"DAVOS ON SECURITY"

The latest, 47th, conference on security in Munich, which was held from 4 to 6 February, came at a difficult time in international relations. The struggle against budget deficits in many countries, a growing food crisis, the ongoing problems of Iran and the Near East, the recent bloody terrorist attack in Russia and, finally, Arab countries hit by protests…Bearing in mind the Munich forum is being described as the main platform for debate on questions of security policy, it could be said that the world leaders who gathered in the Bavarian capital had much to talk about.

The heart-to-heart talks and arguments at the conference, which is being called "Davos on security" (comparing it with the World Economic Forum in Davos) were soothed considerably by the fact that it was of an exclusively consultative nature. There were no decisions to be made and that meant there were no difficulties to be ironed out or a general formula to be sought for participants' opinions. So there was an opportunity to hear the most varied and frank points of view.

Another attractive feature of the forum was the opportunity for informal contact. Naturally, most of what was said by the 'strong' of this world remained, as they say, "off the record". Only faits accomplis, pronouncements close to the official position or hints at trends which could or should not be hidden from the media reached the ears of journalists and the public-at-large.

Some 350 representatives from 50 countries came to Munich this time. They included Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and, probably, most of the ministers in the German government; Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Union; David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain; Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General; Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary-General; (Baroness) Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State. Azerbaijan was represented at the conference by Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.

According to the media, Dmitriy Medvedev, the Russian President, decided not to attend the conference because of the presence there of Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili. This led to Moscow being represented by Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The organizers of the forum refused to allow Sergey Martynov, the Belarus Foreign Minister, in to Munich. Martynov's invitation was cancelled after the US and the European Union imposed sanctions on Belarus because of the events in Minsk following the presidential elections of 19 December 2010. Washington and Brussels accuse Minsk of suppressing the opposition and violating human rights. In turn, Minsk has accused Germany and Poland of preparing a coup d'?tat. According to Wolfgang Ischinger, the chairman of the Munich forum, after what happened in Belarus "one shouldn't behave as if nothing happened". And that was what was decided.

The participants in the conference also discussed such topics as the consequences of the global financial crisis for stability and international security, strengthening European security, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, disarmament and others. As is usually the case at major forums of recent times, there was broad interest in the subject of cybersecurity, because there has been a gradual increase in the number of crimes in this sphere (fraud, distribution of child pornography, incitement to violence, and so on) which, as rule, are of an international nature. The problem of information security became more topical following the publication by WikiLeaks of secret correspondence between American diplomats. However, it is still not clear by what mechanisms virtual space can be regulated.

Naturally, the conference could not avoid discussing the main concern for countries of NATO and the Euro-Atlantic - the situation in Afghanistan. This year the forum was again attended by that country's president, Hamid Karzai. Much was said about the withdrawal of the NATO contingent, which is due to begin this year. It was noted that that the process of the transition of security monitoring in the country from the forces of the western coalition  to the Afghan army and law-enforcement agencies would be a gradual one, depending on developments in the situation. Although at the moment it cannot be said that there have been any radical improvements in Afghanistan or in the situation regarding the growth and distribution of narcotic plants, to say nothing of the fact that a number of observers in the region are adamant that things in this Central Asian country are not only not going to plan but are even worse than they were. Karzai, incidentally, pointed out in his speech that the US is spending about 100bn dollars a year on the upkeep of its troops in Afghanistan, and about 8bn dollars a year on maintaining the Afghan security forces. The Afghan president again stressed that his country is one of the poorest in the world and needs investment.

A separate session of the Munich conference was devoted to the situation in Egypt and in the Arab countries as a whole. In addition, on a Russian initiative, a meeting took place at the forum of the Near East 'quartet', involving Sergey Lavrov, Hillary Clinton, Ban Ki-moon and Catherine Ashton. The Arab-Israeli settlement is once again shipping water. One obstacle is Israel's refusal to stop developing settlements on Palestinian territories. Furthermore, recent events in Egypt and other Arab countries have added new subtleties to this already complex process.

That said, it is evident that world leaders are more worried about what is happening in their own backyard. For example, the EU countries are now busy trying to ensure the stability of the Eurozone, which came under threat because of the high budget deficits of some EU member-countries. Against this background, Michele Alliot-Marie, the French Foreign Minister, warned the EU about a "loss of strategic importance", and Guido Westerwelle, German Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister, made it clear in an article in 'Suddeutsche Zeitung' that "if Europe hopes to remain a key global player, it must not waste its potential". Westerwelle pointed out that "not a single European country has enough political and economic potential to exert continued influence on the future course of peace", and that is why European integration is so important. That said, "only the European Union with a stable domestic market will be strong enough to be a convincing player in the international arena".

There was another international event within the framework of the Munich conference which many observers, without exaggeration, described as historic. On 5 February, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, exchanged ratification instruments on the Strategic Arms Reduction (START-3) Treaty. In the course of 45 days Russia and the US are due to exchange all information about their nuclear arsenals and facilities, and to resume inspections in the course of 60 days. It will be recalled that the sides are planning, over a period of seven years, to reduce their total number of warheads by one third, to 1,550, compared with the 2000 Treaty and to reduce by more than a half the base level for strategic delivery weapons. The State Department has said that "partnership between the two major nuclear powers on a reduction in arsenals and maintaining strategic stability is critical for the strengthening of global security". For his part, Sergey Lavrov stressed that the new START treaty between Russia and the US came into force in precisely the form in which the presidents of the two countries signed it, and that the document undoubtedly "meets the national interests of Russia and the US and contributes to the process of multilateral disarmament".

Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to link START-3 with the development of the ABM treaty in Europe. It is significant that the US and Russia regard the question of linkage between these questions rather differently. What is more, in both Moscow and in Washington they are well aware of this, but seem not to want to draw attention to it. For example, American congressmen believe that the US is in no way restricted in the development of its own ABM systems by START-3. At the same time, Russia points out that it reserves the right to withdraw from the agreement if American anti-missile systems threaten Russia's national security and defence capability. As Lavrov said in Munich, the dialogue on the European ABM system (Euro-ABM) should not be used as a smoke-screen for the American-NATO ABM system. According to Lavrov, Moscow, despite assurances given at the NATO summit in Lisbon, has not been given equal access to the project. For her part, Hillary Clinton said that the first stage of the deployment of the anti-missile shield would start this year, and that the American administration would not tolerate any obstacles to the development of the ABM system.

Russia also says that it is not rejecting the adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) and is waiting for it to be adopted by its NATO partners. It is possible that talks on this document will commence some time this year. Hopes of further progress towards nuclear disarmament seem illusory at the moment. Sergey Ivanov, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, noted that "the liquidation of nuclear weapons will only be effective when security is guaranteed for all states". "We have called on the other nuclear powers more than once and asked them to follow our example and to deploy tactical nuclear weapons only on their own territory", said Ivanov, and it was obvious who he was hinting at.

At the same time, the following was stated in the US National Military Strategy published a few days after the Munich conference: "So long as nuclear weapons exist, American nuclear weapons will continue to play a fundamental role in deterring a nuclear attack on the US and its allies and partners. In accordance with the president's vision, we shall reduce the number of our nuclear armaments. We shall continue to lead in improving our ABM capabilities against limited missile strikes and strive for cooperation with our allies and partners in these aims." 

However, against this background the latest disclosure from WikiLeaks is very intriguing. The Daily Telegraph published reports that, in order for the START talks to succeed, Washington had allegedly passed on to Moscow the serial numbers of Trident missiles supplied to Britain. Trident is the sole component of the British nuclear forces and the number of missiles is a secret. Now, it is claimed, Russia can elicit secret information via the serial numbers.

Moscow also continues to publicize its idea of a European security system. The Russian project is being examined by the European Union, the OSCE and NATO, but its advancement is being opposed in every way by the US, which insists on the preservation of the existing architecture of international security.

Another significant episode at the Munich conference was undoubtedly British Prime Minister David Cameron's admission that the policy of multiculturism has virtually failed in Western Europe. Tolerance, based on non-interference in the affairs of those who reject western values, has not been justified. According to the head of the UK's cabinet of ministers, European countries are now compelled to "suffer a segregated community" and isolated ethnic communities who are not prepared to integrate into society. So it appears that London no longer has any intention of fighting for a separate coexistence of cultures because such a policy leads to a "lack of national identity". According to Cameron, instead of passive tolerance, it is necessary to switch to "muscular liberalism", in which national identity is shaped at the cost of democracy, equal rights, supremacy of the law and freedom of speech.

It was no surprise that Cameron's speech at Munich gave rise to a storm of criticism - the prime minister was accused of pandering to ultra-right organizations. As if to endorse these words a rally was organized in the town of Luton which drew up to 3,000 people shouting anti-Islamic slogans. Members of anti-fascist organizations said that this happened because the ultra-right sensed that the authorities approved of their position. However, the British prime minister's press service said that Cameron's speech had been prepared long before the anti-Islamic rally and the prime minister had no intention of apologizing for his remarks.

Significantly, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said much the same thing a few months ago. Speaking at a meeting of the youth organization of the Christian Democratic Union in Potsdam, the chancellor also admitted the failure of the multicultural model and demanded that immigrants learn German and integrate into German society. Merkel noted that immigrants should be encouraged only after all the necessary measures to improve the qualifications and employment of German citizens had been taken. The chancellor has the support of many leading German politicians.

What Cameron said is actually both significant and groundbreaking. And at the moment it is not even completely clear what changes it might lead to. For example, one can expect a considerable reduction in financial support for Muslim organizations in Britain and, clearly, throughout Europe. State policy on labour migration will also be reviewed.

The British authorities intend to busy themselves with advancing values which would divide all members of society, irrespective of ethnic background, origin or religious views. But how can this be done, whilst at the same time remaining loyal to the principles of tolerance and freedom of the individual?

This problem, incidentally, is not peculiar to Britain, but exists in many other countries. The saying that in London you can meet anyone except an Englishman is well known. The second most popular language after English for local people is Arabic, but the Muslim population is the one growing most rapidly. Everyone remembers the riots of young Arabs in France. And in Russia ideas are taking root in various sections of society, on the basis of which the diverse population of the Russian Federation (diverse not because there are a lot of migrants in Russia, but because it is a multi-ethnic country) could fit into the general concept of 'Russians'.

Once again the Munich conference has justified its purpose as a place of contact for the cream of the world's politicians and experts. Whether this dialogue will help make our world just a little better is another question…