By Vestnik Kavkaza
A meeting of Russia and NATO foreign ministers was held in Brussels on December 4. The Council discussed the European missile defense system, the fight against terrorism, cooperation in Afghanistan and military cooperation, reduction of weapons of mass destruction and crisis management. It assessed the current international situation, including the escalation of the situation in the Middle East, Syria and several other Arab countries, and announced the priorities of the new Russian ambassador to NATO.
According to Alexander Grushko, Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO, “particular attention was paid to the situation in Afghanistan and the connected threats – terrorism, extremism, drugs. We need to unite our efforts to fight all these threats that pose a danger not only to the Euro-Atlantic region, but particularly affect Central Asia and Russia, which experiences the constant threat of extremism and drug trafficking.
The second issue also connected to the situation in Afghanistan is the external security forces. You know that cooperation between Russia and the NATO in the sphere of security, particularly the issues of transit, is organized according to Security Council Resolution Number 1386. We suggested to our partner that we should discuss the legal basis of ourcooperation after the international security force leaves Afghanistan in 2014. It is necessary that they report to the Security Council, and the new mission created after a discussion between the partners should be implemented in a clear legal field. This is in our common interests and our cooperation. We need to created channels of information exchange between NATO and Russia, we have a special group on Afghanistan in our council, but we insist that Russia participate in the international groups to promote security in Afghanistan and establish permanent connections between the NATO and the CSTO that would make the activity in Afghanistan and around it more effective. We revised concrete projects of helping Afghanistan. The transit of the necessary materials through Russian territory is effectively implemented. There is a growing number of specialists that we are preparing together with the NATO countries to stop drug trafficking, the special fund of Russian helicopters also functions successfully. We also successfully cooperate in other spheres, such as the struggle with terrorism and piracy. There are great prospects of cooperating in the military and technological spheres. We successfully work on weapons of non-lethal action. We have an agreement on cooperation in the sphere of utilization of the excessive weapons, soldiers' equipment, standardization and other questions that are not perhaps in the sphere of great public attention but are very important for our cooperation and compatibility. This is the basis of our relations.
Among the anti-terrorist projects, I would like to name the anti-terrorist project Startex, which will allow an increase in security during events with mass attendance. Another project, “Initiative in the Airspace” is also developing very successfully. It is aimed at identifying terrorist threats from the air.
All these things are a real contribution to security and an answer to the tasks formulated at the Lisbon summit in 2010, when Russia and NATO decided to analyze the possibilities of cooperation in the sphere of missile defense. This work has started, but now unfortunately it faces a dead-end and at the moment we do not see possible ways out. On the one hand, our partners claim they are ready to consider this document. However, their position does not acknowledge our reasonable security interests and is based on the internal decisions of NATO taken without our participation. If we do not adjust our position - and Russia insists that it should be done according to the criterion that the defence system should not be directed against Russia but only at the forces located outside the Euro-Atlantic region. It would be impossible to go further without accepting this position.
There is still a possibility to work and we decided to continue. NATO already has a project of European anti-missile defence. It was announced that the preliminary system is ready. So if NATO will invite us to discuss the plans that are already approved and implemented, it will not produce any positive results. I will remind you that we held military exercises of anti-missile defence in Germany, and these exercises showed the advantages of a system with a unified centre. It is more effective. Therefore, the problem of anti-missile defence will remain the most important one on the agenda of the Russia-NATO Council. It is obvious. If we manage to find a compromise, it will mean that, for the first time since the beginning of the Cold War, Russia and the NATO united their efforts to fight common threats. If we are not able to find a compromise, it will mean that even in the sphere of common interests there is a separating line that prevents us from real cooperation in the sphere of security. We do not share the point of view that NATO cannot delegate to Russia the protection of its own territories, because Russia is not a part of the system of the Washington Treaty. I believe it contradicts the point of the non-partition of security that we declared in all the documents of the OSCE and the Russia-NATO Council, from the founding act signed in Paris in 1997 to the Lisbon document.
Another question that has principle sifnificance is obeying the norms of international law by our partners. We will pay special attention to this topic, but only because Russia believes that the effectiveness of the international community depends on whether it is acting within the legal framework and also because NATO-Russia relations also develop within a legal space.
