2016 Munich Security Conference
Global Research, February
15, 2016
Voltaire Network 13 February 2016
Emphasis added by Global Research
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleague Mr
Valls, distinguished Mr Ischinger, my speech will be of a more general nature,
but I hope it will be useful.
The first cold war ended 25 years ago. This is not
long in terms of history, but it is a considerable period for individual people
and even for generations. And it is certainly sufficient for assessing our
common victories and losses, setting new goals and, of course, avoiding a
repetition of past mistakes.
The Munich Security Conference has been known as a
venue for heated and frank discussion. This is my first time here. Today I’d
like to tell you about Russia’s assessment of the current European security
situation and possible solutions to our common problems, which have been
aggravated by the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West.
Before coming to this conference, I met with President
Putin. We talked about his speech at the Munich conference in 2007. He
said then that ideological stereotypes, double standards and unilateral actions
do not ease but only fan tensions in international relations, reducing the
international community’s opportunities for adopting meaningful political
decisions.
Did we overstate this? Were our assessments of the
situation too pessimistic? Unfortunately, I have to say that the situation is
now even worse than we feared. Developments have taken a much more dramatic
turn since 2007. The concept of Greater Europe has not materialised. Economic
growth has been very weak. Conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa have
increased in scale. The migration crisis is pushing Europe towards collapse.
Relations between Europe and Russia have soured. A civil war is raging in
Ukraine.
In this context, we need to launch an
intensive dialogue on the future architecture of Euro-Atlantic security, global
stability and regional threats more than ever before. I consider it
unacceptable that this dialogue has almost ceased in many spheres. The problem
of miscommunication has been widely recognised both in Western Europe and in Russia. The
mechanisms that allowed us to promptly settle mutual concerns have been cut
off. Moreover, we’ve lost our grasp of the culture of mutual arms
control, which we used for a long time as the basis for strengthening mutual
trust. Partnership initiatives, which took much time and effort to launch, are
expiring one by one. The proposed European security treaty has been put on
hold. The idea of a Russia-EU Committee on Foreign Policy and Security, which I
discussed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg, has not
materialised. We believe that NATO’s policy towards Russia remains unfriendly
and generally obdurate.
Speaking bluntly, we are rapidly rolling into
a period of a new cold war. Russia has been presented as well-nigh the
biggest threat to NATO, or to Europe, America and other countries (and Mr
Stoltenberg has just demonstrated that). They show frightening films about
Russians starting a nuclear war. I am sometimes confused: is this 2016 or 1962?
But the real threats to this small world are of an
absolutely different nature, as I hope you will admit. The term “European
security” is now more embracing that it used to be. Forty years ago it
concerned above all military and political relations in Europe. But new issues
have come to the fore since then, such as sustainable economic development,
inequality and poverty, unprecedented migration, new forms of terrorism and
regional conflicts, including in Europe. I am referring to Ukraine, the
volatile Balkans, and Moldova that is teetering on the brink of a national
collapse.
The cross-border threats and challenges, which we for
a while believed to have been overcome, have returned with a new strength. The
new threats, primarily terrorism and extremism, have lost their abstract form
for the majority of people. They have become reality for millions in many
countries. As Mr Valls has just mentioned, they have become a daily threat. We
can expect an airplane to be blown up or people in a café to be shot every day.
These used to be everyday events in the Middle East, but now it’s the same the
world over.
We see that economic, social and military challenges
have become mutually complementary. But we continue to act randomly,
inconsistently, and in many cases exclusively in our own national interests. Or
a scapegoat is appointed in an arbitrary manner.
I am offering you five theses on security as such.
First, the economy.
We have approached a change in paradigm in
international economic relations. The traditional schemes are no longer
effective. Political expediency is taking priority over simple and clear
economic reason. The code of conduct is revised ad hoc to suit a specific
problem or task or is bluntly ignored. I’ll just point out how the
International Monetary Fund adjusted its fundamental rules on lending to
countries with overdue sovereign debt when the issue concerned Ukraine’s
sovereign debt to Russia.
