IRRI-KIIB  - Seminar Address

Ladies and gentlemen!

Dear colleagues!

(Slide № 1) Let me express my gratitude to the organizers of this seminar (whose urgency and importance of the seminar’s topic is beyond doubt) for the invitation extended to me – a representative of the Russian Armed Forces –to participate in it. (Slide № 2).

I would say there will be no mistake in stating that the leitmotif of national and international discussions is the issue of politics, security of the world’s countries, closely tied with the terrorism - one of the main threats to the mankind (Slide № 3).

I believe that most of you have already seen unabridged version of my report, so I’ll try to speak in theses and concisely.

Keeping in mind the fact that the format of today’s meeting is a seminar suggesting exchange of opinions on the topic of the agenda I would like to stress that the main provisions of the speech delivered to you reflect my personal opinion and personal view of the essence of the addressed problems and should not be interpreted as the official position of the Russian Federation.

For your better understanding and perception of the Russian security policy in Eurasia let me first elaborate on the conceptual essence of such definitions as “state (national) interests” and “state (national) security”. (Slide №4)

It is universally accepted that the integrity of the state is determined by the following:

1st – specific system of bodies and institutions carrying out functions of power (i.e. system of government);
2nd – body of laws regulating the fundamentals of state and social structure of the country, system and principles of forming and functioning of the organs of government, electoral system, rights and duties of citizens (i.e. constitutional law);
3rd – a certain territory subject to the jurisdiction of a particular state.
Besides, I hope you agree that a “full-fledged” independent state needs one more attribute which is full-fledged sovereignty.

Being guided by the above said I offer another definition of “state interests” - it’s the state’s pursuit of every development of the government system and constitutional law, settlement of own territory and consolidation of sovereignty, that are the incentive for the further development of the country. (Slide № 5).

State interests:

- Determine domestic and foreign policy of the country;
- Appear to be a consequence of the development of the country and the developing general political situation in the world;
- Consist of the interests of the state institutions, socio-political organizations and movements.

The term “state security” is subordinate to the term “state interests”.

I believe that every one of us instinctively understands “security” as a certain state of immunity and till recently that was enough.

In the meantime the developing process of globalization, complication of political situation and the need for a deeper development of conceptual documents not only in Russia but in other countries as well bring about the need for more precise definition of “state security”.
For example the Strategy of national security of the USA defines “state security” as immunity of the people, territory and way of life.
In the Soviet times the state (national) security of the USSR was defined as immunity against external and internal threats, resistance to unfavorable external influence, provision of those internal and external conditions that guarantee a possibility for steady progress of the society and the citizens.

The examples above bear out identical sense of the term “national security” which you may agree with. Assuming and admitting that the state develops on the basis of own interests I would offer the following (summarizing the above mentioned ones) definition of “national security” – as such a status of internal and external conditions of the state’s existence that guarantee a possibility for the realization of its interests. (Slide №6).

To sort "state interests” in the order of their significance I would suggest the following classification:

• Fundamental state interests – those interests that are related to retention and natural development of the aforementioned attributes of the state and/or their compatibility.
  In my view, such interests include matching the reach of the constitutional law and the territory subject to the sovereignty of the state.

• Vital state interests – those state interests that are deemed obligatory for implementation by the governing bodies and the bulk of the population for the further successful development of the state.
  It is noteworthy that in my opinion introduction of the phrase “vitally important” is more of a tribute to fashion but not quite accurate per se: if those interests fail to be realized the state will stay intact and may just face some difficulties;

• Other or “simple” state interests.

One may consider different classification schemes by types (fields) of activity of state interests. For example, by their “lifetime” - short and long term ones; by the “scope” - internal and external; by the “scene of action” – state interests in the Asia-Pacific region, in the Eastern Europe, etc. There are many classification schemes of the state interests by the “field of activity”: economics, culture, education, military science, etc.

I believe you would agree with me that life itself confirmed the fact that there are no and can be no some kind of universal values valid for all countries and nations and useful in all instances. Including the values and interests that are “better” than those elaborated by the so called “retarded” peoples throughout their life. Whatever it may be, the lifestyle is the reflection of the people’s soul. The state interests of Russia have always been and I am sure will always be determined by its way of historic development.

I’m against setting Russia as a contrast to Europe and Asia (Eurasia), however I’m also against imposing the European civilization on Russia because I am sure that if Russia wants to secure own worthy future, it was, it remains and should remain Russia. Russia is not Europe, not Asia and not Eurasia. It is - I want to stress it again – Russia!

Is there connection between the “state interests” and “state security” of Russia?

To answer this question I suggest the following to be done:

1st – evaluate main development tendencies in the world as a whole, Eurasia in particular and in Russia as well;
2nd – evaluate main threats to the state interests and state security of Russia;
and 3rd – communicate to you main contents of Russia’s policy in Eurasia.

