Back to diplomacy?

Professor Adam Daniel Rotfeld, member of the independent international Panel of Eminent Persons, which prepared the report “Back to Diplomacy”, addressed the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe presented at the 52nd Munich Security Conference. Professor Rotfeld talked with WBJ Observer about the recommendations of the Panel, the new threats to European security and the dilemmas facing the present European and global order   WBJ Observer: How do you evaluate the title of your report “Back to diplomacy” as one of the 15 members of the Panel working under the leadership of the Munich Security Conference chairman, ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger? Is it a realistic suggestion? Adam Daniel Rotfeld: You raise a legitimate question. Current relations among the states are very tense and bleak, as Ambassador Ischinger noted at the opening session of the Munich Security Conference. It seems that global leaders are losing their control over present developments in the world. Our report does not propose a blueprint, a kind of “grand design” with entirely new solutions. In its essence it is rather a modest paper. It turns attention to the problems of the weakening international European order, as the result of violating the principles, norms and rules reflected in documents agreed upon in Helsinki (1975) and Paris (1990) after the end of the Cold War. The content of our report and its recommendations correspond to the old Chinese proverb that even the longest journey begins with a single step. As a rule, the first step determines the direction of the subsequent journey. So, the report points out that, regardless of how complex the present state of affairs among European nations is, there is a need to return to traditional, proven, robust diplomacy. Without dialogue and diplomacy we are doomed to return to security based on chaos, uncertainty, instability and unpredictability. Such a system cannot eliminate even unintentional accidents and conflicts, not to mention intentional interventions. For instance, one may imagine a situation in which a Russian aircraft is shot down, not by Turkey on the border with Syria, but by Sweden or Finland at their borders close to the international waters of the Baltic Sea. No doubt, it would bring us closer to conflict, which nobody wants. The revival of diplomatic channels of communication would show that there are matters, which even in the present stage of international tension, could be put under control with the aim of at least avoiding unintentional conflict. This is the essence of our message “back to diplomacy”. Still, many politicians describe the present international situation as very dangerous. As you know, James Clapper, director of American National Intelligence, recently said that Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, and other Russian activities in the world could lead to a second cold war. And prevailing opinions in the West are similar, such a development is far from diplomacy. Do you think that a return to cold war status is possible? In fact, James Clapper used terminology reminiscent of the Cold War period, as did many other politicians (including Dmitri Medvedev, the Prime Minister of Russia). They think that the worst that could happen now is a second Cold War. It reflects their conviction that the present international situation is more dangerous than that which existed during the real cold war. Such comparisons are not relevant for many reasons. The Cold War was the product of a bipolar period characterized by the confrontation of antagonistic ideologies. It was a period of the partition of the world into two blocks. The Soviet Union and its satellites dominated by communist ideology on one hand, and the US and the democratic community of the West on the other. It was a period when the US and the Soviet Union controlled all developments within their respective spheres of influence. Also, they accepted an undeclared agreement that neither the Soviets nor the Americans would intervene when conflict erupted in relevant Soviet or American parts of the world. The two global powers respected such a line of division. In practice, Soviet military interventions suppressed the uprisings in Berlin (1953), in Budapest (1956) and in Prague (1968) without any military reaction from Western democratic nations. The two nuclear super-powers did not dare risk direct conflict between each other, with the consciousness that it would lead them to Mutually Assured Destruction. In other words, a high probability of nuclear catastrophe was accompanied by a high degree of stability. Therefore, nowadays many observers suggest that the present situation is more uncertain than previously. [negative]Internally, Russia presents itself as a besieged fortress surrounded by enemies and russophobic hostile nations[/negative] What has changed? After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the political transformation in Central and Eastern Europe, a new type of relationship emerged in this part of the world. Instead of “limited sovereignties”, all the nations in the region declared their political will to join Western security institutions–NATO, the EU and the Council of Europe. However, in Russia, after the transitional period of the Yeltsin government, the new Russian leader, Vladimir Putin proclaimed his own political philosophy, which was quite different. Russia was to be “raised from its knees” and re-established to its former global position of the Russian empire. Russia rejected universal values and viewed the western way of life as incompatible with Russian traditional habits and expectations. Internally, Russia presents itself as a besieged fortress surrounded by enemies and Russophobic hostile nations. Therefore, in the face of perceived NATO aggression, Russia has to show military strength and adapt the new world order to Russian aspirations. All in all, the present global security system is much more complex, multi-dimensional, inter-connected and contested. As a result, neither analysts and observers, nor politicians and decision-makers fully digest and internalize the deep distinction between past and present risks, tensions and threats. Since the challenges are not conventional there is also a need to generate new unconventional solutions. If you think that the doctrine of a new cold war is anachronistic, what is the root of such a tense international relationship? There are many new factors. I will confine myself to a few of them. In the past, international security issues and conflicts were mainly generated by a collision of interests between states. Now, the problems of international security are mostly shaped by developments within states. As an illustration, one can mention the relations between Ukraine and Russia. The internal processes within Ukraine and Russia are on a collision course. Russia decided that it is unacceptable for Ukraine to define its own internal order and form of sovereign governance and foreign and security policy in its own independent way without asking Russia for permission. In other words, Ukraine took the decision to behave like a full sovereign state. The Russian military intervention in the southeastern part of Ukraine is a response to internal domestic Ukrainian developments. There are also some other factors. Some of them are produced by new technologies (digitalization of information); others are of a psychological nature reflected in the trust deficit; and some of them result from the cognitive dissonance of self-perception. By its aggression towards Ukraine, Russia has broken the principles of international law and undermined