Talks on creating economic mega-blocs could result in
the erosion of the system of global economic rules.
Globalisation, which was a desired objective, has to a
certain extent played a cruel joke on us. I personally talked about this with
my colleagues at the G8 meetings when everyone needed them. But times change
rapidly. Even a minor economic shift in one country now hits whole markets and
countries almost immediately. And global regulation mechanisms cannot
effectively balance national interests.
The energy market remains extremely unstable. Its
volatility has affected both importers and exporters.
We regret that the practice of unilateral economic
pressure in the form of sanctions is gaining momentum. Decisions are taken arbitrarily and at times in
violation of international law. This is undermining the operating foundations
of international economic organisations, including the World Trade
Organisation. We have always said, I have always said that sanctions
hit not only those against whom they are imposed but also those who use them as
an instrument of pressure.How many joint initiatives have been suspended because
of sanctions! I have just met with German businessmen and we discussed this
issue. Have we properly calculated not only the direct but also the indirect
costs for European and Russian business? Are our differences really so deep, or
are they not worth it? All of you here in this audience – do you really need
this?
This is a road to nowhere. Everyone will suffer, mark
my words. It is vitally important that we join forces to strengthen a new
global system that can combine the principles of effectiveness and fairness,
market openness and social protection.
Second, the crisis of the global economic development
model is creating conditions for a variety of conflicts, including regional
conflicts.
European politicians thought that the creation of the
so-called belt of friendly countries on the outer border of the EU would
reliably guarantee security. But what are the results of this policy? What
you have is not a belt of friendly countries, but an exclusion zone with local
conflicts and economic trouble both on the eastern borders (Ukraine and
Moldova) and on the southern borders (the Middle East and North Africa, Libya
and Syria).
The result is that these regions have become a common
headache for all of us.
The Normandy format has helped us launch negotiations
on Ukraine. We believe that there are no better instruments for a peaceful
settlement than the Minsk Agreements.
We welcome France’s balanced and constructive stance
on Ukraine and on all other acute international issues. I fully agree with Mr
Valls that the Russian-French dialogue never stopped, and that it has produced
concrete results.
It is true that all sides must comply with the Minsk
Agreements. But implementation primarily depends on Kiev. Why them? Not because
we are trying to shift responsibility, but because it’s their time.
The situation is very unstable, despite progress made
in a number of areas (heavy weaponry withdrawal, the OSCE mission and other
issues).
What is Russia’s biggest concern?
First and most important, a comprehensive ceasefire is
not being observed in southeastern Ukraine. Shooting is routinely reported at
the line of contact, which should not be happening. And we must send a clear
signal to all the parties involved, in this regard.
Second, amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution have
not been approved to this day, although this should have been done by the end
of 2015. And the law on a special status for Donbass has not been implemented.
Instead of coordinating specific decentralisation
parameters with the regions, and this is the crucial issue, Ukraine has adopted
so-called “transitional provisions,” even though the above requirements were
put in black and white in the Minsk Agreements.
Third, Kiev continues to insist that local elections
be based on a new Ukrainian law. Furthermore, Kiev has not implemented its
commitment on a broad amnesty that should embrace all those who were involved
in the developments in Ukraine in 2014-2015. Without being amnestied, these
people will be unable to participate in elections, which will make any election
results questionable. The OSCE will not endorse this.
As I said, the Minsk Agreements must be implemented in
full and this is Russia’s stance on the issue. At the same time, being reasonable people open
to discussing various ideas, including a compromise, we, for instance, accepted
the initiative of Mr Steinmeier on the temporary application of the law on
special status as soon as the election campaign begins. After the OSCE Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights recognises the election results,
this law must be applied permanently. But there’s still no progress here,
despite the compromise suggested.
