Eu­ro­pean Se­cu­rity

The Diplomatic Insight - - Editor’s Desk - 23

Study­ing of his­tory tes­ti­fies that about each 50 years the world en­dures rev­o­lu­tion­ary changes paradigm shift in the na­ture of con­fronta­tions which are pro­voked by so­ci­o­log­i­cal, tech­no­log­i­cal and other ex­ter­nal fac­tors. As ex­am­ples that for last two cen­turies re­sulted in de­vel­op­ment of ef­fec­tive armies on the ba­sis of mass mo­bi­liza­tion in Napoleonic wars ( about 1800), in­tro­duc­tion of sub­ma­chine gun, the cut weapon in the mid­dle of 19th cen­tury, in­dus­tri­al­iza­tion of arms man­u­fac­tur­ers, the weapon and a cor­re­spond­ing in­fra­struc­ture on the eve of the First World War and de­vel­op­ment of the nu­clear weapon and global sys­tems of its de­liv­ery dur­ing the pe­riod and is direct upon ter­mi­na­tion of the Se­condWorldWar. Newdef­i­ni­tionof­safety:Newthreat­san­dan­swers Only a decade ago "safety" was a de­fense syn­onym. The east and theWest faced threat of the Third world war which in Europe was char­ac­ter­ized by threat of in­tru­sion which were afraid, prov­ing its ev­ery­one in own­way, both the East, and theWest. Threat was the gen­eral as well as the an­swer to it, in the con­ti­nen­tal coun­tries the mass armies based on a prin­ci­ple of mass­mo­bi­liza­tion and a call-up li­a­bil­ity were formed. Re­straint was car­ried out by means of de­fense of con­ven­tional ar­ma­ments, with sup­port of threat of ap­pli­ca­tion of the nu­clear weapon. "Safety" was mea­sured ba­si­cally by mil­i­tary power. To­day "safety" is meant much more, than by mil­i­tary power. In that mea­sure in what safety keeps the mil­i­tary value, "re­straint" keeps it, be­ing is based on guar­an­tees of ef­fec­tive coun­ter­at­tacks. War be­tween Ge­or­gia and Rus­sia in Au­gust, 2008 has shown that Europe doesn't have co­her­ent and gen­eral sys­tem of safety. The op­er­at­ing sys­tem not only couldn't pre­vent this war, but also has very badly coped with an in­ter­me­di­ary prob­lem. That is even more im­por­tant, it has ap­peared, there is no even a gen­eral mu­tual un­der­stand­ing con­cern­ing those prin­ci­ples on which the Eu­ro­pean safety should be based. Fur­ther it is pos­si­ble to no­tice that the Rus­sian-Ge­or­gian war not only has con­firmed ab­sence of una­nim­ity con­cern­ing bases of the Eu­ro­pean sys­tem of safety, but also pro­moted de­struc­tion of th­ese bases in other sense. This con­flict be­came the first case of in­fringe­ment by Rus­sia to in­tegrity of the Post-Soviet ter­ri­to­rial or­der es­tab­lished agree­ments in De­cem­ber, 1991. Rus­sia, when de­clares that the sys­tem of theEuro­pean safety on the ba­sis of OSCE rules al­ready for a long time, op­er­ates badly. In Novem­ber, 2009 pres­i­dent Medvedev has pro­posed con­tract prepa­ra­tion on the Eu­ro­pean safety. The of­fer is based on quite cor­rect thought that the op­er­at­ing sys­tem needs care­ful re­vi­sion. And nev­er­the­less, would be an error to ig­nore Medvedev's of­fer, nam­ing it's shame­ful tact­less­ness though it takes place to­day. In­ter­est­ing pos­si­bil­ity is cre­ated by the fact that ac­cord­ing to the Lis­bon con­tract of EU now en­ters sphere of the Eu­ro­pean diplo­macy as the uni­form le­gal body. In­stead of sim­ply be­com­ing the full mem­ber of the Or­ga­ni­za­tion on safety and co­op­er­a­tion in Europe and to en­ter al­ready op­er­at­ing pro­cesses in new qual­ity, the Eu­ro­pean Union should make some­thing ab­so­lutely new. Dis­agree­ments be­tween the USA, Europe and Rus­sia con­cern­ing the con­tract on the Eu­ro­pean safety are rather ob­vi­ous. Rus­sia counts that the con­tract draft on the Eu­ro­pean safety should play a key role rad­i­cally to elim­i­nate NATO ex­pan­sion on the east. Ac­cord­ing toNATOmem­ber states, theNATOstill re­mains the ba­sic guar­an­tor of safety in Europe, there­fore con­cern with reser­va­tions the con­tract draft of­fered by Rus­sia on the Eu­ro­pean safety. Si­mul­ta­ne­ous­lyNATOand Eu­ro­pean Union ex­tended up to bor­ders of the for­mer Soviet Union, ex­tend­ing a zone of the in­flu­ence on its for­mer ter­ri­tory. Ex­pan­sion of the North At­lantic Treaty Or­gan­i­sa­tion on the East was con­sid­ered and it is be­lieved to be the threat to Rus­sia and its se­cu­rity. Dis­putes in Kosovo and war in Ge­or­gia have un­der­mined trust from both par­ties. As be­fore, re­la­tions from both par­ties carry on them­selves a mis­trust print. Fears of Rus­sia con­cern­ing the NATO and the USA dic­tated by rea­sons of na­tional safety can make im­pres­sion far from a re­al­ity and cause be­wil­der­ment. How­ever they should be per­ceived se­ri­ously. As also Rus­sia se­ri­ously should to con­cern his­tor­i­cally de­fen­si­ble fears of the Baltic States and the states - the for­mer mem­bers of the War­saw Treaty Or­ga­ni­za­tion. What it is nec­es­sary to do? The full mem­ber­ship of Rus­sia in EU­can't be the pur­pose of th­ese ne­go­ti­a­tions. Both par­ties know it. But Rus­sia sees it­self, ac­cord­ing to Vladimir Putin , "a nat­u­ral com­po­nent of the Eu­ro­pean fam­ily, both on the spirit, and by the his­tor­i­cal and cul­tural tra­di­tions. If I think of our re­la­tions in longterm prospect I don't see ar­eas which would be closed for strate­gic part­ner­ship. Nev­er­the­less, in present Eu­ro­pean struc­ture of safety the NATO still dom­i­nates, the Eu­ro­pean union plays an aux­il­iary role, and OSCE role in safety main­te­nance in Europe is weak­ened. Re­ally, last years this or­ga­ni­za­tion has car­ried out more ac­tiv­ity on se­lec­tive su­per­vi­sion. *Thewri­teris Co-founderandChair­manof NewYouth


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan

© PressReader. All rights reserved.