the security order in Europe. So, how do you see a way out of that situation? The situation is, as I mentioned, complex and interconnected. It puts Russia in conflict, not only with Ukraine, but also with Western democracies. There is no doubt that Ukraine is able to build its own internal system, institutions and procedures allowing her to become a full sovereign European state in accordance with the expectations of the Ukrainian people. In the long run, Ukraine and the international community are searching for such a solution to end the present crises, which will reflect Ukrainian aspirations. Any eventual solution must take into account the simple fact that Ukrainians and Russians are close historical neighbors and have many common economic, spiritual, civil and cultural roots, which cannot be denied. At the moment, the full realization of the Minsk II agreement should be seen as the first and decisive step to end current military activities by both sides in Donbas. Ukrainians are skeptical, and for good reason. The guarantees offered to them by great powers in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (signed by Russia, the US, Great Britain and Ukraine) re-assured Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and full independence. Those assurances were given to Ukraine in exchange for its resignation from the nuclear potential positioned on its territory during the Soviet era. Such a solemn declaration was later forgotten and ignored by those who negotiated and signed the Budapest Memorandum more than 20 years ago. Keeping such an experience in mind, the Ukrainian political leadership is convinced that the definitive solution to the crises requires not only reliable international efforts, but also significant changes within the countries involved in the conflict. Since September last year there have been some signals that Russia is diminishing the military activities of separatists in Donbas. However, fundamental change will be possible in the distant future. It would require new generations who could take Russian responsibility to accept and recognize Ukraine as a free and democratic nation. Such an approach would create the conditions for a strong security order in Europe based on common values and mutual respect between Ukraine and Russia. The Munich Security Conference was working in a very difficult international situation burdened by the refugee crisis. However, your report concentrates on relations within Europe. You suggest a kind of revitalization of dialogue between NATO and Russia, proposing a return to the NATO-Russian Council. Could it happen? Why not? The West does not want to break off dialogue with Russia. Nobody is interested in pushing Russia to the point of no return. As long as the channels of communication are open the international situation will not spin out of control. Now, concerning the issue of refugees. This matter was not within the mandate of our Panel. The mandate was limited to the question of how to prepare “the basis for an inclusive and constructive security dialogue”. As you know, the OSCE membership covers 57 states of Europe, North America (the US and Canada) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan). Middle Eastern and North African nations do not belong to this community of States. The issue of refugees is now dealt with by the European Union and those European countries which are the main target states for the refugee inflow. In this respect, Germany and Chancellor Merkel personally demonstrated great moral standing and political responsibility. Angela Merkel has become the subject of strong criticism and political attacks, in Germany and outside her own country, for her courage and moral integrity. There is no simple solution to the problem of refugees. Nobody was prepared for such an influx of millions, neither Greece, Hungary, Austria, nor other EU countries. There is a need to deal with the problem in an innovative way, taking all financial, economic and diplomatic steps to bring peace to Syria and North Africa. Europe has to find the relevant resources to help refugees in temporary camps in Turkey and Jordan and other places. One has to realize that this new issue will be with us for a long time. There is a need to consider it as a challenge that must be solved in the spirit of human solidarity. Having said that, I would like to repeat once again, the refugee issue was beyond the mandate of the Panel of Eminent Persons (PEP). [negative]Europe has to find the relevant resources to help refugees in temporary camps in Turkey and Jordan and other places[/negative] And how do you see the role of Poland in shaping a new European security system and EU relations with Russia? Considering the Polish role in shaping a new security order, one should not forget that Poland is an integral part of NATO and the EU. Each and every country defines its strategy as a result of many elements: the neighborhood, geographic location, military and economic potential, demography, economic development etc. And, so does Poland. In the last 25 years, our country has been perceived by many observers as a “success story” of the transformation–process from mono-party governance and centrally planned economy to the free market and democracy based on rule of law. The Alliance and European Union membership are key determinants of our position in Europe and the world. As far as our neighborhood is concerned, we are in a unique situation: Polish territory is the same as before 1989, but all our neighboring countries are new. Instead of three bordering states (in the East the Soviet Union, in the West the German Democratic Republic and in the South Czechoslovakia) as the result of transformation and fundamental changes in Europe, Poland now has seven neighbors. And, none of them is the same as before 1989 (in the East the Russian Federation, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine; in the South the Czech Republic and Slovakia; and in the West the Federal Republic of Germany). The first non-communist Minister of Foreign Affairs Krzysztof Skubiszewski concluded bilateral conventions about the mutual recognition of borders and the confirmation of territorial integrity and a neighborly relationship with all of the aforementioned states. This series of difficult matters with Russia, which are deeply rooted in history, became the subject of a work by the “Polish-Russian Group on Difficult Matters”. The present Polish-Russian Group on Difficult Matters was established in 2008. The Group is composed of prominent Polish and Russian intellectuals, scientists, archivists, historians and other experts. Alongside the academic Anatoly Torkunov on the Russian side, I was appointed co-chair of the group on the Polish side. Over a few years, we were able to produce a pioneering common study, which discloses many dramatic moments in our mutual history. The results are presented in the book published recently in English by the University of Pittsburgh Press under the title: “White Spots—Black Spots. Difficult Matters in Polish-Russian Relations, 1918–2008”. The book met with great interest from all over the world, not only in Europe and North America, but also in Japan and South Korea, proving that it is possible to conduct Polish-Russian dialogue on the most difficult matters both between diplomats, independent academics and intellectuals. The results of the activity of this group influenced Western attitudes towards Russia to a significant extent. Poland was regarded as a kind of barometer for those relations. Polish-Russian dialogue was observed in the West, not only with attention, but also with a special relief and understanding.