Of course, the humanitarian situation is extremely
alarming. The economy of southeastern Ukraine is deteriorating, that
part of Ukraine is blockaded, and the German Chancellor’s initiative on the
restoration of the banking system in the region there has been rejected. Tens
of thousands of people are living on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Oddly, Russia seems to be more concerned about this
than Ukraine, why is this so? We have been sending and will have to
continue sending humanitarian convoys to southeastern Ukraine.
I must say that Russia has shown and will continue to
show reasonable flexibility in the implementation of the Minsk Agreements where
this doesn’t contradict their essence. But we can’t do what is not in our
competence. That is, we cannot implement the political and legal obligations of
the Kiev government. This is under the direct authority of the President, the
Government and the Parliament of Ukraine. But unfortunately, it appears that
they don’t have the will or a desire to do it. I think this has become obvious
to everyone.
As for Syria, we have been working and will continue
to work to implement joint peace initiatives. This is a difficult path, but there is no
alternative to an interethnic and interreligious dialogue. We must preserve
Syria as a union state and prevent its dissolution for denominational reasons.
The world will not survive another Libya, Yemen or Afghanistan. The
consequences of this scenario will be catastrophic for the Middle East. The
work of the International Syria Support Group gives us a certain hope. They
gathered here the day before yesterday and coordinated a list of practical measures
aimed at implementing the UN Security Council Resolution 2254, including the
delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians and outlining the conditions for a
ceasefire, except for terrorist groups, of course. The implementation of these
measures is to be led by Russia and the United States. I would like to
emphasise that the daily work of the Russian and American militaries is the key
here. I’m talking about regular work without the need to seek incidental
contacts, day-to-day work, everyday work.
Of course, there should be no preliminary conditions
to start the talks on the settlement between the Syrian government and
opposition, and there is no need to impend anyone with a land military
operation.
Third, we sincerely believe that if we fail to
normalise the situation in Syria and other conflict areas, terrorism will
become a new form of war that will spread around the world. It will not be just
a new form of war but a method of settling ethnic and religious conflict, and a
form of quasi-state governance. Imagine a group of countries that are governed
by terrorists through terrorism. Is this the 21st century?
It is common knowledge that terrorism is not a problem
within individual countries. Russia first raised this alarm two decades ago. We
tried to convince our partners that the core causes were not just ethnic or
religious differences. Take ISIS, whose ideology is not based on Islamic values
but on a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy. Terrorism is civilisation’s
problem. It’s either us or them, and it’s time for everyone to realise this.
There are no nuances or undertones, no justifications for terrorist actions, no
dividing terrorists into ours or theirs, into moderate or extremist.
The destruction of the Russian plane over Sinai, the
terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali,
Yemen and other countries, the grisly executions of hostages, thousands of
victims, and endless other threats are evidence that international terrorism
defies state borders. Terrorists and extremists are trying to spread their
influence not only throughout the Middle East and North Africa but also to the
whole of Central Asia. Unfortunately,
they have so far been successful, mostly because we are unable to set our
differences aside and to really join forces against them. Even cooperation at
the security services level has been curtailed. And this is ridiculous, like we
don’t want to work with you. Daesh should be grateful to my colleagues, the
leaders of the Western countries who have suspended this cooperation.
Before coming to this conference, I read much
material, including some by Western experts. Even those who don’t think
positively about Russia admit that, despite our differences, the “anti-terrorist
formula” will not be effective without Russia. On the other hand, they
sometimes frame this conclusion in an overall correct, but slightly different
way, saying that a weak Russia is even more dangerous than a strong Russia.
Fourth, regional conflicts and terrorism are closely
related to the unprecedentedly large issue of uncontrolled migration. This could be described as a great new
transmigration of peoples and the culmination of the numerous problems of
modern global development. It has affected not only Western Europe but also
Russia. The inflow of migrants from Syria to Russia is not very large, but the
inflow of migrants from Ukraine has become a serious problem. Over a million
Ukrainian refugees have entered Russia over the past 18 months.
Wars and related deprivations, inequality, low
standards of living, violence, and fanaticism force people to flee their homes.
