The European Security Architecture, the relations between NATO and the EU and their relations with Russia
The questions about Russian - NATO relations are again between the firsts of the European security agenda. And it is not a surprise. Frankly speaking it is not so easy to find a place in Europe where people can say that security is not among the main priorities of their life.
In my country – Russia this word is more than important. Security was and is among the main values of the Russian people. That is why the peaceful coexistence in Europe was one of the key principals of my country despite different political systems we have had in our past.
Maybe not everybody aware of the fact, that just my country initiated the first pan European treaty on security and cooperation. Later it was signed in 1975 in Helsinki. This final act of long and difficult negotiations became the first step to the end of cold war and the cornerstone of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe well known now as OSCE.
Western Europe has also done a great job to achieve stable peace and security in that part of the Old World. We also remember that the idea of the Common market, preimage of the European Union was not pure economical but mainly political – to avoid new tribal wars among the Europeans.
Unfortunately at the privies time our common house Europe was divided into two parts or political and military camps. The capital of the Eastern one was in Moscow, the other one – much far from Europe – in Washington.
Honest-minded historians can prove that the idea of the first military block in post-war Europe came from the west and named – NATO. This was established in 1949. The official reason of the West one can easily find. For example the Oxford Dictionary of Politics says that “NATO was the culmination of Western responses to a growing preparation of threat from the Soviet Union”. I have to explain that in 1949 my country was in ruins, and remind you that we lost at least over 20 ml. citizens – victims of Fascist aggressing against Russia.
In respond to NATO establishing, the Soviet Union and its allies founded in 1955 (five years after NATO) their own military block – the Warsaw Treaty Organization.
Meanwhile the first sharp military conflict of NATO member-states was not with the Soviet Union but between themselves. In 1979 I was for the first time in Cyprus. And I remember well the results of the Cyprus tragedy with the participation of the Turkish and Greek militaries, both sides from NATO: ruins of buildings, tents of refugees, deep grief of some hundred thousand people of this beautiful island.
More over in practice the anti-Soviet block NATO never had any hot open conflict with the Soviet Union or Russia!
I cannot say that authors of NATO were first who tried to present my homeland as the main source of danger in Europe. In the 19-th century, about twenty years after the end of Napoleon invasion to Russia General John Mitchell (1785-1859) wrote in his “Thoughts of tactics” (1838): “The most important political question on which modern times have to decide is the policy that must now pursued? In order to maintain the security of Western Europe against the overgrown power of Russia!”
It takes more than one hundred fifty years and two great wars to make another conclusion: “The policy of European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century”. Helmut Kohl said that in his speech at Louvain University in 1996. And I fully agreed with this well known European politician. As I agreed with another quotation: “If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand”. This quotation is two thousand years old. New Testament by St. Mark (ch.3, v,25).
More than thirty five years have passed from the Helsinki’s final act of 1975. There is no Soviet Union and Warsaw treaty in Europe. But NATO still exists and covered much more territory than during times of the Cold War. Moreover, its enlargement is in the direction to my country. It was NATO that starts bombing civilians in Serbia. And it was the first serious war in Europe since the end of Adolf Hitler. I don’t want to say now why it was. It was, and it was in our common Europe with a lot of victims among Europeans.
Instead of two Germanys we have now one – Federal republic of Germany. In the place of the former Czechoslovakia there are two independent states. Dramatic changing happened also on the political map of Balkans. Instead of the Soviet Union we have now 15 new independent states: ten of them – members of the Council of Europe, including three new members of NATO and the EU organizations.
There were also a number of bloody conflicts on the post Soviet space, including the war in the Caucuses in 2008. And all that conflicts showed that the existing instrument of the security in Europe is not as efficient as they should be. More over in the 21-st century we have more new and dangerous challenges and threats around Europe, and unfortunately also inside it. Like international terrorism, by the way.
Because of the said reasons the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev proposed to renovate the existing architecture of the European security. After that the Russian officials presented to our colleges in Europe, the United States and Canada the draft of the new EUROPEAN SECURITY TREATY.
In the preamble of the treaty is said: “The Parties to this Treaty, desiring to promote their relations in the spirit of friendship and cooperation in conformity with international law, guided by the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970), Helsinki Final Act of the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975), as well as provisions of the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes (1982) and Charter for European Security (1999)”.
Frankly speaking, in fourteen articles of the Treaty’s draft one cannot see something outstanding or revolutionary. The Russian side only assumes different common political declarations of the post cold war decades, and shapes them in the legislation way with status of an international agreement, obligatory to all signatories.
For example we have fixed such understandable principals like:
? Security without opposition of military blocks;
? The equal security for all the European entities – security of one not at the expense of another.
We also mind, that the process of preparation of the new European security architecture may take years of persistent talks and preparation of new conference like Helsinky-2. But if it was possible in the times of the cold war, why not to try it now? More over we are not speaking about the Russian draft of the treaty like “An Act of God”, or some kind of opposition to the existing institutions like OSCE or NATO. We are offering to gather that kind of conference all European states, the US, Canada and all major pan European organizations involving in the security issues, including NATO.
We also hope that new century will be without the old prejudice, and that our togetherness shall be the cornerstone of the new security architecture of the Old World - better late than never.
Honestly I am not sure that this military block, this cold war baby is absolutely necessary in our continent in the 21-st century. Of cause I understand well, that NATO is a huge international institution with a great budget, that it is a paradise for the bureaucracy. More over it seems to me that NATO as a military organization is not too effective. The evidence of that one can easily find in Afghanistan, operations against piracy or in Libya.
