EURussiaCentreEU-Russia Centre

Интервью с Дмитрием Рогозиным, постоянным представителем России в НАТО

08 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

Дмитрий Рогозин: Что такое международный терроризм? – это, прежде всего, идеология экстремизма, радикализма, доведенная до человеконенавистничества. То есть, все, что на меня не похоже, что не верит в того бога, в которого верую я, это все нужно уничтожить. И это как бы мой долг – вот эта идеология и есть.

А как с этой идеологией бороться с помощью традиционных видов оружия, традиционными военно-политическими альянсами? В этом и есть главная загвоздка идеологии НАТО. То есть, организация, созданная в старое время для противостояния какая-то иной другой, тоже военной организации, – например, Варшавскому договору, или страшному и ужасному СССР, «холодная война», все готовились к этой тотальной войне в Европе, которая теоретически могла очень быстро перерасти в ядерную мировую. А ту вдруг этого военного врага нет, а появился такой враг виртуальный – международный терроризм.

Источник: Радиостанция "Эхо Москвы"

An Upgrade for NATO

08 Дек 2009
Комментариев нет

The long-awaited draft of the Russia’s new trans-Atlantic security treaty was recently presented and sent by the Russian President to the heads of relevant states and chief executives of international organisations operating in the Euro-Atlantic region such as NATO, the European Union, the CSTO, the CIS, and the OSCE.

President Dmitry Medvedev has announced his idea to “reset” the whole system of international security just after he came to power in May 2008, but so far the proposal has lacked the details which western leaders were hoping to see. There were also warnings from them that there was no need actually to replace existing security arrangements and treaties with any new document. Most of the Western politicians and observers also anticipated that Moscow would try to weaken NATO in some way or suggest replacing it with a new organisation. Now it is time to study and to consider what Medvedev has proposed in his draft.

When he initially put forward an initiative to develop a new pan-European security treaty on June 5, 2008, the main idea of this proposal was to create a common undivided space in the context of military and political security in the Euro-Atlantic region in order to finally do away with the Cold War legacy. Medvedev suggested formalising in international law the principle of indivisible security as a legal obligation and accordingly where no nation or international organisation is entitled to strengthen its own security at the cost of other nations or organisations.

The draft stated that, “any security measures taken by a Party to the Treaty individually or together with other Parties, including in the framework of any international organisation, military alliance or coalition, shall be implemented with due regard to security interests of all other Parties… A Party to the Treaty shall not undertake, participate in or support any actions or activities affecting significantly security of any other Party or Parties to the Treaty… A Party to the Treaty shall not allow the use of its territory and shall not use the territory of any other Party with the purpose of preparing or carrying out an armed attack against any other Party or Parties to the Treaty or any other actions affecting significantly security of any other Party or Parties to the Treaty.”

In the context of current relations between Russia and the West, these clauses of the draft would directly affect Russian-NATO relations at all levels, taking into consideration Russia’s oft-expressed concern about NATO and U.S. military influence near its borders. In fact, as Western politicians see it, the authors of the draft would prefer to use the new treaty to substitute all current security structures, including NATO. For instance, the phase “to affect significantly” in practice would mean the prohibition of NATO’s further enlargement. Also it would presuppose that new demarcated “security zones” would be established in Europe, resembling the “zones of influence” which have been substituted already by existing supra-national bodies and organisations.

It is interesting to see how the draft addresses the questions dealing with any imminent military threat to a participating country or even a military attack against it:“… every Party shall be entitled to consider an armed attack against any other Party an armed attack against itself. In exercising its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, it shall be entitled to render the attacked Party, subject to its consent, the necessary assistance, including military, until the UN Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Information on measures taken by Parties to the Treaty in exercise of their right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the UN Security Council”. It is evident that the draft maintains an approach which is very close to that of NATO within its Article 5 of the Washington Treaty; there are also many references to the UN Charter. For instance, participating parties may provide necessary assistance, including military, to a participating country if attacked (and if such assistance were supported by an extraordinary conference of the member countries) – “until the UN Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. Also – “information on measures taken by Parties to the Treaty in exercise of their right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the UN Security Council”. It specifically emphasises that “this Treaty shall not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for maintaining international peace and security, as well as rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations”. Thus, the proposed treaty is considered to be an “intermediate institution” between the UN and sovereign countries who are parties to the new treaty.

But here is the question: what would be then the principal difference for, let’s say, European nation members of NATO, between their current position and their position under the new architecture of security, which so evidently borrows many procedures, principles and mechanisms from existing international bodies, such as NATO, OSCE and the UN Charter? While borrowing those features, the draft suggests that “The Parties to the Treaty reaffirm that their obligations under other international agreements in the area of security, which are in effect on the date of signing of this Treaty are not incompatible with the Treaty.” The answer to the question is quite clear – the principal difference is Russia’s membership. But then another question might be posed: why couldn’t Russia simply consider the possibility of integration into the NATO structures?

In fact, in the long term there is no alternative for Russia but to reconsider its position between the West and China. As China’s role in shaping the world grows, Russia would find itself being increasingly unable to resist its neighbour’s economic and political influence. As a result, there is a growing inclination within a large part of the Russian ruling elite to “reorient” the country’s foreign and economic policy to favour of China. But those opposing such a development underline that in such a case, there would be almost no opportunity for Russia to remain even a “semi-equal” partner for the emerging global power in the East. These politicians and experts point out that culturally and developmentally Russia is much closer to Europe (despite the current incompatibility in values) and, thus, it should partner with Europe and the West in general. The result of such a revaluation of the Russia’s role in the new world, would be that eventually there would be no real alternative to Russia’s stronger cooperation with Western security structures. And that would mean more advanced forms of integration with NATO, or an “upgraded NATO”, made more “comfortable” and acceptable for Moscow. Eventually, it could transpire that the newly publicised Medvedev draft of the new security Pact is just one a step in that direction.

Принуждение к вере

07 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

Западные дипломаты не обращают внимания на предложения Москвы и не верят им хотя бы потому, что российские дипломаты сами в них часто не верят. Лучшие профессионалы в МИДе обычно не имеют ни малейшего представления о том, кто, как и для чего принимает важнейшие внешнеполитические решения. Зато их постоянная работа – оправдываться и объяснять новаторские затеи Кремля.

Источник: Русский Newsweek

У России и НАТО впереди много “общего”

07 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

Заседание Совета Россия-НАТО, которое прошло в Брюсселе, ознаменовало собой окончание “глубокой заморозки” нашего стратегического диалога с Западом после прошлогодней войны на Кавказе. Кризис доверия, не суливший ничего хорошего Европе и миру, в целом преодолен, хотя многие разногласия были просто отложены в сторону.

Источник: Известия

Статья Фрейзера Камерона, директора Центра ЕС-Россия в издании “Ежедневный Китай”

07 Дек 2009
Комментариев нет

What changes will Lisbon Treaty bring for EU

The China-European Union (EU) summit in Nanjing on Monday was the last such meeting under the rotating EU presidency (in this case Sweden). The very next day the Lisbon Treaty came into force.

Many diplomats and analysts are now asking whether it will change the way the EU conducts its business. Will the EU really become more coherent and visible in its foreign policy? What will be the impact of the appointments of two top EU leaders? Why were Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton chosen, especially when there were more prominent personalities like Tony Blair on offer?

Read the full article in China Daily

Навстречу новой Европе

03 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

Сергей Маркедонов, политолог, кандидат исторических наук: Обсуждение Договора ждет непростая судьба. Скорее всего, жесткие договорные обязательства с Россией оттолкнут США и ЕС. Однако других альтернатив изменению ситуации внутри Европы, Евразии и во всем мире не существует. Или нахождение общих правил, построение единого неразделенного пространства безопасности, либо абсолютный геополитический постмодерн. И в этом постмодерне у России очень плохо с союзниками и партнерами, что резко уменьшает наши шансы при различных лобовых столкновениях с игроками, чей потенциал больше, чем у Грузии или Украины. В любом случае, появляется предмет для разговора. И это особенно отрадно на фоне дефицита стратегических системных предложений внутри РФ.

Источник: Политком.ру

Медведев в Италии: первая примерка новой европейской безопасности

03 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

То, что проект договора о Евробезопасности «прибыл» на первое европейское свидание именно в Италию – не случайность. Италия при Берлускони, надо признать, обрела некую невероятную роль протежирования российских интересов на Западе. Именно Берлускони принадлежит фраза, сказанная еще в апреле 2007-го во время встречи с Путиным на Сардинии: «Есть, – философски заметил Сильвио репортерам, – только один Запад… и он должен обязательно включать Россию».

Источник: РИА Новости

The Post-Soviet Space in EU-Russian Relations

03 Дек 2009
Комментариев нет

The issue of common neighbourhood remains one of the major stumbling blocks in EU-Russian relations. Last week Russia took a number of steps which were intended, either directly or indirectly, to consolidate its near neighbourhood. On Friday 27th November the Presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus signed a package of documents relating to the creation of the Customs Union. They agreed on the creation of a unified customs tariff starting on 1 January 2010, as well as a unified customs code (effective from 1 July 2010).

On Sunday, 29th November, the draft of the European Security Treaty was published on the Russian President’s website. The document puts forward, “formalising in international law the principle of indivisible security as a legal obligation pursuant to which no nation or international organisation operating in the Euro-Atlantic region is entitled to strengthen its own security at the cost of other nations or organisations”. This means, according to the state-controlled Russian mass media, that the Kremlin is calling on the West “to refrain from spreading its influence in the post-Soviet space”.

These economic and security initiatives are not new in Russian policy towards the post-Soviet states. They have been put forward before in differing forms, but there has been no apparent will to implement them and therefore they have never come to fruition.

There are several suggestions regarding Russia’s intentions with respect to its neighbours. The ones most often mentioned by experts are the following: Russia seeks the restoration of a quasi-USSR; Russia de facto considers those territories its own, viewing the break-up of the Soviet Union as “major geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century“ (as per Mr. Putin); Russia plays the post-Soviet space card in its play with main international actors; and Russia views the territories as a buffer zone should there be conflict with the West.

The ultimate goal of Russian policy towards the post-Soviet space remains unclear (if indeed any exists). From its neighbours’ point of view, Russia wants obedience and is ready to pay a high price to get it. As for the rest of the world, it wants recognition of its right to play a serious economic and even political role on those territories.

According to the Nations in Transit 2009 Freedom House study, only two post-Soviet states, Ukraine and Georgia, can be classified as ‘Transitional Governments or Hybrid Regimes’, “typically electoral democracies that meet only minimum standards for the selection of national leaders.” Two others, Armenia and Moldova, are ranked as ‘Semi-consolidated Authoritarian Regimes’, “countries which attempt to mask authoritarianism with limited respect for the institutions and practices of democracy.” The remainder, including Russia, are ’Consolidated Authoritarian Regimes’, “countries which are closed societies in which dictators prevent political competition and pluralism and are responsible for widespread violations of basic political, civil, and human rights.” This list includes Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In its European Neighbourhood Policy Progress Reports 2009 on five Eastern neighbours (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) issued in April, the European Commission also noted the mixed progress of these countries with regard to democratic governance and human rights. Achievement in reforms, if any, had been ambiguous. In each country, large unreformed sectors remain, especially in the judiciary and the rule of law.

Apart from the strained democratic development, most of these countries have one more common feature – they are either economically dependent on Russia, or have weak points which Russia exploits in its own interests. It is in the EU’s power to step in and make more effort to assist these states in removing areas of their dependence on their mighty neighbour.

Interestingly, most of the friction between the EU and Russia surrounds Ukraine and Georgia – countries that can either continue their difficult march towards democracy, or return to authoritarianism should democratically minded leaders in those countries fall. The main obstacle to this would be, of course, resistance from civil society. But these counties will undoubtedly be grateful if the EU uses its soft power mechanisms in order to help protecting their democracy.

The Recommendations of the Eastern Partnership Civil Forum, held on 16th and 17th November 2009 in Brussels, outlined that civil societies in those countries want to see a greater EU presence. Despite the potential tensions, the EU should accept this invitation and increase its involvement in the life and future of the region.

Статья Фрейзера Камерона, директора Центра ЕС-Россия в издании “Глобальная Европа”

02 Дек 2009
Комментариев нет

A good messenger
What the new High Rep can achieve / A new European foreign policy?

With Catherine Ashton as the EU’s new foreign policy chief, and with the new institutional set-up introduced by the Lisbon treaty, will 2010 become the first year of a European foreign policy that deserves its name? Global Europe has put this question to a number of experts on EU foreign policy. Here is the response of Fraser Cameron, Director of the EU Russia Centre in Brussels.

Catherine Ashton’s appointment has not been well received in elite circles but the problem of European foreign policy is structural rather than one of personalities. This was well encapsulated in the comment by Bernard Kouchner that ‘the EU was looking for a messenger’ in appointing a new High representative. No doubt there were more high-profile candidates but why would they take a job that was defined as being merely the mouthpiece of the EU?

Read the full article in Global Europe

Договор ни о чем

02 Дек 2009 — Россия
Комментариев нет

Из текста договора следует, что любой его участник может любое действие других государств трактовать как угрозу своей безопасности. Никаких объективных критериев безопасности проект договора не вводит. Присоединившись к нему, страны НАТО обрекут себя на бесконечные тяжбы с Россией, которая таким образом будет добиваться права вето на внутренние решения альянса (прежде всего на те, что касаются его расширения).

Источник: Ежедневный журнал