Naujienos

5  April, 2011

Mr. Secretary General, Marc Perrin de Brichambaut,

Director Vilpisauskas, 

Excellences,

Distinguished Panelists

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In March 2007 I addressed the OSCE in Vienna and expounded upon the vision of “a Europe Whole, Free and at Peace with Itself.”   In my remarks I stressed that the vision, as attractive as it was, had not been yet been realized. 

How far have we been able to develop that idea of an all-encompassing, all embracing security community?  How far have we come?  What obstacles have gotten in our way?  How do we proceed today?

In March 2007 I also strongly advocated the idea that Lithuania should be given the privilege and the challenge to serve as the Chairman in Office. 

Lithuania, I contended, possessed unusual qualities which qualified it for the tasks it would face.  Having regained its independence, and re-established itself in the community of nations, Lithuania had transformed its system and its institutions, steps which in themselves contributed to a stronger European security community. 

Located literally at the center of Europe, Lithuania had become a member of the western democratic system.  It had a strong and determined independent tradition. It represented through its experience and success an example of the change that had occurred in Europe, and could contribute to building a European security community, ‘whole and free.’

The principles behind the vision of a Europe Whole and Free and at Peace with  Itself was of a community in which all participating OSCE States, regardless of size or geography, belong as fully equal members  to a community which accepted the principles of a common security realm. At the same time this community could not maintain cold war differentiation or divisions.   Rather it should incorporate the whole of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security areas. 

The idea obviously inspired many leaders and a great many people to the East of us as the events of the “Orange” and “Rose” Revolutions made clear.

With great anticipation we watched the demonstrations and the actions by those two peoples, expressing their desires for transparent, democratic rule of law based societies.  Success in their endeavors would mean the expansion of the concept, and reality, of Euro-Atlantic security as a part of the developing free, whole Europe.  

When the dispute over the Ukrainian elections arose, I together with  OSCE Secretary General Jan Kubish, EU Special Representative Javier Solana and Polish President Kwasniewski   mediated the situation.  The OSCE and EU were decisive in their intervention, based on the findings of ODIHR, to challenge wide spread voter fraud, help  prevent violence and create the conditions for new, fair elections. 

I also had the opportunity to work with other democratic leaders to provide support and courage to the leaders of the Rose Revolution in Georgia. We promoted the fight against corruption, supported democratic institution building and worked through the OSCE Special Representative for the Media, Miklos Harasti,  to promote the development of a free and effective Media.

But in the end things did not develop as we had hoped.

Why?  What went wrong?

First and foremost, I believe as a personal opinion, we in the west, perhaps most of all in the EU, did not maintain sufficiently energetic support for the revolutions’ leaders to carry them through the difficulties of transition from former Soviet style systems to modern, transparent, rule of law based democracies. 

After the first flush of popular expressions of enthusiasm and support,  western leaders and  institutions, and perhaps most of all the western public,  demonstrated, sometimes subtly, sometimes starkly, their reluctance to quickly draw Ukraine and Georgia  into their midst.   Perhaps it was due to so-called “enlargement fatigue”; certainly it had to do with the fact that the two eastern societies did not match many western institutional and societal standards with respect to democracy, institutional structures and rule of law. 

It is my perception that at critical moments the leaders of the Orange and Rose revolutions showed themselves to be somewhat unsure and untested. They appeared to look in vain for the guidance and the tools they needed to help meet the critical challenges that lay in front of them, both internal as well as international. 

I must admit that I am still disappointed by the failure of the Orange and Rose revolutions.  But I am not wholly discouraged.

A good idea, a grand vision, whose time has come, will persist.  I believe that is still possible, if under altered circumstances.

The concept of the common security community, to which all OSCE participating States committed themselves at Astana, reaffirms the vision of a Europe Whole and Free, within a broad consensual level of support which was not so explicitly evident in earlier years.

The vision is alive.

But I am concerned that the high goals proclaimed at Astana might be undercut by old practices.

The threat of force and the use of force continue to lurk in the background, particularly in the sensitive South Caucuses region.  I question the wisdom of introducing modern Mistral naval craft into the area.  I am concerned that neither side is prepared to withdraw snipers from the contact line in Nagorno-Karambakh, despite the wise and persistent urging of mediators and the Chairman in Office.

I witness the blunt violation of human rights in Belarus, and in the Osh district of Kyrgyzstan, and I ask where the Astana commitment is.

At the same time, I am encouraged that it is Lithuania, through its Chairmanship, which has taken up several main themes from the Astana Conference  and  is working deliberately to promote reform and change in Belarus, and by encouraging mediation and active negotiations in the areas of protracted conflicts. 

I am encouraged and pleased that it is Lithuania’s Chairmanship which has taken up several main themes from Astana to build toward the concept of a common security community.

As Minister Azubalis stated earlier today

It is essential that we pursue the resolution to protracted conflicts;

That we cooperate and coordinate our efforts to address Transnational Threats;

That first and foremost we protect human rights, strengthen democratic institutions, and ensure the electoral process and media freedom.

All of these pose challenges to security and freedom if they remain unaddressed, not just for specific states but for the entire Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian region.    Security must be indivisible, by geography and across all dimensions of society if it is to be true security.

As I look at Europe, and I look farther afield, I am struck that events in North Africa, the Middle East and even Japan have a message – and a warning – for us.

Events in Japan have once again demonstrated that our efforts cannot only be directed at political and societal problems.  We must work together to protect ourselves from natural calamities, and provide strong, meaningful environmental safety and security.  Environmental threats know no boundaries, no barriers.  They affect us all, and call us to establish the highest level of environmental safety to preserve the security of our very lives and society.

For years it was argued that the conditions in the Arab world were different than in Europe – Eastern Europe in particular.  It has long been argued that among Arab peoples there was an acceptance of strong central leadership and that there was no great stirring for democracy among the people.

No one can credibly argue that about the Arab states today.

And what about the OSCE region?

In our realm I do not foresee North African – Middle Eastern circumstances arising.

I do sense, however, the same strong stirrings for greater expressions of human rights, adherence to the rule of law, pluralistic society, media freedom and opportunities for free expression, whether with the internet,  face book and twitter or through “old fashioned” means of public assembly, the traditional media and the electoral process.   

And, as I indicated before,  I sense the danger that some still seek to maintain ‘security’ by maintaining control through force, both within in their own states and with respect to their neighbors.

Today there is a serious need for democratic organizations, institutions and governments, in the EU, OSCE, NATO, Council of Europe, to work closely with the governments and leaders of societies seeking to undergo change, to support transition without upheaval or violence. 

The tools, the systems, the experience is there in abundance to be shared.  It is a delicate and intricate process.  It requires strong adherence to principles, but also careful listening to those undergoing the change.  Our Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security;  our European Security and Freedom depend on it. 

Can we meet that challenge?