Dr.JAVIER SOLANA AB Dışişleri ve Güvenlik Ortak Politikası Yüksek Temsilcisi High Representative For The EU Common Foreign And Security Policy Where Does The EU Stand On Common Foreign And Security Policy? The past year has been a time of major innovation in the area of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Every European Council has proved to be a new high-water mark in extending the range of instruments available under the Common Foreign and Security Policy and moving towards a more effective, more coherent and more visibleForeign Policy. At the same time, political events have not come to a halt. The world is not waitingwhile we get our own house in order. Our global partners expect us to have an effectiveand clear policy on issues of international importance. Over the last few months we have been able to welcome the election of President KOSTUNICA in the FRY. At almost thesame time we have seen the Middle East Peace Process undermined and severely weakened. The European Union is expected to respond in both these and other cases. Are we willing to deliver? Are we capable of delivering? And have we delivered in the course of the last year? Are we willing to deliver? CFSP is about Europe making a difference in international politics. It is about theEuropean Union being able to project its values and its interests - the core of its political identity - effectively beyond its own borders. At the same time, the construction of CFSP is a political project itself. It is the product of continuing debate between the MemberStates, the European institutions, and the people of Europe. Convergence has always been the goal, divergence was too often the reality. But this is changing. There is now a serious commitment to presenting a single political will to the rest of the world, a commitment to match Europe's economic power with political influence. This is the enormous change which we have witnessed in Europe over the last year. The creation of the post of High Representative itself was an indication of this newwillingness by the Member States of the Union to make CFSP work. This willingness has continued throughout my first twelve months in the job. It has been evident in the constructive approach shown by the three presidencies with whom I have worked so far. Whatwe want to achieve in common is to be relevant and influential in the foreign policy arena. To do that, we need the political will of all Member States; close interaction among EUorgans and institutions; and the support of European citizens. There is no doubt that the political will of the Member States is a pre requisite for engaging in the foreign policy arena. But, even that crucial political will needs to translate into sustainable policies. And the very first test of concrete progress in this direction is the ability to spell out clearly why we want to act together on the world scene; i.e. what areour priorities are. This is not a litterary exercise; and needs not to be a catalogue of overlapping national priorities: we need to focus our joint efforts where they are most needed. In not so many words, where joint action really brings added value. I believe our priorities are clear enough in that respect: - Firstly, relations with our neighbours. I need not to recall here, in the city that has been for decades the very symbol of a tragic fracture in European history, how dramatically important the enlargement process will be for the "fifteen" and for the accession candidates alike. Within the same fold, the countries of the Balkans and the Southern Mediterranean shore deserve our outmost attention, because their political and economic evolution can have serious implications for our prosperity and even for our security. This is a lesson from our recent past, and I will revert to this point in a minute. Russia, a partner ofmassive importance for the Geo-economic and strategic stability of the continent also deserves our continuing collective attention, in addition to the strong bilateral links established with many of the "Fifteen". - Secondly, relations with a wide array of international organisations and institutions: in primis the UN system and its "sister" organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO (World Trade Organisation), without loosing sight of the relevance of regional organisations such as the OSCE and of course NATO. Our ambition there should be to increase our collective influence, inter alia by co-ordinating our national positions betterthan what we have done so far. It can be done. We only need to go that extra mile vis-a-vis national suspicion and prerogatives which are rooted in many capitals, although essentially a reflex the past. - Thirdly we need to relate more coherently with a number of major players and actors on the world scene. That is certainly true of the US, the partner with whom we have developed the most strategic relation in all fields. But also China, Japan and India deserve growing attention. And this is likewise true for major regional grouping which will no doubt develop overtime into coherent and cohesive entities: Mercosur, ASEAN, possibly the OAU (Organisation of African Union). Last but not least, the defense and promotion of the values which are at the heart of European history and civilisation. We believe in the value of tolerance, democracy and respect for human rights. This must be an integral part of our policy-making process. Because values are our crucial link with the people of the street, who want to understand why we take this or that decision, and whose support we need at all times. Beyond the political will of the countries, lies the need to make our work more effective, through better interaction between the responsible institutions. Here comes the crucial link with the European Commission - which is and will remain an essential player in our foreign policy process - and with the European Parliament. Equally crucial, will be the conscious support of the people of Europe - our citizens- for the strengthening of a common foreign policy. A foreign policy which even at national level is no longer confined to the restricted circle of diplomats or foreign policy experts. A policy that calls instead for the increased attention of the business community, whichhas much at a stake in a globalised market place; and of the people at large, who havebecome influential spectators in real time of world wide crises, thanks to the "global village". Are we capable of delivering? A foreign policy requires instruments. The European Union needs to dispose of the means to make its policies