Unsuccessful attempts to spread Western models of democracy to a social
environment that is not suited for this have resulted in the demise of entire
states and have turned huge territories into zones of hostility. I remember how
my colleagues once rejoiced at the so-called Arab Spring. I literally witnessed
it. But has modern democracy taken root in these countries? Looks like it has,
but in the form of ISIS.
Human capital is degenerating in the countries the
refugees are leaving. And these countries’ development prospects have taken a
downward turn. The ongoing migration crisis is rapidly acquiring the features
of a humanitarian catastrophe, at least in some parts of Europe. Social
problems are growing too, along with mutual intolerance and xenophobia. Not to
mention the fact that hundreds and thousands of extremists enter Europe under
the guise of being refugees. Other migrants are people of an absolutely
different culture who only want to receive monetary benefits without doing
anything to earn them. This poses a very real danger to the common economic
space. The next targets will be the cultural space and even the European identity.
We watch with regret how invaluable mechanisms, which Russia also needs, are
being destroyed. I am referring to the actual collapse of the Schengen zone.
For our part, we are willing to do our best to help
address the migration issue, including by contributing to efforts to normalise
the situation in the conflict regions from which the majority of refugees come,
Syria among them.
And fifth, let’s be as honest as possible. The
majority of these challenges did not develop yesterday. And they were definitely
not invented in Russia. Yet we haven’t learned to react to these challenges
properly or even proactively. This is why the bulk of resources go into dealing
with the consequences, often without identifying the root cause. Or we invest
our energy not in fighting the real evil, but in deterring our neighbours, and
this problem has just been voiced here The West continues to actively use this
deterrence doctrine against Russia. The fallacy of this approach is that we
will still be debating the same issues in 10 and even 20 years. Provided there
will be anything to debate about, of course, as discussions are not on the
agenda of the Great Caliphate.
Opinions on the prospects for cooperation with Russia
differ. Opinions also differ in Russia. But can we unite in order to stand up
against the challenges I mentioned above? Yes, I am confident that we can.
Yesterday we witnessed a perfect example in the area of religion. Patriarch
Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Pope of the Catholic Church Francis met in Cuba
following hundreds of years when the two churches did not communicate. Of
course, restoring trust is a challenging task. It’s difficult to say how long
it would take. But it is necessary to launch this process. And this must be
done without any preliminary conditions. Either all of us need to do this or
none of us. In the latter case, there will be no cooperation.
We often differ in our assessments of the events that
took place over the past two years. However, I want to emphasise that they
don’t differ as much as they did 40 years ago when we signed the Final Helsinki
Act and when Europe was literally divided by The Wall. When old phobias
prevailed, we were deadlocked. When we managed to join forces, we succeeded.
There is much evidence to support this. We managed to agree on the reduction of
strategic offensive weapons, which was a breakthrough achievement. We have
worked out a compromise solution regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. We have
convinced all sides in the Syrian conflict to sit down at the negotiating table
in Geneva. We have coordinated actions against pirates. And the Climate Change
Conference was held in Paris last year. We should replicate these positive
outcomes.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The current architecture of European security, which was
built on the ruins of World War II, allowed us to avoid global conflicts for
more than 70 years. The reason for this was that this architecture was built on
principles that were clear to everyone at that time, primarily the undeniable
value of human life. We paid a high price for these values. But our shared
tragedy forced us to rise above our political and ideological differences in
the name of peace. It’s true that this security system has its issues and that
it sometimes malfunctions. But do we need one more, third global tragedy to
understand that what we need is cooperation rather than confrontation?
I’d like to quote from John F. Kennedy, who used very
simple but the most appropriate words, “Domestic policy can only defeat us;
foreign policy can kill us.” In the early 1960s the world stood at the door of
a nuclear apocalypse, but the two rivalling powers found the courage to admit
that no political confrontation was worth the human lives.
