Year 2, issue 10, July 2004

Table of Contents:

To Our Readers

NATO's Istanbul Decisions
Blagovest Tashev

Bulgaria's Security Vision After Prague and Istanbul
Velizar Shalamanov

New publications
Hristo Chorbadzhiyski

Web sites

To Our Readers

This is the tenth issue of Security Focus and Security Sector Watch. In this issue's first article, Blagovest Tashev provides a review of the decisions made in late June at the NATO Summit in Istanbul. Unlike past years when along with the analysis of summit decisions Bulgaria carefully followed the carrying out of commitments made by the member states, the country is now one of the member states translating the decisions into policies. In other words, for Bulgaria, the real work is yet to begin.

In the second article, Velizar Shalamanov proposes specifically what Bulgaria may do in order to be one of the member states ultimately turning the Istanbul Summit into a consequential event with long-lasting positive effects for the Alliance, its members and the international security environment. Bulgaria has already initiated some of the steps, but much more needs to be done.

As always, Hristo Chorbadzhiski presents a new publication and offers a review of web sites of security studies institutions.

As always we welcome your opinions about the content of this newsletter. You can find all back issues at http://www.mediapool.bg/site/security/index_en.shtml

From the publishers

NATO's Istanbul Decisions
Blagovest Tashev

Although Bulgaria has been a NATO member for several months, the Istanbul Summit in late June was the first opportunity for the country to participate in the making of the Alliance policy at the highest level, after its largest expansion. The Summit took place in an important period and its decisions are to have significant consequences for the member-states and the international security environment.

The Istanbul decisions

As part of its transformation policy, the Alliance decided to enhance its capacity to participate in missions. More specifically, the member-states reiterated their commitment to increase the share of deployable troops in their armed forces. It is no secret that most states still possess defense forces capable of conducting warfare in the context of the Cold War, while the new security environment requires capabilities for missions outside Central Europe. In addition, the member-states decided to introduce changes to the force generation process aimed to link the political decision to launch an operation to the provision of the pool of forces needed to carry out the mission.

The Summit decided to enhance the Mediterranean Dialogue and transform it into a real partnership. The Mediterranean Dialogue successfully contributes to confidence building between NATO and seven Middle Eastern countries - Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. The enhanced Dialogue will contribute to regional stability and security thorough practical cooperation, political dialogue, defense reform assistance, border security cooperation, interoperability, and cooperation in the fight against terrorism. NATO leaders also proposed the so-called Istanbul Initiative, which is open to all interested states in the Middle East and aims to achieve greater security in the region through more Euro-Atlantic engagement in defense reform, defense budgeting, defense planning, civil-military relations, military-to-military cooperation to contribute to interoperability, fighting terrorism thorough exchange of information and maritime cooperation, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and illegal trafficking. As in the Partnership for Peace, the Initiative will be provided in programs designed to meet the specific needs of every participating country.

The leaders of governments also decided on new measures in the Alliance's anti-terrorism efforts. The member states will create high-tech capabilities to protect civilians and military forces against terrorist attacks including against weapons of mass destruction, protection of wide body aircraft against shoulder launched missiles, protection of helicopters from ground threats, protection of harbors and vessels, protection from improvised explosive devices, detection of mines.

These steps will follow the good practices established in the Alliance's actions against terrorism, including maritime patrols in the Mediterranean, Active Endeavor, operations against terrorist groups with links to the Al-Quaida network in the Balkans, as well as cooperation with partners. NATO will aim to build adequate capacity to assist any member country in dealing with potential or real terrorist acts. For example, the Alliance's AWACS early warning radar aircraft and the Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Defense Battalion can be made available to any member state. In this respect, it is relevant to point out the use of AWACS aircraft, jointly owned by the member states, in protecting the U.S. airspace after 11 September 2001. It is planned the same aircraft to be used during the Olympic games in Athens, Greece. In fact, AWACS is a good example assets jointly operated by the member states and it is expected more such jointly owned acquisitions in the future.

The member states decided to terminate at the end of the year the Alliance's SFOR mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at which time the European Union will establish a follow-up mission. The Alliance will continue to support the new mission including the area of defense reform and the pursuit of war criminals indicted by the Hague Tribunal. This transition will be a test of the Berlin plus agreements of 2002 and 2003 for EU access to NATO assets in all-EU missions. In any event, the successful conclusion to the first peacekeeping mission in the Alliance's history attests to NATO's vitality in the post-cold war era.

