Helsinki

The European Security and Defence Assembly (ESDA) held a colloquy in Helsinki entitled: `Towards a new security concept for Europe?' The colloquy's two sessions: "Challenges for Europe's security and the responses of international organisations" and "Addressing shortcomings: do we need a new and different security architecture?" focused on the security challenges currently facing Europe and the proposals put forward in May 2008 by Russian President Dmitry MEDVEDEV for a new European security architecture.

The colloquy took place in the Finnish Parliament (Eduskunta) at the invitation of the Finnish Delegation to the Assembly. Among the speakers and participants were numerous members of the Assembly, as well as a large Russian Delegation, led by Alexander TORSHIN, First Deputy-Chairman of the Council of Federation, and representatives of the CIS Assembly, specialists from the civil and military domains, government representatives and academics.

The participants were welcomed by Mr Seppo KÄÄRIÄINEN, First Deputy Speaker of the Eduskunta, who remarked on the timeliness of the debate on a new security concept for Europe, as Finland had recently evaluated its own security and defence policy and the Finnish Parliament had approved a White Paper on security and defence. He explained that Finnish security policy was based on the principle of defending the country as a whole and that general conscription would be maintained. Finland played an active part in the ESDP and wanted to continue to be a dynamic security actor within the EU. The triangular EU-NATO-Russia relationship was essential and Finland could play a key role in improving cooperation in this area.

Mrs Tuija Nurmi, Leader of the Finnish Delegation to the ESDA

Mrs Tuija NURMI, Leader of the Finnish Delegation to the ESDA, referred to the interdependence between Europe and Russia which she saw as an important point of departure for European security. The Arctic region also had clear implications for European policy, notably in the fields of climate change, energy, logistics and competition between states. There had not been enough consultations or discussion regarding the construction of a pipeline in the Baltic Sea: an analysis of the situation was crucial as it would affect the stability of the entire region and of Europe as a whole.

Challenges for Europe's security and the responses of international organisations

Mr Paavo LIPPONEN, former Prime Minister and former Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, said that Finland was proud of its foreign and defence policy since the second world war, which had been a policy of survival. Finland was well placed to play a constructive role in enhancing the EU's cooperation with Russia. Finland had joined the EU under the assumption that all its members worked together on an equal footing and were willing to strengthen the ESDP by actively taking part in conflict-management operations. It was important to make the European Union stronger: it needed to make clear choices and to adopt inclusive policies (energy solidarity, climate change, foreign policy, human rights, partnership with Russia). Russia was a strategic partner for Europe and the EU's cooperation with it should also be geared to the long-term challenges.

Mr Andrey RUDENKO, Senior Policy Planning Advisor, OSCE, described the various discussions in the wake of the Russian and French proposals for a new security dialogue for Europe. A Europe whole and free and at peace with itself remained a goal rather than a reality. The OSCE had launched the dialogue on these proposals at its Corfu meeting in June 2009. The OSCE had clear comparative advantages for the discussion of these issues: with its 56 member states it was all-inclusive; it was comprehensive in that it addressed the politico-military, economic and human dimensions; and it possessed experience and a legacy that were crucial for tackling these issues. However contributions by the other international organisations were also taken on board in its discussions and the current colloquy was therefore very welcome. Five working sessions of the Corfu Process had already been held and a further five were scheduled. All controversial issues needed to be tackled through open discussions within that process. Taking forward this dialogue was in itself an efficient tool for building trust and confidence in Europe. Developing a new security concept for Europe could be a very long process.

There followed a lively debate, with questions on Georgia (Mr Alexander TORSHIN, Russia), the erosion of the CFE regime (Mr Andras György EDLER, Romania), the future of the OSCE and its internal functioning (Mr Paul WILLE, Belgium and Lord ANDERSON OF SWANSEA, United Kingdom), the NABUCCO project and arms control negotiations between the US and Russia (Dr Hakki KESKIN, Germany), Turkish EU membership negotiations and Turkey's strategic role in the field of energy (Mr Zmago JELINCIC PLEMENITI, Slovenia), the human dimension of security and illegal immigration (Mr Giacomo SANTINI, Italy),  transatlantic relations (Mrs Betty WILLIAMS, United Kingdom), the European Security Treaty proposed by President MEDVEDEV and the ways and means of organising practical cooperation between the OSCE, the EU and NATO (Mr Franz-Eduard KÜHNEL, Austria), and the coherence of EU and NATO policies (Mr Leon KIERES, Poland).

