NATO-RUSSIA PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE 236 NRPC 05 E Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y SUMMARY of the meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee Landstingssalen, Folketing, Copenhagen, Denmark Friday 11 November 2005 International Secretariat November 2005

236 NRPC 05 E i ATTENDANCE LIST President Pierre Lellouche (France) Vice-Presidents Pierre Claude Nolin (Canada) Jozef Banáš (Slovakia) Vahit Erdem (Turkey) Treasurer Lothar Ibrügger (Germany) Secretary General Simon Lunn MEMBERS AND ALTERNATE MEMBERS Belgium Théo Kelchtermans Bulgaria Nikolai Kamov Canada Jane Cordy Denmark Helge Adam Møller Per Kaalund Estonia Sven Mikser France Pierre Lellouche Germany Markus Meckel Karl A. Lamers Iceland Ossur Skarphedinsson Latvia Guntis Berzins Luxembourg Marc Spautz Netherlands Jos van Gennip Bert Middel Norway Per Ove Width Marit Nybakk Poland Marian Pilka Romania Mihail Lupoi Russian Federation Victor Ozerov Lubov Sliska Slovakia Jozef Banáš Spain Jordi Marsal Turkey Vahit Erdem United Kingdom Bruce George United States Wayne Allard Jeff Sessions Gordon Smith George Voinovich Political Committee Chairman Markus Meckel (Germany) SECRETARIES OF DELEGATION Member Delegations Belgium Frans Van Melkebeke Bulgaria Borislav Penchev Canada Denis Robert Czech Republic Olga Bendíková

236 NRPC 05 E ii Denmark Morten Roland Hansen Estonia Tanja Espe France Frédéric Taillet Etienne Sallenave Germany Rainer Büscher Hungary Károly Tüzes Italy Alessandra Lai Mario di Napoli Iceland Belinda Theriault Latvia Sandra Paura Lithuania Andrius Bukauskas Luxembourg Tun Figueiredo Netherlands Leo van Waasbergen Norway Allon Groth Poland Natalia Jaskiewicz Mikolaj Karlowski Portugal Luisa Pinto Basto Romania Irina Bojin Ioan Ilie Russian Federation Oleg Melnikov Viacheslav Kolotvin Slovakia Jarmila Novakova Turkey Yesim Uslu United Kingdom Libby Davidson United States Julia Reed International Secretariat Andrius Avizius Roberta Calorio Andrea Cellino Paul Cook Christine Heffinck David Hobbs Jacqueline Pforr Ruxandra Popa Steffen Sachs Zachary Selden Svitlana Svyetova Minutes Writers Richard Cooke Sarah Davies Presidential Adviser Chris Shaw

236 NRPC 05 E 1 The meeting opened on Friday 11 November 2005 at 3:20 pm with Pierre Lellouche (France), President of the NATO PA, in the Chair. 1. Opening of the proceedings The President welcomed delegates to this important meeting. He thanked the Danish hosts. This was the seventh meeting of the NATO-Russia Parliamentary Committee. The Committee provided parliamentarians with an opportunity to engage in dialogue about matters of common concern. 2. Adoption of the draft agenda [153 NRPC 05 E] The draft Agenda was adopted. 3. Adoption   of   the   Summary   of   the   meeting   of   the   NATO-Russia   Parliamentary Committee held in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on Friday, 27 May 2005 [110 NRPC 05 E] The President thanked all those who had organized the previous meeting held in Slovenia. The Summary was adopted. 4. Presentation  by  Mr  Robert  F.  Simmons  Jr,  Special  Representative  for  the  Caucasus and  Central  Asia  and  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  General  for  Security,  Cooperation and Partnership, Political Affairs and Security Policy Division, NATO, on the Current Situation in the South Caucasus, followed by discussion Mr Simmons started by saying that he was honoured to address the Committee. NATO looked to broader  partnerships  to  address  the  challenges  of  the  new  security  environment.  Already  the number and type of its missions had increased. NATO troops were already engaged in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as with assistance following the recent earthquake in Pakistan. Further work was required to develop partnership relations, including with the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. NATO  had  worked  with  the  countries  of  the  Caucasus  and  Central  Asia  for  some  time,  initially through the North Atlantic Cooperation Council and later the Partnership for Peace. It respected the fact  that  these  countries  had  ties  with  other  international  organizations,  for  example,  the  CIS. Relations with these bodies co-existed with relations with NATO. This was not a zero-sum game. It was necessary, however, for NATO to work to enhance the Alliance’s cooperation with the South Caucasus and Central Asia. A key priority was defence reform. NATO had to support its partners to adapt their military structures to enhance interoperability but also change their own defence forces to structures that were more responsive. NATO had several tools available to help its partners. The first was the Partnership Action Plan on Defence  Institution  Building  (PAP-DIB),  a  programme  through  which  NATO  could  assist  in  the building   of   democratically   responsible   defence   institutions.   The   second   was   the   Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP), a process to bring greater structure and focus to NATO’s bilateral relationships.  It  was  important  for  goals  to  be  reviewed  on  a  regular  basis.  The  third  tool  was enhanced liaison arrangements.

