14. Conventional arms control and security co-operation in Europe

Summary

Despite the unparalleled success of European conventional arms control in the
beginning of the decade, the evidence that it is at a crossroads was reinforced
in 1993. The implementation of arms control and disarmament agreements
continues fairly smoothly, but they fail to address a qualitatively changed
situation--the fragmentation of the international system, numerous incidents of
local armed hostilities, chiefly those in Eastern and South-eastern Europe
tinted with ethnic, religious and other colours.

The functions of arms control are changing from confrontational to
co-operative, and the arms control process is becoming more political in
character, shifting from a global to a regional perspective.

The November 1993 deadline of phase I of implementation of the CFE Treaty was
successfully met. About 17 450 TLE items had been destroyed or converted
to non-military purposes (NATO—over 5700 items; the former WTO group—over
11 500 items, including 6700 in the former Soviet republics).

Targets for the next two one-year phases will be difficult
for the former WTO states, which have already encountered technical and
financial hurdles in reducing their TLE during phase I. The problem of flank
zones has become outstanding, with Russia insisting on revising the relevant
Treaty provisions.

States participating in the CFE-1A Agreement continued to reduce and
restructure their forces, and a number of governments have declared or approved
plans for further considerable reductions.

The withdrawal of Russian troops from Central and East European states
continued steadily during 1993, although its pace was exposed to the
vicissitudes of Russian politics and Russia's relations with its neighbours.
The withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany continued according to the agreed
schedule. The Russian military presence in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also
decreased over the year, but Russia pursued a differentiated policy towards the
three Baltic states, using a variety of instruments (suspension of talks,
military demonstration, low-rank representation at the talks, etc.) which
resulted in differently paced troop withdrawals and uneven progress in handling
the withdrawal problem.

Work in the CSCE Forum for Security Co-operation (FSC) is a continued attempt
to inject stability into a destabilized environment. It also serves as a
platform for security consultations and exchange of information among CSCE
participating states. In 1993 the Forum continued to work on new measures for
arms control and for enhancing security and confidence focusing on
harmonization of arms control obligations; a code of conduct for security;
stabilizing measures; non-proliferation and arms transfers; military contacts
and co-operation; defence planning information exchange; and global exchange of
military information.

During 1993, the main problem faced by CSCE participating states continued to
be the lack of compatibility between European confidence- and security-building
(CSBMs) and arms control regimes, and the politico-military situation
prevailing in the southern and eastern parts of the continent. CSBMs, tailored
to `fair-weather' circumstances, have failed when it comes to dealing with
conflicts and hostilities. As from the 1993 CSCE Rome Council meeting, the FSC
took over responsibility for the implementation of CSBMs.

Ratification of the Open Skies Treaty proceeded slowly, partly because the
original intention of making the Soviet/Russian military sector more
transparent had already been achieved in other ways, thus reducing the
political urgency of the Treaty, and partly because of the high cost of
implementing the provisions. By the end of 1993 only 11 states had deposited
their instruments of ratification. Open Skies signatories continued to conduct
trial overflights for training purposes during 1993 pending the entry into
force of the Treaty.

Appendix 14A. The Vienna confidence- and security-building measures

ZDZISLAW LACHOWSKI

Appendix 14B. The Treaty on Open Skies

ZDZISLAW LACHOWSKI

Appendices 14A and 14B give the status of implementation of the Vienna CSBM Documents and
the Treaty on Open Skies.