Conflict

BTW MIC Still Rules

After recent failure to reach agreement on treaty for international arms trade the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrote article ”The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded” (August 28, 2012). The main idea is in his article headline and article contents lot of good intentions and initiatives for peace development too. However I would like to bring up only one hard fact mentioned there. And here it is:

Last year, global military spending reportedly exceeded $1.7 trillion – more than $4.6 billion a day, which alone is almost twice the UN’s budget for an entire year.

The fact above describes that Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC) – especially in U.S. - still rules the world. Global military industrial consumption represents a few percent of GDP and is still rising. U.S. share of the cake is about 40%. The international community still is willing to invest hundreds of times more to the war than peace. MIC is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy.

: U.S. MIC at work

Even academia is in tow, with about 350 colleges and universities agreeing to do Pentagon-funded research. In Academic world neuro-weapons and diverse applications of numerous branches of research – such as the software guidance systems, general communications networking systems and robotics technology - that blur the distinctions between government, military, and medical, technological and scientific research.

MIC is not only weapons, their development and use, energy companies are one key sector nowadays. The wider picture is that U.S. tries to implement its Silk Road Strategy (SRS) by securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” pipeline routes and trade on Eurasian corridor. This militarization is largely directed against China, Russia and Iran. More about SRS in my article “Is GUUAM dead?”

: Small fraction of U.S. MIC

Amid all this waste the Pentagon spares no effort to keep the media on its side, both in the US and elsewhere. The military allocated at least $4.7 billion this year to “influence operations” and has more than 27,000 employees devoted to such activities.

War activities are producing high quarterly bonuses for owners of military-industrial-complex. Peace work has an opposite problem - it is not profitable, While global military spending is at least $ 1.7 trillion, the OECD Development tries to manage with some 100 billion, Peace work overall gets some 6 billion and 0.6 billion goes to conflict prevention. Peace Research, could help prevent conflicts, but development of tools for killing is much more lucrative. Against one peace researcher, is estimated to be more than 1100 researcher for weapon (and their use) developers.

The difference in what countries are prepared to invest in weapons and their use is huge compared to what they use for example, poverty elimination and economic development in developing countries. And just poverty is one of the causes of violence.

¤ ¤ ¤

Some – Believe or not - Trivia

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report as of June 2009 in Afghanistan/Iraq theatres operated 73,968 private contractors; included were familiar names like Kellogg, Brown and Root, Fluor Corp, Lockheed Martin and hired guns like DynCorp and Xe (formerly Blackwater USA)

U.S. spending in Iraq 2003-2006 was 1.4% civilian, 98.6% military

In Afghanistan, one gallon oil costs the invading troops $ 400 and annual expenditure of one soldier is almost one million US dollar according to a recent statistics.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country. With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year. (Ok there is Taliban too but if I remember right the justification for operation was al Qaeda)

To keep people happy and silence critics Pentagon spares no effort to keep the media on its side, both in the US and elsewhere. Last years the military allocated at least $4.7 billion per year to “influence operations” and has more than 27,000 employees devoted to such activities.

The cost of making a Qassam rocket for attacking to Israel is only $ 10-20/each while protecting Israeli civilians with Iron Dome interceptors costs each time $ 40,000 – 100,000.

Peace Research, could help prevent conflicts, but to kill the development of tools is much more lucrative. Against one peace researcher, is estimated to be more than 1100 researcher for weapon (and their use) developers.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed…. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people…. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

(President Dwight Eisenhower)

102 comments no trackback

Tags:

Thursday, August 30 2012 By AriRusila - Crisis management

Time-Out for Israeli-Palestinian talks

A lot of optimism related to the Israeli-Palestinian talks begins to wane. Before last elections USA tried corrupt Israel with offer, which content has different versions, for freezing settlement construction in West Bank and Jerusalem in return. The offer did not succeed thus, the U.S., Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have quietly agreed about time-out and talks will resume in January, 2011.

