PROVOCĂRI LA ADRESA SECURITĂŢII ŞI STRATEGIEI LA ÎNCEPUTUL SECOLULUI XXI

This situation is markedly different from the Cold War period. In
addition, the South-Eastern flank of NATO is today one the key of the
region.
There are two very important security issues.
The first, NATO reiterate his commitment to the Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). Treaty as a cornerstone of European
security, and NATO reaffirm his attachment to the early into force of the
Adapted Treaty. NATO recalls that fulfillment of the remaining Istanbul
commitments on the Republic of Georgia and the Republic of Moldova will
create the conditions for the Allies and other States Parties to move forward
on ratification of the Adapted Treaty. NATO notes the progress that was
made in 2003 on withdrawal of Russian military forces from the Republic of
Moldova. NATO regret that this progress has not continued in 2004 and that
the extended 31 December 2003 completion date, agree in the framework of
the OSCE, was not meet. It is essential that efforts be intensified to complete
the withdrawal as soon as possible. NATO will continue, via OSCE, to
monitor and assist in this process. NATO urges a swift resolution of the
outstanding, issues between Georgia and Russia as set out in their Istanbul
Joint Statement of 17 November 1999 [1].
The second, The Istanbul Summit Communiqué stated that NATO
will take a number of steps further strengthen the Euro-Atlantic Partnership,
in particular through a special focus on engaging with our Partners in the
strategically important regions of Caucasus and Central Asia [2].
For these reasons, it could be not enough to operate, in the
geostrategical field only the concept „The Black Sea Region”. It is
necessary to operate with one wider concept for this area „The Greater
Black Sea Region”.
There are many reasons for this concept; but it is sufficient to show
only two: „the connection of the frozen conflicts of this region” and „the
energy transport corridors”.
The center of gravity for the last 50 years in the alliance has been in
Western Europe, but the center of activity is moving east, the geostrategic
center of interest for foreseeable future has to be the greater Middle East [3].
The Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine are the three major
players in the region by all-important measures of power: size, population,
real and potential economic power and military capability.
There are plans of creating a security zone from the Baltic to the
Black Sea. Rapidly evolving and strengthening is the Kyiv-Warsaw axis
which in our opinion is in a position to form a gravitational field and involve
the cooperation of third countries such as Lithuania or Romania.
Transformation of the Weimar triangle (Warsaw-Bonn-Paris) into
quadrangle with Kiev’s participation could become a fundamental factor of
security in East Central Europe. It is important to emphasize that the sphere
of Ukraine’s regional interests extends beyond Central European structures
and cover those which unite countries of the Black Sea and Mediterranean
regions, including Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia [4].
Our proposal suggests operating in the security field with the
concept „The Wider Black Sea Region” instead of „The Black Sea Region”.
The Black Sea Region: Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia,
Turkey, Bulgaria
The Wider Black Sea Region (WBSR): Romania, Ukraine, Russia,
Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan.
II. Geopolitical perspective: WBSR countries and their security
problems
The geopolitical perspective must take in account the spatial
dynamics of contemporary WBSR, particularly the development of non- and
trans- national spaces, the changing nature of European borders, and
emergent forms of spatial governance, particularly those associated with
cities, trans-border regions, pan-European networks, and polycentric
development. While there is much research being conducted on WBSR
(regions, cities, Euro-land etc.), EU borders (enlargement, cross-border
flows and mobilities, problems associated with peripheries), and the nature
of EU governance applied to WBSR (multi-level, networked, EU-as-polity),
there is much less work devoted to understanding the concept of “friendly
vicinity” (relationship between spaces, borders and governance).
The issue of EU borders has attracted a lot of attention in recent
years, particularly in terms of the problems of maintaining territorial
security and the ability to control flows in the context of threats stemming
from transnational crime, trafficking, and terrorism in a Europe increasingly
characterised by mobilities, networks and ‘borderless Europe.’ Borders are
also important because they are increasingly seen to have a spatial
dimension, best represented by the idea of ‘borderlands,’ and the fact that
EU borders are not necessarily to be found at national or European
perimeters but also at airports and other gateways.
281
282