22 October 2009 – The European Security and Defence Assembly (ESDA) held a colloquy in Helsinki entitled: ‘Towards a new security concept for Europe?’ 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, together with a substantial Russian Delegation and representatives from the CIS Assembly, specialists from the civil and military domains, government representatives and academics.

The colloquy was opened by Mr Seppo KÄÄRIÄINEN, First Deputy Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, Mr Robert WALTER, MP, President of the ESDA and Mrs Tuija NURMI, Leader of the Finnish Delegation. Mr KÄÄRIÄINEN emphasised the impact of globalisation and the importance of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Mr WALTER stressed that a new security framework must be based not only on interests, but also on values. Recent history, he said, had demonstrated that a balance of forces was not enough for lasting security: democracy and human rights were also important. We were looking at an area that should be seen as the “common neighbourhood” and not anyone’s “near abroad”. It should be an area of cooperation, not of rivalries. While there was a need to develop broader security concepts, the so-called frozen conflicts must be addressed as well. “We need to sit down together and resolve these conflicts before we can envisage new institutions. Otherwise we will only move these issues on to another table and not solve anything, and give a false impression of being terribly busy but in fact achieve little” he said. Mrs NURMI highlighted the “interdependence” between Europe and Russia, especially in the field of energy, the environment and security. Europe and Russia should deepen their cooperation and Europe should speak with “one voice” in that context.

Mr Jyri HÄKÄMIES, Finnish Minister of Defence, highlighted four main issues First, the financial crisis, which was currently the main global challenge. Secondly, the issue of energy security, which was of mutual interest to Europe and Russia: Europe needed energy and Russia needed revenues. Thirdly, the growing importance of the High North and its enormous potential: stability of the Arctic region was in the common interest. Fourthly, the absence of radical changes in Finnish security policy: Finland remained militarily non-aligned while promoting increasing international cooperation, particularly with NATO. The Minister also responded to questions from members of the Assembly on the North Stream gas pipeline (Dr Hakki KESKIN, Germany and Leon KIERES, Poland), the possibility of Finnish membership of NATO and the reaction of Finnish public opinion (Franz-Eduard KÜHNEL, Austria, and John AUSTIN, United Kingdom).

The 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 on a new European Security Architecture.

During the first session Mr Paavo LIPPONEN, former Prime Minister and former Speaker of the Finnish Parliament, said with reference to Finland’s policy towards Russia since the Second World War, “We are proud of this policy. We have nothing to apologise for. It was about survival”. Finland was therefore well placed to play a constructive role within the EU in enhancing its 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. Mr LIPPONEN stressed the need to make the European Union stronger. It needed to adopt concrete choices and 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 must also be geared to the long-term challenges.

Mr Timo KANTOLA, Finland, Head of the Security Policy Unit, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, recalled that the Russian proposals were currently being discussed within the OSCE following its Corfu meeting in June. The OSCE’s Corfu Process had got off to a good start but we should not be “over-ambitious”. The key parameter for dialogue with Russia was trust, but the Georgian crisis, to give an example, was a major factor for mistrust. The OSCE had been left with no other choice than to close its mission in Georgia. The EU observer mission continued for the moment but was unable to operate in a fully satisfactory manner.

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. The Corfu meeting meant the launch of the dialogue within the OSCE framework while taking into account the contributions of the other international organisations. Today’s colloquy was very welcome in that regard. Five working sessions of the Corfu Process had already been held and a further five were scheduled. All controversial issues must be tackled through open discussion 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), OSCE future and 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 ways and means for 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).

At the press conference, Mr TORSHIN thanked the ESDA and the Eduskunta for organising such a useful colloquy in Helsinki. It was highly symbolic since it was in this city in 1975 that “the ice of the cold war melted”.  Russia was enthusiastic about the “Helsinki Plus” suggested by Mr WALTER. Mrs NURMI explained that security should be broadly defined (including culture, trade and sport). We needed to understand each other to build common security together. Mr WALTER said that there had to be a positive answer to Mr MEDVEDEV’s proposals through a thorough dialogue with Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

During the second session, Mr Alexander TORSHIN, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of the Russian Federation, Head of the Russian Delegation to the Assembly, made clear that Russia was willing to overcome confrontation and new divisive lines in Europe. This colloquy would be a solid contribution to the Corfu process. Parliamentary diplomacy in support of Mr MEDVEDEV’s proposals was of great relevance, in particular within the framework of the ESDA. Mr TORSHIN proposed setting up a Working Group between the Duma, the Council of the Federation and the ESDA to follow-up ideas on a new security concept for Europe. 

According Ms Oksana ANTONENKO, IISS, London, we should define the ultimate aim of the process before choosing which path to follow. Russia favoured a new European Security Treaty but that did not seem to be the case for other Euro-Atlantic partners. Russia wanted in particular to freeze NATO enlargement, recognise equal status between NATO and CSTO and move the OSCE away from human rights towards hard security.  We should move away from the idea of a new European Security Treaty and promote a bottom-up approach with a detailed agenda of concrete issues (such as Afghanistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, human security and more particularly migration and drug trafficking, etc).

According to Mr Paul DUNAY, Geneva Centre for Security Policy, President MEDVEDEV’s multilevel proposal was aimed at “testing the waters” and “making the West face its internal divisions”. Russia was also trying to rebalance the geographic and functional dimensions of the OSCE, provide for a new lease of life for European arms control and legitimise certain organisations in the post-soviet space (CIS, CSTO and SCO).

During the ensuing debate, questions were raised 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).

Concluding the colloquy, Mr Gerd HÖFER (Germany, Socialist Group), Rapporteur, insisted that we needed to avoid isolating Russia. On the contrary, we had to strengthen “dialogue” with Russia in order to promote the “common interests” of both Europe and Russia. The parliamentary dimension was an important aspect of this process. Mr HÖFER went on to say that Russia did not see the European Union as an entity and often preferred to develop bilateral relations with individual EU member states. It was up to European countries themselves to speak with one voice and act together within the EU framework in defining their strategic partnership with Russia. 

A report entitled “Towards a new security architecture for Europe?” is currently being prepared by ESDA Political Committee Rapporteurs, Mr Gerd HÖFER (Germany, Socialist group) and Mr Arcadio DIAZ TEJERA (Spain, Socialist Group). The report will be presented at the Assembly’s plenary session in Paris from 1-3 December (www.assembly-weu.eu).