archived page

International Security and Cooperation in the Light of Current Events - Lecture by the President of the Republic

Ljubljana, 14.4.2009  |  speech


"International Security and Cooperation in the Light of Current Events" Lecture given by the President of the Republic of Slovenia under the auspices of the Club of Former Slovenian Ambassadors, the Slovenian Association for International Relations and the Euro-Atlantic Council of Slovenia
Ljubljana, 14 April 2009


President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, delivered a lecture entitled "International Security and Cooperation in the Light of Current Events" (FA BOBO)Thank you very much for your interest and invitation, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, in this eminent circle, about international security and co-operation in the light of current events.

Invited to speak on this occasion, I was given the opportunity to choose the theme freely. Therefore I decided on a title which includes the words "in the light of current events". This title has made it possible to choose those events which, in terms of international peace, security and co-operation, I consider so topical and relevant that they need to be addressed in a circle as eminent as this.

I have chosen global issues. There is a reason for such a choice. In Slovenia, there is much deliberation and discussion in the media and elsewhere about various questions of security and co-operation which influence our region and our bilateral relations with neighbours. It seems to me that on these matters we have already reached a certain degree of saturation and that there is probably no need for me to elaborate further on them. On the other hand, I think it is proper to review wider, global issues and to deliberate over their implications.

This, of course, does not mean that I would not be willing to answer your questions concerning either relations with our neighbours or any of the security-related issues in our vicinity. As for myself, I would like to focus today on events which are new and relevant in terms of global security. Within this framework, I have in mind particularly the speech delivered by the President of the United States of America, Mr Barack Obama, on 5 April this year in Prague, where he declared his intention to take concrete steps towards achieving a world without nuclear weapons. In the following, I intend to speak about NATO and global security mechanisms, including the OSCE and the UN Security Council. These are the subjects which merit attention. In addition, they relate to the current international discussions on structural changes in the international security architecture. I think it is necessary to find the time to speak of such broad issues, as they will have an impact on our future fate and we must think about them. It is true that Slovenia is not among those stakeholders who can directly and decisively influence events. However, it would be proper for our country to participate in the relevant international discussions.

Nuclear weapons

First, a world without nuclear weapons. In Prague, as you may know, President Obama emphasized his intention to launch activities leading to a world without nuclear weapons. He emphasized his determination to ignore voices advocating the view that the world could not be changed. To me, this emphasis seems very important. For a long time an attitude persisted in the area of nuclear weapons that there could be no deep, significant change, and that considerations at such an ambitious level as those initiated by President Obama were actually pointless.

However, if we review events from some decades ago, we can see that President Kennedy, in his time, launched activities which, although not resulting in nuclear disarmament, brought about the introduction of significant international arrangements covering nuclear weapons. They led to the Limited Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty signed in 1963 and, later on, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968. And it is the latter Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is of pivotal importance in the international security structure of our time. But today, as a consequence of the spread of nuclear weapons, this treaty is increasingly subject to erosion.

The idea of launching the process of tackling the issue of nuclear weapons and the enhancement of security by way of nuclear disarmament, that is by means of the argument about a world without nuclear weapons, is, of course, not new. Four years ago, a group of eminent American authorities on international relations, realists par excellence – and this needs to be particularly stressed – such as Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, George Schultz and William Perry, proposed a world without nuclear weapons in an article published in the Wall Street Journal. This event was followed by a series of activities inspired by the idea of the abolishment of nuclear weapons. Quite a number of people would be astonished by this idea. They would say, why do these gentlemen, these realists, propose things which are obviously hard to achieve, if not even completely unachievable? The answer was given by the authors themselves. They wanted to hold a serious discussion on this topic in 2008. The question is why this should be exactly in 2008, on the twentieth anniversary of the agreement between President Reagan and General Secretary of the CPSU, Mikhail Gorbachev, in Reykjavik in 1988 – that is, on the twentieth anniversary of that agreement, which included the idea of the elimination of nuclear arsenals? According to the initiators, this anniversary was a suitable moment to place the issue of nuclear weapons on the agenda in a much more ambitious manner than before.