Addressing shortcomings: do we need a new and different security architecture?

Mr Alexander TORSHIN, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of the Federation and Head of the Russian Delegation to the Assembly, presented the Russian perspective on President Medvedev's proposal for a new European security architecture. The multilateral dialogue launched in particular at the OSCE meetings in Vienna and Corfu the previous June and at the last NATO-Russia Council meeting demonstrated the European leaders' serious interest in this issue.

Russia did not aim to prioritise certain aspects of security at the expense of others; rather it envisaged a complex approach to security with a view not only to putting an end to military threats but also to promoting conflict resolution, guaranteeing energy security and tackling international terrorism and arms proliferation as well as human and drugs trafficking in Europe. Regarding hard security, the basic principle of indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic area was currently not being implemented and therefore, from the Russian perspective, a new treaty should propose a consolidating approach in order to overcome existing divisions in the Euro-Atlantic area from Vancouver to Vladivostok.

He also underlined the importance of getting rid of stereotypes and ideologies, and called for a logical parallel to be drawn between discussions on a future European security treaty and the elaboration of new strategic concepts for NATO. He supported Mr Rogozin's proposal to hold discussions on a future treaty during the next NATO-Russia Council meeting. He also emphasised the importance of the parliamentary dimension of discussions, while also encouraging an interdisciplinary dialogue with experts, governments, academics and others. He supported the proposal to hold an international conference on the future of European security bringing together the heads of all existing international organisations dealing with security in the Euro-Atlantic area. Finally, he suggested the creation of a joint working group with the Assembly.

Ms Oksana ANTONENKO from the IISS in London remarked on the ambivalence surrounding the new security architecture proposals and on the "puzzling" timing of the renewed discussions on this subject. Indeed, it was strange that this discussion should be taking place at a time when institutions had become less important than the political efforts and capacity of individual nations to solve contemporary challenges like those being faced in the Middle East, Afghanistan and in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. It was equally puzzling that this discussion should have arisen anew in the midst of a serious financial crisis when defence budgets had been cut significantly and would probably continue to shrink.

She called for a clarification of the new proposals and insisted on the need to draw a clear distinction between the idea of a European security treaty and that of a European security architecture. She believed that Russia was committed to the creation of a security treaty, i.e. a legally-binding document defining binding rules of behaviour. It was important to identify whether what was desired was a Helsinki II or Helsinki plus-type document or new ideas on the ways and means of integrating Russia into the Euro-Atlantic security system.

Russia was in her view putting forward several proposals such as: freezing the status quo (i.e. halting NATO enlargement); scrapping the CFE Treaty and negotiating a new document; addressing territorial integrity and self-determination principles with a view, for example, to obtaining a trade-off between Kosovo and South-Ossetia; placing NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) on an equal footing in the European security landscape; and shifting the focus within the OSCE away from the human dimension and towards hard security and conflict prevention.

Despite her doubts, she believed that the creation of a truly integrated defence system including Russia could present a lot of opportunities if implemented. However, she noted that there were few areas in which Russia and the West could agree and that "if we start off with different objectives we are set for a disaster."

She therefore suggested taking up President Medvedev's proposal while moving towards a "security horticulture", by which she meant growing from the bottom up the capacity of Russia and other countries of the broader Euro-Atlantic community to solve real security problems and to develop a culture of cooperative security thinking. The idea was to develop not institutions but people who were able to cooperate and solve problems by thinking differently on areas of common interest such as Afghanistan and frozen conflicts.

Mr Pal DUNAY, from the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, emphasised that most European states were satisfied with the current European security architecture and that only a small number of countries were inclined to revise it.

Behind President Medvedev's initiative were in his view a number of objectives such as: maintaining the political status quo, especially in the former Soviet area, thereby meeting Russian concerns about the ongoing changes in the European security architecture; and initiating new discussions about the foundations for that architecture. The timing of the new proposals was designed among other things to test the reaction of Russia's partners and to highlight the deficiencies of the unipolar world of the last decade. Russia's main geostrategic objectives were to stop the West's eastwards advancement, to legitimise organisations in the post-Soviet area (such as the CIS, CSTO, SCO), to change the balance within the OSCE between hard and soft security and to re-launch European arms control.

