Paris, 2 December 2009 – On Tuesday Mr Vladimir Chizhov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the European Union, defended Russian plans for a “European security treaty” as the best means of combating the “fragmentation of security, both on worldwide and regional levels”.
Addressing the European Security and Defence Assembly (ESDA), Mr Chizhov said that all international security policies had ended in failure and that Europe had been powerless to prevent the “chain of bloody conflict in the Balkans” since the end of the cold war. He went on to denounce the creeping expansion of NATO in spite of the Euro-Atlantic promises made to Moscow in the framework of the NATO-Russia Council. “After the collapse of the bipolar world” a few people “sat down, pencils in their hands, and divided up Europe and the world (…) such an approach leads to an increase in the number of crises” he declared.
At the same time as Russia was presenting its plans for an “indivisible security space” to the OSCE in Athens on Tuesday, the Ambassador outlined Russia’s priorities. He insisted that faced with the fragmentation of security, the time had come to act and we could not “just sit back and do nothing”. In his view, the “principal building blocks” of the “indivisible treaty” proposed by Moscow consisted in the following principles: “respect for sovereignty, non-interference, the inadmissibility of the use of force, and respect for all the other principles set out in the United Nations Charter”. It was fundamental “to guarantee uniform interpretation of those principles” in “a legally binding form” and areas of lawlessness created by particular “alliances and coalitions” had to be tackled, he added.
While claiming that the Russian plans were not “aimed at undermining NATO”, Mr Chizhov denounced the attitude of the Alliance which “does not take into account the legitimate interests of non-NATO countries”, “creates difficulties for Russia” and was counter-productive to peace. Without actually mentioning the countries concerned, he added that some NATO members held obsolete views vis-à-vis Russia that harked back to the cold war era. However, he welcomed “the development of the partnership” with the European Union and cited the resolution of the “Caucasus crisis” whereby the European Union had “acquired a firm footing in the field of crisis management”, he said.
In conclusion, Mr Chizhov underlined that “as a country with a responsible foreign policy”, Russia wanted to work with all countries to construct “a fair and democratic world order”.  He added that the ESDA was “ideally suited to bring to the attention of governments the security challenges we all face”.
During the debate, several parliamentarians expressed doubts about the sincerity of the Russian proposal. Stressing the issue of the respect of human rights in a Russia that has a “lingering authoritarian legacy”, Mr KIERES (Poland, Federated Group) felt that it was true that a common security system can only work if all partners share common values. Mr DARCHIASHVILI, Chairman of the European Integration Committee of the Georgian Parliament, drew attention to the discrepancies between Russia’s deeds and words. Mr SOOÄÄR (Estonia, Liberal Group) suggested developing “ways of communication” with a view to establishing “mutual respect for each others’ values”.