NATO Press Release
2 October 2002


A memorandum of understanding on logistic cooperation was signed by the Georgian Foreign Minister H.E Irakli Menagarishvili and NAMSO, represented by Mr Peter D. Markey, General Manager of the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA). The signature took place on the occasion of the visit by H.E. Irakli Mengarishvilli to meet Lord Robertson at NATO Headquarters on 1 October 2002.

The memorandum of understanding concluded between Georgia and NAMSO opens the way for the implementation of a Partnership for Peace Trust Fund Project for the demilitarisation and disposal of missile stockpiles and the remediation of Georgian military sites.

This Partnership for Peace project is led by Luxembourg. Costs for the project are estimated to be in excess of EUR 1,250,000 .

In addition to the contribution in kind by the Georgian authorities, financial support will be provided by Luxembourg and other NATO and Partnership for Peace nations.

Under the NAMSA plan, material assistance and training will be provided to carry out the safe disposal of missile stockpiles and the remediation of a former military site close to the capital, Tbilisi. This site of 10,000 hectares will be cleared of unexploded ordnance by a group of former military engineers of the Georgian Army. The area will be handed back to the local population for agricultural use.

This is the fourth project initiated under the PfP Trust Fund initiative. NAMSA is currently overseeing PfP Trust Fund projects to ensure the destruction of surplus ordnance in Ukraine and Moldova, having earlier this year completed the destruction of 1.6 million anti-personnel landmines in Albania.

 
Tel:    +32 (0)2 707 50 41
Fax:     +32 (0)2 707 50 57
B-1110 Brussels/Bruxelles
http://www.nato.int
press(at)hq.nato.int

NATO HQ Meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council


Dear Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As we see off the last days of this century our present session gives us another opportunity to take stock of our cooperation within EAPC and PfP frameworks and to discuss its unique role for the Euro-Atlantic security.
Risks and threats that Euro-Atlantic community faces on the threshold of the new millennium require our joint and adequate efforts without setting geographic or other priorities and limits.

The value of practical cooperation between NATO and partner countries to achieve goals of building a free and undivided Europe could hardly be overestimated in this regard. The Alliance-led peace-support operation in the Kosovo region to which Azerbaijan has contributed is undoubtedly a vivid example of the genuine partnership.

The multiplicity and complexity of challenges that Euro-Atlantic security encounters necessitates the elaboration and development of joint crisis management capabilities. In the context of further evolution of the theory and practice of the NATO-led peacekeeping operations in the whole Euro-Atlantic area Azerbaijan welcomes further practical steps on the side of NATO to complete work on implementation of the Political Military Framework. We also appreciate progress achieved in realization of the Operational Capabilities Concept.

In light of the recent visit by the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office to NATO Headquarters I would also like to stress that Azerbaijan attaches importance to the development of inter-institutional cooperation between NATO/EAPC and OSCE. in particular in the fields of conflict prevention and crisis management.

As it has been the case in the past. with regard to the future agenda of EAPC, we reiterate our proposal to start discussing issues related to conventional arms control in the EAPC framework on a more regular and substantive basis. I presume that putting current problems in this field on the EAPC agenda would help better utilize our forum's potential and expertise as well as complement work done in other organisations and fora. In this regard Azerbaijan commends efforts of the ad hoc group on the challenges of Small Arms and Light Weapons whose success has highlighted the necessity of reinvigorating the EAPC discussions on arms control topic in general.
While aiming at progressive integration with NATO Azerbaijan intends to join the Membership Action Plan. With this goal in mind we look forward to having a suggested intensified bilateral dialogue with NATO.

Mr.Chairman,

Azerbaijan welcomes an increased interest of NATO to the region of South Caucasus. A number of activities, including the seminar on energy security in Baky have been held in the region as a follow-up to the work of the EAPC ad hoc group on the South Caucasus.

In the meantime, unlike the Balkans. where substantial progress has been made in bringing crises to the stage of comprehensive settlement. the South Caucasus still remains the region of unresolved conflicts and undermined security. In this context allow me to re-emphasize that only just, comprehensive and durable settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan will restore mutual trust between these two states and consequently pave the way to regional cooperation between all states in the South Caucasus.

In this respect we would appreciate if political, security related and crisis management issues, as suggested by Azerbaijan, could win the understanding in the group.