So, I would like to briefly focus on the main contemporary tendencies. (Slide № 7).

There is no doubt that the main tendency of modern time is the racing process of globalization.

Globalization will determine lines of the global development for decades. Globalization, viewed by me as the internationalization of life, moves forward overcoming and creating contradictions, crushing resistance of some social groups and bringing as successors other ones.

Today fruits of globalization are distributed unevenly: the weak and the poor have bad luck as always!

Today traditional cultures tracing their roots in ancient times are being pushed aside to the roadside and into the ditch while new aggressive subcultures brought up by the material capabilities of the vanguard of globalization – the USA – step forward.

That’s the right point to set goals:

Ø How to prevent globalization from becoming a destructor and executioner of the sovereignty of the countries?
Ø How to prevent globalization from replacing international relations by a kind of world’s “supermarket”?
Ø How to prevent globalization from resulting in dilution of history and culture of our countries in the so called common information field?
Ø How to prevent real power of presidents, parliaments and governments elected by own citizens from passing into the hands of transnational financial tycoons?
Ø I believe there may be many more “How to prevent”?

However, in my opinion, the right conclusion is that globalization is the objective reality and it’s impossible to “skirt” it or to cast a spell over it by antiglobalist demonstrations. One needs to understand it and to join it.

As applied to Russia, it is possible and even inevitable that changes take place not only in economy but in other areas of development of our country - in politics, national, social and other spheres. The process of globalization possesses ambiguous nature in Russia; it brings not only positive effects but negative ones as well including new state security challenges. And it’s not easy for such multinational and multi-religion country as Russia.
The role and the place of Russia will depend on how and to which extent it will be able to join globalization, to integrate into it being guided by the following principle:
"The world changes, it doesn’t turn better or worse – it becomes different. The changes taking place in the world generate the need to change international legal norms … It’s important to make sure that those changes do not eclipse the most important thing they are supposed to serve – the MAN with his rights and freedoms ".

The 2nd modern tendency is the opposition of the two tendencies in the world development:
pursuit of monopolar world with unconditional leadership of the USA (this tendency prevails but it doesn’t win in my mind) and the other one – movement towards the multipolar world.
My opinion is that the monopoly of a single superpower - the USA - based on immense military power and huge material resources may lead the world into a dead end!
We see the first “results” both in Iraq and on the territory of the former USSR especially in Central Asia and Transcaucasia.
The US leaders do not hide their pursuit of global leadership, without asking anyone they “appointed” themselves both the captain and the steersman in the process of the transformation of the world.
Russia takes those challenges into account; it makes respective conclusions and will make them in the future.
I am sure that the world’s countries and their peoples need a just, multipolar world possessing equal rights without self-proclaimed predominant force.

The 3rd modern tendency I would characterize as a growing contrariety between the “rich North” and the “poor South”.
How to stop it and prevent it? There is only one answer – only by providing economic prosperity of the poor countries.
However the countries of the “golden billion” are not ready and not willing to share own wealth.
The world can’t become stable if everything that the mankind achieved will be concentrated only in the rich and safe countries.
I’m sure that the policy of the “rich” and “fat” – let the “poor” manage to survive themselves – is the way to global social shocks.
For Russia the consequences of the tension between the North and the South have grown especially critical. Today the southern borders of Russia have become the areas of the existing and potential conflicts, major number of which is located in the territory of the former USSR and in the adjacent regions. It is here that the international terrorism and criminality in their most vile manifestations try to develop (drug business, human and arms traffic, etc.).

I should point out that it is Russia that has become a barrier in the way of spreading of international terrorism and criminality in Europe and it is left without even a countenance.

Speaking about internal problems of Russia and their threat to the “state interests” and “state security” I would like to focus on the problems of regionalization and federalism.
“Regionalization” is the phenomenon of the Yeltsin times when certain leaders of the constituent territories of the Russian Federation sought unlimited expansion of own authority and activity compared to the policy of open separatism. In the same time there were attempts in some national constituent territories to stimulate activity of various nationalistic movements and organizations.
After his election President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin put that problem as the most important one because territorial integrity of our country was threatened not only by external deconstructive forces but more by the internal ones. In my opinion we have solved this problem now.

From my viewpoint these are the main tendencies of the global and internal development and major threats to the state interests and state security of Russia.

Ladies and gentlemen!

There is only one question for me to answer: how should Russia behave as a state, what external and internal security policy to pursue?

