Tweet
Medvedev's New Security Vision
Moscow Times
07 December 2009
By Vladimir Yevseyev
In June 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev first floated the idea for a
new, broader structure for European-Atlantic security. The Kremlin
turned the idea into a concrete proposal Nov. 29 when its web site
posted a 14-article draft document titled `The European Security
Treaty.' Under the motto of `From Vancouver to Vladivostok,'
Medvedev's treaty attempts to encompass, among others, NATO, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Collective
Security Treaty Organization.
Not surprisingly, the West has reacted to the security treaty
skeptically at best. At worst, many in the West interpret Medvedev's
proposal as an attempt to restore its lost global influence, if not
its empire.
Medvedev's initiative was the logical continuation of the Kremlin's
foreign policy that was sharply articulated by then-President Vladimir
Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2007.
During his speech, Putin said, `Security for each is security for
all,' and that the model of a unipolar world in the 21st century is
not only unacceptable but impossible. In Moscow's opinion, any
unilateral action - whether in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq - only
creates new problems.
Every country - especially a totalitarian one - defends its most
fundamental national security concern: self-preservation. For the past
60 years, nuclear weapons have proven to be one of the most reliable
guarantors of security for those countries that are part of the
official and nonofficial nuclear club. But as a rule, those countries
have complex and difficult relations with neighboring states and are
burdened with historical, ideological, religious, territorial,
ecological and other problems. The result is a nuclear domino effect.
If, for example, Iran develops nuclear weapons, this will inevitably
lead to the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear arms throughout the
Middle East and beyond.
Moscow is extremely concerned about attempts by the United States and
some of its allies to reach decisions affecting regional as well as
global security outside the framework of the United Nations. NATO, the
European Union and the Group of Eight do not have the global mandate
to make these decisions by themselves.
Thus, Medvedev is trying to build a much broader structure for global
security. The basic idea is that `no single state and no single
international organization in the Euro-Atlantic region can strengthen
its security at the expense of the security of other countries and
organizations.' Medvedev's draft treaty has already been sent to
NATO, the European Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. It was also presented and
discussed at the latest NATO-Russia Council meeting, held Friday in
Brussels.
Of course, there is a large discrepancy in terms of resources among
the members of these organizations. For example, NATO's military
potential far exceeds that of the CSTO. In addition, NATO's zone of
operations has expanded so much that every former Soviet republic now
participates in its Partnership for Peace program. What's more,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Moldova are in the
initial stages of one day joining the alliance.
But NATO's future is uncertain, and this underscores the importance
of finding alternatives to provide European-Atlantic security. The
more that NATO tries to expand, the more diluted, cumbersome and
ineffective the organization becomes. Moreover, NATO suffers from a
lack of mission and common cause. The Russian menace is greatly
exaggerated, and international terrorism is too diffuse a threat to
unite alliance members. What's more, with Washington's security
guarantees becoming more unreliable, European states have been forced
to consider creating their own security structures. Recall the EU
proposal to form its own security structure - a `NATO without the
United States,' of sorts. Further, apart from the largely decorative
NATO-Russia council, NATO has not included Russia and its closest
allies in the European security structure. This not only weakens NATO,
but gives it a certain anti-Russia character.
In addition to NATO's inherent weaknesses, there are also serious
problems with the OSCE. The OSCE member states have never resolved a
major interstate conflict, such as Nagorno-
Karabakh. The OSCE, which lacks sufficient unity among its member
states, has not worked effectively with the CIS to form a unified
security structure
Therefore, there is an urgent need to redesign the old and ineffective
European-Atlantic security structure to meet new threats and
challenges. Medvedev's European Security Treaty offers a new
architecture for the post-Soviet era, and the West should treat it
seriously. It provides an excellent opportunity for Russia, the CIS,
Europe and the United States to work together toward strengthening
security from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
Vladimir Yevseyev is a senior associate at the Institute for World
Economy and International Relations.
