The political forum in Yaroslavl which took place on September 9-10, is becoming one of the central venues to define the strategy of modern Russia’s development and the priorities of its domestic and foreign policy. In this respect the report presented by Igor Yurgens, Chairman of the Board of the Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR) deserves special attention. One the report’s key points is a proposal to intensify cooperation between Russia and NATO to the extand of Russia’s complete integration into the alliance.
According to Yurgens, the group of authors of the report pursued the goal to “rock the house” (1). At the forum’s section where the “rocking” should take place Yurgens is sharing chairmanship with former NATO’s Secretary General Lord J. Robertson. The latter is not a ceremonial bystander there. At its summit in Lisbon in December NATO plans approve the concept of its new strategy and may also reconsider (on paper) its position towards Russia.
The Yurgens report contains several “positive scenarios” for the development of Russia-NATO relations. The aspect of institutional integration was briefly mentioned in January 2010 in the brochure called “Russia of the 21st century: image of desired future”: “…Russia is completing successful talks with NATO (which has changed significantly) on entering the alliance, and this will contribute to further positive transformation of the alliance” (2). The report covers this aspect in detail.
Next scenario – “alliance with the alliance” – implies that Russia should join NATO under a bilateral strategic agreement on security. The authors suggest that the new agreement on European security proposed by Dmitry Medvedev should be part of this bilateral agreement between Russia and NATO.
The third scenario envisages creation of the Coordination Council of international organizations (NATO, EU, CSTO, SCO and probably the UN).
The preliminary study of INSOR’s plans invites questions, which are quite natural.
The first question is – can a military political organization, , which was established to ensure the global leadership of the US, be a strategic and equal partner of Russia? Even theoretically?
The second question – Are these theoretic models in line with the national interests of Russia?
My decisive answer to the first question is – NO. As the hegemonic nation and main ideologist and initiator of NATO, the US will never consider any other country, including Russia, as an equal power. NEVER!
The attempt to influence public opinion making people think that on entering NATO Russia could remain an independent state either shows the professional incompetence of the authors of “Yurgens’ report” or it is part of the media war conducted by those people who want to turn NATO into a global organization.
It was Yurgens himself who convinced me that it was the second thing. On the eve of the forum he said that “in the final version of the report the opinion of the experts of the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London will be taken into consideration” (3). Whatdoesitmean? It means that strategically important documents of the Russian state are being openly agreed with the intellectual hub of the British intelligence! Only this remark made by mister Yurgens is enough not to take the idea of Russia’s integration into NATO seriously.
The answer to the second question needs more detailed explanation.There are three main documents, which define the concept of Russia’s national security and national interests, namely: Russia’s foreign policy concept, Russia’s national security strategy till 2020 and Russia’s military doctrine.
Under the foreign policy concept, “reasonably estimating the role of NATO, Russia pursues the goal of gradual development of the interaction in the format of Russia-NATO Council to ensure predictability and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region, maximum use of the advantages of the political dialogue and practical cooperation to settle the issues, concerning reaction on common threats, – terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional crises, drug trafficking, natural and manmade disasters. Russia is to build its relations with NATO considering the alliance’s readiness to equal partnership, observance of the norms and principles of the international law, and complying with the obligation pledged by all members of Russia-NATO Council: no one wouldensureone'ssecurityat the expense of others, as well as military restraint obligations. Russia is still negative towards NATO’s expansion, in particular to admittance of Ukraine and Georgia and location of NATO’s military facilities near its borders , which violates of the principle of equal security for all countries, leads to new divides in Europe and contradicts the intentions to make the mutual work on facing real challenges of the modern times more efficient” (highlighted by me. – Е.P.) (4).
The strategy of national security implies tougher approach to this issue. Aquote: «clause17. The key factor in relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remains Russia’s unacceptability of the plans to advance military infrastructure of the alliance to is borders and the attempts to authorize it for global functions which contradicts the norms of the International law (highlighted by me. – Е.P).
Russia is ready to cooperate with NATO on equal base, in the interests of strengthening the general security in the Euro-Atlantic region; the character of this cooperation will be defined by the alliance readiness to take into consideration legal interests of Russia when making military and political plans, respect of the norms of the international law as well as their further transformation and search for new tasks and functions of humanistic character» (5).
The military doctrine states that, the activities of the Russian Federation on prevention and deterrence of military conflicts implies “d) strengthening the system of collective security within the framework of the agreement of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and building up its potential, intensifying interaction on international security within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as well as development of relations in this sphere with other international organizations (the European Union and NATO)” (6).
As we see, the key state document gives no ground for the plans proposed in the “Yurgens report”. Any attempt to consider INSOR’s scenarios seriously is possible only in case of cancellation of the abovementioned documents or their revision. I ask myself: did Mister Yurgens plan to influence the public opinion to revise the national priorities first and only than, like one witty Russian expert noted, “to follow the logic of historical development” – NATO triumph? (7).
Those who are “sounding out public opinion” regarding the alliance of Russia and NATO, suppose that not Moscow, but Brussels should initiate the integration – that means that we should expect NATO’s appeal to intensify cooperation”. Yurgens even expects the appeal may be approved at the alliance’s summit in Lisbon in December” (8). The first specific steps towards the rapprochement should be revision of functions and the line-up of Russia-NATO Council, the Russian representative office in NATO, the increase of number of diplomats in the departments of the alliance. After we should expect Russia’s active participation in so-called practical interaction on the Afghan-Tajik border and the mutual preparation of “peacekeeping operations”.
NATO is interested to start using the Russian resources at maximum as soon as possible. Until NATO is interested in it will promise Moscow “a whole barrel of jam and an entire basket of cookies”.
By the way Yurgens did not mention any deadlines for the implementation of the proposed scenarios – it can be 10, 15, 25 and may be longer (9). In other words, a proposal “to get under a watchful eye of NATO” is a along term policy. But a good beginning is half a battle.The department of Allen Dulles did not set any deadline for the destruction of the USSR but the results we see clearly today.
The concern that on winning the public opinion in favor of the unification with NATO’s “peacekeepers” Russia will begin to lose its sovereignty are not groundless. One thing I know for sure: neither me nor most of the Russian citizens see the image of Russia’s desired future linked with NATO – the military block which outlived its time, which soldiers have blood of Bosnian, Serbian, Afghan and Iraqi people on their boots.
Elena PONOMAREVA – Candidate of sciences (Political Sciences), assistant professor of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations(MGIMO university – Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Russia).
(1) http://m-kalashnikov.livejournal.com/596669.html.
(2) Russia of ХХI century: image of desired future. – URL: http://www.riocenter.ru/files/Obraz_gel_zavtra_0.pdf.
(3) same source.
(4) Foreign policy concept of the RF (July 12 2008. App – 1440). Chapter 4. Regional priorities. – URL: http://archive.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2008/07/204108.shtml).
(5) National security strategy of the RF till 2020. (approved by the presidential decree dated May 12, 2009 № 537). – URL: http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html.
(6) The Military doctrine (Presidential decree of the RF № 146 dated February 5 2010). – URL: http://www.rg.ru/2010/02/10/doktrina-dok.html.
(7) M. Kononenko. Day of the Honors Student. М.: Folio, 2008. – 287 p.
(8) http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2010/09/02_a_3414237.shtml.
(9)“Komsomolskaya Pravda” newspaper. – September 5,2010.