The fundamental of Russian foreign policy today is the provision laid down by Chancellor A.M.Gortchakov in the second half of the 19th century. It states that the foreign policy should in the first place correspond to the state interests of internal development of the country.
In the context of modern conditions it means, in my opinion,
Ø       to facilitate “state security”, create most favorable conditions for stable development and growth of economy, increase living standards of the population, enhance unity and integrity of the country, fundamentals of its constitutional order, consolidate society, protect the rights of own citizens and compatriots abroad.

You may ask what’s new in this policy as compared to the policy of the former USSR? My answer follows: today assertion of fundamental state interests does not lead to confrontation and self-isolation!

Today Russia proposes joint development and implementation of solutions of the global and regional problems on the multilateral basis and on the basis of common interests, within the framework and on the basis of democratic and legal organization of the world order.
Life itself encouraged us to pursue such policy.
Russia has chosen multipolar world, based on the principles of international law and democracy, comprehensive approach towards international security, joint actions to counter new threats and challenges.
Russia’s view of multipolar world suggests cooperation between different centers of power rather than rivalry as it was in recent past.

Russia pursues now a multiple-vector foreign policy in which Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian, Asian and other strands of policy have own value and complement each other (Slide № 8).

One of the main priorities now is the development of broad-spectrum relations with the CIS partners, creation of the belt of good neighborliness and cooperation along the perimeter of Russia’s borders.
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has played a consolidating role as a CIS security instrument. In 2002-2003 it built a basis for creating regional CSTO (Slide № 9),
Rapid deployment collective forces, Joint Staff and other bodies.

The top priority direction is the European one. Russia pursues the line to boost own activity in such multilateral institutions as OSCE, Council of Europe and NATO (Slide № 10).

Russia steers the course towards the progressive advance of relations with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region and international institutions and organizations that are active there (Slide № 11).

These are the main strands of the Russian security policy in Eurasia as well.
Are there any problems? Yes, but those are not only the problems of Russia, those are our common problems.

Being a military man, I would like to focus your attention on those problems that are relevant to military security.

First of all, I would like to present our view of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty).
Such basic arms control instruments as the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty) and the Vienna document played an important role in what followed in the last decades, namely, military and political changes in Europe didn’t lead to new crises and conflicts. However many provisions of the documents have been losing their effectiveness and ceasing to correspond to the changing realias.

In its current form the CFE Treaty regime is incapable of maintaining stability and balance of interests of the member states in the process of continuing military and political changes in Europe, in particular because of the fact that the Treaty doesn’t provide for acceptance of new members. As for the adapted CFE Treaty capable of addressing these tasks, it’s been six years that a number of our partners postpone the beginning of its ratification. As a result, after two phases of the NATO’s expansion to the East without the agreement on the adaptation coming into effect, the CFE Treaty, in fact, has lost its viability. In such situation the Russian Federation is not going to pretend that the CFE Treaty is functional and that we are happy with that.

We assume that the settlement of this matter should become one of the top-priority tasks on the agenda of the OSCE with no dependence on other problems we face.

Another issue which is no less important is the adaptation of the Vienna document of 1999.

The Vienna document, which retains the wording of 1994, in fact, ceased to perform its major function – to embrace modern military activity with confidence building and security measures. And all this happens despite the fact that such activity rapidly intensifies: the number of military exercises including multinational ones grows, their geography expands. Some participants to the document believe that the large scale exercises are not taking place any more and that is why they do not reach the threshold of notification and observation. However modern means of warfare allow for the execution of bigger and more significant missions by smaller troops and weapons.

In such way the existing document doesn’t take into account recent qualitative changes in the armed forces of the OSCE participants and, in particular, the role of the quick reaction forces. Commencing exchange of information about these forces would have become an important confidence building and cooperation measure.

On the basis of the European experience it could be possible to consider a possibility for taking new arms control measures that may cover regional dimension as well. In our opinion they could have been based on the principles presented on Slide №12.

Development of common approaches of the international community towards addressing fundamental issues of construction of the new system of international relations becomes vitally important for the optimized work of regional international security organizations.
In the first place it is related to the prevention of illegal arms trade. Much has been done in this sphere in the framework of the UN and OSCE. In the meantime we need to further develop international cooperation in this area. (Slide №13).

Finally, I would like to say that in general in the framework of the common European process we have managed to join our efforts and create quite a solid basis for continued constructive dialogue addressing entire spectrum of global and regional security problems. It is important not to stop at what we have reached. We need to move on and create military-political strategy of Eurasian span on the basis of the UN Charter and the principles of international law through the coordination of the national security concepts. I want to reiterate that all urgent international problems can be solved only by common efforts and only through using the potential of the legitimate international organizations.
I think this task is executable. It can be accomplished if we manage to turn common view of new partnership into some real work. And here Europe has a reliable, predictable and responsible partner represented by Russia.

(Slide №14)

Thank you for your attention.