The time is used first to replace earlier mediator George Mitchell, whom Obama fired, with next high level envoy or even with Mrs Clinton. Second, the time-out is necessary for Palestinians to continue reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah which began last month in Damascus under the Syrian aegis and which can lead an unite Hamas/Fatah delegation representing the Palestinian Authority in January 2011. Third informal negotiations between Hamas and Israel brokered by Germany may continue.

Current publications of new Wikileaks documents are giving some interesting details about cooperation in Middle East. Released documents are indicating that the Government of Israel had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas. Describing is also an Israeli opinion about Palestinian Authority that “only Israeli military operations against Hamas in the West Bank prevent them from expanding control beyond Gaza, without which Fatah would fall."

The two-state roadmap is expired

Obama's plan on the table, according informal sources, is providing from base of of the old two-state solution only less than 5% of the West Bank to Israel. This would mean that tens of settlements and two towns should be evacuated, and this Israel hardly would be able to swallow. One should remember that from the 1967 borders it is less than ten kilometers of air travel to Ben Gurion airport and a mere twenty kilometers to Tel Aviv with a Qassam so for security reasons old borders can be seen too hazardous.

Land swaps?

In the past swaps of land has be considered as part of a peace agreement and two-state solution. In theory a land colonized by Jewish settlements could be swapt for land that’s sparsely populated, like the Negev for example.

However there is a newer idea that Israel compensate the Palestinians with land occupied by Israeli Arabs. The Lieberman Plan, proposed May, 2004, also known in Israel as the "Populated-Area Exchange Plan", was proposed by Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Israeli political party Yisrael Beiteinu. The Lieberman Plan only advocates ceding the Triangle Arab communities, the ethnic Druze community, which is pro-Israel, would also remain part of Israel. “Israeli Arabs will not lose anything by joining the Palestinian state. Instead of giving the Palestinians empty land in the Negev, we are offering them land full of residents, who will not have to leave their homes,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon in an interview to London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper published in early February.

Some 46% of the Israeli’s Arabs (622,400 people) live in predominantly-Arab communities in in Israel's Northern District. According recent surveys among Israeli’s Arabs 83 percent of respondents opposed the idea of transferring their city to Palestinian jurisdiction. I believe that most Israeli Arabs object to trading Israeli citizenship for Palestinian citizenship. However the position would be entirely different if the West Bank was divided between Jordan and Israel - two sovereign countries already possessing a peace agreement that has proved its resilience for the last 12 years.

Are outsiders the obstacle for peace?

"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate." (Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein)

The three-state solution essentially replicates the situation that existed between the 1949 Armistice Agreements and the 1967 Six-Day War. Beginning in 1949, Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip, Jordan occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and no Palestinian Arab state existed. In 1950, Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and granted the Arab residents Jordanian citizenship.

My solutions have for years been an agreed or forced population transfers (see, for example, "Gaza War - Could Balkan history show the Way Out?") and replacement of two-state model with three-state solution ("The Three-State Option Could Solve Gaza conflict"). Immoral, contrary to speeches, etc I admit, however this pragmatic approach might work on the ground. In my opinion three-state solution could also make border changes easier e.g. implementing land swaps mentioned above.

Why, then, exploring these models is so difficult. I think U.S. Republican Senator Sam Brownback may have hit the nail on the head by stating

“...the obstacle to pursuing such a plan (3-state plan/AR) comes not from the Palestinians, the Egyptians or the Jordanians, but from our own foreign policy establishment, which has sunk enormous resources into the two-state plan and hesitates to walk away. But the cause of peace requires an honest assessment of what has worked and what has not. The time has come to cut our losses on a failed experiment and pursue regional solutions that will lead to peace and prosperity in a troubled region.”

From point of view of (Western) international community, the situation is somewhat similar to the previous Balkan wars and their solutions – billions of bucks (some 20 billion US Dollars over the last 15 years from international donors for West Bank and Gaza) and a lot of prestige has been squandered to hastily made early solutions and despite this

“it has been almost impossible to trace any positive impact of these mobilized resources on the ground”

I hope that time-out will be used for replacing the dead roadmap with pragmatic alternatives which may be found at regional level and the role of outsiders should be reduced to facilitating the outcome whatever it will be.