Perhaps you recall that eleven years ago an initiative was discussed in the United Nations that resulted in the resolution of the UN General Assembly on a world without nuclear weapons. The initiative was led by Sweden and New Zealand. While originally part of this initiative, Slovenia subsequently withdrew. There is nothing tragic about this. At that time, Slovenia was not yet ready to participate in such ambitious projects as that one. However, the idea neither depended on that particular initiative nor was it launched or dismissed at that time. Enhanced by the spirit of initiative of the current US President, the idea of nuclear disarmament it is also relevant today and worth attention in the same manner as President Kennedy’s initiatives at the beginning of 1960.

However, to recall these historical circumstances alone does not suffice. One needs to understand today's security situation and the current reasons for the standstill which continues to characterise discussions on the implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. First, during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were well controlled. Their quantity was enormous, yet the control was rigorous and efficient. Later on, during the time of the agreements on nuclear arsenal reductions and after the end of the Cold War, the situation changed. Today, nuclear weapons are no longer an exclusive domain of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all of them being legitimate nuclear powers. They have been joined by another three, and potentially two further nuclear powers. There is also the possibility that terrorist groups will come into possession of these weapons. Despite their being fewer in quantity, nuclear weapons are, nevertheless, more dispersed now than in the past.

This circumstance has launched a new dynamics and, not surprisingly, this dynamics has brought about a new way of thinking about how to address the non-proliferation issue in terms of anticipated developments. It is clear that the world will become much more dangerous than it is today if it allows further spreading of nuclear weapons. A fundamental question, the question which has been on the agenda ever since President Kennedy's times, has been raised again: how can the international community regulate relations between the legitimate nuclear powers and those who would wish to acquire nuclear weapons because of their security, but who would be ready to give up their plans in the interest of a general international regime?

The grand bargain made in 1968 under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains topical. And the essence of this bargain is that the nuclear powers must also commit themselves to negotiations intended to result in nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. Article VI. of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains topical and central. For all of us who have in recent years followed the non-proliferation discussions and noted how little inclined the nuclear powers were to concentrate on their own steps towards nuclear disarmament, it is beyond doubt that in the absence of more efficient measures adopted to this end there will be no other measures at all which are required to effectively stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, I would like to stress again that Article VI. of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains central and should be taken seriously. More seriously than has been the case until now. This, however, will not be enough. There are other items on the international nuclear agenda that need to be revived; despite being scarcely tackled in the last years, they have been on the agenda for quite some time.

One of them is the issue of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. Adopted in 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty was ratified by several countries, but not by certain key nuclear powers. From this point of view, President Obama's announcement that his administration would pursue the ratification of this Treaty which the US negotiated seriously in the first half of 1990s, is quite interesting. This will be an important test because if the ratification succeeds, the Treaty’s credibility will be strengthened and the arguments for it more convincing, thus facilitating further steps. This is quite important in view of the anticipated next round of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Process to be held next year.

This, of course, will not be the only step. The United States and Russia intend to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, thereby seeking a new agreement under which the number of nuclear warheads should be cut down to around 1,500 on each side. This would further increase the credibility of President Obama´s initiative. It is quite important that the two nuclear superpowers, the US and Russia, have already managed to heavily reduce their nuclear arsenals. To date, however, they were never ready to associate this reduction with Article VI. of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the situation has changed. This time reductions will be associated with the idea of a world without nuclear weapons.

And finally, there is another item on the agenda: that is, the conclusion of a treaty that will ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. There is a draft of this treaty, which still needs to be completed. If the steps relating to nuclear testing and reduction of nuclear weapons are taken then we may also expect progress in this area.

At the moment, I do not wish to discuss details and possible obstacles which might occur among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, who ought to act in concert as partners, if they intend to achieve progress in this area. Whether they will succeed is a separate and open question. I also do not wish to speculate on the reactions of India or Pakistan, which are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to President Obama's initiative and any further initiatives. It is obvious that the world will face many unknowns here. Considering all these unknowns, the negotiations on nuclear weapons cannot be any easier today than they were in the past, although there is more good will to be observed in the United States of America than ever before.

As already mentioned there are many questions associated with this issue. They are not, however, all associated with nuclear weapons. Once the USA and Russia have begun reducing the number of nuclear warheads to reach a level below 1.500 and advance towards a stock of 1.000, new questions will arise: how to interconnect nuclear disarmament with conventional weapons? And this situation will produce a new series of problems.

