Talking points by the Delegation of Estonia at the meeting of Working Group I of the Budapest CSCE Review Conference

2 November, 1994

1. We would like to bring our view point in connection with the discussion we held yesterday, i.e. the role of international organisations and structures in peacekeeping and crisis management in the CSCE area or, more exactly, in a ceratin part of the CSCE area, in regard to which controversial approaches persist.

2. Any regional or subregional organisation, in particular in the field of political-military security, has a "raison d'etre", as far as its member States have trust in it, as it would satify immediate questions stemming from mutual needs and concerns. Any such organisation or structure would also enjoy broader international recognition and leitimacy in its activities and competence, as far as

- it is well structured and politically balanced,

- enjoys full consent of its members in all major undertakings,

- is acting according to the standards and norms provided by international law, as well as the UN Charter and, in this case, the relevant CSCE documents,

- offers transparency and co-operation, and

- has gathered a considerable amount of experience.

3. All these factors enumerated above have to be taken into consideration while addressing the concept of interlocking ( or mutually reinforcing ) institutions, as well as the way the European and Transatlantic organisations can better contribute to ur common goal, i.e. security and stability in the CSCE area.

4. We have followed with increased attention the way political events have developed so far around the CIS and the twelve participating States concerned.

5. We fully respect the right based on the free will of each State and nation to join any regional or subregional organisation or structure, including in the field of political-military security, and believe that this is one of the basic rights the participating States of the CSCE should enjoy.

6. In this respect, the CSCE has to consider, on an equal basis, the legitimate interest and concerns of all these States, and bears a "special responsibility" for them, as far as all of them became newly participating States.

7. Developments around the CIS leave the impression of non-consistency of agreement by all the twelve, including in what concerns mutual defence and the so-called CIS Peacekeeping Mechanism. Very little information i available about the legal basis of and the CIS activities, and we would join those claiming a lack of transparency in this respect. we are also expecting other countries concerned to explain their position in regard to the CIS, not only by the extended chaimanship.

8. The claim to delegate the responsibility for the security of a certain region or subregion sollllely to a State or an organisation, comprizing a number of States in that region or subregion, would inevitably lead to the consolidation of a new political and security division of the CSCE area, a fact that we are all committed toavoid.

9. The conflict situations in the CIS area are a cause of serious concern, great loss of human lives and destruction of property has been caused for years. Serious considerations are made as concerns not only humanitarian assistance, but also effective international participation in the political conflict settlement process and possible peacekeeping operations. We welcome the initiative on Nagorno-Karabach. These considerations show clearly a need for international invilvement, because of financial and political legitimacy needs that the CIS cannot offer alone. Estonia, too, will consider a possible contribution to these international efforts.

10. In conclusion, we believe that all what we need is political good will and preparedness to co-operate in a faithful and transparent manner. The CIS area has to keep "the door open" for CSCE engagement in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. We shouldn't leave those fellow countries alone.