Partnership for Peace:
A Romanian Point of View
Minister of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs Teodor Melescanu

Romania's presence at this year's NATO Workshop in Dresden has, I believe, a double significance. First, it allows us to realize that 50 years after the end of the Second World War, former enemies are now friends, partners, and future allies. We are sitting together and participating in an open debate on European security; we are speaking about the future without being overwhelmed by the shadows of the past. The time has come for cooperation and a responsible approach to security and to recognize that European security is indivisible.

Second, speaking about shaping a new Europe with lasting peace and stability for the 21th century allows us to believe that the process started in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall will continue. The reunification of Germany is a great symbol of the post-Cold War era and one of the most important steps toward European reunification.


Partnership for Peace represents an enduring enterprise that will strengthen relations and enhance cooperation for ensuring security for all of Europe. Last year, when Romania signed the Partnership for Peace (PFP) document, many doubts were still voiced about the program. Today, however, no one can imagine the European security architecture without it. PFP has become a true infrastructure for security and stability in our region.

Partnership for Peace has projected a way for Partner states, most of which are countries in transition, to reintegrate with European values, practices, and goals, and thus complete the deep political and social changes that began with the collapse of communism. PFP has also provided a vehicle for the Alliance to further adapt to the new European realities. To all peoples, PFP has brought hope that Europe will soon return to its natural geopolitical and historical boundaries and acknowledge that its security is indivisible.

In this context, Romania would like to welcome the new openings made by the Russian Federation's signing of the Individual Partnership Program (IPP). We hope that this act will be followed by further promising and concrete developments.

Romania has taken an active part in PFP from the program's very inception. We have been involved with a large number of activities included in our Individual Partnership Program, both in 1994 and 1995. We have participated in military exercises in other states, hosted such exercises on our own territory, and attended a broad range of seminars, workshops, and NATO courses and meetings; we also developed important military contacts. All of these activities enabled our military to get acquainted with new operating concepts, models, and procedures and to identify needed adjustments.

Romania did not sign the PFP document solely because it wanted to impress the West. We saw in PFP a necessary condition, although not the only one, for admission into the Alliance. For us, the program has proven to be extremely beneficial: it is a perfect instrument for modernizing our armed forces--including peacekeeping forces--through increased contact with the armed forces of NATO member-countries; it is an important means through which to contribute to increased stability and security on the continent; and it is an excellent conduit for improving relations with our neighbors, particularly through the positive impact military collaboration has on general bilateral relationships.

Most of PFP's objectives coincide with the goals Romania put in place when we initiated, in 1990, the reform of the Romanian armed forces, including their restructuring and modernization. Joining PFP has considerably stimulated and improved this reform process, which should be completed by September 1, 1995. One of our most important aims has been to reach NATO standards and to assure interoperability with the armies of NATO states.


All of the activities included in Romania's 1994 Individual Partnership Program with NATO have been accomplished. Our armed forces, from soldier to general, have acted and are determined to act firmly and professionally, despite constraints imposed by the period of transition; they also are determined to assimilate and apply the modern training and management methods that, in the long run, will enable us to reach NATO's operational standards.

Romania's 1995 Individual Partnership Program is more substantial and diversified than the previous one. It reflects the participation of Romanian sub-units, groups of staff officers, and ships and military observers in an important number of NATO-PFP exercises. As part of the program, Romania will also host for the first time a multinational NATO-PFP exercise (COOPERATIVE DETERMINATION) in September 1995. Several bilateral training sessions and exercises are planned with NATO member-nations and Partners.

The economic and financial effort Romania has undertaken to cover its participation in PFP is substantial. This underlines our political will to join NATO as a full-fledged member and our readiness to undertake the obligations deriving from this status, including the financial costs.


As my colleague, German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel, recently pointed out at the 30 May Ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council in Noordwijk, Netherlands, Partnership for Peace is part of the development of a new common security culture in Europe. PFP provides both a new security philosophy and an instrumental framework for common activities. Defense planning and review brought us closer to the very essence of PFP cooperation, which is to reach interoperability among concepts, structures, and techniques. Implementation of the identified objectives of interoperability will make Partners' armed forces better able to operate with Alliance forces.

Partnership for Peace is a basic instrument for increasing security and stability on the continent. From a practical point of view, it provides the appropriate framework to address security issues for countries that do not intend to become members of the Alliance, but are already participating in this form of cooperation. PFP should also remain at the disposal of those states willing to become members of NATO and that ask to do so.

PFP could equally be an instrument for projecting stability outside its area (the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Middle East) by changing the mentality of military cooperation and the approach to addressing security concerns. The program could contribute by establishing a new security environment around potential or present crisis areas, aiming at the resolution of conflicts and the prevention of their spread.