In his Prague speech President Obama emphasized that he understood that issues of this kind were long-term issues, that they would take patience and persistence in negotiation, and that this goal would not be reached quickly. It can, nevertheless, be realised within this generation and today is the moment when it is worth deliberating this goal.

NATO – today and tomorrow

The second important event which, as regards basic definitions of security in our time, also deserves our full attention is the NATO 60th Anniversary Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl. Much has been said about this event. Much has been said about the enlargement and many stimulating words were uttered about the importance of NATO in our time and for the future security. Much was said about NATO's role as an organization, which exceeds the concept of collective self defence, an organization having an explicitly political function. Some would like to define it as an organization which has elements of a system of collective security. NATO is certainly an organization in which we can have great confidence as regards security issues in the future. But at the same time we must consider issues which remain unresolved. Let me mention but three.

First, what does a collective self-defence organization mean in our time? What is the range of collective self defence and what are the issues in which this collective spirit of the self-defence effort should be manifested? The expectation that the organization will take action only in case of an actual attack on one of the members of the alliance certainly does not suffice. In 2001, when the United States of America were attacked, we saw that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, although invoked, was not implemented in the full sense of the wording of the Treaty. The subsequent military engagement of NATO in Afghanistan was not based on self defence, but proceeded from the UN Security Council mandate to maintain international peace and security.

The question about the meaning of collective self defence in the current circumstances remains open. The question is also whether this concept includes anti-terrorist activities, which require preventive and non-military action. This, of course, is of great importance for NATO. It is also of great importance for us. The question as to how to organise the decision-making process covering self-defence activities and what activities it should include remains open. However, if we consider the experience of the UN and its Security Council in preventing terrorism, we may conclude that the scope of the relevant activities can be very broad. There are, for example, many possibilities in taking measures in the area of collection of information and in enhancing the security systems of countries which participate in such efforts. These and other activities strengthen the self defence, although in ways other than the ones origianally provided for by Article 5. of the NATO Treaty.

In addition to the issue of how to define self defence and urgent self-defence support activities, another issue has yet to be resolved; this relates to the number of troops, military equipment and NATO armament under the new circumstances. Those of you who followed the NATO-related debates before the Summit probably observed an interesting article written by the former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson (published in the Financial Times), who during term as Security-General had great difficulties in mobilizing the needed types of military forces that could respond to the actual needs of NATO at that time. Although some of these needs were relatively small, such as for example the deployment of a small armed unit in Macedonia, there were difficulties with their formation. I am taking the liberty to mention this problem publicly and therefore quite directly, because it was raised by the former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson. He warned about the problem that NATO forces were engaged in and tailored to defence activities that would probably not take place in the future. On the other hand, NATO faces shortages in equipment for actual needs and its expected future needs.

This issue requires discussion and the documents adopted during the recent NATO Summit give no final results in this respect. The discussion has begun, it will continue and we will take part in it. I myself advocate an intensification of this discussion, since the issues concerning the up to date definition of national security, the definition of NATO tasks and armament and equipment related to this are of fundamental importance for NATO’s future effectiveness.

And finally, the third question that needs to be answered is: what types of decision-making mechanisms should be developed in NATO in the future? I belong to those who believe that the time has already come for the extension of the member of questions that require only majority decision-making.

Within the NATO framework, the above three issues can be observed in discussions as well as in literature as these are issues which define the situation of the alliance at present. A deeper reason why these issues are currently the subject of such an interesting exchange of opinions is a part of a more complex dimension which also has to be dealt with as directly as possible: The relations between NATO and Russia. The alliance was created as a defence against the threat posed by the Soviet invasion. We must not forget that in the NATO Treaty it is clearly stated that the alliance is fully compatible with the legal framework as laid down in the United Nations Charter. This is still relevant today. In this respect NATO has not changed. NATO is an organization with a legal definition which is compatible with the system of the United Nations organization. However, the question is weather the organization is still confronted with a danger, sufficiently clear and present to maintain the cohesion of the alliance. The Soviet Union and the threat posed by a Soviet invasion no longer exist. On the other hand, the issue related to the relations between NATO and Russia has not yet been clarified and requires further discussion. I would like to take the opportunity today to offer some elements for such a consideration.