My related articles:

“The Three-State Option could solve Gaza conflict”

“Gaza War: Could Balkan history show way out?”

Will (East) Jerusalem be the End of Two-State Illusion?

“Placebo effect for people and society with 20 bn bucks”

one comment

Tags:

Wednesday, December 1 2010 By AriRusila - Middle-East

Fragments of the Middle East peace efforts

With the recently launched Palestinian-Israeli peace talks receding into a state of limbo and while Yemen is slowly disappearing from headlines a smaller stories from the Middle East are going on in the marginals of western mainstream media. However these some times crueler actions may change situation on the ground even more than high level official diplomacy.

News from peace talks too often are limited to photo opportunity to see negotiators and host making theatrical handshake - of course studying the outcome of talks one has some base to claim that this staging indeed was the (only) content of meeting. However outside cabinets in theatre of operations actions are following one another although they are not dominating front pages of mainstream media. Here I have collected some fragments of information flow from first part of November.

U.S. strikes to Gaza

A missile fired from an American warship in the Mediterranean hit the car in which Muhammad Jamal A-Namnam, 27, was driving in the heart of

: Missile struck Al Qaeda operative's car in Gaza, made by U.S.

Gaza City Wednesday, Nov. 3 and killed him. Namnam was an operational commander of the Army of Islam, Al-Qaeda's Palestinian cell in the Gaza Strip. He was on a mission on behalf of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – AQAP to plan, organize and execute the next wave of terrorist attacks on US targets after last week's air package bomb plot. The Al Qaeda operative's death by a US missile is the first American targeted assassination in the Gaza Strip against an Al Qaeda target. Up until now, US missions of this kind took place in Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. (Source: DEBKAfile)

U.S. aids both sides with different methods

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Wednesday that $150 million dollars in direct aid was being transferred to the Palestinian Authority. The latest U.S. aid brings the amount of direct funding for 2010 to $225 million and total assistance to the Palestinian Authority including that through third parties to $600 million, Clinton said. Same time the U.S. government is to move an additional $400 million worth of military equipment to emergency storage in Israel over the next two years. Equipment to stand at Israel's disposal in an emergency; hike will bring the value of American military equipment stockpiled in Israel to $1.2 billion by 2012. (Source: Haarez)

Other side of refugee issue

Speaking about refugees in the Middle-East a new initiative promoted by the Foreign Ministry calls on Palestinians to "recognize Jews who exiled from Arab lands as refugees." According to the initial outline of the plan, Israelis hailing from Arab countries will be eligible to demand financial compensation for the property they left behind. "We must remember that more than 850,000 Israelis came from Arab lands without any property, and therefore they are considered refugees. It is definitely an issue that must be raised during our negotiations on a permanent agreement," said Deputy Defense Minister Danny Ayalon. (Source: Ynetnews)

Targeted killing authority

Lawyers for the Barack Obama administration told a federal judge Monday that the U.S. government has authority to kill U.S. citizens whom the executive branch has unilaterally determined pose a threat to national security. That claim came in federal court in Washington, D.C. in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The two human rights legal advocacy organisations contend that the administration's so-called "targeted killing authority" violates the constitution and international law. The ACLU and the CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorise the targeted killing of his son, Anwar Al- Aulaqi. (Source: Obama Lawyers Defend "Kill Lists" By William Fisher).

These “democratic” western values are not so unknown to Yemeni as a Yemeni judge ordered police Saturday to find a radical US-born cleric - Anwar al-Aulaqi - "dead or alive" after the al-Qaida-linked preacher failed to appear at his trial for his role in the killing of foreigners. (Source. Jerusalem Post/AP)

US Predator UAVs now in Yemen – the drone war is expanding

Targetted killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi is coming easier now. In the first week of November, directly after the discovery of two explosive parcels mailed from Yemen to the United States, Washington moved a squadron of Predator drones to a secret base at the Yemeni Red Sea port of Al Hodaydah. Until now, the covert facility - finished in April on a site CIA director Leon Panetta has selected last January - was allotted to US Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) units for mounting clandestine raids against Al Qaeda cells deep inside Yemen.