Due to its geographic location South Caucasus should serve as one of the building blocks of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. Allow me to recall in this regard an initiative to develop Security and Cooperation Pact for this region as proposed by President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Mr. Heydar Aliyev at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul in November 1999 and to reiterate our appeal to all interested partners to participate in the practical implementation of this idea.

With regard to the armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I regret to report lack of progress in achieving its settlement, while twenty percent of the territory of my country are still under occupation of armed forces of Armenia and one million Azerbaijanis still cannot return to their homes.
Co-Chairmen of the Minsk Group continue to pay visits to the region. The Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia hold regular bilateral meetings with the aim to find a formula of durable settlement. But. all these efforts have not yet yielded concrete results.

Availing myself of this opportunity I would like to reconfirm the adherence of Azerbaijan to a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group on the basis of conferring the highest degree of self-rule upon the Nagorno-Karabakh region within the Republic of Azerbaijan and co-existence of Armenian and Azerbaijani populations there.

In conclusion, allow me to emphasize that Azerbaijan proceeding from an assessment of the current situation in the South Caucasus counts on a considerable contribution by NATO to establishing security and stability in this vital region.

Thank you.

NATO HQ Meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council


Dear Secretary General,
Dear Colleagues,

Over the recent years the EAPC/PfP cooperation has become a permanent feature of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. One could hardly overestimate the role of this partnership both in fostering mutual confidence throughout the continent and in developing operational capabilities to jointly address threats and risks to our common security. Participation of Georgia in the International Peacekeeping Operations in support of peace in Kosovo has been a successful trial of practical results yielded in the "Partnership for Peace" framework.

In the framework of our efforts to achieve lasting security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area free of spheres of influence and dividing lines, we attach importance to making full use of the consultation mechanisms laid down in the EAPC Basic Document.

Mr. Chairman,

As it is evidently seen in the Progress Report on development of the NATO's South-East Europe Initiative (SEEI), collective efforts of the Euro-Atlantic nations have ensured the success of regional cooperation and contributed to the democratic changes in this part of Europe. We strongly believe that this experience could be employed in other regions as well, namely in the Caucasus - through developing the idea on stability arrangements for the Caucasus" which we all have been actively considering of late.

The EAPC activities in the second half of 2000, reflected in the Chairman's report, have to be considered as useful and productive. We also support the updated EAPC Action Plan. We appreciate the special emphasis in this document on regional issues related to South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Georgia strongly supports the retention of the transatlantic link as a vital element of security and stability in Europe.

Mr. Chairman,

The enhancement of EAPC and PfP serves as clear evidence of the right course for the security of our common house - the Euro-Atlantic area. Georgia considers the EAPC to be instrumental in reviewing and solving numerous stability and security problems in this area. Therefore, we support the idea on raising the profile of the EAPC. We especially encourage proposals to pay more attention to certain regions of the Euro-Atlantic space. In this regard, the EAPC has already provided a useful forum for developing regional security cooperation practices, namely through the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Caucasus. The steps already taken in this context have proven to be small but still very productive and coherent for future larger cooperation in the South Caucasus.

In our view, the EAPC along with PfP, can make a substantial contribution to address the challenges to the regional stability, complementing the efforts of the other international organizations, e.g. the UN, the OSCE, etc. One of them is of course conflict prevention. The importance and effectiveness of the last year's discussions held within the EAPC format on the tensions on the Chechen segment of Georgian-Russian border has to be stated in this respect. I would like herewith to draw your attention to a positive role that PfP can play in terms of improving national capabilities in the sphere of border control, particularly, in preventing illegal and uncontrolled trafficking of small arms and light weapons.

While co-operation between states is elevated to the completely new level to achieve the long-term security and stability, it seems awkward to have to stress on the basic principles of interstate relations. In this regard, we must regrettably note the fact that Russia has unilaterally granted special visa privileges to the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali Region, that can adversely affect the regional stability. We call upon Russia to look jointly for a solution of this issue through negotiations.

We appreciate the attention paid by the NATO/EAPC to the arms control issues. I would like to note the progress achieved in the implementation of the Istanbul Joint Statement provisions on the reduction and withdrawal of Russian military equipment (TLE) from Georgia. Herewith, I would like to stress the importance of transparency of the military equipment reduction process as well as complete withdrawal of the bases.

We are delighted to underline the progress achieved in the TLE withdrawal process from the Gudauta military base. We appreciate NAC Defence Ministerial Communique which welcomes the efforts of the Russian side. We hope that the process of the TLE withdrawal from Gudauta will be completed till the end of this year as envisaged by the Istanbul Joint Statement.

The Georgian position remains unchanged: the final state of the Russian military forces reduction process must be a complete liberation of the territory of Georgia from foreign military presence.

We count on the support of the EAPC Member States and consider that their active involvement in the process of implementation of the provisions of the Adapted CFE Treaty and agreements reached in Istanbul in 1999 would significantly contribute to its success.

In conclusion, allow me to state once again that Georgia, as a partner of the Alliance, will actively co-operate within the EAPC in the years to come.

Thank you.

Partnership for Peace: Framework Document


    Further to the invitation extended by the NATO Heads of State and Government at their meeting on 10th/11th January, 1994, the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance and the other states subscribing to this document, resolved to deepen their political and military ties and to contribute further to the strengthening of security within the Euro-Atlantic area, hereby establish, within the framework of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, this Partnership for Peace.

    This Partnership is established as an expression of a joint conviction that stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area can be achieved only through cooperation and common action. Protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights, and safeguarding of freedom, justice, and peace through democracy are shared values fundamental to the Partnership.

    In joining the Partnership, the member States of the North Atlantic Alliance and the other States subscribing to this Document recall that they are committed to the preservation of democratic societies, their freedom from coercion and intimidation, and the maintenance of the principles of international law.

    They reaffirm their commitment to fulfil in good faith the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; specifically, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, to respect existing borders and to settle disputes by peaceful means. They also reaffirm their commitment to the Helsinki Final Act and all subsequent CSCE documents and to the fulfilment of the commit- ments and obligations they have undertaken in the field of disarmament and arms control.


    

    The other states subscribing to this document will cooperate with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in pursuing the following objectives:

        facilitation of transparency in national defence planning and budgeting processes;

        ensuring democratic control of defence forces;

        maintenance of the capability and readiness to con- tribute, subject to constitutional considerations, to operations under the authority of the UN and/or the responsibility of the CSCE;

        the development of cooperative military relations with NATO, for the purpose of joint planning, training, and exercises in order to strengthen their ability to undertake missions in the fields of peacekeeping, search and rescue, humanitarian operations, and others as may subsequently be agreed;

        the development, over the longer term, of forces that are better able to operate with those of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

    The other subscribing states will provide to the NATO Authorities Presentation Documents identifying the steps they will take to achieve the political goals of the Partnership and the military and other assets that might be used for Partnership activities. NATO will propose a programme of partnership exercises and other activities consistent with the Partnership's objectives. Based on this programme and its Presentation Document, each subscribing state will develop with NATO an individual Partnership Programme.

    In preparing and implementing their individual Partnership Programmes, other subscribing states may, at their own expense and in agreement with the Alliance and, as necessary, relevant Belgian authorities, establish their own liaison office with NATO Headquarters in Brussels. This will facilitate their participation in NACC/Partnership meetings and activities, as well as certain others by invitation. They will also make available personnel, assets, facilities and capabilities necessary and appropriate for carrying out the agreed Partnership Programme. NATO will assist them, as appropriate, in formulating and executing their individual Partnership Programmes.

    The other subscribing states accept the following understandings:

        those who envisage participation in missions referred to in paragraph 3(d) will, where appropriate, take part in related NATO exercises;

        they will fund their own participation in Partnership activities, and will endeavour otherwise to share the burdens of mounting exercises in which they take part;

        they may send, after appropriate agreement, permanent liaison officers to a separate Partnership Coordination Cell at Mons (Belgium) that would, under the authority of the North Atlantic Council, carry out the military planning necessary to implement the Partnership programmes;

        those participating in planning and military exercises will have access to certain NATO technical data relevant to interoperability;

        building upon the CSCE measures on defence planning, the other subscribing states and NATO countries will exchange information on the steps that have been taken or are being taken to promote transparency in defence planning and budgeting and to ensure the democratic control of armed forces;

        they may participate in a reciprocal exchange of information on defence planning and budgeting which will be developed within the framework of the NACC/Partnership for Peace.

    In keeping with their commitment to the objectives of this Partnership for Peace, the members of the North Atlantic Alliance will:

        develop with the other subscribing states a planning and review process to provide a basis for identifying and evaluating forces and capabilities that might be made available by them for multinational training, exercises, and operations in conjunction with Alliance forces;

        promote military and political coordination at NATO Headquarters in order to provide direction and guidance relevant to Partnership activities with the other subscribing states, including planning, training, exercises and the development of doctrine.

    NATO will consult with any active participant in the Partnership if that Partner perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence, or security.

Regretfully should be stated, that in the certain political circles of Russia the forcing of inten-
sity around of events in Abkhazia and Georgia as a whole does not end.

The statement of the representative of the MFA of the Russian Federation from March, 21,
2002 is an evident confirmation of the fact.

Uncompromisingly adhering to a principle of peaceful settlement of Abkhazian conflict, con-
sidering political methods of its resolving as nonalternative, the government of Georgia, cer-
tainly, is concerned by the occuring in the zone of conflict with acts of violence, absence of
the elementary law, order and conditions of safety, first of all for the refugees, who have come
back to their native places are suffering of it.

The Georgian side repeatedly stated and states a issue on acceptance of drastic steps, includ-
ing change of mandate for Collective Peace Keeping Forces (CPKF), and also some other
actions to achieve the consent to which realization, till now it is not possible.

Proceeding from this, the Georgian Side can not consider reasonable the accusations put for-
ward to its address. In opinion of the Georgian Side, categorical unilateral estimations con-
taining in the application on the facts which investigation is not conducted yet especially are
groundless, that only emphasizes tendentiousness of its authors.

It should be known to the authors of the statement, that an original cause of preservation and
escalation of intensity in the zone of conflict, is absence of any progress of political settlement
during long period of time as which basis the appropriate offers on differentiation of the con-
stitutional authorities between Tbilisi and Sukhumi should serve. For nobody is a secret by
whom and by what means are blocked the achievements of the arrangements under these of-
fers.

In connection with the aforesaid, the accusation of official Tbilisi in equivocacy of its position
and doubt in sincerity of its intents is, at least, incorrect.

Concerning the information of allegedly groundless assertions of presence of international
terrorists, Tbilisi Authorities consider that Moscow should have listened to this reports and do
not reject them, from the very beginning, as the appearing of possible refuge of international
terrorists, practically in uncontrolling zone can cause serious problems first of all to Russia.
In this connection, it is regretful, that the certain representatives of political circles of Russia
are concerned more of activization of the American - Georgian military cooperation, than
availability of the centers of tension in the region.

Because of it, the statement of the representative of the MFA of Russia cannot be perceived
but as containing ungrounded, irresponsible accusations which can cause only serious damage
to the Russian - Georgian dialogue and prevent peaceful settlement of conflicts.


Tbilisi, March, 22, 2002.

On the 27th of November, 21:20 hours, six Su-25 type Russian military jets have violated
Georgian airspace and bombed territories adjacent to the village Birkiani, Akhmeta district.
These jets penetrated the Georgian airspace for the distance of 50 km and remained there for
about 30 minutes. At the same night Russian military helicopters conducted several air strikes
on the territory adjacent to Chechen and Ingush segments of the Georgian-Russian State Bor-
der, including outskirts of villages Terga, Arkhoti, Kue, Zemo Omalo, Akhieli and Amgha.
The data on the human loss and property damage caused by the air strikes will be adjusted
later.

Today on 12:35 the intrusion of two Su-25-type military jets en route from the Russian Fed-
eration was marked in Kodori Gorge. Jets flew over Mestia and returned back.

Such actions of the Russian military forces can only be evaluated as an undisguised aggres-
sion against the sovereign neighboring State.

Simultaneously, especially alarming is that aforesaid is conducted on the threshold of CIS
Summit and planned meeting between the Presidents of Georgia and the Russian federation.
We cannot exclude that the above mentioned actions are attempts of the destructive forces
aimed against possible positive outcome of the Presidential meeting.

The Georgian side regards that due to disdain of the numerous Georgian protests regarding
the facts of encroachment on the sovereignty by the Russian political leadership the aforesaid
became possible. The outcome of this acts conducted by the Russian side, if not suppressed on
time, may only deepen the instability in the Caucasus region. One must not neglect such
threats. The International Community must raise its voice against the coarse violation of in-
ternationally accepted basic principles of peaceful co-existence.

The ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia expresses utmost resentment and while appealing
to the Russian leadership categorically demands to cease the oft-recurring aggression against
Georgia.

Herewith, if this kind of actions will continue, Georgia reserves the right to conduct adequate
steps provided by the norms of international law.