Naturally, we also discussed the expansion of NATO, and here our position is clear, and it is clear to our partners. We believe that the expansion of NATO does not remove the dividing lines but only moves them geographically and creates tensions, generates a philosophy of borderline states and harms regional stability and security.
All three of these problematic issues will have crucial significance for the development of relations between Russia and NATO, but we will always strive for the cooperation with NATO in the sphere of common interests and work on effective results.”
Along with the political cooperation within the Russia - NATO Council there are also cooperation programs between the military. They are adopted annually at the level of the Russia – NATO Council in the format of Chiefs of the General Staff. Last year, a roadmap was adopted for military cooperation for the years 2012 - 2014. “There are many activities there that are intended for specific projects of cooperation in areas of common interest,” Grushko said. “I would point out first of all the naval sphere. We have successfully conducted exercises of emergency rescue of the crews of submarines. We have all the necessary facilities in order to assist each other. Today, much attention is also paid to the joint operation in the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy. The Russian Federation is working closely with all the groups that are available there, including NATO's Ocean Shield and the EU operation "Atalanta". We are increasing our efforts in order to make these operations more efficient. Therefore, the military not only consider additional areas of collaboration, which are associated with such promising areas as fuel supply for ships, communication systems, continuity of observations and data on the marine situation in certain sea areas, as well as air patrols. All these elements are written in the co-operation program and will be implemented. In addition, we are interested in promoting military cooperation, and the Russia – NATO Council could provide the necessary impetus to create a framework for the development of these interactions.
Russia condemns terrorist acts and terrorist attacks. At the meeting of the Russia – NATO Council, of course, the main focus was on what Russia – NATO Council can undertake to combat terrorism. Specific projects were discussed, I have already talked about them, related to creating capacity to combat the terrorist threat. The fact is that the NRC is not an exclusive platform where only the issues of terrorism are discussed; there are a lot of different problems that require attention and exchanges at ministerial level. I want to say that, of course, the main efforts to combat terrorism should be on universal international sites; this is particularly true of the UN.
As for the SAM "Patriot" in Turkey, NATO leaders have said for months that Syria is not Libya, and that the Alliance does not see its political role in the Syrian situation. We truly believe that by far it is not necessary to demonstrate military forces; we need the intensification of the efforts of trying to encourage all parties to start a political process on the basis of the Geneva platform and to create the conditions for a political solution, because there can be no military solution, as the solution can only be the political one.
As for the placement of "Patriots", we know that various incidents occur close to the border, there are mortar attacks, and the first question that arises is - why "Patriots" are placed, because they are not able to fend off these threats, the system is designed to deal with combat aircraft, and it also has an anti-missile capability. But, based on real-life scenarios, it is difficult to imagine that Syria was interested in stirring up tensions in the region, on the border with Turkey.
The second aspect which should also be kept in mind is that this is the first step, which suggests that NATO is still involved in the conflict, and we cannot rule out that as a result of an incident or a provocation this involvement will only increase. As stated by our president, we do not dispute the right of Turkey to resort to instruments of solidarity, but nevertheless, we believe that at this stage, still the main efforts should be focused on finding a political settlement. As for chemical weapons, like many other countries, we are monitoring the situation. As soon as there are some reports that chemical weapons move somewhere, we make appropriate inquiries, and our interlocutors, representing the Government of Syria, clearly state that there are no plans to use chemical weapons, and that the chemical weapons are under control. Recently, the Security Council has made some strong statements condemning the terrorist acts, including in Turkey, and Russia has always initiated condemnation of terrorist attacks, regardless of who perpetrated them.
As for Georgia, I am sure that NATO must understand the depth of the negative consequences for European security, for regional security and for Russia - NATO relations. Obviously, the policy of involving Georgia in NATO played a role in August 2008, in the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, which was largely due to the fact that Brussels had supported the Saakashvili regime. So I think that our partners in the Russia - NATO Council must understand how serious the consequences associated with a possible decision on further steps to integrate Georgia into the alliance could be.”