Yemen has so far claimed that the war on Al Qaeda is carried out exclusively by the Yemeni army, however for some time now, US warplanes and drones have been crisscrossing Yemeni skies from their bases in Djibouti and the decks of aircraft carriers offshore. Officials in Sanaa have habitually claimed those sorties were the work of the Yemeni air force, although it has neither the aircraft nor the air crews able to conduct these precision attacks. DEBKAfile's Middle East sources note that it is the first time in seven years that US air strike forces are stationed on Arabian Peninsula soil. In 2003, the American Air force dismantled its Saudi base and withdrew to Qatar and Oman.

: US Predator UAVs - now in Yemen

In Washington there is debate going on whether the drone war should be conducted by the U.S. military or the CIA. Both the CIA covert operations directorate and U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) brass regard the outcome in Yemen as the key to the larger struggle over control of a series of covert wars that the Obama administration approved in principle last year. The CIA directorate and the two major figures in the Iraq- Afghanistan wars, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, lobbied Obama in 2009 to expand covert operations against al Qaeda to a dozen countries in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia. On Dec. 17, less than three months after the Petraeus order, a cruise missile was launched against what was supposed to have been an al Qaeda training camp in Abyan province in south Yemen. The Yemeni parliament found that it had killed 41 members of two families, including 17 women and 23 children. After this and later strikes and when JSOC stumbled badly and failed to generate usable intelligence on al Qaeda targets, the CIA went on the offensive to get the administration to take control of the drones away from the SOF. (Source: DEBKAfile and IPS)

Attacking Iran?

: Obama may save Presidency by attacking Iran

At a special White House security consultation last week, Obama said it was time to plant America's military option against the Iranian nuclear threat visibly and tangibly under the noses of Iran's political and military decision-makers. In the last few days, three aircraft carriers, four nuclear submarines and marine assault units have piled up opposite Iranian shores. Early Sunday, the influential Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina), member of the Armed Services and Homeland Defense committees, said: "The US should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guards."As part of this strategy, two weeks ago, the White House requested the heads of NATO to draw up operational plans for attacking Iran's nuclear and military facilities.

Axle of Gaza-Damascus-Tehran

A further round of conciliation talks between PLO/Fatah and Hamas broke up in Damascus Wednesday, Nov. 10, without accord. The Fatah delegation insisted that the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas be the sole sovereign authority for all security services in both territories, Hamas didn't agree. This dispute will decisively influence the US-sponsored talks between Israel and the Palestinians - if they ever take off. It means that the only accommodation attainable would be, at best, a partial one covering only the West Bank.

Same time the Hamas government's deputy foreign minister Dr. Ahmed Yousef is actively campaigning for the Gaza regime to form a strategic partnership with Iran on the same lines as the Iranian-Syrian-Hizballah alliance. He also invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Gaza. Close ties between Gaza and Tehran will bolster the Palestinian extremists' military and intelligence ties with Damascus and Hizballah. This will in turn boost the bloc led by Iran and Syria and add to its leverage for derailing any fence-building moves between the feuding Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah and perpetuate the division between the two Palestinian entities - one in Gaza and the other on the West Bank. This stronger alliance may also threaten the stability of Jordan, where already Hamas-Damascus controls the local Muslim Brotherhood branch.

The evolving partnership between Hamas and Iran and its negative impact on the prospect of an Israel-Palestinian peace may be the key determinant of the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians in recent weeks - not, as claimed in Washington and Jerusalem, the row which has sprung up over 1,300 new Israeli apartments in old-established East Jerusalem suburbs. (Source: DEBKAfile)

My related articles:

“The Three-State Option could solve Gaza conflict”

“Gaza War: Could Balkan history show way out?”

Will (East) Jerusalem be the End of Two-State Illusion?