heard, to present them cohesively, and to implement them efficiently. Do we have access to the right instruments to deliver? In the field of security policy we have achieved enormous progress. We are in the process of putting together a range of instruments - from a rapid reaction force to a conflict prevention system - which will greatly enhance our ability to implement a true European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Simultaneously, we are improving the performance of more traditional European foreign policy instruments: diplomacy and economic assistance. Less than one year ago, at the Helsinki European Council, Europe's leaders decided to develop by 2003 a collective European capability to deploy rapidly 60,000 troops for crisis management operations (the "headline goal"). The purpose of this capability isclearly set out in the Treaty. Our aim is to provide the Union with sufficient military and non-military capabilities to enable us to intervene when appropriate in humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking (Petersberg Tasks). We have followed-up on Helsinki by creating new structures. As of March 2000 theInterim Political and Security Committee has met weekly to develop the permanent structures which will be necessary for crisis management; an interim Military Committee hasbeen set up and a military staff has been established to provide the Council with militaryexpertise. A catalogue of capabilities necessary to fulfil the Petersberg tasks was approved recently by the Council, and at a meeting to take place in Brussels each Member State will specify the assets it will be able to contribute. This "Capabilities Commitment Conference" marks a milestone in the development of the ESDP. The development of the ESDP inevitably has evoked questions about the EU's relationship with NATO. We have responded to these questions from the very beginning: The EU is not in the business of collective defence. Nor is it in the business of creating a European army. The creation of a European Security and Defence Policy is aimed at strengthening, not weakening transatlantic ties. We have followed up on these principles inpractice. Much has been achieved already. The Feira European Council in June provided for the establishment of four ad-hoc EU/NATO working groups. These committees have already begun to discuss issues of security, capabilities, the modalities for EU access toNATO, and the definition of permanent agreements. On 9 November a meeting took place in Brussels between the interim Political and Security Committee and NATO's Permanent Council. This was the second of regular meetings planned at senior level between the two organisations. These contacts will continue and develop further as more detailed discussions begin. These include my own regular and well-established meetings withNATO Secretary General Lord ROBERTSON. ESDP is not only about the creation of a rapid reaction force. Military means will always be the last resort for solving a crisis. ESDP is also about the Union having accessto other tools which most of the time might be better suited to maintaining or providing security than military force. This is why the Union is devoting attention to the developmentof other instruments for use in crisis management situations. Of particular importance isthe area of civilian police, for which the Feira European Council established a concrete target of 5000 officers ready for deployment by 2003. It also includes instruments for thestrengthening of the rule of law and conflict prevention. Following the mandate which was given at Feira, I am working with the Commission to draw up concrete recommendations on how to improve the coherence and effectiveness of our work in the important areaof conflict prevention. Military capabilities, civilian capabilities, diplomacy, and our extensive programme of development assistance and humanitarian aid - the European Union is and will be ina unique situation to draw on a comprehensive range of instruments to support its interests world-wide. But let me re-state an important point: We are not in the business of devising a European security policy for the sake of merely having some sort of security policy. CFSP is the means to an end, namely to promote the values and principles for which the European Union is respected world-wide. We should increasingly be able to ensure that the rule of law and human rights are respected, and that people throughout the worldcan, like ourselves, enjoy the benefit of freedom, democracy and prosperity. In the last year we have witnessed a continuing political will to create a different, more visible, more cohesive, and more efficient CFSP. We have spent a lot of time developing new instruments and making the existing instruments more effective. Does it pay? Have we succeeded in delivering concrete policies? I will address the development in two regions which are of special importance to me: the Balkans and the Middle East. Have we delivered? The Balkans A disproportionate amount of my work continues to be devoted to the Balkans. I expect that to continue to be the case for some time. It is clear why. The Balkans have for over a decade been a top priority for our foreign policy efforts. Nowhere is the EU expected to deliver more. What does our balance-sheet in the region look like? Following the mandate which I was given in March this year from the European Council, I have worked closely with the Commission to ensure a more coherent approach to our policy towards the region, and to strengthen the impact of our contribution. Much still remains to be done, but we have since the Spring pursued a policy based on a long-term commitment to the full integration of all the countries in the region into the political and economic mainstream of Europe. We have at the same time gone a long way in persuading others (in particular the US) of the depth of our engagement in the Balkans. Recent events in Serbia have to some extend vindicated that policy. About a few months ago, the people of Serbia voted for change. They were clearly tired of economic decline and international isolation. Their decision is a clear step for Serbia on the road toa democratic Europe. This important development was the result of a free choice by thepeople themselves. But during the last year the European Union has devoted considerable efforts to helping give a voice to those in Serbia who are genuinely committed to democracy. I myself have been engaged in very concrete terms in strengthening civil society in Serbia: the independent media, opposition