From the editor
Russia constantly comes up with foreign policy initiatives, and should continue to do so to restore trust between Russia and the West. The international security system has long been in need of an overhaul, if not of replacement, so any proposals merit close attention.
Addressing a conference on humanitarian law in St Petersburg yesterday, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin elaborated on the idea of the European security treaty (which has recently become President Dmitry Medvedev's calling card), formulating the main principles of the future document. They are the "three nos": not to ensure one's security at the expense of others; not to allow (within any military alliances and coalitions) actions that impair the unity of the common security space; and not to allow the development and expansion of military alliances to the detriment of other signatories to the treaty.
Mr Putin also proposed that the treaty seal the basic parameters of arms control. Each of the theses can be seen as addressing the political exigencies of today; on the other hand, the current initiative is one of the most balanced, careful, and substantive efforts to restore (or replace) the system of international security.
Up until now, it was not very clear how Russia saw the European security treaty, but now, the European partners have something to discuss. While Mr Putin's theses are fairly general and cosmopolitan, it is very clear that the first "no" refers primarily to the elements of American missile defence in Europe, the second "no" to the missile defence and Western military assistance to Georgia, and the third "no" to NATO's eastward expansion. These are still debatable questions, and no early decisions can be expected in any case.
However, general formulas and constant support of negotiating initiatives may bring forth a positive reaction: we are indicating that we are aware of the complexities of the situation and of the need for joint action, and are ready to begin by making small steps. A European security treaty cannot be guaranteed to be a cure-all, but what is certain is that the present system of treaties is in danger of collapse. Arms control is a case in point.
The treaty on the reduction of offensive weapons between the US and Russia (START-1) expires in a year, and that also applies to the verification system that goes with it. Because no agreement has yet been reached on extending that treaty or signing a new one, there is a risk that the situation may get out of mutual control. It will also affect the strategic offensive reductions treaty, which only extends to 2012 but is tied in with START-1 in terms of verification. The US withdrew from the ABM unilaterally.
Russia unilaterally suspended its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which is also a problem. Although no one has formally violated the CFE, it is potentially a destabilising factor. For example, statements about stationing missiles in the Kaliningrad Region and other sabre-rattling would not be very timely: the Democrats who have come to power in the US are sceptical about missile defence and want to save on arms in the context of the economic crisis.
President Medvedev has already softened his rhetoric, describing Barack Obama's position on NMD as "more careful" than George Bush's position. Mr Putin has also remarked that if the Americans refuse to deploy NMD in Europe, the "question of retaliatory measures would become irrelevant", nonetheless confirming that if missiles are deployed, an "adequate response" would be inevitable.
The West is aware that fixing the international security system (or building a new one) is impossible without Russia. Russia and the West mistrust each other. What can be done? The European security treaty is in the remote future, but one must start somewhere. What is needed today is openness, negotiations, an active and clear-cut position, an invitation, and not coercion to peace.