“Placebo effect for people and society with 20 bn bucks”

2 comments

Tags:

Friday, November 12 2010 By AriRusila - Middle-East

Global Peace Rank - Balkans & Black Sea

The results of the Global Peace Index for 2009 suggest that the world has become slightly less peaceful in the past year, which appears to reflect the intensification of violent conflict in some countries and the effects of both the rapidly rising food and fuel prices early in 2008 and the dramatic global economic downturn in the final quarter of the year. Total 144 countries was analysed in 2009.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) is implemented by organization called Vision of Humanity, which groups together a number of interrelated initiatives focused on global peace. As its mission Visions of Humanity Org.brings a strategic approach to raising the world’s attention and awareness around the importance of peacefulness to humanity’s survival in the 21st century.

Indicators

Twenty-three indicators of the existence or absence of peace were chosen by the panel of experts, which are divided into three broad categories: measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict, measures of safety and security in society and measures of militarization. Measures of ongoing conflicts include e.g. number of external and internal conflicts, estimated number of deaths from organized conflict (external/internal), level of organized conflict (internal) and relations with neighbouring countries.

Some reservations:

Vision of humanity, its expert panel and GPI are representing mainly western methodology, approach and values
GPI is based to data available of different indicators and as such a compromise

With these reservations I however find GPI both interesting and useful and anyway I haven’t seen any better global survey.

To the table below I have collected the GPI rankings for the Balkans and Black Sea region countries analysed in 2009. In addition I have included to table also top-3 and worst-3 countries, the BRIC countries and USA. Rankings for the mentioned countries analysed in 2007 are also included for comparison. Countries most at peace are ranked first. A lower score indicates a more peaceful country. My source - Vision of Humanity Org: GPI results - , full list of 144 countries, methodoly and other explanations can be found from here!

Country	Rank		Score
Country	2009	2007	2009	2007
New Zealand	1	2	1.202	1.363
Denmark	2	3	1.217	1.377
Norway	2	1	1.217	1.357
Slovenia	9	15	1.322	1.539
Romania	31	26	1.591	1.682
Croatia	49	67	1.741	2.030
Bosnia and Herzegovina	50	75	1.755	2.089
Bulgaria	56	54	1.775	1.936
Greece	57	44	1.778	1.791
China	74	60	1.921	1.980
Albania	75	NA	1.925	NA
Moldova	75	72	1.925	2.059
Serbia	78	84	1.951	2.181
Ukraine	82	80	2.010	2.150
United States of America	83	96	2.015	2.317
Brazil	85	83	2.022	2.173
Macedonia	88	82	2.039	2.170
Montenegro	91	NA	2.046	NA
Azerbaijan	114	101	2.327	2.448
Turkey	121	92	2.389	2.272
India	122	109	2.422	2.530
Georgia	134	NA	2.736	NA
Russia	136	118	2.750	2.903
Somalia	142	NA	3.257	NA
Afghanistan	143	NA	3.285	NA
Iraq	144	121	3.341	3.437

Some developments in Balkans and Black Sea region

If compared the developments between 2007 and 2009 few highlights could be mentioned:

Slovenia is rising also in this research to global top-level - from place 15 to place 9 close to traditionally peaceful Nordic countries and outstriping most of sc "Western democracies" and the rest of world
Croatia has improved its index from 67 to 49, amasing 18 places
It seems that the civilicised border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia doesn't have any effect in GPI ranking
The rise of Bosnia-Herzegovina is one of the highest in GPI and is partly explained via UNCHR statistics about improved situation of displaced persons. The other sources - as recent U.S. Intelligence report - are not so optimistic and also I have earlier been worrying e.g. about rising radical Islam in BiH
Moldova and Ukraine have a bit too high ranking (75 and 82) from my point of view if compared to e.g. Georgia (134). While conflict in Transdnistria still stays in frozen stage the events during last election are sign about latent tensions. Ethnic tensions and coming Presidential elections are already making situation in Ukraine unstabil.

Peaceful societies?

Peaceful societies are characterized as countries with the Following:

Social Structures

Well functioning governments
Good relations with regional neighbors
Low levels of corruption
High enrolment rates in primary education
Freedom of the press
Respect for human rights

Social Attitudes
Do not see their cultures as superior to others

Place a high value on tolerance

Believe in free speech and respect human rights

Believe military action should be limited and internationally sanctioned

The Drivers of Peace and Violence

As separate analysis a further statistical analysis was conducted to understand better the structure of peace. As causes of peace the rechearcers studied some 40 different potential factors - or "drivers" of peace and some notable findings were following:

Drivers of Peace

Functioning of government
Freedom of the press
Extent of regional integration
Primary school enrolment ratio
Life expectancy
Women in parliament

Drivers of Violence

Importance of religion in national life
GPD per capita
Hostility to foreigners /private property
Electoral process

Statistical approach shows some suprising phenomen such as free and fair elections can increase the likelihood of violence. The researchers explain this to be possible if a well functioning government is lacking and the drivers of peace are absent.

Second surprise to me at least was a finding that for some nations a high GPD income provides the state with the tools of conflict such as weapons, large security apparatuses and military forces. However if the economic indicators of nation's wealth are relatively evenly distributed, e.g. through educations and health, the society will be more peaceful.

More about peace/violence drivers in GPI DiscussionPaper

Peace and global challenge

Global challenges, such as clima change, decreasing biodiversity, lack of fresh water and overpopulation, call for global solutions and these solutions will require co-operation on a global scale unparalleled in history. Peace is the essential prerequisite because without it the level of needed co-operation, inclusiveness and social equity necessary to solve these challenges will not be achieved.

More my views one may find from my BalkanBlog!

10 comments no trackback

Tags:

Friday, June 12 2009 By AriRusila - Balkans

Russia’s new Security and Energy Initiatives

Two new proposals related to European security and energy cooperation was made last week by Russia.During official state visit in Finland Russia’s President Dimitry Medvedev gave a key note speech in Helsinki on April 20^th outlining a “new European security structure”.Same day Russia made public goals and principles of new framework for energy cooperation.

In a speech he delivered in Berlin last June, Medvedev suggested that an "all-European summit" be convened to draft a new security arrangement to govern relations between Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. He indicated that the new pact should attempt to build on the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. If final product, under Medvedev’s scenario, would be a “Helsinki Plus” agreement that created new guidelines for inter-state relations.

At the time of Medvedev’s Berlin speech, ties between Russia and the West had already been damaged by NATO’s continued eastward expansion, Washington’s missile defence plans, Moscow’s decision to suspend its participation to the 1990 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence. The August 2008 Russian-Georgian war and the subsequent Russian-Ukrainian natural gas dispute further strained those relations.

New Security Treaty

In a keynote speech at the University of Helsinki on April 20^th 2009, Medvedev also offered another glimpse of his designs for”new European security architecture," first floated in June 2008. Citing well known recent conflicts the Russian president said existing security organizations are no longer capable of guaranteeing Europe's security.

Recalling that 2010 will mark the 35th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the President said the future treaty on European Security should be seen a ‘Helsinki plus’ treaty. It should be viewed as the confirmation, continuation and effective implementation of the principles and instruments born out of the Helsinki process, but adapted to the end of ideological confrontation and the emergence of new subjects of international law.

Medvedev also repeated Russia's call for a new security pact to replace NATO, an idea that initially got a cool response when first broached at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) meeting in Helsinki in December. Russia has said NATO is a Cold War relic. It wants a legally binding pact enshrining arms control, a commitment not to use force, and guarantees that no single state or group of states can take a dominant role in the continent's security.

Russia is inviting all states and organizations operating on the European continent to work together to come up with coherent, up-to-date and, most importantly, effective rules of the game. For this work neither NATO nor the EU seems fully appropriate, because there are countries that do not belong to either. The same applies to organizations such as the CIS or CSTO. It could take place at a summit of the OSCE but of course in Russia’s view there is a problem with the OSCE as well. According Russia the OSCE has focussed on solving partial, sometimes even peripheral security issues, and this is not enough. Therefore, Russia proposes another forum which could lead to a productive dialogue among all parties without exception.

