Hardly Russia counts on the signing of the new European Security Treaty. Its presentation is just a well-considered step, which… should split the views within the Euro-Atlantic area.

Dmitry Medvedev has finally presented to the public his widely promoted variant of European Security Treaty.

Presenting the project during the summit of OSCE in Athens, the Head of Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry Sergey Lavrov noted, that the given project was developed to overcome the dividing lines within Euro-Atlantic region. However the irony is that the document that is called to end with the atavisms of the cold war, was designed within the framework of its traditions. The document was written in the style of “the principles of overwhelming peace and well-being”, and its provisions compiled from all existing mechanisms of international security, including UNO and NATO Charters, Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and European Security Charter. Meanwhile it doesn’t at all touches upon the kind of aspects, as armament control, human rights and new security threats, remaining within the frameworks of 20 years old military-political categories.
 
The MAIN message of the Russian proposal to Europe is the statement, that the Parties of the new Treaty should be guided by the “principles of indivisible and equal, undiminished security”. Russia would like for “any security measures” to be implied by the Parties to the Treaty considering the security interests of other states. Except for that, the Kremlin suggests to “eliminate the possibility to use the territory of the Treaty Parties to plan or perform armed attacks or other actions, significantly affecting the security of other Treaty Parties”.

Russia thinks, that in case of armed attacks on one of the Treaty members, other Parties can estimate the situation as an attack on their countries. Respectively, they can provide the assistance to the country affected till the moment, when UNO Security Council undertakes measures urgent to maintain international peace and security.

According the Kremlin strategists, in order to achieve the objectives of new security architecture the mechanisms of consultations and conferences should be enough as the decisions will be adopted in consensus and will be obligatory to execution. Moscow suggests to sign this Treaty to all the states of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions “from Vancouver to Vladivostok” and to all main organizations, acting within this area - the EU, OSCE, CSTO, NATO, CIS.

The main objective of the Kremlin, promoting this document, is obvious: to set prerequisites for further split-up of Europe and the USA, and weakening of NATO as an instrument of security assurance within Euro-Atlantic region. Moreover, if the Kremlin is able to initiate in West the discussion of this Treaty, this can establish the ground to the enhancement of disagreements between “pro-Russian” and “pro-American” clubs of the EU. As any weakening of NATO, Euro-Atlantic and internal European relations gives Russia a wide range of opportunities to prove its status as a “new international force”. Not mentioning that if NATO and the EU start internal disputes, and Europe begins deciding who is more important the USA or Russia, Moscow will be able to start reestablishment of its dominance within post-soviet area without obstacles.

Hardly the Kremlin really counts that this document will be signed; moreover, its adoption can bring troubles.

Russia suggests forcing all the players of the international arena to “consider the interests of other members of the Treaty” and to put this principle above the national interests and the interests of international organizations. Brilliant suggestions! However, it can turn against Russia itself. The same as the demand on the non-use of the Treaty members’ territories for “actions significantly affecting the security of other Parties of the Treaty”.

The examples are evident. These are Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russian military bases were located without consideration of the interests of international and European communities. This is Transdniestria region, where Russian troops are still dislocated up to this moment. The Crimea, where the Black Sea Fleet “assures Russian security” mainly without consideration of Ukrainian interests.

As a matter of fact, many projects, which are accomplished within the framework of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, can also fall under displeasure in case of adoption of the new treaty. The Union State should establish a Joint Force Grouping of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus and the Common Air Defense System. These steps can be easily estimated as a use of the “territory of the Treaty member” for the actions, affecting the security of other states. As well as the projects within the frameworks of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Within the structure of this organization they arrange common military groups within Western, Caucasian and Central Asia directions – as if it doesn’t affect the interests of other states of the region. Or for example, active development of the cooperation within SCO. Don’t extended military trainings of Russia and China bother Euro-Atlantic region?

And another thing. The Kremlin suggests creating a very “peaceful” treaty, called to minimize the possibility of the use of armed forces to settle international conflicts. However, its steps in practice don’t correspond to this intention: the conflict in Georgia and the occupation of the part of its territory, the changes of the law on Russian Federation defense for the establishment of the mechanism of implementation Russian troops abroad, the statement on potential use of nuclear weapons in local conflicts and unexplainable purchases of offensive arms abroad.
 
The last, but the most important evidence of the futility of Russian initiative is that the Kremlin suggests to create a knowingly invalid mechanism of decision-making within the frameworks of the Treaty. As the procedure of approval of consensus resolutions itself anticipates the impossibility of urgent solutions adoption. It means that any crisis situation within the framework of multiple heterogeneous international organization will in practice appear to be unmanageable.
 
 
Translated by EuroDialogueXXI from politforum.com.ua