The heads of states decided to increase NATO's role in Afghanistan in light of the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections. Until recently, the allied presence was limited to the capital city Kabul and five of the thirty-two provinces. The increasing insecurity, however, forced member states to accept that the country's long-term stability requires a more significant armed presence in most of the provinces. Member states will send additional rapid reaction battalions and will increase the activities of the provincial reconstruction teams. Days after this decision, authorities in Kabul set the presidential elections for late October this year and the parliamentary elections for next spring. On 1 July 2004, NATO raised its flag in two more provinces - Mazar-e-Sharif and Maimana.

One of the big questions preceding the Summit in Istanbul was the eventual decision concerning the conflict in Iraq. In a separate statement, the heads of states committed to assisting the efforts to stabilize the country and to train the Iraqi security forces. Direct participation in the country was not put to discussion. Nevertheless, the member states declared their support for the role of the Alliance in the planning and logistical assistance provided to the Polish division in the multinational forces. Days after the meeting in Istanbul, on 13 July, Iraq's foreign minister visited NATO's Headquarters in Brussels and called on the member states to urgently provide assistance to the new government. The visit was preceded by a trip of a NATO team to Baghdad, 5-10 July, assessing the needs of the country and exploring the modalities of assistance.

The Summit's decisions directly concerning Bulgaria

Along with these decisions, the Alliance took some steps that directly affect some of Bulgaria's regional interests. The Summit communiqu? pointed out to the importance of the Black Sea region and highlighted the role of the states in the area in the efforts to achieve security and stability. Following years of neglect, in which the region was overlooked as a source of security challenges, the member states committed to finding adequate modes of cooperation. Logically, as one of the countries in the region, Bulgaria is expected to provide not only visions and ideas for attaining practical cooperation, but also to contribute directly with national capacities for the achievement of regional security and stability. Georgia and Ukraine's willingness to develop more intensive relationships with the Alliance and the commitment of the member states to participate in regional cooperation is a reason to believe that Bulgaria's well-thought out and well-presented initiatives may be supported by NATO. For this purpose, however, Bulgaria not only needs to formulate adequate policies but also to take serious steps in getting diplomatic support and coordinating policies.

The Summit's decision on Iraq, formulated in a separate statement, lent additional legitimacy to the multinational presence in the country. Although the member states settled on providing limited assistance to the Iraqi government, Bulgaria is presented with a chance to provide expertise in the training of the national security forces and in the area of defense reform. In fact, in these two areas Bulgaria's contribution may turn out to be more significant than the relatively limited contribution made by our military contingent in Karbala.

The heads of states decided not to invite Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Partnership for Peace (PfP). This is a heavy blow to the efforts of all reformers who argued that the reform of the national security sector is only going to be accelerated once both states are in PfP. Unfortunately, the inability of both states to meet the conditions for membership in PfP, including the detention of persons indicted by the Hague Tribunal prevented their efforts to develop closer ties with the Alliance. This, however, is a opportunity before Bulgaria as the country can now participate even more actively in the efforts to integrate both states in the PfP as well as to assist them in the reform of the national security sectors. Bulgaria's ongoing military presence in SFOR and the electoral victory of a relatively pro-Western president in Serbia create further opportunities before Sofia, already as a NATO member, to exert more influence in the region, especially in the area of defense reform.

As with any Alliance summit, what defines its success is the member states' policies in meeting the negotiated commitments. We should be reminded of the high expectation following the NATO's April 1999 decisions on developing new capabilities. The next several months will decide how consequential the Istanbul Summit is going to be.

Bulgaria's Security Vision After Prague and Istanbul
Velizar Shalamanov

The period between the NATO summits in Prague and Istanbul was crucial for Bulgaria's development in the new geostrategic context. Only until recently, the main efforts focused on preparing Bulgaria for membership in NATO and the EU. The next challenge is to define and implement an effective and coherent national policy consistent with the policies of the Euro-Atlantic community. One of these policies, a prerequisite for the success of all other policies, is achieving security based on the transformation of the security sector, operations abroad and partnership in the greater Middle East with special emphasis on the importance of the Black Sea - Caspian region for Bulgaria. This is why, following the formal invitation to start accession negotiations, the Security Sector Reform Coalition (SSRC) presented to the Bulgarian Government, Parliament and the President Memorandum #1 calling for the start of the Strategic Defense Review. Similarly, both the NGO and the business sectors, in the period between Prague and Istanbul, provided close support to the efforts of the Administration and the Parliament in the definition and implementation of the important phases in the security and economic strategy.