The issue of NATO-Russia relations requires a comprehensive approach. It is very encouraging that at the Summit in Strasbourg a conclusion was adopted on the renewal of the NATO-Russia Council and the convening of its formal meeting before summer 2009. This is extremely important and deserves full support. As the basis for consideration of the possible progress of this process I would like to propose the following hypothesis: No single issue must dominate , let alone decide the entire agenda of NATO-Russia relations. I would like to stress this because last year, during the war in Georgia, a situation occurred, in which, this issue, as important as it may be, suddenly started to dominate. I think this is not good. The Georgia issue is very important. It is an issue that affects the relations between NATO and Russia and has an impact on the international security situation in many other ways, too. However, it would be inappropriate if that issue dominated the entire agenda. I would like to highlight this as an important principle worth consideration from the very beginning of the renewed discussions between NATO and Russia.

Moreover, it should also be understood that Russian foreign policy is in the process of fornation and from this perspective it is the right time to place the issue of NATO-Russia relations on the agenda as openly and comprehensively as possible. I advocate the view that in respect of Nato-Russia relations Slovenia should not base its position on the assumption that it is too small or too distant to take part in the discussion. In my opinion, Slovenia has gained the relevant experience in the negotiations during its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which led, in that context and at that time, to the adoption of a new mandate for negotiations between the European Union and Russia. Slovenia also proved to be a desirable, welcome and not in the least under-qualified partner in such an important discussion. I mention this topic today as I am convinced that it will be the right decision for Slovenia to participate in the discussion on Nato Russia relations and to offer its capacities for a part of the discussion. It is not a too ambitious topic for Slovenia; it is an important topic for us as a NATO member and as a country interested in security and co-operation in Europe.

The OSCE and the UN

In this respect another circumstance needs to be taken into account. Relations between NATO and Russia definitely cannot be covered fully by the discussions and processes to take place within the NATO-Russia Council and only with the mechanisms established for that purpose within NATO. The debate is wider and is related to some other aspects. One of them is the future of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. As you know, last summer, before the outburst of hostilities in Georgia, the President of Russia, Dimitry Medvedev, proposed a wider debate on a treaty that could set a new tone for European security architecture. This is an interesting idea. And again: in the discussion of this idea, the rule should apply that no single issue should prevail over the entirety. It will be necessary to analyse both the new issues of the OSCE and those among the existing issues which are worth reopening to find out what type of security architecture should be built in the area covered by the OSCE.

In this respect a certain aspect that has almost been forgotten could be of interest. The key OSCE document, the Helsinki Document, is based on "three baskets": the security, economics and human rights baskets. In my opinion, it would be very interesting in this new situation to look at all three dimensions, the "baskets" at the same time. This, obviously, would not be done in terms of the definition of the three baskets as developed in the nineteen seventies. That was, after all, another time and when we look at the content, for example, of the second basket, the economic relations basket, we can see that since than the world has profoundly changed. Nevertheless, on the one hand, we should look at security issues in the narrower sense, such as for example deployment of military forces, the needed confidence building measures the questions of regional crises and so on. Economic issues, on the other hand, deserve a new perspective, not the one defined according to the Helsinki Document, but in terms of the current problems we have to face today - such as energy security, environmental protection and the like. And finally, the third basket, human rights, should also be given a renewed perspective. Europe, obviously, now knows what human rights are. Substantial progress has already been accomplished in this respect. But many things are still missing. We lack, for example, a common understanding on the rules regulating election processes. This gives rise to occasional tensions and differences. And a lot more could still be done in this area.

As I have already mentioned, these are all issues which are of interest to Slovenia and in the discussions of which Slovenia could participate. I have no intention today of forecasting the dynamics by which these processes should be introduced. But it is my firm belief that if we wish to make any greater progress in international security, we must formulate an approach in this respect. We, in Slovenia should have our own positions on every set of issues related thereto. I think we are capable of formulating our own positions on political and economic issues, including future energy and environmental development issues, and on human rights issues, and to take part in an international process for an improvement of the international security architecture.

Finally, the last issue with which I would like to conclude my introduction is an issue that is also related to future security in the world – the issue of global organization. In this context, different ideas exist. One of them refers to NATO enlargement, which would change the existing NATO into an organization of, so to say, global character by integrating states such as Israel, Japan and Australia. Such proposals exist. I do not wish to say that they are widely accepted, but they exist. I do not share such a vision of NATO. The fact is that NATO can only be effective within a geographically determined framework and its globalization would not increase its effectiveness. At the same time NATO´s enlargement it would also impair the necessary discussions on the reforms of the UN Security Council.