At the same time if you ask ordinary people somewhere in the Baltic States, Poland or other so to say “new Europeans” against whom is NATO now, you will have the only answer – against Russia!
From the other side if you look at the results of the polls in my Motherland you can see that during the time of NATO enlargement in the Eastern direction the Russian citizens became more concerned about this military block. For example in 1997 24% of my compatriots believe that NATO is a defensive organization and 38% that it is aggressive one. After NATO enlargement to our boarders in 2009 already 61% of Russians named NANO an aggressive organization for sure, but only 16% - defensive.
At the same time 51% in my country think that NATO poses a threat to Russian Security and only 25% were sure that it doesn’t. As a politician and member of the Russian parliament I must take such a position in consideration.
Nevertheless – NATO is a reality. We also see the attempts to reorganize this military block, to change its strategy and its traditional attitude to my country. Because of that I voted in 2007 in the Russian State Duma in favor of the ratification of the Agreement with NATO member-states about the cooperation for peace.
Very remarkable events have happened in two last years. Thus during news Conference following NATO-RF Council meeting in last November President Medvedev said: “First we noted that the period of distance in our relations and claims against each other is over now. We view the future with optimism and will work on developing relations between Russia and NATO in all areas. … Some key areas: fighting terrorism, drug traffic, piracy, and proliferation of weapons of mass distraction”.
Mr. Medvedev noted during his meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen (3.11.2010) that relations between RF and NATO have gained in substance and became more productive of late, which creates opportunities for building a more solid security system in Europe and the world.
At the same time I cannot say that all our problems with NATO is in the past, unfortunately not at all. One of them – an attitude to the so said “project of the antimissile defense in Europe”.
This topic was so important, that the Russian President put it as a key position in his annual Address to the Russian parliament. He said that we have two options: either we work out certain principals and agree with NATO on designing a respective integrated system of antimissile defense, or, if we fail to reach agreement, we will subsequently be forced to make several regrettable decisions on the deployment of an offensive nuclear missile group.
Dmitry Rogozin, permanent representative of Russia to NATO explained: “Without the Russian Federation’s participation, there will be no European antimissile defense; instead, it will be NATO antimissile defense in Europe”.
What does it mean practically? Possibility of new confrontation in the future and the luck of security in Europe! Why?
Our world developed for some decades on the basis of nuclear deterrent concept. But the development of missile defense systems could change the existing balance, and this would benefit neither Europe nor the world in general.
If we all work on a missile defense system together it should be a system that does not undermine the existing balance. If missile defense were to push the nuclear balance one way or the other this would lead to a new arms race. In this sense, the missile defense idea has the potential to be constructive, and also dangerous.
Either we are fully involved, exchanging information and taking responsibility for particular areas, or we do not take part at all. But if we do not take part at all, it is understandable that we would have to take defensive measures accordingly.
I’d like to stress that we are closely interlinked now and any change in one side’s position has a direct impact on the other side’s position. So the Russian side hopes for normal, full-fledged relations with the NATO countries, for creation the conditions for our countries develop in peace and calm. We do not want to spend money on arm race.
As President Medvedev said:
“Our partners must understand that the reason for our attention to the subject is not our wish to join NATO in playing with modern toys, but our intention to ensure proper protection for Russia”.
We also understand that despite the majority among NATO member-states belongs to the EU member-states the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union it is the different organizations. At the same time I also hope that you can distinguish the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union. It is also different matters!
Because of that let me say same words about the relations between my country – new Russia and the EU – new association of 27 interdependent European states in the security field.
We do not want to split NATO, or its affairs with the United States, or to oppose NATO and the EU, but in fact after the Lisbon Treaty coming in to a force the European Union started to play a much more active role in the international policy including its security issues. And we respect that new reality.
During our summits with the EU we deeply discussed those topics with new European Council president Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission president Jose Munuel Barroso. For example during our last summit in Nizhny Novgorod we also spent a lot of time for the security discussion.
I want to remind that our today’s affairs with the EU based on the Partnership & Cooperation Agreement (PCC) signed by and between our sides in 1994. In 2005 we agreed about four road maps devoted to four common spaces – one of them devoted to the space of external security.
It included five main directions:
• An international dialog on the worldwide security;
• Fighting with the international terrorism;
• Proliferation of weapons of mass distraction;
• Crises cooperation;
• Cooperation for civil defense (emergency cooperation).
The issue of security in the European continent, including the initiative of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev concerning the elaboration of a Treaty on the new European security architecture (EST), was a priority on the Summit’s agenda since 2008. Our EU partners openly expressed their growing concern about the development of the security situation in Europe and that it required careful and comprehensive review. The more so, since the alternative is the further degradation of all European structures, and a breakdown of the common security space.
Despite too cautious position of the Brussels bureaucracy young generation of Europeans is much more positively.
On May 15 and 16 in 2009 in Perm (Russia) was a round table discussion of young Europeans (aged 21-30) from Russia and the EU. The aim of the forum was to provide an opportunity for those who would be in charge of Europe in the 2030-s to formulate what the Old World could and should look like by the middle of the 21st century.
The participants of the discussions unanimously AGREED “that in the sphere of strengthening of European and world security in the coming decades we must work towards the following aims:
1. Strengthening the role and raising the efficiency of the UN as a universal instrument of global security provision;
2. Creating a new and more reliable mechanism to provide peace and security in Europe involving all European states and their unions. This mechanism should not be based on “block thinking”, it must not try to provide the security of some countries at the expense of others;
3. Consolidating efforts to oppose external threats, international terrorism, organized crime, piracy, illegal migration and human trafficking, to tackle the after-effects of natural and man-made disasters”.
Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Co-chairman of the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee