The Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention and Human Security (PN) recently had the opportunity to talk with Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chair of the Munich Security Conference.
Ambassador Ischinger is a board member of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the EastWest Institute and of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. He is a member of the European Council on Foreign Affairs and the Global Zero Commission, promoting a vision of a nuclear free world. Since December 2009, he has been co-chair of the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiatives of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Furthermore, Ambassador Ischinger is a member of the Independent Commission on Turkey, chaired by Peace Nobel Laureate and former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari.
Two years after he first opened the international dialogue on security, through the Munich Security Conference, Ambassador Ischinger shared with us his thoughts on the Euro-Atlantic Security Strategy, the future of NATO and the role of Russia.
PN: The Parliamentarians Network just implemented a working group focused on debating the Euro-Atlantic Security Strategy, also with a view to influence the international discussions concerning the new NATO strategy. What do you think about the current Euro-Atlantic Security Strategy?
W.I.: 2010 offers a historic opportunity to kick-start a more harmonious, less fractious, less burdened, East West relationship not just for the sake of Europe, but also for the sake of addressing global challenges. Why do I believe that this year is so important?
First of all, we are seeing some meaningful developments in US-Russia relations in particular as far as arms control is concerned, a neglected issue for practically a decade.
Second, if anyone needed to be convinced that Russian security and Western security are interconnected, the March 30th events in the Moscow subway were a reminder that it is not just a figure of speech when we speak of the fact that we have shared interests. We need to understand that fighting terrorism is not a western challenge against the rest of the world; it can only be meaningfully addressed if we undertake a shared effort.
This is an important year; arms control is taking on a new relevance, we have the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference in New York currently underway. And of course, more importantly for the members of NATO, there’s a historic opportunity to draft a new strategic concept for NATO, which would hopefully embrace the fundamental thesis that we have moved beyond the Cold War thinking and we are willing to move into a new phase of win-win philosophy in terms of our security relationships.
PN: Do you believe that the proposal by Mr. Medvedev, which was also discussed during your last Security Conference in Munich, shows a readiness on NATO’s side to deepen the discussion about a common European Security structure from Vladivostok to Vancouver?
W.I.: First of all, there are few issues on which NATO members are as divided as about the question on how to deal with Russia. There is no common view within NATO on whether to look at Russia as a former adversary or whether Russia should be seen as an increasingly important partner. Both views exist in NATO but they have not been brought together, which has created a problem on the Western side.
There is also a problem on the Eastern side of this equation. To be quite frank, I believe that we can all understand the motivations and the rationale of the so-called Medvedev proposal. The proposal leaves many questions open. It is not a proposal that is easy to grasp. So I think we have problems on both sides.
PN: A new policy paper of the EastWest Institute entitled “European Security Strategy: one vision, three paths”, suggests that a global security structure must link NATO, Russia and Asia as well as regional security organizations, as the CSTO and SCO. Given your extensive experience in this area, do you think there is any chance that fundamental security changes can be discussed before NATO’s strategy will be tabled?
W.I.: What I know and what I welcome is that the efforts to draft a revised NATO Strategic Concept have included and continue to include discussions with the Russian side. It’s very important that the so-called Madeleine Albright group actually went to Moscow to have discussions with Russian counterparts. I made it a point in Munich to include a senior member of the Russian elite, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Duma in the debate on NATO’s future. I think these are important confidence building measures, and I hope that these ideas will actually be incorporated in the New NATO Strategic Concept.
An important point is also to think about how NATO, others, and CSTO, should be more proactively interrelated. I think that this process of creating a Europe whole, free and united as we have imagined it now for 20 years, will only come to fruition if it’s not only based on architecture, in other words, on organization and structures, but also on substance.
NATO Secretary General Rasmussen made an interesting proposal recently, when he called for the USA and the rest of NATO to develop a ballistic missile defense system together with Russia. I think that’s not going to solve all the problems, but it could be an important area of trust building and real cooperation, in the fields of technology, science, industrial production and so on.
When I visited the German troops in Kosovo, in 1999, there was a Russian contingent working side by side with NATO forces at that time. That effort has been abandoned. The fact is that we had already reached in a number of areas, a level of cooperation that was quite interesting and quite promising - a lot of this momentum has been lost over the last decade, we need to regain it. This is a part of the challenge, beyond the architectural design which is close to my heart as a diplomat. We need to carry these efforts into concrete activities on the ground that will bring Russians, Europeans, Americans, and others together so that they learn how to work together, not just at the political level but at the practical industrial, academic and other levels also.
PN: We can then say that current threats and risks mean that we need to understand common interests, to find common answers. That is something which our international Network wants to do, to start a common security and strategic debate with colleagues from Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as Ukraine or Russia.
Taking into account the current proposal tabled by the former German Defense Minister, Mr. Rühe and the former General, Mr. Naumann, that reopened the discussion about the future of NATO, they recommend an open door policy towards Russia. Do you think that’s a strategic approach which we should follow? I agree that a strategic partnership between NATO and Russia would be a constructive step, but wouldn’t it be a mistake to ignore other areas such as Asia?
W.I.: Well, you’re hitting the right question. My own view is that we should always reaffirm the fundamental position that NATO, as a military alliance, is open to any member of the Euro-Atlantic geographical community which qualifies, and which wishes to participate. So by definition, Russia should not be excluded. However, things are a little more complicated, and we need to consider strategic implications of all steps.
China will feel affected by any decisions that are going to be taken in the future regarding NATO's scope of activities and specifically NATO membership. If a decision were to be taken, for example, to make Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan a member of NATO, China would see its own security affected. In other words we need to take a more holistic look, and be aware of the fact that things are quite complicated. Do we want a security border with China? Can we actually manage this as members of NATO? Is that a desirable and doable thing?
In other words I believe the political message of declaring an open door policy for Russia in NATO makes a lot of sense, and in that sense I welcome the Rühe-Naumann proposal as an important political signal. Translating it into reality is quite complicated. I have to say that I am personally not against NATO enlargement and continued NATO enlargement, but I think the fundamental purpose of NATO has been to unify the defense efforts of Europe and I’m not interested in a global NATO.
PN: For the next Munich Security conference in 2011, do you already have an idea about what the main topic should be?
W.I.: We are going to look at a number of important issues. Let me raise one important issue which we have not touched upon in our discussions so far: arms control and disarmament. There is a huge potential, and there is a huge need for the USA and Russia to take the shared lead in advancing a global arms control initiative. I speak of the CTBT, I speak of the fissile material cut-off treaty and I speak of going for deep cuts in strategic nuclear arms after the recently concluded negotiations on a START follow up treaty. There is an enormous need to push this forward and it can only be done by the USA and Russia together, for the simple reason that these two powers have more than 90% of all nuclear available weapons in their possession. I happen to believe that the 1st April, 2009 proposal by President Obama and President Medvedev jointly in London to take a common position on the vision of a nuclear free world was a historic step. I predict that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference will not be a friendly entertainment show. It will be a very difficult discussion where the willingness of the nuclear powers to actually pursue disarmament efforts will be seriously challenged and where the legitimacy and the authority of the entire non proliferation regime will be even more seriously questioned than at the last Review Conference in 2005, which was a disaster.
So if one agrees with what I believe, namely that the challenge of preventing more nuclear proliferation around the globe is the single most serious challenge to humanity, maybe shared only by ecological or environmental climate change concerns, then these two powers need to lead this effort, and they need our support, and that is why I will certainly try to make arms control and disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, an important issue at the Munich Security conference in 2011.
PN: Thank you very much Ambassador Ischinger for taking your time to speak with the Parliamentarians Network.
