Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to express thanks to IISS and RIA Novosti for organising this important event.
This period in time is remarkably packed with anniversaries important not only to our common history but to the current state of affairs in the Euro-Atlantics. Thirty-five years ago the CSCE Final Act was signed in Helsinki. Twenty years ago the Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted. And twenty years ago the Berlin Wall fell.
The Berlin Wall had always been the symbol of the divided Europe, of the split between two civilizations, of values not shared. And its fall was perceived as a huge leap towards unification of Europe, over the big divide. Some hopes came true, some did not. What matters most is that many dividing lines have been removed, above all that the relations between East and West have been liberated from the constraints of the ideological confrontation.
It has been a no small accomplishment, but it has neither been sufficient. Pan-European military-political collaboration has yet to make that qualitative leap and create a strong and cohesive partnership, in other words “common Pan-European home” stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok, in order to meet effectively the new challenges and threats. It looks like it is high time for Europe to change again.
Nowadays Russia perceives itself as a partner, not as an object of the EU and NATO policies. We are fully aware of our capabilities as well as problems. Russia is undergoing comprehensive modernization rooted in democratic values and institutions, building, as has been underlined last month the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, a society of free and responsible people, a state with domestic and foreign policy based on purely pragmatic goals, becoming a global power on a completely new basis.
Russia advocates stronger multipolarity, collective approach, concepts which are becoming increasingly widespread throughout the world. A reflection of this trend one could see in the United Nations once again gaining momentum, at G20 summits where the leaders of so many different countries sit at one table. Speaking about events closer to home, one should not fail to mention the rich, constructive discussions at the OSCE Ministerial in Athens and the substantial and productive Ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on December 4th, 2009, - the first after the freeze in our relations.
It should be obvious that this new world order, that transcends narrow national self-interests and addresses common security threats on the basis of inter-dependence cannot do without the “common European home” project. Only a new “Greater Europe”, with a global vision and shared goals, will be able to ensure enduring stability on our continent, contribute globally to international peace and security, and be competitive in that evolving global context.
How far are we from realizing this project, which Charles de Gaulle suggested back in the Cold War era?
Very far: “To achieve this goal, much remains to be accomplished. We continue to be seriously concerned that the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and OSCE commitments are not fully respected and implemented; that the use of force has not ceased to be considered as an option in settling disputes; that the danger of conflicts between states has not been eliminated and armed conflicts have occurred even in the last decades; that tensions still exist and many conflicts remain unresolved; that stalemates in conventional arms control, resolution of disagreements in this field, resumption of the full implementation of the CFE Treaty regime and restoration of its viability requires urgent concerted action by its State Parties…” This fragment is neither an extract from the Russian diplomatic files, nor the findings of the expert community. This analysis made by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the OSCE Participating States is reflected in the Athens Ministerial Declaration less than a week ago. The text I referred to clearly demonstrates the distance covered by the OSCE – from traditional self congratulating descriptions of the current situations in the OSCE area to unambiguous recognition of existing shortcomings in the security sphere.
It is also evident that since the 1990’s we’ve quite often communicated to each other but not listened or heard each other’s concerns and ideas. One could remember repeated attempts to isolate Russia, neglect of Moscow’s concerns related to the NATO enlargement, NATO moving military infrastructure closer to our borders, heated “tunnel-vision” disputes, be it on energy security or ballistic missile defence plans for Eastern Europe of the previous US administration.
It is paradoxical enough: The principle of the indivisibility of security is being professed both on a European level (in the OSCE framework) and within regional organizations (for example, in NATO documents).
While in the OSCE the principle of indivisible security is a political commitment, in NATO the same principle has legal force with no veto right for third countries. But there can be no reliable first- or second-rate security.
It took the shock of the South Caucasus crisis for all of us to become aware that something is not quite right in Europe and that by themselves the political obligations that we have all gradually assumed in various fora are not enough.
Maintaining divisions on the continent of Europe compromises the security of all. A common security space cannot be built by excluding individual parts from it. Not only the entire world but also the Euro-Atlantic area multipolar so, consequently, one must act as equal to others, taking into account one another’s legitimate concerns.
Security can be either indivisible or there is no security. The security systems in our common space will prove their ineffectiveness of over and over again if each builds these systems “only for himself,” proceeding from political egoism and ignoring others’ interests.
In June last year, the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev invited in Berlin all partners in the Euro-Atlantics to change our approaches, to address jointly these problems through dialog and creative teamwork in order to finally do away with the Cold War legacy. The underlying idea of President Medvedev’s proposal to draw up a European Security Treaty is to formalize in the international law the principle of indivisible security as a legal obligation pursuant to which no nation or international organization operating in the Euro-Atlantic region is entitled to strengthen its own security at the expense of security of other nations or organizations. Our initiative has a unifying character and is designed to harness the potential of States and international organizations to create a truly indivisible space of equal security for all the States of the Euro-Atlantic region within a framework of common “rules of the game” and mechanisms for their application.
Throughout last year a large number of government officials and politicians, analysts and experts from Russia, Europe, the US and other countries played an active part in the numerous discussions held on the Russian initiative in numerous intergovernmental and non-governmental forums. We would like to express our gratitude to all of them.
On the basis of the results of those discussions a draft European Security Treaty has been prepared and passed on by President Medvedev to the leaders of the Euro-Atlantic States and the executive heads of the relevant international organizations operating in our common space such as NATO, the European Union, the CSTO, the CIS, and the OSCE. In his message President Medvedev emphasized that Russia is open to any proposals on the subject matter of its initiative and counts on the positive response from its partners.