Romanian participation in PFP is a transitory step towards membership in the Alliance, not an alternative to it. Alliance membership, which relies on a national consensus, responds best to our basic political and security interests, and we will pursue it with determination. Since 1991, we have developed a consistent and steady policy concerning integration with NATO, one based on what our country can do for the Alliance. We consider NATO membership as an essentially political decision.

As a NATO member, Romania would fully honor its obligations, increasing its contribution to peace and stability both in border areas and in Europe. At the same time, NATO membership would accelerate the completion of reform of the Romanian society and economy, thus contributing to Romania's potential as a security provider in the area and beyond. In the Balkans and in the Black Sea in particular, Romania can be a very important security provider. Our strategic position, economic and military potential, and good relations in the area should be taken into account.


Romania shares the view that accession to NATO should be decided on the basis of the freely expressed will of the interested countries and on their capacity to fulfill the exigencies of an Alliance member. We do not feel that one country's gain can come only through others' losses. Therefore we believe that an institution based on the solidarity of democracies cannot refuse membership to other democracies. Such denial could erode the institution's own moral foundation. As far as Romania is concerned, our admission to NATO would also signify moral reparation, because our links with the geopolitical space we belong to by culture and civilization--that is, Western Europe--were severely cut off after the Second World War.

The admission criteria established by NATO must be met. This is in the interest of the candidate countries and will help them make a faster transition to democracy and a market economy. But establishing criteria for NATO enlargement should not "increase the heat," or start a new "race for NATO" among the former non-Soviet Warsaw Pact allies. Integration into the Alliance should not be a "beauty contest." Selective enlargement of the Alliance would enforce the idea that the spheres of influence are being redrawn and jeopardize both the idea and the process of integration, of which Romania is an inalienable part. The outcome of selective enlargement would be counterproductive and detrimental to the very objectives of the Partnership for Peace.

Since democracy, peace, and security cannot survive on islands, "NATO-type" relations should be established between all PFP countries, confirming their commitment to defend the same values the Alliance itself is pledged to protect: democracy, stability, and welfare. Such an approach may be more valid for the PFP countries in Central Europe that have openly stated their determination to become full-fledged members of the Alliance.

Although the enlargement process has been officially presented as a response to the interest manifested by Central and Eastern European states to be integrated with NATO, the truth is that the interest is mutual. Enlarging NATO--without establishing dividing lines in Central Europe and without producing new problems--is crucial to NATO's emerging new identity.

It is against this background that Romania looks forward to the consultations that are to take place when the enlargement issue has been studied. This will be an important time for the Partnership for Peace process, and it is Romania's firm belief that the decision makers will choose the option that most favors stability, democracy, and reinforced security in our region.


Based on the points above, Romania believes that (1) Partnership for Peace should develop and strengthen both Partners' and NATO member-states' capacity for common action; (2) priority should be given to training and adaptations aimed at multinational activities, including peacekeeping operations; national activities should be thought of as components of multinational endeavors; and (3) the current PFP philosophy should be pursued as operating experience with it broadens.

Accordingly, we welcome the suggestion that the planning and review of defense processes could be more specific in defining the role and contribution of both Partners and NATO member-states in the implementation of proposed objectives. We would like to express our gratitude for the substantial assistance that the United States has provided in implementing PFP programs, and for their plan to continue to do so in the future. The positive experience of the Mil-to-Mil program could encourage similar contributions from other quarters. Bilateral military cooperation between NATO members and Partners has to be one of the main instruments for building a new security philosophy in Europe, through cooperation, transparency, and partnership, as part of the confidence-building process.

Concerning the political side of PFP activities, Romania believes that objectives should include:

We also believe that a way should be found to periodically evaluate against guidelines and parameters the progress of implementing interoperability objectives; we welcome the suggestion that the Planning and Review Process could be expanded to cover a deeper military relationship.


NATO and the U.S. presence on the continent guarantee the balance of power in Europe. We therefore welcome Secretary of State Warren Christopher's statement that America's engagement in Europe and in NATO is as firm and unshakable as ever. This and other similar statements made by the Clinton Administration continue to show us that the U.S. is directly and materially interested in the future of Central Europe. Europe and America are not, however, only a defense community; they are also a community of people. We agree with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that an even greater relationship between Europe and the U.S. is needed to preserve the cohesion of the Euro-Atlantic community. PFP should continue to remain the most important vehicle for integration into the Alliance and treat equally all states that wish to be admitted. On their part, states that wish to be admitted must show readiness to promote the basic and tested values on which the Alliance stands, and bring with them the assets of democracy, market economy, a constructive spirit of cooperation, and a consolidated security environment. Enlarging NATO will continue to move eastward the values and prosperity of the West.

Go to Top of Page
Return to Dresden '95 Page
Return to Home Page