municipalities and those politicians committed to change. We were clear also in the support which Serbia would receive under a new and democratic leadership. On this we are already beginning to deliver. The Summit which has taken place in Zagreb, brought together Heads of Government from the EU and most Balkan countries, will somehow seal the transition between the tragic fall out of the implosion of Yugoslavia, and more orderly and promising future for the region. A positive European perspective will be on the table for all the participants.And, most important, all the Governments around the table will have been issued by truedemocratic elections. Only a year ago, this would have been a dream. The Middle East The last few months have brought a major set-back for the Peace Process in the Middle East. The United States, the United Nations, and the European Union now have tocombine their efforts to stop any further damage and pave the way for reconciliation. The European Union has been engaged in the Middle East for a long time, both politically and economically. In 1995 it established a framework for relations with its 12 Mediterranean partner countries. I personally chaired the first meeting which established the Barcelona Process. This consists of a framework for co-operation across a wide range of sectors: political, economic and social. In Marseilles, ministers from all these countries are due to meet again in order to assess the process. The meeting in Marseille - to be clear - is not part of the Middle Eastpeace process. It represents a possible - indirect - contribution to it. It is important that the European Union and its Mediterranean partners maintain a platform for dialogue andcommunication for the future. Our commitment to the Peace Process itself has been most visible through the high level of financial support for the region. But recently we have also been able to play amore active role politically. I was asked by EU foreign ministers to travel to the region to meet all the parties concerned and to try to offer support in the search for an end to the violence. The rounds of talks I held in the region paved the way for participation by the European Union in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, which allowed us for the first time to be actively involved in the search for a solution to the crisis. We worked closely at the summit with Kofi ANNAN, theUN Secretary-General, in an effort to contribute to a process which was on the brink of collapse. Violence and suffering continue. Nevertheless we are determined to work patiently behind the scenes to try to create a further breathing space. And over time, I hope we shall be able to help deliver a permanent solution. I have been nominated by ex-President CLINTON and UN Secretary General Kofi ANNAN to become a member of the fact-finding Commission set up in Sharm-el-Sheikh. I will continue to work in support of the search for peace in the Middle East; the European Union will continue to be fully engaged. In all these areas, and in particular in those areas close to the European Union, we are seeing the beginnings of a Common Foreign and Security Policy which is more visible, more coherent, and more efficient. There is plenty more to do. The road will be long. But we are heading in the right direction. Is the European willing to deliver a visible, coherent, and efficient foreign and security policy? Are we capable of doing so? And have we delivered in the course of the lastyear? I am confident that, given the progress we have made throughout the last year, each of these questions can be answered positively, carried forward by the political will anddetermination of the Member States and the European institutions to deliver. I will continue to devote my efforts to developing that role, and in ensuring that we can make a difference. The post of High Representative is not about creating a new power centre. Nor need it complicate relations between the institutions The post fills an institutional vacuum, and sets in motion policies and activities in areas where the EU was previously either inactive, or irrelevant as an actor. My aim is to give added value to what exists already, and to give greater focus to the EU's external policy. I assist the Presidency and the Council in working for greater coherence and in ensuring that increasingly we speak with one voice. That includes making sure that ESDP becomes a reality. I will also be working on the very many foreign policy challenges which the Union is likely to face over the next few years, some of which I have outlined above. The European Union was founded by those who sought peace and reconciliation. We must continue to promote these values and principles in our relationswith the rest of the world. This can only be a joint undertaking. It requires both commitment and the means to act. I am confident that we can have both. In doing so, we can play our part in living up to the original vision of Europe's founding fathers. DR JAVIER SOLANA : "AB'NİN, ORTAK DIŞ VE GÜVENLİK POLİTİKASI KONUSUNDAKİ POZİSYONU" Geçen yıl Birliğin Ortak Dış ve Güvenlik Politikası'nda önemli değişiklikler yapıldı. Bu sırada politik yaşam da yerinde saymadı. Yugoslavya'da Başkan KOSTUNICA'nın seçimi kazanmasını memnuniyetle karşılarken, Orta Doğu'da barış getirme çabalarının önemli ölçüde sekteye uğramasına tanık olduk. Bu iki olay ve diğerlerinde AB'nin takınacağıtutum konusunda yanıtlanması gereken sorular var. Önce, gerçek girişimlerde bulunmak istiyor muyuz? Artık dış dünyaya karşı ortak bir siyasi tavır sergileyerek, Avrupa'nın ekonomik gücü düzeyinde bir siyasi etki yaratmak konusunda ciddi bir taahhüdümüz var. Bu konudaki önceliklerimizin, komşular, uluslararası örgütler ve dünya sahnelerindeki baş rol oyuncularıyla olan ilişkilerimizi geliştirmek ve Avrupa tarih ve uygarlığının temelinde yatan değerleri korumak ve yerleştirmek yönünde olduğu kanısındayım. Gerekli girişimleri gerçekleştirme kapasitesine sahip olup olmadığımız ikinci soruyu oluşturuyor. Güvenlik politikamızda olağanüstü ilerleme kaydettik. Diplomasi ve ekonomik yardım konularındaki geleneksel politikalarımızı da ıslah ediyoruz. Üçüncü soru, "Etkili olabildik mi?" Balkanlarda, bu bölgeyle ilgili daha tutarlı bir politika geliştirebilmek için Komisyonla çok sıkı bir işbirliği içindeyim. Orta Doğu'da sağlanan önemli mali destek ise, bu bölgeye barış getirme kararlılığımızın bir göstergesidir. Son zamanlarda, politik alanda da daha önemli bir rol oynamaya başladık. Özetle, bu üç sorunun da olumlu bir biçimde yanıtlanabileceğine inanıyorum.