OREANDA-NEWS. December 2, 2009. Mr. Chairman; Ladies and Gentlemen; Dear Colleagues:  Not even six months on, we have met again in the OSCE and again in Greece. Let me remind you that our predecessors gathered in the OSCE twice a year only twice – in 1991 and 1992. That was when Europe was going through another period of change.

And this is symbolic, apparently again it is time for Europe to change.

Decisive steps need to be taken to overcome the persistent dividing lines in the Euro-Atlantic area, and to create truly common spaces in various domains. In other words, to bring to fruition, at last, the joint project of a United Greater Europe that seemed so attainable immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. And if this has not yet been done, we can only blame the tenacity of prejudice and inertia at the level of thinking and politics, when, to quote Alexander Pushkin, “Habit is… a substitute for Happiness.”

Today I would like to bring attention to the politico-military dimension. It is objectively the basis for all the rest. Yet our cooperation on this track has begun to greatly lag behind the collaborative effort on other dimensions of security. This is where the tenacity of the legacy of the past has stood out most.

In June last year in Berlin, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed that a European Security Treaty be developed, which is able to solve this task at the level of “the rules of the game” and mechanisms for their application. This “hard security” initiative has a unifying character and aims to pair the capacities of states and international organizations in creating a truly indivisible space of equal security for all states in the Euro-Atlantic area. We are grateful to Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which resolutely backed this initiative in a joint statement with Russia on November 18 this year.

We also express our appreciation to all the other countries, political analysts and experts that have keenly participated in the numerous discussions on the Russian initiative held in the past year at various intergovernmental and nongovernmental forums. 

Following these discussions, we prepared a draft European Security Treaty which was sent by President Medvedev to the leaders of the states in the Euro-Atlantic space and to the executive heads of the relevant organizations operating here. We hope that after studying the draft our partners will report their reaction on the merits of the proposed Treaty.

The need for radical politico-military changes is also apparent in Russian-US relations. Our countries are actively working on a new START Treaty, which will provide unprecedented cuts in strategic arms and must reflect the qualitatively new level of mutual trust.

The realization that changes are long overdue is being felt in the OSCE as well.

We pay tribute to the Greek Presidency for showing political acumen and foresight by launching “Corfu discussions.” Their main result so far is that they have revealed a general dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in the Euro-Atlantic region, which can no longer be covered up with convenient and finely honed formulas praising the “achievements” of the OSCE. Of course, it will take effort and determination to translate this new awareness into concrete action. We are only at the beginning of the journey, and it is hardly reasonable to attempt to prejudge the final result of the Corfu Process or to drive it into a nominal framework in terms of structure and theme. The Corfu Process is valuable for its capacity to generate an unblinkered view of things. We hope that tomorrow we will approve a Declaration on Corfu, and the continuation of free-wheeling debate will help to breathe new life into the work of the established bodies of the OSCE, to develop ways to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of our organization, to remove the serious distortions in the application of a comprehensive approach and make it balanced. We believe that the logic of the Corfu Process completely fits the task of finalizing the institutional construction of the OSCE, beginning with the adoption of its Charter.

Several important initiatives, cosponsored by Russia, are submitted for consideration by the Ministerial Council. We attach particular importance to adopting a Ministerial Declaration on the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II. We must remember the lessons of that tragedy and not allow a departure from the principles of the postwar arrangement of the world and Europe, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Helsinki Final Act.

We also consider it necessary to begin the process of modernizing the Vienna Document on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures in the military field, which was initially created as a “living” instrument, but has not been updated since 1999. We have also proposed a thorough review of all the other politico-military tools of the OSCE in order to determine their relevance to current realities, and get to develop a new Action Program in the field of confidence building measures and arms control. The above fully applies to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. We regret that the last two years were virtually lost for the search of a way out of the crisis. There is still no response to our May 2009 proposals for further steps based on the draft Russian-American “package deal.” Once again I call on partners to move to the intensive work of restoring the viability of the CFE Treaty with the use of all channels, including the Joint Consultative Group in Vienna.

Along with creating a strong network of politico-military coordinates, decisive action is required in the realm of conflict prevention and settlement. Russia proposes that we start out by agreeing at the OSCE venue on common principles for crisis settlement which will be followed by all countries and international organizations operating in the Euro-Atlantic area. Only on this basis can we take out of the brackets of “acceptable options” use-of-force scenarios, such as the adventure of Tbilisi in August last year.

The OSCE should more vigorously combine efforts in combating transnational threats and challenges, including terrorism and organized crime. Russia and the United States have cosponsored the draft ministerial decision on this matter.

Illicit drug trafficking increasingly threatens the security of the individual, society and the state. Annual reports by the United Nations cite ever more depressing statistics on the scale of production of Afghan opiates. Pursuant to a decision of the OSCE Madrid Ministerial Council, our organization is called upon to help provide Afghan partners with assistance through the realization of projects such as strengthening the borders between the Central Asian countries and Afghanistan and training Afghan counter-narcotics policemen at educational institutions in OSCE countries, including Russia. I shall especially note the task of preventing the supply of precursors, a considerable part of which flows to Afghanistan from Europe. Resolute action is also required to combat synthetic narcotic drugs, which are produced and consumed in the OSCE region.

Russia is in favor of strengthening the economic and environmental dimension of the OSCE. It can find a niche here, if it matches its plans with real possibilities and does not duplicate the work of relevant institutions. In other words, we must focus on concrete results, giving a real, even if modest, added value.

In this regard, we commend the results of the last OSCE Economic Forum on the theme of migration. We also support the transport themes for the Economic Forum of next year, as proposed by Kazakhstan.

An integral part of the concept of security is the human dimension. Russia wants security-of-the-person to be the focus of constant attention of the OSCE. But we are opposed to this OSCE dimension being developed as if in a vacuum, without taking into account the activities of other international organizations. All OSCE countries are members of the UN and its Human Rights Council; an absolute majority of OSCE participating States are members of the Council of Europe, where an extensive system of international legal instruments operates, with efficient mechanisms and agreed rules for monitoring and reporting. There is no need for the OSCE to try to substitute for “anything and everything,” but it is better that it would provide support to states in areas where they really need it and seek assistance. That is how the institutions of the OSCE should build their activities in accordance with the previously adopted decisions in the human dimension.

Another important point: To these decisions, there should be no selective approach allowed. The Paris Charter for a New Europe, the 20th anniversary of which we celebrate next year, proclaimed the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement. If on the first three freedoms the OSCE conducts active work and monitoring, the obligations on freedom of movement and to ease visa regimes, by contrast, are not met. Let me remind you that these obligations are set forth in the Helsinki Final Act (1975), Vienna Document (1989), Copenhagen Document (1990), Charter of Paris (1990), Budapest Document (1994), and OSCE Border Security and Management Concept (2005). Unfortunately, some countries have not only failed to facilitate visa procedures, but even toughen them up. And visa fees sometimes exceed the average monthly salary in some OSCE countries.

It is the visa-free regime that can secure an irreversible breakthrough to Greater Europe, where citizens of all our countries will feel themselves as Europeans.

Russia, conjointly with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, has put forward a draft Ministerial Council decision on freedom of movement. We propose to revive the dialogue on this subject and to request the ODIHR to monitor the visa situation in the OSCE countries.

Finally, in discussions on human rights it is important to bear in mind that they are underlain by traditional human values and by cultural and civilizational diversity, which must certainly be respected.

Next year will be a significant year for the OSCE, with several historical dates falling on it at once. The Second World War ended 65 years ago. More than half of its victims – 27 million people – were citizens of the Soviet Union. 65 years ago nuclear weapons were used for the first and hopefully last time in history. 35 years ago the Final Act of the CSCE was signed in Helsinki. The Charter of Paris for a New Europe was adopted 20 years ago.

We wish success to Kazakhstan as Chair of the OSCE in 2010. We are ready to assist the smooth running of the Organization in the coming period. We support the initiative of Astana to convene a Summit.

In conclusion, I once again would like to thank the Greek Presidency for its hospitality during the two OSCE ministerial meetings held on its soil and for the Corfu Process initiative, which we consider very promising.