In the past two years, the SSRC has provided several memorandums pertaining to Bulgaria's integration in the Euro-Atlantic security system. Memorandum #2 proposed the establishment of national Joint Expeditionary Forces and a joint operation command whose goals are to support our involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Accordingly, the memorandum also included proposals for amendments to the existing Law on Defense and Armed Forces and related decisions in the Strategic Defense Review (SDR). Memorandum #3 outlined a framework for allied presence in Bulgaria, including U.S. bases and training facilities, NATO and EU structures. In the next memorandum (all are published in the Security Watch and Security Focus newsletter), the SSRC proposed a model for modernization of the armed forces and the security sector.

Meanwhile, on 27 May 2004, the government approved eleven priority modernization programs in the armed forces and allocated BGN 1.5 billion for their implementation in the next two years. The Council of Ministers tasked the Deputy-Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, Lidiya Shuleva, Deputy Prime-Minister and Minister of Finance, Milen Velchev and Minister of Defense Nikolay Svinarov with establishing the biding requirements for the modernization programs. In addition, the Public Procurement Act was accordingly amended in order to create the right conditions for defense procurement. Having established the rules, preparations are under way to formulate within 3 months a proposal to the Government concerning the implementation of the modernization programs including, hopefully, all aspects of the cycle management of the acquired systems not only in the Ministry of Defense but also in the entire security sector.

Additionally, during the celebrations of the 100th Anniversary of Bulgarian-American diplomatic relations, the SSRC proposed the establishment of a U.S.-Bulgaria Action Commission in the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Action Commission, administered by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC. The Atlantic Club in Bulgaria and the CSIS set the ground for cooperation on key projects that can potentially lead to a strategic partnership between the U.S. and Bulgaria at the beginning of the 21st century.

Inevitably, most of the modernization programs will rely on defense companies from NATO and EU member-states. Therefore, it is only logical to link the modernization of the national security sector with the issue of establishing military bases related to the U.S., NATO and the EU. The issue of bases along with the issue of Bulgarian participation in missions abroad can become the first topic of the U.S.-Bulgaria Action Commission's work.

The SSRC addressed the issue of post-conflict reconstruction and security sector reform in crisis regions in July 2003 in a separate memorandum, which proposed the establishment of a European Center for Security and Integration Studies (ECSIS) in the city of Plovdiv using the facilities of SEEBRIG. Most recently, through the initiative of the Chairman of the parliamentary Commission for Public Order and Internal Security, Mr. Donchev and the George C. Marshall Association-Bulgaria, a new Security and Integration Partnership Network-2004 (SIPN-2004) was established. The idea for the Network was formulated in a memorandum discussing Bulgaria's role in the NATO/U.S. partnership vision and involving the establishment of a partnership for security involving the Ministry of Interior, the intelligence community and the civil protection organizations and their role in the greater Black Sea - Caspian region. It is conceived to be part of the larger framework for partnership in the Greater Middle East.

In upcoming months a series of events will shape the role of Bulgaria in NATO, EU, OSCE and the bilateral US-Bulgarian strategy for security in the greater Black Sea - Caspian region, including South East Europe:

1.A panel on force modernization and US basing within the framework of the U.S.-Bulgarian Action Commission during the second international conference on investment opportunities and force modernization on 1-2 July 2004 in order to kick off projects such as:

a/ Policy Paper on Force Modernization, Investments and Defense Industry Transformation connected with the second international conference in this area on 1-2 July in Sofia;

b/ Strategy for Offset and Industrial Cooperation in Implementation of the 11 Priority Projects for Force Modernization;

2. Strategic review of emergency management and critical infrastructure protection system as key elements of addressing new security threats jointly with the U.S. to result in White Paper on Protection of Population and Critical Infrastructure in August-December 2004;

3. Strategic review of the intelligence community to streamline coordination and democratic control mechanisms in September-October 2004;

4. Review of the National Security Concept of 1998 and the formulation of a new National Security Strategy until the end of the year, which is to be based on the Policy Paper to support NSS, NMS and crisis management strategy development in light of the U.S. basing and joint participation in operations as well as cooperation in crisis/emergency management in the Greater Middle East and SEE;

5. Consolidation of the above steps in a Sofia Initiative to achieve synergy between the U.S., EU, NATO, and the OSCE strategies for the greater Black Sea - Caspian region, supported by the European Center for Security and Integration in Plovdiv. The approach is to be based on Policy Paper on Joint Action Plan for U.S.-Bulgaria Cooperation in the Greater Black Sea - Caspian Region in the framework of the Partnership for Security.

