Partnership for Peace EuroAtlantic Integration Csaba Krsi Deputy

Partnership for Peace & Euro-Atlantic Integration Csaba Kőrösi Deputy State Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs Hungary Szeged, February 6, 2002

Security Issues To Be Dealt With - SEE • Secessions - historic justice or security? • National agendas or integrated approach? • Zero sum game to prevail? • Relatively weak internal conflict resolution mechanism, structures, safety nets. • Relatively disadvantageous economic situation • Relatively high presence of organised crime + parallel srtuctures 2

Security Issues To Be Dealt With - SEE (cont. ) • Borders open for trafficking. And for crossborder co-operation? • Too much weapons, too little control • IC’s role: Correct? Mistaken? • Responsibility for building the countries? • Very encouraging signs. • FRY: very good potentials 3

Interest of Hungary • FRY reintegrated to European and regional structures • general conditions for stability improved • key conditions for prosperity at place • same level of security for the region • jump-start for FRY • Lessons and experiences: do not repeat our mistakes 4

Partnership for Peace • Security of the Euro-Atlantic area is non divisible (“grey zones”: undesirable) • Common values, common actions • Joint responsibility for peace and stability • Transparency of plans, procedures, actions • direct link to NATO (EAPC: copy intra Alliance co-operation) • inclusiveness, self-differentiation 5

Questions to be answered at the outset • Future status of the country. (Neutral / non aligned? Allied? Or? ) • Purpose of Pf. P / EAPC membership: serve your future • programmes to be built accordingly • clear vision - better chance to be assisted • decision made? Structure the steps. 6

Requirements, conditions? • Basic commitments to values • similarity to UN, OSCE, regional arrangements • supposed to serve modernisation, reforms, stability, capabilities • effects the entire state & society • no silver bullet solutions! May be long way. 7

Early Hungarian Dilemmas • • • Neutrality? NATO membership? Third way? To give up part of sovereignty? Where are the enemies? Too expensive to rebuild defence structures? Is it an offer instead of membership? Does it help if things go wrong in the neighbourhood? 8

The Aim of the Seminar • What Pf. P / EAPC is good for? (Still not an Aspirin!) • Help preparing decisions on the agenda of YU • Learn form You - good for NATO, HU • To see what neighbours can use • Strengthen mutual confidence • Tasks ahead: to find solutions for open questions 9

Any Questions ? • Thank you! 10