236 NRPC 05 E 2 Together,  the  PAP-DIB,  the  IPAP  and  enhanced  liaison  arrangements  were  important  tools.  In addition, NATO was active in other areas, for example, technical co-operation through the “Virtual Silk  Highway”,  a  NATO-sponsored  project  that  had  established  Internet  connectivity  between  the countries of Central Asia, the South Caucasus and the rest of the world. NATO had assisted all the countries of the Caucasus in the elimination of weapons such as mines, funded  by  Partnership  for  Peace  Trust  Funds.  NATO  was  contributing  to  political  dialogue  in  the Caucasus and Central Asia and Mr Simmons met regularly with the Presidents of the region. Turning to the general state of relations with partners, Georgia was the most active partner in the South Caucasus through its IPAP. It had also contributed to KFOR. Azerbaijan had an IPAP. Together with the OSCE, NATO had monitored the recent elections there and was taking forward concerns with the President. Discussions with Azerbaijan and Armenia on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict continued. Armenia  was  developing  an  IPAP  and  had  embarked  on  defence  reform  and  the  forthcoming referendum offered the hope of political reform as well. NATO  was  developing  ties  with  countries  in  Central  Asia,  particularly  Kazakhstan,  but  also Kyrgyzstan,  Tajikistan  and  Uzbekistan.  Further  dialogue  was  needed.  The  NATO  Parliamentary Assembly had been a good partner throughout these discussions in Central Asia. On NATO-Russian relations, the political dialogue working towards the removal of Russian bases in the region was important. Russia had been an active partner in missions, meeting the challenges of WMD  proliferation  and  terrorism.  NATO  was  supporting  active  political  dialogue  and  was  not  in competition with other partner countries in the region. The  President  thanked  Mr  Simmons  and  gave  some  examples  of  the  NATO  Parliamentary Assembly’s own work in the region to resolve conflicts and improve relations. Mr Erdem (TR) said that the South Caucasus had strategic importance for the whole region. The frozen  conflicts  hindered  development  and  reform.  Turkey  was  ready  to  normalize  relations  with Armenia but that process depended on Armenia’s willingness to be a good neighbour and give up claims to Turkish territory. Russia had been instrumental in the past in turning hot conflicts cold. It must now play a role in turning frozen conflicts into solved conflicts. Mrs   Sliska   (RU)  began  by  saying  that  developments  in  the  South  Caucasus  were  of  vital importance to Russia. This was a region with which Russia had a common history, language and family ties. Sadly, the history of instability in the region continued to the present day. The energy resources of the South Caucasus contributed to this. The Russian Federation had an understandable desire for neighbours that were economically and politically stable. It sought deeper relationships with these countries. One  recent  development  of  particular  concern  was  the  increased  militarization  of  Georgia.  Its defence budget had risen significantly in recent years. Equipment such as fighter planes, tanks and firearms  were  being  purchased  or  gifted  and  negotiations  on  these  transactions  were  ongoing.  It was important that the provisions of the CFE Treaty were observed. Turning  to  the  conflicts  in  South  Ossetia  and  Abkhazia,  they  could  be  resolved  only  through dialogue:  a  comprehensive  programme  of  actions  were  required. The forthcoming meeting  of  the Joint Control Commission in Ljubljana would involve discussion of the three-stage settlement plan. This was key in restoring trust. More working group and bilateral talks were needed. Progress had