The new Security Council needs to be changed so as to be able to properly respond to the security issues of our time. In this respect, I would like to convince you that the Security Council has achieved positive results. It is true that these results do not prevail; they are not such to make us fully satisfied. However, the results should not be ignored, not even in respect of the issues that are geographically relatively close to our country.

Let us take, for example, Libya, where the Security Council has succeeded with targeted sanctions in creating a situation in which two suspects of the Pan Am passenger plane bombing over the town of Lockerbie were delivered for trial, and compensation was paid to the relatives of the victims; it also helped the Libyan policy change towards a direction where today Libya contributes to international peace. There are several other cases. The Security Council's handling of the Kosovo crisis after June 1999 may also be considered as relatively successful. In this respect we must always keep in mind that crisis situations are not something that can be solved easily and without encountering major problems. Our standards by which we evaluate efficient work at the global level must also be realistic. They should not be too demanding.

The Security Council is one of the mechanisms we can be relatively satisfied with. It is necessary that it develops further, and that it undergoes reforms. At the working level the Security Council improved its working methods and proved to be able to find new approaches and new answers to its agenda in particular with respect to issues such as international terrorism. The Security Council also put on its agenda issues dealing with the consequences of global warming. Obviously, the fact that the security implicators of global warming was put on the agenda does not, in itself, ensure successful engagement of the Security Council in the future. However, a step forward has been taken.

At the same time, questions such as how the Security Council should be organised in the future, and how it should be structured, are wide open.

You probably know that I proposed at the 2008 session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in September last year one of the possible models of the UN Security Council expansion according to which the 5 permanent members of the Security Council would be joined by 6 new permanent members without the power of veto; 12 member states would be given more frequent rotations and would serve every second two-year term; there would also be 8 non-permanent Security Council members elected on the basis of the principle of geographic rotation. This proposal has been offered to the President of the General Assembley of the UN and it is one of many which are currently subject to debates in the United Nations organization. The working group of the General Assembly, which was established to deal with these issues, meets regularly and there has already been some progress accomplished in the debate.

The future Security Council should consist of approximately 25 members. This has been indicated during the debates that took place in the United Nations and which were aimed at establishing what the size of this body should be in order to improve its representative character. It should be borne in mind that the present 15-member Security Council has not been expanded in 40 years, while the number of United Nations organization members have doubled over the same period. Obviously, the representativeness cannot be transformed directly, without additional measures, to achieve greater efficiency. That is clear, too. But it is also clear that the Security Council demands expansion and that this expansion means an approximate number of 25 members. An interesting analogy has arisen recently during the G-20 formation. It is interesting to look at the composition of the G-20, which recently met in London. This structure can be directly compared to the developments in the United Nations. When it comes to issues relating to the future of the Security Council, some interesting similarities can be found. Between the G-20, a group of 24 states, and the vision of a Security Council of 25 members.

* * * * *

These were some thoughts that I wished to share with you today in the light of current events. I have not spoken on crisis issues, or on specific themes, such as for example terrorism, or on issues relating to our immediate neighbourhood, as these are topics which are subject of frequent discussions. I considered today's forum to be a good opportunity to open other, more fundamental and long-term issues. I find this necessary, because we all need discussions on such issues. I will not claim that my speech today can cater to future needs or even offer final answers. Today is the right time for creating hypotheses, for opening discussions.

I hope my lecture has at least raised some interest and I also hope that we will have the opportunity to continue discussions on these issues within the same circle, a circle of experts, different expert groups, and in circles comprising bodies that decide on the foreign policy of the Republic of Slovenia. My reflections submitted today are, of course, informal and have not the character of what one would describe as a "policy statement”. They are thoughts of a former ambassador in a circle of former ambassadors. If the former ambassador presenting his thoughts is at the same time also the president of the Republic, this brings another dimension to the whole matter. However, from here to the formation of foreign policy there is still a long way to go. I hope it will be successful, too.

Thank you.


© 2008 Office of the President of the Republic  |  Legal information and Authors  |  Site map  site map