Moscow Times
07 December 2009
By Vladimir Yevseyev
In June 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev first floated the idea for a
new, broader structure for European-Atlantic security. The Kremlin
turned the idea into a concrete proposal Nov. 29 when its web site
posted a 14-article draft document titled `The European Security
Treaty.' Under the motto of `From Vancouver to Vladivostok,'
Medvedev's treaty attempts to encompass, among others, NATO, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Collective
Security Treaty Organization.
Not surprisingly, the West has reacted to the security treaty
skeptically at best. At worst, many in the West interpret Medvedev's
proposal as an attempt to restore its lost global influence, if not
its empire.
Medvedev's initiative was the logical continuation of the Kremlin's
foreign policy that was sharply articulated by then-President Vladimir
Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2007.
During his speech, Putin said, `Security for each is security for
all,' and that the model of a unipolar world in the 21st century is
not only unacceptable but impossible. In Moscow's opinion, any
unilateral action - whether in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq - only
creates new problems.
Every country - especially a totalitarian one - defends its most
fundamental national security concern: self-preservation. For the past
60 years, nuclear weapons have proven to be one of the most reliable
guarantors of security for those countries that are part of the
official and nonofficial nuclear club. But as a rule, those countries
have complex and difficult relations with neighboring states and are
burdened with historical, ideological, religious, territorial,
ecological and other problems. The result is a nuclear domino effect.
If, for example, Iran develops nuclear weapons, this will inevitably
lead to the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear arms throughout the
Middle East and beyond.
Moscow is extremely concerned about attempts by the United States and
some of its allies to reach decisions affecting regional as well as
global security outside the framework of the United Nations. NATO, the
European Union and the Group of Eight do not have the global mandate
to make these decisions by themselves.
Thus, Medvedev is trying to build a much broader structure for global
security. The basic idea is that `no single state and no single
international organization in the Euro-Atlantic region can strengthen
its security at the expense of the security of other countries and
organizations.' Medvedev's draft treaty has already been sent to
NATO, the European Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. It was also presented and
discussed at the latest NATO-Russia Council meeting, held Friday in
Brussels.
Of course, there is a large discrepancy in terms of resources among
the members of these organizations. For example, NATO's military
potential far exceeds that of the CSTO. In addition, NATO's zone of
operations has expanded so much that every former Soviet republic now
participates in its Partnership for Peace program. What's more,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Moldova are in the
initial stages of one day joining the alliance.
But NATO's future is uncertain, and this underscores the importance
of finding alternatives to provide European-Atlantic security. The
more that NATO tries to expand, the more diluted, cumbersome and
ineffective the organization becomes. Moreover, NATO suffers from a
lack of mission and common cause. The Russian menace is greatly
exaggerated, and international terrorism is too diffuse a threat to
unite alliance members. What's more, with Washington's security
guarantees becoming more unreliable, European states have been forced
to consider creating their own security structures. Recall the EU
proposal to form its own security structure - a `NATO without the
United States,' of sorts. Further, apart from the largely decorative
NATO-Russia council, NATO has not included Russia and its closest
allies in the European security structure. This not only weakens NATO,
but gives it a certain anti-Russia character.
In addition to NATO's inherent weaknesses, there are also serious
problems with the OSCE. The OSCE member states have never resolved a
major interstate conflict, such as Nagorno-
Karabakh. The OSCE, which lacks sufficient unity among its member
states, has not worked effectively with the CIS to form a unified
security structure
Therefore, there is an urgent need to redesign the old and ineffective
European-Atlantic security structure to meet new threats and
challenges. Medvedev's European Security Treaty offers a new
architecture for the post-Soviet era, and the West should treat it
seriously. It provides an excellent opportunity for Russia, the CIS,
Europe and the United States to work together toward strengthening
security from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
Vladimir Yevseyev is a senior associate at the Institute for World
Economy and International Relations.