He argued that President Medvedev's proposal gave preference to one set of international legal principles at the expense of others, such as the right to self-determination and respect for human rights. He believed Russia's initiative was intended to reverse the changes with regard to those principles of international law and to set the clock back by six decades. He also feared that its efforts to legitimise certain organisations in the post-Soviet area, such as the CIS and the CSTO, could lead to the emergence of an asymmetrical bipolar system of European security.

Nevertheless, he noted that the very radical stance towards existing security institutions in Europe taken by President Medvedev in his first speech on a new European security architecture in Berlin in June 2008 had now been replaced by the more realistic aims of re-balancing the OSCE and re-launching arms control in Europe.

Mr Dunay called for a new atmosphere based on a spirit of cooperation for which discussions between the West and Russia on a new European security architecture could pave the way. Russia would regard success in those discussions as an achievement on its part, while failure could simply be put down to the present unpreparedness of the West to engage in such talks.

During the ensuing debate there were questions on measures to improve relations between the EU and Russia (Mr Yves POZZO DI BORGO, France), a new European security treaty and Nagorno-Karabakh (Dr Hakki KESKIN, Germany and Mr Franz-Eduard KÜHNEL, Austria), Georgia and the Lisbon Treaty (Lord ANDERSON OF SWANSEA, United Kingdom).

In his conclusions, the Rapporteur for the Political Committee, Mr Gerd HÖFER, stated that President Medvedev's proposals indicated both a growing concern on the part of Russia that its views were largely being ignored and a renewed self-confidence in Moscow. Russia wanted to correct three major trends which were perceived as threatening its security interests: no country should be allowed to assure its security at the expense of others; military alliances and coalitions of countries which undermine the unity of the common security area should not be permitted and no expansion of military alliances in a way which would threaten the security of other parties to the new treaty should be allowed.

The Russian proposals were generally met with a degree of suspicion. Critics believed they were designed to create unwarranted uncertainty about the legitimacy, efficiency and credibility of the existing institutions and to limit the human rights dimension of the OSCE which Russia regarded as one-sided and biased. There was also the theory that the aim of the proposals was to veto further NATO expansion in order to keep the United States at bay and maintain a recognised sphere of influence in what Moscow viewed as its own neighbourhood. The Rapporteur stated that in the near future many critics would be proved wrong. Russia, he believed, had not fully made up its mind about the geopolitical role that it wished to play.

Regarding the current institutional and security set-up, the transatlantic link was essential and needed to be preserved; however the dominance of one state over the others was an issue that needed to be addressed. President Obama's foreign policy showed signs of promise in this respect. The time was also ripe for President Medvedev to conduct a thorough review of Russia's foreign policy. Its involvement in the frozen conflicts near or within its borders was not constructive and raised significant concerns. Russia needed to decide whether it wanted to be a part of a greater Euro-Atlantic community of modern democracies and open societies. Only when those issues were addressed could the institutional questions also be tackled.

8.30 Registration opens

9.30 Opening of the colloquy:

_ Seppo KÄÄRIÄINEN, First Deputy Speaker of the Finnish Parliament

_ Robert WALTER MP, President of the ESDA/WEU Assembly

_ Tuija NURMI, Leader of the Finnish Delegation

Keynote speech:

· Jyri HÄKÄMIES, Finnish Minister of Defence

10.30 Coffee break

11.00 Morning Session: Challenges for Europe's security and the responses of international organisations

Panel:

· Paavo LIPPONEN, Finland, former Prime Minister and former Speaker of Parliament

· Timo KANTOLA, Finland, Head of the Security Policy Unit, Ministry for Foreign Affairs

· Andrey RUDENKO, Russia, Senior Policy Planning Advisor, OSCE

Debate

13.00 Press Conference

13.30 Lunch

14.30 Afternoon Session: Addressing shortcomings: do we need a new and different security architecture?

Panel:

· Alexander TORSHIN, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Federation, Head of the Russian Delegation to the Assembly

· Oksana ANTONENKO, IISS, London

· Mr Pal DUNAY, Geneva Centre for Security Policy

Debate

16.00 Conclusions by Gerd HÖFER (Germany, Socialist Group), Rapporteur

16.30 Meeting of the Defence Committee (Parliament auditorium)

Departure of participants