I believe that we have become wiser and more
experienced and more responsible. And we are not divided by ideological
phantoms and stereotypes. I believe that the challenges we are facing today
will not lead to conflict but rather will encourage us to come together in a
fair and equal union that will allow us to maintain peace for another 70 years,
at least.
Thank you.
Excerpts from replies to questions by journalists
Question: My name is Mingus Campbell, I am from the
United Kingdom. My question is addressed to Prime Minister Medvedev. Is it
accepted in Russia that increased influence in Syria brings with it
responsibility for all of the citizens of Syria? And if that is so, how has
that responsibility been exercised in respect of the citizens of Aleppo who are
now fleeing in such numbers?
Dmitry Medvedev: Thank you. I will continue answering
questions concerning Syria, including the situation in Aleppo, but not limited
to that.
I think a large part of the people present here have
never been to Syria, whereas I have been there. I made an official visit there
when Syria was a quiet, peaceful, secular nation, where life was stable and
balanced for everybody: the Sunnis and the Shiites, the Druze, Alawites and
Christians.
Almost six years have passed since then. Today we see
Syria that is torn by a civil war. Let us ask a question: who is to blame for
that? Is it al-Assad alone? It is absolutely evident that without a certain
external influence Syria could have gone on with its life. But I remember those
talks, those conversations with my partners, both European and American, who
kept on telling me the same thing over and over: al-Assad is no good, he should
step down, and then peace and prosperity will reign there. And what has came of
it? It resulted in a civil war.
This is the reason I cannot but agree with my
colleague, Prime Minister Valls, in that we must join efforts to solve this
issue, but we must work effectively, not just watch as events unfold there, not
just watch one party attack another; not divide the warring parties into those
who are on our side and adversaries, but instead sit them all down at the
negotiating table, except those who we have agreed to treat as real terrorists.
We know who they are.
Russia is not pursuing any special goals there except
the ones that have been declared. We are defending our national interests
because a large number of militants fighting there came from Russia and
neighbouring countries, and they can come back to wage terrorist attacks. They
must stay there…
This does not apply to civilians in any way. Unlike
most of the countries present in the region, we have been helping civilians.
Nobody has any proof that we have been bombing civilian targets there, even
though they keep on talking about it, about wrong targets and so forth. They do
not share information. I have just said this from the stand – the military must
keep in constant contact. They should call each other a dozen times a day.
Otherwise there will always be skirmishes and conflicts. And this is our
mission. We are ready for such cooperation. I expect that we will see some
positive development from the dialogue we had here in terms of both achieving a
ceasefire in Syria and the humanitarian issues. It is crucial that we should
agree on key points, because otherwise, and I think it is no secret for anyone,
Syria will split into separate parts, the way it happened to Libya and the way
it is in fact happening with a number of other nations in the region. What does
that entail? It poses a threat of the conflict becoming permanent. The civil
war will go on, Daesh or its successors will always be there, while we will
engage in arguments as we try to figure out which of them is good and which is
bad, who should receive our support and who shouldn’t. We have a common enemy,
and that it the premise we should start with.
Now I would like to come back to the topic of Ukraine.
I cannot assess the past developments in Ukraine; the Russian leadership has
already done this a number of times, including myself. I will answer the part
of the question regarding the air crash investigation. Obviously, the Russian
Federation is no less interested in an unbiased investigation than the
countries whose citizens lost their lives in the crash. It is indeed an
enormous tragedy. But even the tone of the question implies that the person
asking it has already decided who is responsible, who should bear the legal
responsibility, no investigation is needed, certain justice committees should
be set up instead and certain legal procedures followed. But this is not the
way it is done. This should be a regular comprehensive investigation that would
cover all the relevant aspects. This is the first point. And second, this is
unfortunately not the first case in the world of this kind. Such tragedies have
never been dealt with by criminal courts or other similar agencies. These are
issues of a different order. And this is what we have to agree on. Russia is
ready to provide any information to contribute to a quality investigation.
The original source of this article is Voltaire Network
Copyright © Dimitri Medvedev, Voltaire Network, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment