By Pavel Andreev, RIA Novosti Head of International Projects and political commentator
The security architecture of the Euroatlantic space needs to change. Last year’s conflict in the Caucasus vividly demonstrated both the current system’s nascent but developing, instability, and its fragility. The potential for a just and sustainable security architecture in the spirit of the Charter of Paris and a Europe united has been compromised over the post cold war years by the failure to establish a link of trust in relations between East and West, between Russia, the U.S. and its NATO allies. Moreover, in today’s world with its complex perception of security and rising external challenges to the Euroatlantic region, Russia, Europe and North America need to find ways of reconnecting under the banner of shared security concerns, rather than clinging to their exclusive and divisive security arrangements.
It seems Russia is the first to realize this. Historically part of Western civilization, throughout the past decade it has continuously felt excluded from political and security consolidation in the West. Finding itself in limbo between the ailing West and the rising East, Russia has since struggled to successfully marry its cultural and spiritual predispositions to Europe with the politically and economically pragmatic need to building strategic partnerships with China and other Asian Tigers.
Indeed, the main reason Russia was not accepted into the wider West, an area which has traditionally been its point of reference, was its reluctance to succumb to the Western devotion to unipolarity. Russia’s elite failed to follow in the footsteps of other Eastern European leaders, and confine the country to the role of Washington’s vassal. Unilateral, unjust actions by an expansionist NATO, such as the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq only proved the split in perceived threats and desired response between the USA and its NATO allies on one hand and Russia on the other.
Fortunately this path of failure seems to have been drawn to a close by the end of George W Bush’s term in office. President Barack Obama’s vow to “reset” the relationship appears to have created the opportunity to “reset” relations within the Euroatlantic security arrangement and to see the “red lines” of division in the region give way to a more collaborative focus on shared interests and common threats.
Yet, so far, signals from this “reset” are too mixed to be unanimously accepted. Obama’s decision to stop the development of a flawed ABM system in the Czech Republic and Poland prompted controversial statements from senior U.S. officials, who stressed that not only would this new system be much more capable, it would be installed unilaterally without Russian participation. The decision to reconvene the NATO- Russia Council for the first time since last August’s conflict in Georgia was marred by Canada, who supported by other close U.S. allies (the UK and the Baltic states) spoke out against signing what they called meaningless documents with Russia. It is difficult to recall a time when Ottawa, or London and the Baltic capitals for that matter, took so bold and independent a line in their international affairs.
The only element of this “reset” process where progress appears palpable is in strategic arms reduction. However, it has also been widely conceded that this reduction to a great extent plays into Washington’s hands, not Moscow’s. Even if a mutually satisfactory status-quo is reached it is yet to be seen whether there will be by-lines to it.
In the meantime the effect of U.S. – Russia relations on the Euroatlantic landscape is hard to underestimate. The process of self-determination that the EU is undergoing vis-a-vis Russia, and in relation to the wider world, has been painfully slow due to the confluence of interests between the larger countries of old Europe and the “new Europeans” in the former Soviet bloc. Whereas old Europe has been looking to secure its supply of energy resources from Russia, and looks to Russia as a market for its produce, certain players in Eastern European capitals have buried themselves in their stereotypes of the Russian threat, not least, the military threat. However, they have at times been too successful in exporting these concerns to Brussels and other European capitals, thus jeopardizing any significant progress between Russia and the EU. Despite expectations the Lisbon Treaty and the introduction of the new positions of EU President and the Commissioner on a Common Foreign and Security Policy are unlikely to move things forward, given the people appointed.
The truth is that the perception of Russia as a military threat hasn’t gone away in the Western European capitals either. The British Secret Service ranks Russia in their top three along with Al-Qaeda and Iran. A French white paper on defence and national security mentions “the consequences of the domestic changes in Russia and the assertion of its political, strategic and economic role in EurAsia with knock-on effects vis-à-vis its European neighbours”.
The widespread anti-Russian hysteria unleashed in the media following Vladimir Putin’s speech in Munich in 2007 also contributed to the failure to find the right approach. The campaign urging people to be wary of a resurgent Russia focused on Russian bombers’ return to their patrol flights, Russia’s expedition to the North Pole and also alleged that Russia was manipulating their energy resources, added to the mood of mistrust spreading across the continent.
This confluence of economic interests and security concerns led to a certain disparity in Russia – Europe relations. On the economic track, there have been more opportunities for positive cooperation on the bilateral level and some progress has been made, despite everything, in the field of energy security due to the much criticized gas projects: Nord Stream and South Stream. On the political and security tracks, on the contrary, the positive agenda ran into the obstacle of the much needed compromise, and resulted either in no progress or insignificant “small steps”, which although they fail to change the bigger picture, can be used to produce a public image of a breakthrough, as was the case with the Canadian demarche last week. Moreover, last year’s conflict in Georgia demonstrated how counterproductive this appearance of cooperation can be where it covers up the rotten foundation of the relations in the region.
The economic downturn has made all sides more focused on the need for positive cooperation to overcome the hardships of the crisis. Moreover, the US and NATO, following an unsuccessful continuation of the Iraq epic are facing a devastating blow in Afghanistan and the persistent threat of a near-nuclear Iran. For Russia both the latter are also the source of formidable concerns. On its hand Russia needs to attract European and American capital and technology to kick-start the modernization of its economy in the wake of the global economic crisis.
These factors give rise to a chance for a new modus vivendi to be established, based on mutual benefit and a sense of security and trust in Europe. Several steps are needed for it to be achieved. One would be the development of advanced political, economic and social cooperation within the Russia – EU strategic partnership agreement. Another would be a new energy security treaty which would safeguard both the supplier and the consumer, thus eliminating the persistent irritant. The cornerstone, however, should be a legally binding obligation on all parties, states and organisations alike, to ensure they do not pursue their individual security at the expense of others in the region. It is because of the importance of the above-mentioned American factor in European politics, that the region must be defined as the space from Vancouver to Vladivostok, including the US as well as the recently outspoken Canada.
True, many of the current challenges that Russia, Europe and the U.S. face can be temporarily resolved by giving the current status quo a facelift. Yet this would not wash away the now seemingly eternal problem of mistrust between Russia and the West. So long as this fundamental obstacle remains in place, both of them will lose out to ever greater challenges from the East and South in the not so distant future.
