Transcript of Speech by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at Russian-Norwegian-Swedish Seminar on Peaceful Settlement, Moscow, April 7, 2005

Unofficial translation from Russian

Esteemed Mr. Minister,

Esteemed Mr. State Secretary,

Esteemed Rector,

Esteemed colleagues,

First of all, I would like to welcome all the participants of our three-party seminar, which is timed for the 100th anniversary of the peaceful dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian union and the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Norway.

Yesterday Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Petersen and I were in St. Petersburg, where we participated in the opening of the Russia-Norway. Through the Centuries and Boundaries exhibition. The exhibition had already been successfully displayed in Norway. I attended its opening on June 2 last year and was given the honor of opening it together with King Harald V of Norway. One-third of the residents of Oslo, if we are to take the overall number of visitors to this exhibition, visited it. This indicates how well it was made. Yesterday we once again saw that for ourselves. The display in the St. Petersburg Ethnographic Museum shows the exceptionally rich and diverse experience of our relations in the past and in the present.

An inalienable part of our common history is the commonality of the interests of our peoples, who lived through the gravest war in human history. We shall also add our present interest in reliably ensuring security in the contemporary world. This predetermines the topicality of the present seminar's theme.

Both Russia and the Scandinavian countries have considerable experience in the sphere of peacekeeping. Norway is an active mediator in resolving the situation in the Middle East, in Sri Lanka and in Sudan. Sweden makes a substantial contribution to peacekeeping in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and in Liberia. Our country has also amassed quite a lot of experience in the settlement of regional conflicts, especially in the post-Soviet space. I think that the study and generalization of this experience is useful not only for the countries which are here represented, but also for the development of the international practice of peacekeeping as a whole.

One of the key problems of our time is that in the conditions of interdependence and globalization the world community still does not possess any effective mechanisms for controlling the world processes. The costs of globalization turn into conflicts on a socioeconomic, interethnic or religious ground. A part of them become hotbeds of terrorism, of organized crime and of drug traffic. There grows the threat of an uncontrolled spread of WMDs and their falling into the hands of terrorists.

We do not have a common strategy for dealing with all these problems, although we are actively searching for it. There are some shifts, but a system of anticrisis response which would be effective and meet all the challenges of our time still has not taken shape. This is a complicated process, but it is necessary to continue it, to look for ways of establishing just this kind of global system. In the sector of peacekeeping, probably, each of our countries has personally felt the costs of the present state, because that system has not yet taken shape. One of the problems, which directly concerns peacekeeping activities, is the insufficient, I think, elaboration of the military aspects of peacekeeping operations and the absence of a truly effective mechanism of military expertise, when the appropriate decisions of the UN Security Council are being made.

There currently operates the well-oiled system of agreeing the political positions of member states and taking political decisions, but their military component is not always sufficiently worked through. Such a format has come into being as the Conference of Military Advisers of Missions of UN Member Countries with the representatives of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the Secretariat of this Organization. This is a fairly large group of persons - more than 60 - and far from each country participates in each particular peacekeeping operation. On the contrary, many countries participating in such operations do not have their military advisers. This format is better than nothing. Because it at least helps member countries hold consultations with the Secretariat at the stage of decision making and verify the fulfillment of the decisions made. Of course, the conference does not have either the necessary intelligence data or calculations of the operations in their military component by states which are in a position to contribute to this work.

Unquestionably, far from all the countries have experience in these matters. Therefore we have been talking for several years now about the need to activate the Military Staff Committee. This body is confirmed in the Charter of the United Nations, but practically it has not been used all these years. It consists of the chiefs of the General Staffs of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. But the Charter provides for the possibility of enlisting in its work any country through the representatives of its General Staff. Also, it provides for the possibility of setting up subcommittees of the Military Staff Committee. This mechanism can well be employed for the purpose of elaborating the military aspects of specific operations. If operations concern the African region, then the Military Staff Committee can establish a Subcommittee with the participation of the appropriate African countries and countries of other regions that are ready in the given particular situation to send its peacekeepers, the appropriate equipment and so on. The Military Staff Committee could carry out an analysis of the military situation in conflict zones, at an early stage when the conflict has not yet developed into a hot phase. The composition of the Military Staff Committee shows that the participating states have wider possibilities to obtain such data than other states. It could also be possible to work out beforehand logistical support, communication and so on. In this connection I want to note the important political aspects of this idea - the idea of activating the Military Staff Committee. Such an approach would once again show the readiness of the great powers to work together on a basis of trust.