The Russian President said the new Euro-Atlantic treaty should replace the imperfect arrangements that are and create an undivided security area encompassing the hemispheric band from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The basic principles in the treaty are compliance with international law, respect of sovereignty, control of arsenals, renunciation of force and resolution of conflicts through peaceful talks.

New Energy Charter

Same day when Medvedev made his key note speech, Russia made public their “Conceptual Approach to the New Legal Framework for Energy Cooperation (Goals and Principles).Russia gave the documents to G8, G20, CIS countries, international organisations, and our neighbouring countries.The conceptual approaches to a new legal base in international energy cooperation consists of three sections, which are

The first one contains the international energy cooperation principles, which must be included in the new international legal act.

The second section contains elements of an agreement governing [energy] transit, an integral part of which will be an agreement on resolving transit conflicts.

The third section contains a list of energy materials and products that Russia suggest applying these legal acts to. So, besides gas or oil, also all other energy products, including nuclear fuel, electricity, coal, and all the other goods traded by in the energy sector.

According Russia it would be advisable to elaborate a new universal international legally binding instrument, which, unlike the existing Energy Charter-based system, would include all major energy-producing (exporting) countries, countries of transit, and energy consumers (importers) as its Parties and cover all aspects of global energy cooperation.The new framework would according Russia create transparency of all international energy market segments production/export, transit, consumption/import.

Updating old or building new?

The core question for further development of Russia’s security initiative is from which platform start the process.There has been and is different scenarios about this.

USA's long-standing preference for NATO as the transatlantic institution of choice has several explanations. The Alliance has been successful — at least until Afghanistan — and it helped the West win the Cold War without firing a shot. NATO's job, as British Secretary-General Lord Ismay famously put it in 1967, was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." But rather than close up shop with mission accomplished in the early 1990s, the 1949-founded pact sought to find a new purpose.

Then there is the proposal to open NATO to Russia. The Russians favored this option throughout the 1990s and even during Putin's first term in office;today this option seems quite unrealistic.

Yet another option is to resuscitate the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and turn it into a real pan-European security organization. This was one of the ideas back in 1990, when the OSCE (then the CSCE) was still connected with the spirit of the Helsinki process. This is no longer the case. Through neglect and infighting, the OSCE has fallen into tragic disrepair.

EU is a bit question mark as leader of this project. Even if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified this year — a prerequisite for serious EU security policies — the European Union will still need to prove that it can act effectively in the face of crisis.

Realization

Did Russia's so-called Helsinki-plus initiative take a step forward in Helsinki, or not? Finland's chairmanship of the OSCE and the OSCE meeting that was held in Helsinki in December last year stuck closely to the line that the current structures are a good basis for agreement on European security issues.

Despite recent improvements in Russia-EU and Russia-NATO relations, Georgia, Ukraine, the three Baltic States and most Central and Eastern European countries -- all states that view NATO as the main pillar of Europe's security -- remain either openly hostile to, or extremely wary of the Russian security proposal.

By contrast, Azerbaijan and members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization -- a Russian-led regional body that brings together Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan -- support Medvedev's plan.

Bottom line

According Russia the proposals would be discussed at a prospective summit forum in Helsinki, to be called "Helsinki-plus".One summit is however only a tiny part of realization. When the Heads of State and Government of the CSCE met in Helsinki in 1975, the participating States had held more than 2400 meetings in Geneva, and deliberated on 4,660 proposals. So a new pact will require careful work and time.

Since 1975 the map of Europe has changed a lot, the same occurred to problems which today are more complicated and having various global aspects and local variants. From my point of view the international organizations managing security, economical and energy issues have not necessary developed with same scale – some updated structure could be suitable.

Two last decades have been giving many bad practices which – if copied – can make Europe with surrounding regions more unsecure.I think that now it is time at least discuss about lessons learned, develop and copy better practices.Will the outcome be a new structure or updated old one shall be seen but even more important is to start process itself.