236 NRPC 05 E 3 recently been made in the development of railway transportation through Abkhazia. However, it was a  matter  of  concern  that  in  October  the  Georgian  Parliament  had  demanded  the  withdrawal  of peacekeepers. With  regard  to  the  region  as  a  whole,  Russia,  as  co-chair  of  the  OSCE  Minsk  Group,  was contributing to conflict resolution. Russia was concerned about being forced out of the region. There  were  some  hopeful  signs  for  the  situation  in  the  region.  The  Russian  Federation  took  the view that involvement of all partners in political dialogue was necessary for future stability. In this context, Russia looked forward to further discussions and in particular the plenary speech by the Turkish Prime minister. Concluding, Mrs Sliska thanked Mr Simmons for his profound evaluation of the situation and looked forward to a day when the frozen conflicts of the region would be resolved. Mr Ozerov (RU) echoed the thanks of his colleague to Mr Simmons. He commended the manner in which Mr Simmons visited the region and was open to discussions with the Russian Federation. It was vital that the sovereignty of the countries in Central Asia be respected. It was not for other countries  to  impose their  own  views  of  the  tempo  and  nature  of  reforms.  Rather,  active  dialogue and engagement was required. He agreed with his colleague that the nature of the relationship between these countries and the Russian Federation was a close one, with a long history. The Russian Federation understood that a “one  size  fits  all”  approach  was  not  appropriate.  Different  levels  of  cooperation,  through  the Collective Security Treaty, Shanghai Agreement and the Euro-Asia Cooperation Agreement, were essential. This was not a question of establishing hegemony. Concluding, he welcomed Mr Simmons’ comments on increasing security collectively. He observed that attempting this on a bilateral basis was not the most productive way forward. More use should be made of the methods outlined in the Collective Security Treaty. Efforts  to  reduce  WMDs  and  drug  and  human  trafficking  continued  and  Russia  was  ready  to cooperate with NATO. Mr Lamers (DE) asked whether there was any duplication of effort between NATO and EU in the region and whether the two institutions’ efforts could be more focused and better harmonised. Mr  Simmons  responded  first  to  the  comments  from  the  Russian  delegation.  He  appreciated  the acknowledgement  of  NATO’s  role  and  agreed  with  the  point  made  about  the  importance  of discussions in the Russia-NATO Council. He confirmed that NATO was not involved directly in the discussions    to    resolve    the    frozen    conflicts,    however    it    did    follow    developments.    In Nagorno-Karabakh  there  was  a  small  window  of  opportunity  in  the  negotiations  during  which agreement  on  a  settlement  was  possible  and  NATO  was  ready  to  play  a  part  if  necessary.  He welcomed the Georgian proposals in relation to the conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which must  be  solved  by  peaceful  means.  He  welcomed  the  joint  statement  of  the  Russians  and Georgians on the closing of Russians bases. NATO was discussing the tools that it could deploy that would assist defence planning and transparency in defence budgets in Georgia. All purchasing was well below the CFE ceiling but improvements in transparency were still necessary. Mr  Simmons  accepted  that  there  were  differences  between  the  countries  in  Central  Asia,  which had led to NATO’s bilateral approach. He highlighted NATO’s good working relationship with Russia in  its  efforts  to  improve  border  security  and  stem  the  flow  of  narcotics  from  Afghanistan.  On  the

236 NRPC 05 E 4 Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), he stressed the importance of a bilateral approach in which all CSTO nations contributed to the discussion rather than just NATO and Russia. In response to the German delegate’s question, he stressed his good relations with the EU’s two special  representatives.  The  EU  and  NATO  programmes  in  the  region  had  different  focuses.   Although there had been some difficulties between NATO and the EU at political level there was a close working relationship. The President praised Mr Simmons’ work and commented on the more cooperative and positive tone of the meeting. It was a complex region and all parties should encourage peaceful settlement. Mr Meckel (DE) was concerned that some of the potential problems were being glossed over and questioned whether some countries had sufficient political will to work towards resolutions. He asked whether there was a timetable for Russian withdrawal from Georgia and why the previous timetable no longer existed. He reminded the meeting that it had been Turkey that had closed the border with Armenia and that although there had been difficulties with the election of the Armenian President, his statement that Armenia had no territorial claims should be accepted. He  referred  to  the  oil  interests  in  the  region  and  other  complicating  factors,  which  could  have  a negative impact on the efforts to resolve the conflicts. He was sorry to raise concerns but felt this had to be done as part of an open dialogue. The  President  said  that  he  agreed  with  most  of  the  points  raised.  He  suggested  that  Mr Meckel raised his point on Armenia with the Turkish Prime Minister during the Plenary Session. He hoped that the focus of this meeting could be on the frozen conflicts. Mr Smith (US) thanked the President for his leadership and Mr Simmons for his service. He sensed a  degree  of  progress  and  conciliation.  This  underscored  the  value  of  NATO  reaching  out  to  its Russian friends. The developments in dialogue matched the important spread of human rights and the rule of law in the region. He hoped this would be matched in due course with both economic inclusion and democratic literacy. However,  there  were  problems  still  existing,which  could  not  be  glossed  over.  The  elections  in Azerbaijan had been judged by both the OSCE and the Council of Europe as not being free and fair. He asked the delegates from the Russian Federation for their response to the suggestion that this had been a stolen election. The President thanked Mr Smith and asked Mrs Sliska to respond. Mrs  Sliska  (RU)  reminded  colleagues  that  the  Russian  Federation  was  on  track  to  fulfil  its commitment   to   withdraw   from   Georgian   territory   by   2008.   She   observed   that   the   Russian Federation  did  not  always  receive  cooperation  from  the  Georgian  side.  An  example  of  this  was visas for servicemen not being renewed. She hoped that this source of tension could be taken up by the President in his dealings with Georgian representatives. Russia  had  the  political  will  to  resolve  the  conflicts  in  the region.  It  was  not  in  the  interest  of  the Russian Federation that the area encounters the same problems as the Balkans. Engagement had to be cautious but progressive. Responding  to  the  points  made  by  Mr  Smith,  it  was  correct  that  the  United  States,  Council  of Europe,  OSCE  and  indeed  Russian  Federation  observers  had  noted  some  violations  during  the elections in Azerbaijan. However, the Russian Federation observers had taken the view that these