In bilateral affairs a confidential relationship has become established between each of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the transfer of this trust into the Military Staff Committee format as well, probably, would send a very important signal to all those who are talking about the need to somehow review the bases of the functioning of the UN, once the Organization is not always efficient. I am convinced that to enhance its role and the need for it in the contemporary world, activating the Military Staff Committee on the principles I mentioned and which are provided for in the Charter would play a very important role. When there began to increase the number of peacekeeping operations and the Secretariat in the last few years of the past century encountered objective difficulties in carrying out the command of these operations, it began to shift these functions on to the military-political structures of individual states, which began to be called leading states. Actually they provided the entire system of command, in the sense that those who would additionally want to participate in a specific operation had to join such a leading nation. Such was the case when the capabilities of NATO were used in the former Yugoslavia, of the African Union in African conflicts, as also in the operations in Haiti, in Afghanistan and in East Timor. This tendency, which consisted of arranging cooperation between the UN, regional organizations or temporary coalitions, became positive in the absence of a more systemic approach based on an activation of the Military Staff Committee.

We are convinced that regional organizations should play an important role in the zone of their responsibility, as is written down in the Charter of the United Nations, where they are allotted a leading role in a peaceful settlement of disputes. But so far not all the regional structures that have taken shape possess the necessary capabilities and experience to carry out such operations. This is due largely to the fact that the experience of enlisting regional organizations in UN peacekeeping activities so far is still comparatively not long. I am convinced that the shortage of military expertise also hinders the more active involvement of regional organizations, their joining more actively in peacekeeping operations. Against this background, we are convinced, the talk should be about using the Military Staff Committee more effectively and not about liquidating it, as the UN Secretary General suggested recently in his proposals for UN reform. We are having serious doubts about this recommendation. I hope that, during the consideration of the reform initiatives in New York, this question will be discussed by truly proceeding from the real prospects and the real potential of the Military Staff Committee, not from considerations of political expediency. Perhaps, it would be more convenient for some people to abandon this structure. Once again I shall stress that this mechanism incorporates not only Russia and the three Western permanent members of the UN Security Council, but China as well. We have no right to ignore this structure, if we want to move towards a peace that will be sustainable and which will ensure stability and predictability in the development of international relations.

Peacekeeping is not only overcoming the acute phase of a conflict, but also facilitating the establishment of conditions which would exclude its new exacerbation. This calls for a whole set of political, economic, social and legal measures. In this sphere, despite the fact that one of the leading roles will have to belong to regional organizations, the UN should also help remove the "gray zones" in activity in a specific country at the stage of transition from settlement to rehabilitation and contribute to preventing relapses. Therefore the proposal of Kofi Annan to set up a commission on peacekeeping merits attention. We shall be ready to consider various schemes for its establishment.

The history of peacekeeping, apart from fairly successful examples, also knows of unsuccessful operations. But even those of them which were conducted successfully encountered not easy problems. Listed among the successful UN operations are the operations in Cambodia, Mozambique, Tajikistan and East Timor. But to overcome the existing problems and achieve a sustainable settlement not subject to the risk of new breakdowns was possible to a significant extent precisely because those operations rested on the generally recognized principles, which were worked out in the UN. The leaders of these operations strictly complied with the existing mandates.

When we are talking about the practice of drawing regional organizations into peacekeeping, I think it is the very same things which are very necessary for the OSCE. For, the OSCE also seeks to participate in the settlement of conflicts and to develop its own peacekeeping capabilities. Unfortunately, the OSCE has no clearly defined criteria and principles for organizing such activities, nor does it have a Statute and procedural rules. The overwhelming majority of the OSCE member countries have long since been advocating that once we have named it an organization, let us work out a Statute and procedural rules. Some of the OSCE participants prefer to keep it in such an amorphous state, believing this will ease the task of using it any old way. I am glad that an awareness of the need to make changes to this situation has been growing in recent months. Consultations took place yesterday between the representatives of our Ministry and the US State Department for an exchange of views on the future of the OSCE and its reformation. We are encouraged by the way in which these consultations ended. There is an understanding of the need to refresh the OSCE and impart to its activities a more comprehensible character.

Our country participates in a majority of UN peacekeeping operations and in their logistical support. We regard this as a reflection of our sincere desire to help stabilize the situation in various parts of the world and as our duty in the capacity of a permanent UN Security Council member to make our contribution to the maintenance of peace and security. This is the chief criterion for membership in the UN Security Council. In accordance with the line which Russian President Vladimir Putin has defined, our contribution to peacekeeping activities will be increasing. We are certainly interested in cooperation with other countries in these matters, with those who have a rich experience in this domain, including, of course, our Norwegian and Swedish friends.

I have emphasized certain questions which, it seems to me, bear a debatable character. I hope that the seminar will be productive. I wish you every success.

April 7, 2005