Such an ambitious program could be accomplished in the framework of the already successfully established Public-Private Partnership, which by itself is a great achievement for Bulgaria. There are two key elements - civil society with vigorous NGOs and private businesses actively involved in security issues, which guarantee success and provide critical know-how for the further transformation of the greater Black Sea - Caspian region.

New publications
Hristo Chorbadzhiyski

The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Parliamentary oversight of the security sector: Principles, Mechanisms and Practices, 2003

Because security is central to people's well-being, it is essential that their views find expression in the nation's security policy. There is a clear need for the people's elected representatives in parliament to work closely with the government and security sector. Thus the Parliament is responsible for setting the legal parameters, adopting the budget and overseeing security activities.

Meanwhile, nowadays, the role that is played by those working in the security sector is undergoing considerable change. New types of armed conflict and growing ties between states developed a new environment that needs innovative response and new thinking about very concept of security. Only through the parliamentary oversight can be ensured that these new responses are implemented in accordance of democratic principles of transparency and accountability. The absence of an effective parliamentary oversight most likely will lead to misinterpreting the security service mission.

In this context the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU, http://www.ipu.org and the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, http://www.dcaf.ch) agreed on creating a concise and accessible guide that would offer a sufficient set of practices and mechanisms that might enhance the process of parliament oversight of the security sector. The handbook Parliamentary oversight of the security sector comes to be the result of this approach.

This handbook might be considered to be a broad introduction to parliamentary oversight of the security sector. It is so for it covers a wide spectrum of relevant issues. It provides basic information about: the Parliament's and other institutions' role in security; the stages of national security policy cycle; the international regulations relevant to national security policy; who's who of the security sector; the instruments that the Parliament can use to oversee the security sector, etc.

The contributors to this handbook were led, as they point out, by the assumption that there is no single model of parliamentary oversight which works for all countries. That's why through out the book one can find a great number of cross references about different aspects of the security sector and the parliament's functions from variety of countries around the world.

Web sites

The United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC
http://www.usip.org

The United States Institute of Peace is a federal institution created by the Congress to promote the prevention, management and peaceful resolution of international conflicts. The Institute meets its congressional mandate through an array of programs including research grants, fellowships, professional training, education programs, conferences and workshops, and publications.

The Institute in particular carries out its congressional mandate through the following interconnected activities:

- expanding society's knowledge about the changing nature of international relations and the management of international conflicts

- supporting policymakers in the legislative and executive branches

- facilitating the resolution of international disputes

- training international affaires professionals from the US and abroad in conflict prevention, management and resolution techniques, etc.

From time to time the Institute launches special initiatives to address issues of particular concern. The following initiatives, whose results are available on the web site of the Institute, might be of interest:

- Balkans - aims to promote resolution of existing conflicts and the prevention of future conflicts in the Balkans;

- Muslim World - examines the opportunities and challenges facing the US in its relations within the Muslim World, from Africa to Southeast Asia;

- Religion and Peacemaking - endeavours to enhance the capacity of faith communities to be forces for peace;

- Virtual Diplomacy - explores the influence of information and communications technologies in diplomacy as well as their effects upon international conflict management and resolution.

The Institute for Public Affairs, Slovakia
http://www.ivo.sk

The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) is an independent center of public policy research and analyses. It generates ideas with the power to influence the process of formulating and implementing key decisions of public importance. The IPA's work is based on a conviction that new ideas need to be formulated in precise terms through a non-partisan approach.

IPA participates in an open debate on the important issues of public interest. It formulates recommendation directed at sustaining the reform policies, promotes democratic values, and strives to contribute to the positive changes in the overall development of Slovakia. It aims to achieve practical implementation of its expertise at legislative and executive levels and to spread out its recommendations to the experts as well as the broad public audiences.

It is one of the biggest organizations of its kind in Slovakia when it comes to the scope and the breadth of its research activities, the number of outputs, and the number of full-time employees and external collaborators. Within its six research and publication programs the Institute analyses various aspects of Slovakia's transformation: Domestic Politics; Global Report on Slovakia; European Integration and Transatlantic Relations; Civil Society; Ethnic Minorities and Public Opinion.

In the framework of European Integration and Transatlantic Relations program have been implemented the following projects which might arouse the interest of our readers: "The Future of Enlarged NATO and European Union as Seen by Political Actors"; "Values and Identities in the Enlargement of Transatlantic Community", and "EU Enlargement, NATO Enlargement and the Future of Transatlantic Relations". The outputs of the projects can be viewed on http://www.ivo.sk