236 NRPC 05 E 5 violations had not affected the result. New democracies needed a period of probation. She noted that the aftermath of the Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions had been problematic. She concluded that democracy must have clean hands. The President noted that he supported the peaceful revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine and asked Bruce George to speak. Mr  George  (UK)  began  by  commenting  that  entrants  to  NATO  had  to  pass  a  series  of  tests concerning  democracy  and  civil  control  of  the  military.  The  NATO  Parliamentary  Assembly  was establishing itself as a powerful force for democratization. He took issue with Mrs Sliska’s comments about Georgia. The purchase and acceptance of gifts of military equipment did not amount to a major militarization programme. The  elections  in  Azerbaijan  had  been,  frankly,  dreadful.  The  observers  had  hoped  for  something considerably better. In general, the region suffered from a democratic deficit. It was in this context that  the  acquisition  by  Georgia  of  military  equipment  should  be  viewed.  The  OSCE  had  been expelled from parts of the Caucasus, there was considerable instability in the region, and he could understand the attitude of the Georgian Government. The  partial  withdrawal  of  Russian  troops  was  indeed  welcome,  but  it  was  not  as  fast  as  similar withdrawals in Central and Eastern Europe. It was certainly true that Russia’s links with the region had brought much good. However, there had also been tensions and he hoped that in the long run diplomatic tools, rather than military tools, would be used to solve them. Concluding, he did not want to sour the mood of the meeting, but it was vital that delegates dealt in facts rather than fiction. Mrs Sliska (RU) said she was sorry that Mr George did not like Russia. She invited him to come and view the progress that had been made there over the past 15 years. On the matter of Georgia, she took the view that weapons were a bad gift and could only contribute to instability. Mr  Ozerov  (RU)  responded  to  Mr  George’s  comments  by  stressing  that  he  was  trying  to  find  a constructive way forward. He agreed with Mrs Sliska that someone who had not visited the region was not well placed to comment and he would rather hear the views of the official representative of the NATO Secretary General. The presentations by Russian delegates had been intended to find constructive solutions and take forward reforms. Mr  George  (UK)  replied  that  he  was  being  criticised  for  words  that  he  had  not  spoken.  He  had visited  Russia  many  times  since  1960  and  criticism  of  Russian  foreign  policy  should  not  be confused with criticism of Russia or Russians. He said that he, too, was trying to be constructive by seeking  answers  to  the  questions  that  he  had  asked.  He  accepted  Mrs  Sliska’s  invitation  to  visit Russia. Mr Simmons said that it had been a useful discussion about important issues. It was important that relations between NATO and the two regions were transparent. Georgia, in particular, was making good progress and he looked forward to the ratification of the Russian withdrawal agreement and further improvements in defence planning. He closed by stressing the importance of NATO’s values and how those values framed its approach to countries in the region. The  President  suggested  that  a  text  be  prepared  for  discussion  in  the  Standing  Committee  that would regret the way in which Azerbaijan’s elections had been conducted.

236 NRPC 05 E 6 He suggested that some of the delegates could form a monitoring group to observe adherence to the Georgian-Russian withdrawal settlement and timetable. Mr   van   Gennip   (NL)  supported  the  suggestion  of  a  declaration  criticising  the  elections  in Azerbaijan.  He  reminded  the  meeting  that  Azerbaijan  had  used  its  associations  with  the  NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe to claim international recognition. The President confirmed that there was no opposition to his two proposals in the meeting. He reminded members of the requirement to deposit candidacies for election to the Bureau during this session. He suggested that Russian political analyst Sergei Rogov be asked to present to the meeting in Paris in May 2006 the conclusions of his study into the conditions Russia would need to meet for NATO membership in the future. The meeting was closed at 4.45 p.m. _______________