For immediate release 26 June
2006
PRESS COMMUNIQUE - COMMUNIQUE PRESSE
NATO-RUSSIA COOPERATION STILL HINDERED
BY MISPERCEPTIONS AND LACK OF TRUST
Despite good cooperation at the practical level, NATO-Russia relations
still appear hindered by a lack of understanding and trust, particularly
on the Russian side. Western and Russian members of parliament meeting at
a Rose-Roth seminar in Sochi, Russia, from June 22-24, agreed that more
transparency and dialogue was necessary to overcome this basic dichotomy
and permit the strategic relationship an essential element in
resolving the conflicts in the South Caucasus to fulfil its
potential. The seminar, jointly organised by the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly and the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, gathered
some 40 legislators from NATO and partner countries, as well as members
of governments, NATO officials, academics and civil society
representatives under the theme: "Russia-NATO: Security Issues in
the South Caucasus".
Most participants agreed that Russia and the Alliance had established a
useful framework of cooperation at both the intergovernmental and
parliamentary levels. However, Russian participants showed very sharp
concerns about NATO and its relations with countries in former-Soviet
area. Duma members declared that Russia needed to “defend its national
interests” against the “encirclement” from NATO, which was demonstrated
in particular by the AllianceÂ’s relationship with Ukraine and Georgia.
NATO PA members criticised this attitude as representative of Cold War
rhetoric. NATO, they contended, has transformed itself radically since
1989 and enlargement is not intended as a strategy “against” any other
country.
Nevertheless, many contributors tried to highlight the distinction
between public and media attitudes in Russia as compared with the
practical cooperation actually going on between Russia and Western
countries. “The top-level dialogue and media reporting are all tough
talk”, said a Moscow-based Western academic, “but below the surface,
there is much that goes on to contradict that negativity”. In particular,
Russia and Western countries have developed a successful relationship in
the areas of counter-proliferation and the fight against terrorism and
organised crime. The G-8 Global Partnership initiative as well as common
diplomatic efforts in the context of the United Nations to solve the Iran
nuclear crisis were cited as good examples of constructive
cooperation.
Both NATO and Russian officials described NATO-Russia military
cooperation as a success story. A military Work Plan, designed to
increase the interoperability of NATO and Russian forces, started in 2003
and includes common exercises at all levels, training of Russian military
and civilian personnel. Russia and the Alliance are also working together
in critical areas such as Theatre Missile Defence, nuclear weapon
accident response, and submarine escape and rescue exercises. This,
however, is largely ignored by the Russian public, which, according to a
NATO official, is fundamentally “out of step with the policy of the
Russian government”.
Accordingly, some Russian parliamentarians declared their total mistrust
of AllianceÂ’s intentions also in the military sphere. One of them defined
NATO as “the Pentagon’s foreign legion” and others indicated that they
considered the establishment of US military bases in Bulgaria and
Romania, as well as the conduct of NATO exercises in Crimea, as direct
threats to the Russian Federation. Conversely, one Russian speaker also
highlighted the ambiguity of the Russian government and military
establishment, which perpetuated the idea of NATO as “a danger” in order
to overcome the morale problems of the Russian armed forces. This was not
reflected in the perceptions of Russia in NATO countries, creating a sort
of “imbalance of trust”.
NATOÂ’s relations with the countries of the South Caucasus were also seen
as encroaching on Russia’s “sphere of influence”. With regard to the
unresolved conflicts in that region, Russian participants insisted on the
contrast between the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity and
the right of selfdetermination, indicating that in the cases of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia the latter was in their view predominant. They also
compared these crises with that of Kosovo, where NATO was “favouring
Kosovo AlbaniansÂ’ self-determination against SerbiaÂ’s sovereignty
rights”, hence criticising the West’s “double standards”. Western
participants objected that all existing UN Security Council resolutions
recognised the territorial integrity of Georgia, whilst in Kosovo
international law had put into question SerbiaÂ’s territorial integrity
and right to oversee Kosovo.
With regard to practical cooperation to solve the conflicts in the South
Caucasus, many indicated that Western countries and Russia should work
more together and help the parties to apply a step-by-step approach. Such
approach, according to a Western expert, should focus “first on security
issues i.e. demilitarisation (in the South Ossetian case), and the
signature of a non resumption of armed hostilities documents (in the
Abkhaz case)”, then on “confidence building” and the creation of economic
and civil society links. This appeared more difficult to achieve in
the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict where some Russian
speakers lamented a lack of significant international engagement
but in all conflicts the implementation of infrastructure rehabilitation,
economic development and civil society programmes appears crucial to
break the isolation that the people in these entities live in.
Energy security was also debated in Sochi and emerged as another powerful
irritant in Russian-Western relations. European participants criticised
Russia's apparent willingness to wield energy endowments upon which
Europe depends for political ends. One speaker also criticised the
concentration of Russian energy resources into the hands of few,
state-controlled enterprises. Russian participants dismissed such
accusations and retorted that oil and gas prices were simply dictated by
market laws.
In the concluding session of the seminar, a lengthy debate focused on the
role of media and how anti-Western and anti-NATO perceptions or “myths”
deeply rooted in Russian public opinion were exploited and encouraged by
them. On the other hand, Russian participants lamented the overwhelmingly
negative image of their country in Western media, concentrating mainly on
corruption, organised crime and social injustice and downplaying the
achievements of the Russian government. All participants indicated that
both the Alliance and Russia needed to work on the question of public
perceptions and on the “imbalance of trust” through an enhanced public
diplomacy strategy. NATO PA meetings could actively contribute to such
strategy by favouring a more intense and focused interparliamentary
dialogue.
For further information, please
contact
Roberta Calorio
e-mail:
rcalorio@nato-pa.int
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Place du Petit Sablon 3, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tél: (32) 2 513 28 65 | Fax: (32) 2 514 18 47 |
website: http://
www.nato-pa.int
|
Background
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, founded in 1955 with a
Brussels-based secretariat,
brings together 248national parliamentarians from the 26 NATO countries.
In addition, 13 associate delegations from Central and Eastern Europe,
Ukraine and Russia;
4Mediterranean Associate delegations: Morocco, algeria, Jordan,
Israel
and 8 Parliamentary Observer delegations participate in Assembly
activities and meetings.