent and deliberate and will not occur until all 16 NATO Allies are in agreement on "who" should be admitted. There is solid agreement that the Alliance should expand and that the process should be carefully managed to ensure that all countries understand their obligations as NATO members.

On numerous occasions, Secretary Perry has articulated the general principles that we have in mind as NATO membership is considered for Central East European states. Let me review these principles briefly:

• Progress toward democratic and economic reforms: that is, do countries have truly working democracies and free-market economies, not just the appearance of Western systems.
• Good relations with neighbors: PFP countries must work to resolve outstanding bilateral (often ethnic) disputes, so they do not bring troubles into NATO with them.
• Firmly established civil-military relations: This is especially important in terms of having clearly articulated defense laws, civilian control over a politicized military, effective parliamentary oversight, and military transparency in defense budgets.
• And finally, military interoperability with NATO: This means having restructured forces so they can operate closely with NATO in future peacekeeping operations, have comparable officer training and levels of professionalism, and are acquiring new equipment that is interoperable with NATO.

South Balkan Defense Ministerial

• Security depends on building bonds among nations and PFP is central to this effort.
• Security can only be built on cooperation, not confrontation -- hence, the importance of good neighborly relations.
• Security in the post-Cold War world depends on the ability to do peacekeeping -- hence, restructuring defense forces and command structures.
• Security requires sound civil-military relations.
• Security in this region is "indivisible" -- meaning one country's stability cannot be enhanced at the expense of its neighbors.

• They agreed to a greater exchange of military information to enhance confidence and general military transparency.
• They agreed to develop and share major defense documents, such as their defense laws, national security strategy documents, and defense budgets.
• And they agreed to intensified military-to-military contacts through high-level visits, unit exchanges, and invitations to each others' peacekeeping centers and military academies.

U.S.-Greek Security Relations

Sadly, Greece borders on the first major post-Cold War conflict. Happily, however, our governments share mutual interests in an end to the Bosnian conflict, the avoidance of any spreading of that war, and the strengthening of regional cooperation. A strong Greek-U.S. relationship can ensure both a secure Greece and a more stable Balkans.

Greece is positioned to be a major pillar of Balkan stability. It is a member of the European Union and brings with it a vibrant economy that is the envy of its neighbors; it is a member of NATO and brings with it security as well an understanding of how the world's most effective Alliance works. These attributes give Greece major opportunities for furthering the democratic and economic principles I mentioned earlier, which are at the heart of the Alliance and the future of Southeastern Europe.

The Department of Defense is eager to work with the Greek Ministry of Defense toward these goals. And Greece has already shown itself willing to take important steps in stabilizing the region. We applaud Greece's efforts at working with its neighbors in Albania, FYROM, and Bulgaria to solve common problems and head off bilateral frictions. Recently signed agreements with its neighbors will broaden economic cooperation, help control movement of workers across borders, and facilitate closer military-to-military cooperation.

Conclusion