Past and Future of CSTO

After the anniversary summit of the CSTO Secretary-General of the Organization, Nikolai Bordyuzha, told about its past and future.

CSTO 20 years ago

There were two main factors for the signing of the Collective Security Treaty 20 years ago. First, there was the necessity to ensure the security of the newly-appeared countries in the post-Soviet space while the power structures of these independent states were in the process of formation. Secondly, we needed to divorce in a civilized manner and create separate armies and law enforcement agencies in the newly-appeared states. This was achieved within the framework of the treaty. You remember that exactly because of the treaty it became possible to minimize the inter-Tajik conflict and stabilize the situation. It was done with the participation of the countries that signed the treaty. I took part in those events and I can state that if it was not for the help of Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, the resolution of the conflict would not have been as successful as it was. In 1999-2000, during the conflict in Batken, the treaty allowed for stability to be ensured in Kyrkyzstan.

CSTO today

Time brought about the need for deeper cooperation, therefore the Organization was created. I believe that the Organization has created the necessary legislative basis that allows it to act in fulfillment of the tasks according to the law. We have the necessary coordination mechanisms in different aspects of security. I believe that the Organization fulfils its task and has its niche. It is known and taken into consideration. We are a wanted partner. In my opinion, the Organization is active and productive, despite all the critics.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization took place in St. Petersburg the day after and the meetings of the Council of the Parliamentary Assembly. It was attended by the heads of parliament of all the member-states. I believe that this direction is the most advanced. It concerns not only the harmonization of our legislation but also the political cooperation of our state to solve security problems, including coordination of foreign policy at parliamentary level. It helps us a lot.

CSTO and European missile defense system

One of the factors ensuring the security of Russia is its nuclear potential. In this respect, questions of anti-missile defense in Europe and elsewhere is interesting to all our member-states, because most of them will be concerned should it be put into action. That is why today in the negotiations Russia considers the positions of the member-states and regularly informs them about the progress of the negotiations. This started already under Dmitry Rogozin, who was then the representative of the President in these affairs. This continues now, meaning that the position of the member-states is taken into consideration when Russia negotiates with Europe and the US.

CSTO war games

All the states that allocated their armies to the Rapid Reaction Forces – six states, excluding Uzbekistan that did not sign this treaty -  are ready to participate in these exercises. At the last meeting of the Council of Collective Security, the Armenian President officially invited the heads of state to attend these exercises. In addition, questions connected to the military exercises were also discussed at the meetings of the Ministers of Defense and by the Committee of the Secretaries of Collective Security in Astana. The preparations are very active. There are some organizational problems but we are solving them.

CSTO and Afghanistan

There are many places where the problem of Afghanistan is discussed. And many formats. As the Secretary-General of the Collective Security Organization I take part in numerous conferences and negotiations. I think that the proposal of the President of Uzbekistan is reasonable. I believe that it will be a good contribution to the efforts that the global community is investing to ensure stability in Afghanistan. The measures taken plus those proposed by the President of Uzbekistan allow the situation to be positively influenced.

Some other problems appear. They are connected to external factors such as instability and creation of military structures around the member-states, attempts to influence and exert political or economic pressure on the members of the Organization. Many militants that are trained in the camps of Afghanistan are citizens of the member-states, and we must take this into consideration. There are internal factors. I mean the growth of support for Hizb ut-Tahrir and other similar organizations. There are internal social problems that should be kept in mind. We cannot exclude the possibility that there could be attempts to destabilize the situation in the member states using informational resources, a protest electorate and terrorist organizations. There is a possibility that bandit groups will attempt to get into the Central Asian states. There is a possibility that some forces in Afghanistan would want to destabilize the situation in Tajikistan.

Preferences for CSTO members

We are now carrying out very interesting work with Armenia, in which we realize tasks connected to inter-state military-economic cooperation. Within this framework we agreed to create in Armenia five or six joint enterprises to fix, repair, modernize and dispose of weapons. I am very glad that these projects are close to realization. This is first. Secondly, the negotiations today are not only with Armenia, but also with Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, with Belarus. This military-economic cooperation is interesting for all the countries, because this way we basically reanimate the military industrial complex in these states. This cooperation is quite successful today. You know that according to the Collective Security Treaty each state has priority when buying weapons. I can say that in the last two years the number of orders within the framework of the treaty more than doubled. I think this is a very positive dynamic.

CSTO future

The worst scenario for the organization would be if we would be charged with some gendarmerie functions to bring order to any state. This is not our issue. We focus mostly on the external challenges. This is the purpose of our organization. Another question is that after the events in Kyrgyzstan, the heads of state became concerned with the potential situation that the state structures would not be able to ensure the security of the citizens, when the power institutions would be destroyed. When a country is in chaos and there is no real power and the national resources cannot ensure the freedom and lives of the population, should the Organization interfere to neutralize these scary processes, as it was discussed. Nothing more. Everything else concerns the external challenges.

CSTO and NATO

I believe that the creation of military objects and structures by third countries and their organization around, first of all, Russia, is a negative tendency. The elements of the anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe also belong to the negative tendency. It means breaking parity and tensions. I think that today, after the world situation has changed  we need to find some mutually interesting solutions instead of developing some systems from one side and expanding NATO, telling us afterwards that, guys, you know that it is not against you. The same as they say about the anti-missile defense.  It is not against you. Against who then? Against the countries that do not have nuclear weapons? Why do they need advanced bases in Bulgaria and Romania? Why did they need to restore the military structure in the Baltic countries? And other attempts?  We understand, we are adults, that it is not simply about coming and ploughing the field? These millions and billions of dollars that are invested there. What for? For political purposes. Then it makes sense.

Otherwise, I am not convinced of their positive intentions. We heard about it so many times, we agreed that NATO would not go eastward, and it went there, how other countries were invited and pulled. I think that this position is incorrect. During the events in Kyrgyzstan alone, more than 100 of its citizens ended in these camps.  The latest events in Tajikistan showed that among those who are trained in these camps are numerous citizens of the member-states of the Collective Security Organization, including Tajikistan. Some of them were captured during the operation and they provided evidence. We take this into consideration. I believe that it is very dangerous, because the training is intensive and diverse, and there are many militants trained and they naturally focus on their own countries to return and fight against the regimes there. As for the agreement between Afghanistan and the US about the military presence, we are aware of it and believe that the mission should complete its work after reporting to the UN Security Council that sanctioned its work in Afghanistan. We would like to get the information about what was successful and what was not and compare it to our own data. As for the military presence, I believe that we need to ensure stability in Afghanistan and development of law-enforcement structures that can function by themselves. But it is clear that Afghanistan has a right to conclude any treaties with the US about the presence of any military forces on its territory. We cannot influence it. The fact that these objects are created, equipped and protected, is widely known, and it is clear that these objects are not focused on ensuring stability in Afghanistan, the configuration is different.

We are not part of the negotiations, because the negotiations are conducted between the Russian authorities and NATO, but we have the necessary information. It is about help to NATO forces in Afghanistan that are acting in the interests of the Central Asian region too. If these airports or objects will help NATO, I do not see anything horrible in it, unless NATO transports the military. Russian law prescribes obligatory examination when transporting military freight. We went through this already. It concerns the allies too – when it was necessary to transport some weapons to Tajikistan from some other state some years ago, Russia insisted on the landing and examination of the plane.