We trust that once they have studied the draft, our partners will provide us with precise and constructive feedback on the substance of the draft Treaty. We look forward to the beginning of a substantial discussion on its specific elements.
We propose to achieve through a new Treaty a new kind of cooperation in the field of hard security, to upgrade the current system of Euro-Atlantic security so it should become a long-lasting one since it will be based on legally binding reciprocal and common commitments. Herein will be the obvious “added value” of the Treaty compared to the provisions of previously adopted at the highest level documents within the CSCE/OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council. We see the Treaty reaffirming as well the principles guiding security relations among states - first of all, respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of States, the inadmissibility of the use of force or the threat of its use in international affairs.
Many partners wonder about the rationale of a new treaty. Now and then voices are heard that we’ve come up with this initiative against NATO. This is not true: we absolutely do not conduct our foreign policy "against anyone". On the contrary, we advocate stronger coordination and synergy including between existing international structures. We advocate that no state or organization in the Euro-Atlantic area should act against each other, but that they should act together against common threats. Europe had already passed through an epoch of “holy alliances,” and to return to the “you are either with us or against us” principle would be strategic mistake. If we had such an effective instrument then Georgia would not have had the nerve to start a war against South Ossetia and attack Russian peacekeepers.
Of course, a Treaty alone will not shape new security architecture. Much shall be done to underpin Treaty regime with a new pattern of cooperation, common, or at least, harmonized security agendas and better interaction among all security organizations and factors acting in the area from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
From my point of view, it is quite realistic to speak about steadily increasing chances of progress in five areas crucial for security architecture.
First – re-launch goal-oriented, serious discussions on the role of arms control and confidence-building measures instruments. Some do believe that dialogue on CFE is bringing us back to Cold War times and in fact generates the Cold War mentality. Maybe, that opinion is not without ground. But tell me how to get more security with less means, and how to overcome remaining suspicions in relation to military intentions, planning and force generation. Sharp reaction to the Russian-Byelorussian military exercises “Ladoga” and “Zapad-2009” that, by the way, were conducted under the thresholds of the Vienna Document, is a clear sign that arms control is still in high demand. Our advice is to those who are complaining about the nature of these exercises – support numerous Russian proposals to modernize Vienna Document and thus bring it’s toolbox in line with new political military realities. The beauty of arms control is in its ability to translate political intensions into understandable language of numbers, limits, locations, information and verification regimes. And we should not be talking only about technicalities how to bring in motion Adapted-CFE regime, but should think creatively about the very relevance of arms control instruments in evolving security environment and necessary steps to increase their viability. NATO declares to be transparent about its military activity. We welcome this intention. But we are also looking forward to get from our NRC partners their vision of concrete parameters of “substantial combat forces” – one of the key provisions of the Founding Act, signed in Paris in 1997.
Second – better cooperation among all security organizations and actors in Euro-Atlantic area. An important contribution here could become the implementation in good faith of NRC Work Program for 2010 and of the document “Taking the NRC forward”. Another important contribution – with the EU – would be to start negotiations on an agreement on co-operation in crisis management. Positive experience of Russian participation in EU mission in Chad / CAR provided political impetus to the process of establishing legal and operational framework for joint actions of the EU and Russia in crisis situations. And we should not forget about the need to create a joint EU-Russia institutional body that will allow taking joint decisions in security sphere, to implement them jointly and to share responsibility.
Ideologically driven stereotypes should not remain an obstacle to the highly needed cooperation between NATO, EU, CIS, OSCE and CSTO on concrete security problems, not to mention Afghanistan. We seek support of our proposal to convene a special meeting of these five organizations in 2010.
Third - elaboration of common approaches to global threats to security of our citizens, societies and states. Within NRC we are launching a process of common threats assessment in the security spheres relevant to NRC. Similar process is ready to start in the framework of “Corfu”.
Fourth – a need to have a clear common set of guiding rules to be uniformly applied to settle all crisis situations, including the frozen conflicts. The Russian Federation has circulated in the OSCE its proposals aimed at establishing uniform approaches to the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts that should be based on the inadmissibility of the use of force, negotiations, voluntary agreements between the parties to the conflicts without outside imposition of unilateral solutions. We are ready to work on these issues within the “Corfu Process” as well as in the framework of the OSCE documents, such as Vienna Document 1999 Chapter on Risk Reduction.
And that brings me to my next, fifth point – possibility of getting common security agenda is becoming more and more realistic. We welcome NATO readiness to engage Russia in the process of defining new strategic concept and are looking forward to welcome “wise persons” in Moscow in February of 2010. In our common interest is to avoid mutually competing and interfering security agendas, especially in the areas, where we face common challenges, be it drug trafficking or organized crime, money laundering, energy and cyber security, climate change, etc. The so called “restricted group” approach with “no veto right” of third countries in these areas will lead to creation of new dividing lines in these spheres.
And finally: Comprehensive security remains our basis and objective. Human rights, rule of law, good governance constitute integral part of the security of states. But commitment to comprehensive security should not be used as pretext not to advance on hard security. Since adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 many things have changed in Europe. All European states – only Byelorussia is missing – became full fledged members of the Council of Europe, which through its legally binding instruments, the Court, monitoring mechanisms, is bringing us together in the broader range of issues that we describe as soft security. The OSCE has become a human right agency. We believe that in this area, where CoE, OSCE and the EU are very often operating on parallel tracks, better division of labour is needed in order to achieve the most efficient use of comparative advantages of the abovementioned organizations.
