CONFLICT PREVENTION AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT:
ENOUGH TOOLS, TOO MANY CARPENTERS?
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very topical subject. The scale of contemporary crises and conflicts proves that the existing tools alone don’t suffice for our ability to counteract them effectively. Nor does the growing number of countries willing to make an active contribution to global issues, though that is a positive trend in itself. Thus, the core question is how to improve security in the modern world.
In order to have a clear answer to that we should first get a deep and preferably wise understanding of contemporary realities. Second, we should improve our ability to eliminate the roots of this or that conflict. And third, we should think how to translate our knowledge and abilities into specific actions.
Let me dwell on the work of various collective mechanisms for managing European security problems as an example. Unfortunately, they all proved, albeit for different reasons, ill-equipped to fulfill that function.
The only notable exception remains the United Nations. Since its creation, the UN has often been called upon to prevent disputes from escalating into war, to persuade opposing parties to use the conference table rather than the battlefield, or to help restore peace when armed conflict did break out. Efforts are on-going to bolster UN’s capacity not only in peace-keeping, but in peace-making as well, in particular by strengthening the ability of the Organization to practice preventive diplomacy to «head off» potential crises at an early stage. But the UN activities should be supplemented by regional actors. So can a European contribution to anti-crisis efforts be more visible, tangible, and ultimately more effective?
I am confident that we can and should do more. Last year the leaders in the Euro-Atlantic took a step in the right direction, significantly improving the climate in the region. Today discussions on Euro-Atlantic security are characterized by fewer outbreaks of confrontation, suspicion and prejudices, and what we see is growing aspiration for more cooperation and more mutual confidence.
The outcome of the Russia – NATO Summit in Lisbon, the OSCE Summit in Astana, as well as the new START Treaty that entered into force on 5 February this year, have all sent encouraging signals and reaffirmed that there is an increased understanding of the need to work together, pursuing a more constructive Euro-Atlantic policies, and shaping a partnership based on mutual trust and commitment to the principle of the indivisibility of security.
What matters now is to define how to translate this positive trend into specific actions. That is the essence of the proposal made by President Dmitry Medvedev to negotiate a Treaty on Euro-Atlantic Security. We must not miss this chance, as we in Europe, regrettably, did more than once over the last couple of decades.
At this point one could ask a fair question – how does the Russian proposal on a Treaty on Euro-Atlantic Security correlate with the role of NATO and indeed, the newly-born aspirations of the EU in the security field?
We are realists and understand that North Atlantic Alliance is a welcome, or unavoidable, factor – depending on one’s point of view, but certainly a reality in the sphere of security. NATO has put forward its new strategic concept, which, in fact, provides for the use of the resources of the Alliance anywhere in the world. But it is also recorded in the Concept that this will be done in accordance with international law, and we would very much like to see this particular declaration adhered to. So far the example of NATO's involvement in ostensibly enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya does suggest that the Alliance is easily overstepping the mandate spelled out in the UNSCRs adopted so far.
I don not want to go further into discussion of the very delicate situation we face in the Middle East and North Africa – the conference format does not envisage that. But speaking in terms of conflict prevention and crisis management I would like to note that the international community should care more about following the rule famously described by Hippocrates: do no harm while curing the illness. Otherwise the post-mortem may say the patient died from the cure.
The crisis in North Africa has also shown that with today’s growing interdependence, developments within any state of the world can easily gain a regional and even global scale. The migration flows are catalysed by this crisis have a growing impact on daily lives of people. Organized crime and terrorist networks disregard the existence of frontiers between states and are able to find places on the world map with most favourable conditions for themselves.
Now let’s leave North Africa and look at security in the Euro-Atlantic region. First, is NATO able to shoulder that responsibility? My answer would be – contribute, yes; take full responsibility, no. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty provides a legal guarantee of security only for members of the Alliance. NATO explicitly indicated more the once that it opposes extending the level of security envisaged for its members – for all it is worth – to other European countries, who should hence make a «historical» choice between applying to join or remaining content with second-class security status.
My country believes that security guarantees should be equal for all, that real security can only be equal and indivisible. And this is not a Russian invention, those very same words were subscribed to by heads of state and government of all Euro-Atlantic countries within various multilateral formats. Of course, these declarations are political in nature. But it should not be a problem to translate political commitments into legally-biding obligations. Any reluctance to do that would only raise suspicions regarding the real value some Euroatlantic leaders attribute to their own words.
Let me now say a few words about Russia-EU interaction in conflict prevention and crisis management – something within the immediate sphere of my current professional interests.
Crisis management cooperation has been outlined as one of the priority areas for enhancing Russia-EU cooperation in foreign policy and external security, as described in the relevant Road Map adopted in May 2005.
A significant practical step towards promoting this cooperation was taken by participation of the Russian military contingent in the crisis management operation in Chad/CAR from January 2008 to March 2009. 120 Russian military personnel and four MI-8 transport helicopters took part in a peace-keeping effort led by the European Union. The contribution of the Russian contingent to the success of the operation has been assessed as significant by the EU. High professional skills, capabilities and readiness of Russian military personnel to conduct a mission in a harsh environment have been distinguished by the operation’s Commanding officer.
Another illustrative example of cooperation is the close interaction of the Russian Federation and the European Union in combating piracy off the Somali coast. We cooperate there as equal partners in implementing common goals.
Russia and the EU are working to develop a proper legal basis for future cooperation in crisis management. Of course, the issue of legal basis is relevant not only to bilateral Russia-EU cooperation but also to the efforts by the European Union to strengthen its capacity to deal with crisis management as part of its Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP. The EU has tested its civil-military capability in different parts of the world. But conflict prevention and crisis management represent a very difficult endeavour where effective cooperation with outside partners is a key prerequisite for success.
We are convinced that peace should rely on dialogue, cooperation, multilateral approaches and joint decisions taking into account interests of all stakeholders. Teamwork philosophy underlies the entire Russian diplomacy. Having long abandoned an ideologically charged policy, we opted for a pragmatic and multi-vector approach to assume our share of responsibility for the current global state of affairs.
Thank you for your attention.
