|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/2003Book/ |
Upload File : |
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Moscow Workshop Agenda global security terrorism NATO Russia Alexander Vershbow George Joulwan</TITLE>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style36 {font-size: x-small}
.style59 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif}
.style60 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; }
.style61 {color: #333333}
.style62 {font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; color: #333333; }
.style64 {
font-size: x-small;
color: #006699;
font-weight: bold;
}
.style69 {font-size: small; color: #006699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
.style73 {
font-size: x-small;
color: #006699;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
text-transform: uppercase;
}
.style76 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #006699;
font-weight: bold;
}
.style79 {font-size: xx-small; color: #006699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; }
.style83 {
font-size: xx-small;
color: #0033CC;
}
.style95 {font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
.style96 {color: #0033CC}
.style102 {font-size: xx-small; color: #0033CC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; }
.style108 {font-size: xx-small}
.style110 {color: #006699; font-size: xx-small;}
.style116 {font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; font-size: xx-small; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
.style117 {color: #006699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; font-size: xx-small;}
.style31 { color: #336699;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: xx-small;
font-style: normal;
}
.style122 {color: #333333; font-size: x-small; }
-->
</style>
</HEAD>
<BODY LINK="#0000ff" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED" BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<p align="center"><span class="MsoNormal"><span class="style18 style117"><span class="style59"><span class="style36 style26"><span style=""><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><span class="style18 style117"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style=""><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><span style="font-family: color: #336699; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium; color: #333333;"Times New Roman", Times, serif; font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif"><span style=""><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><span style=""><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold'><img src="..//images/csdr_logo.jpg" name="image" width="284" height="86"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<p align="center" class="style69">20th moscow workshop on global security: 27-30 june 2003 <br>
<span class="style36">toward global security: new strategies, technologies, and alliances</span><br>
<span class="style36">roger weissinger-baylon, workshop chairman<br>
anne d. baylon (ed) </span></p>
<p align="center" class="style69">summary of workshop papers<a name="top"></a> </p>
<p align="left" class="style69"><span class="style36">section themes:</span><br>
<br>
<a href="#one" class="style108">THE NEW CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL SECURITY</a><span class="style102"><br>
</span><span class="style110"><a href="#two">SECURITY CHALLENGES IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE, THE BLACK SEA REGION, AND THE CAUCASUS</a></span><span class="style64"><B class="style64"> <br>
</B></span><span class="style110"><a href="#three">RUSSIA'S NEW GLOBAL STRATEGIC ROLE: LINKING THE US., EUROPE, AND ASIA</a></span><span class="style64"><B class="style64"> <br>
</B></span><span class="style110"><a href="#four">NEW CONCEPTS OF DETERRENCE AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS</a></span><span class="style83"><span class="style95"><B class="style64"> <br>
</B></span><a href="#five">AFTER THE PRAGUE SUMMIT</a><span class="style95"><B class="style64"><br>
</B></span></span> <a href="#six" class="style108">THE WAY FORWARD--INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE NEW SECURITY ENVIRONMENT</a><span class="style102"><strong> <br>
</strong> </span><a href="#seven" class="style108">GLOBAL SECURITY - CONTRIBUTIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF RUSSIA</a><span class="style83"><span class="style95"><strong> <br>
</strong></span></span><a href="#eight" class="style108">SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES</a><span class="style83"><span class="style95"><B><br>
</B></span></span><a href="#nine" class="style108">NETWORK CENTRIC-OPERATIONS</a><span class="style102"><B class="style64"><br>
</B></span><a href="#ten" class="style108">DOING BUSINESS IN RUSSIA-LESSONS LEARNED</a><span class="style79"><B class="style64"><br>
</B></span><span class="style116"><span class="style96"><a href="#eleven">UKRAINE-OPPORTUNITIES GAINED AND LOST</a></span></span><span class="style79"><B class="style64"><br>
</B></span><a href="#twelve" class="style108">CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMERCIAL AVIATION AND AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT</a><span class="style79"><B class="style64"> <br>
</B></span><span class="style117"><a href="#thirteen">NEW CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL SECURITY: WRAP-UP SESSION</a></span> </p>
<p align="left" class="style69"><B class="style64"><br>
</B><span class="style64"><I>Russian Deputy Minister Dr. Andrey Fursenko, Ministry of Industry, Science,
and Technology</I>.</span> <span class="style122">As President Putin recently pointed out, states are defined by the challenges that they must face—and one of the gravest is the threat of international terrorism to individual citizens. This danger presents an opportunity for international cooperation, especially in scientific and technological research and development. In Russia, promising projects are underway including an identification system based on the discovery that each individual possesses his or her own unique temperature map, and a database for airline reservations that checks for potential terrorists. </span></p>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style62">
<span class="style64"><I>Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, United States Ambassador to the Russian
Federation</I>. </span><span class="style60">While terrorism and WMD proliferation are grave threats, global
security is also threatened by other dangers: regional tensions (conflicts
on the Indian subcontinent could even go nuclear); diseases such as AIDS
and SARS, the gap between rich and poor; widespread pollution of water,
air and soil; and uncertainty about future energy supplies. </span></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"> Confidence in existing institutions such as the UN is falling. Foes of
globalization oppose the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization.
There is concern over a “unipolar world,” where in cases such as Iraq (with
a divided UN), the U.S. is prepared to act alone or with like-minded allies.
NATO is adjusting to the new situation by focusing on weapons of mass destruction
and anti-terrorism. In fact, Russia hosted a joint anti-terrorist exercise
in Noginsk under NATO’s PfP and NATO and Russia are exploring potential
cooperation on missile defense. Russia, China, and states in Central Asia
have created the Shanghai Cooperation organization to address terrorism
and other threats. Political, social, and economic reform is vital in countries
where the lack of democracy and economic opportunity fuels terrorism. And
even in wealthier countries, political repression combined with totalitarian
educational institutions can encourage hatred and terrorism. </P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"> The U.S. supports Russia’s integration into the world economy and its G-8
membership. Its future relationship with Russia will depend on working
together on threats of terrorism and the proliferation of WMD. North Korea
has cheated on the 1994 agreement under which it agreed to give up its
nuclear weapons. It has restarted its plutonium reactor, and even claimed
it has a nuclear weapon. There is evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Previously, the U.S. concerns centered on the nuclear power station at
Bushehr, which Iran has been building with Russia’s assistance. The risks
from that project were supposed to be reduced by Iran’s reliance on Russia
for supplies of nuclear fuel. Yet Iran has secretly been developing its
own uranium-enrichment capability, which would circumvent the safeguards
Russia has been trying to put into place. The international community needs
to consider which forms of leverage it can bring to bear to stop Iran,
North Korea, or other countries from acquiring the technology for weapons
of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. </P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"> <span class="style61"><I class="style64">General George Joulwan (Ret.), Past Workshop Honorary General Chairman
and Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe. </I>The Moscow Workshop is significant
and historic. In discussing challenges to global security, some key issues
should be addressed: will Europeans acquire the needed capability for 21st century missions, and what will be the impact on U.S. and European defense
companies? What are the political, diplomatic, economic, and military implications
of the NATO Response Force? How can the EU and NATO organize </span><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">and structure
their planning and execution, while preserving the transatlantic link and
developing a clear European identity? What are the implications for NATO
of the global struggle against terrorism, including the Kabul mission and
a possible role in Iraq? Can NATO’s Partnership-for-Peace initiative be
developed in North Africa, or in the Near East and South Asia? What is
the best way to promote stability in U.S. and NATO areas of interests?
What is the role of the Strategic Commander for Transformation (formerly
SACLANT) and how will he interface with SACEUR? What will be the role of
EUCOM in Stuttgart and the impact of moving U.S. forces in Germany to the
east? </FONT></FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"><span class="style64"><I>Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and Former
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Senior Vice President,
The Boeing Company</I>. </span>Economic factors, including trade and investment, contribute
to stability, security, and the struggle against terrorism by dealing with
root causes of terrorist activity. Cooperation between the U.S. and Russia
helps build strong relationships, interdependence, competition, strengthened
capabilities, and prosperity for both countries. The International Space
Station is 85% U.S./Russian made. Two of the main modules in that program
are made in Russia. Another program, Sea Launch, was conceived to launch
satellites from the equator at sea. It involves four-way international
cooperation between Ukraine, Russia, Norway and the United States. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> In the research area, 350 Russian scientists are currently working under
contract to Boeing on problems from aerodynamics to fuel suitability. Much
of the design work for the new Boeing 777-300 extended-range aircraft that
was recently shown in Paris was done in Moscow. In the information technology
area, Anatoly Karachinsky’s IBS group is an excellent IT industry partner.
Boeing commercial aircraft purchases 35% of the titanium it needs in Russia
from a major partner in the Urals. Finally, Boeing is working with Russia
to open the polar route so that its customers can save hours when flying
between Europe, North America, and Asia by using Russian airspace. And
Boeing is also building with Russian partners a new long-range regional
jet with fewer than 100 seats that will target the Russian market and beyond.
Lockheed-Martin works in Russia with its own space program, with the Atlas
and Proton rockets. Pratt Whitney has an engine plant in Perm. The European
Aviation Defense and Space Company (EADS) and Airbus have started a design
bureau in Moscow.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Vladimir Baranovsky, Deputy Director, Institute of World Economy and
International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences. </I>The bipolar
system is being replaced by a more complicated arrangement as we enter
an era of uncertainty. The impressive rapprochement between Russia and
the West is a positive development. Yet, despite genuine cooperation, some
countries are using the struggle against terrorism to achieve their own
goals or to promote changes in the international system that may ultimately
prove to be undesirable. At the same time, Russians need to realize that
some foreign policy officials in other countries are still trying to overcome
problems related to the Soviet past. And for Russians, it is difficult
to “get behind” President Putin’s foreign policy since they have intellectual
problems, political problems, and nostalgia about the Soviet past. But
Russia needs to overcome all this in order to achieve an effective foreign
policy that can be implemented within its means. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> As to the U.S., research conducted by the IMEMO institute of the Russian
Academy of Sciences indicates that, for a long time, the U.S. will enjoy
a preponderant international position: economically, militarily, and politically.
But this preponderance brings a challenge: to act as a responsible leader
with the support of other international players. In the case of Iraq, an
impressive military victory was imperiled by serious political problems
between the United States and its allies concerning the manner in which
the U.S. dealt with some of the international players. In order to lead
responsibly in the future, the U.S. must moderate its desire to “play a
hegemonic role in the international system.”
</FONT></P>
<P align="center" class="style60"><span class="style73">THE NEW CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL SECURITY</span><a name="one"></a> </P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Jean de Ruyt, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United
Nations.</I> The challenge of terrorism is not merely its global scale, WMD,
failed states or organized crime (for example, trafficking in arms), but
the integration of these threats. Terrorists no longer seek primarily to
gain political support: they want to inflict massive casualties—and the
greatest danger is that they will seek WMD. Moreover, Middle East instability
creates the risk of a new nuclear arms race. UN countries and NATO allies
disagree on how to address these threats: the U.S. is prepared to be more
aggressive than Europe and to act on a preventive and unilateral basis.
This divergence of views has led to the current crisis. Europe must act
more globally and make a greater financial commitment while the U.S. needs
to understand that military power is not sufficient and appreciate the
value of alliances.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Vladimir Lukin, Deputy Speaker of the Russian State Duma. </I>The new threat
of terrorism is its capability for massive destruction—which is partly
psychological. One danger is the reluctance to act decisively against terrorism,
which can be justified as pacifism. In this respect, our American friends
are right: it is necessary to act. A second danger is the temptation for
a strong country to dominate the responses to a terrorist attack on its
territory, a behavior that can potentially develop into nationalism (Russians
understand that danger from their own experience). <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The need to develop trust is one lesson of terrorism. The U.S. must learn
to act in ways that increase international trust—not the least because
successfully monitoring terrorist activity before an attack depends on
mutual confidence.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> As to neighboring Iran, Russia must find a way for AIEI to monitor Iran
so that it can develop as a stable democracy (and continue to trade with
Russia). Concerning North Korea, both Russia and China are interested in
its de-nuclearization. China seems to have more influence on North Korea
than either Russia or the U.S. and has begun cooperative efforts. Given
the danger that North Korea potentially represents, it is vital for all
countries to coordinate their positions—without worrying, for example,
that a possible future visit by Putin or Ivanov might give Russia an edge.
Of course, if North Korea is only bluffing about its possession of nuclear
weapons, the danger is not grave. If it does have weapons, however, the
situation is more serious. In any case, “Russia is not interested in being
surrounded by nuclear weapons.”
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, German Ambassador to the Russian
Federation.</I> After 1989, there were fears that the USSR might disintegrate,
nuclear weapons would be a threat, conflicts would flare up in Central
Europe, and a reunited Germany would seek to dominate Europe. The EU has
prevented these doomsday scenarios for Central Europe by promoting economic
and political reform, and the rule of law among its new members. And the
EU’s enlargement to 450 million people, 25 countries, and one-fourth of
the world’s GNP brings a substantial contribution to security—although
it is mainly non-military. As to Russia, its border needs to become “less
of a dividing line and more of a connecting line.” In May 2003, European
heads of state met in St. Petersburg to achieve four goals: (a) create
a common economic space ( a very ambitious goal), (b) create a second space
of internal security (starting with passports and other tedious but vital
work), (c) create a space of common security (including the assessment
of threats to the immediate south), and (d) create a fourth space where
people can move freely for holidays and for education.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">The Rt Hon Michael Portillo, MP, House of Commons, United Kingdom, Former
Minister of Defense.</I> Since NATO traditionally played a key role in security,
an important question is how does it measure up against the new threats?
What role can it play in countering proliferation, terrorism, or organized
crime? How can it contribute to the resolution of future disputes and conflicts
(such as border disputes, tensions over inequalities of wealth, or struggles
over water)? <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> On the positive side, it is reassuring that the U.S. and Russia share many
common goals relative to these issues. On the other hand, it is worrisome
that NATO is not able to conduct an aggressive strike operation such as
the one against Iraq. And in the case of Afghanistan, the U.S. preferred
to work without NATO at all. As to peace enforcement, NATO does not seem
to be well-positioned either. Above all, it is unfortunate that the U.S.
does not wish to work with the Alliance, but, instead, prefers to “choose
its allies on an ad hoc basis.” At the same time, France would like to
see alternatives to the Alliance. For 10 years after the Gulf War, the
U.S. showed a lack of willpower—by allowing Saddam Hussein to show defiance
and by allowing terrorism to escalate. It is vital that U.S. willpower,
which has been renewed since September 11, remain strong.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">General Richard Wolsztynski, Chief of Staff of the French Air Force. </I>The
U.S. is now the pre-eminent global power and the role of international
security organizations seems weaker. In this context, the international
community needs a new global crisis-response mechanism and must be ready
to participate in coalitions (but this can further weaken the role of international
security organizations). To be more responsive, it needs mobility, interoperability,
innovative technology, and real-time management as well as better capabilities
for logistics and information. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> While French forces are somewhat deficient, we have gained experience in
the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Africa. We must improve intelligence capabilities
and reinforce and secure our forward bases and line of communications.
We must cover the entire spectrum of military capabilities with true operational
consistency. To do so, cooperation is needed in many areas—especially in
interagency and multinational operations. We must learn from NATO and the
various European countries. As the French air force plans to conduct future
operations in a joint and multinational context, we must consider future
missions, the means that will be needed, the training to be provided, how
to reinforce interoperability between our forces and American forces, and
how to make international organizations more valuable in the security and
defense areas.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Dr. Grigory Yavlinsky, Member of the Russian State Duma, Head of Yabloko
Fraction</I>. </span>The 2002 Russia—NATO Summit in Rome was a step forward, leading
to meetings and discussions at all levels between Russia and NATO. As a
result of an initiative by President Putin in 2001, cooperation with NATO
on theater missile-defense now appears likely. Cooperation is also needed
for the Caucasus region and, above all, Chechnya—otherwise threats to human
rights and dignity as well as terrorism could worsen. Within two or three
years, Russian citizens must have the opportunity to visit Europe without
visas. If not, Russia will be isolated (Russia recognizes that 80% of the
visa problem is on the Russian side). <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> There is no doubt that the spread of liberal democracy and free market
economies led to the West’s victory in the Cold War. However, the international
political climate is changing: “Instead of championing values such as human
rights, we are seeing…the so-called real-politik approach.” We are forgetting
that the Cold War was not won by weapons, but because the West had better
ways of living and making decisions. Unfortunately for Russia, it shares
a long border with many unstable or unpredictable neighbors. One of these
countries is China—which represents “the most important global security
issue in our future.” In dealing with both Russia and China, it is vital
to promote democratic institutions, an open society, human rights, and
a market economy. Russia’s “oligarchic system cannot be the basis for a
stable partnership...countries that have a democratic facade and semi-criminal
oligarchic economic systems are not contributors and cannot be relied on.”
It is therefore in Russia’s interest to develop democratic institutions—Russia
is not doing so merely to please other countries.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">General of the Armed Forces Jirí Šedivý (Ret.), Former Chief of the General
Staff, Armed Forces of the Czech Republic.</I> In order to halt the spread
of terrorism, which is being carried out through ever more dangerous attacks,
the international community must cooperate effectively since terrorists
are increasingly connected and may use WMD. The Czech Republic has recently
faced attempts to poison hospital food and drinking water, which can be
as dangerous as WMD. The spread of organized crime is also a danger since
it is only a matter of time before terrorists and organized crime join
forces. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> While we are ready to fight terrorism, we are not fully prepared to respond
to a terrorist attack in a way that prevents extensive casualties among
the population. We must learn to do so, especially where WMD are concerned.
An especially grave danger would be a coordinated series of chemical attacks.
The Czech Republic has structured its armed forces so that they include
engineers, chemical protection units, medical personnel, etc. in order
to handle biological-weapons attacks and such problems as SARS. It also
has built a special hospital near Prague to handle cases of anthrax and
ebola. The Czech Republic wishes to take a leading role in this work among
the countries of NATO, but its capacities are limited and the need for
cooperation and mutual support continues. Moreover, all of us must also
be ready to work together to solve the problems that result from global
warming, famine, lack of water, and the movement of large numbers of people.
To handle the results of terrorism and other worldwide problems, we must
create homeland security systems that are able to quickly respond to the
widespread use of WMD.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Dr. Evgeny Velikhov, Director of the Russian Research Center Kurchatov
Institute, Defense Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation,
and Dr. Leonid A. Bolshov, Director of the Nuclear Safety Institute of
the Russian Academy of Sciences</I>.</span> The world community is facing the threat
of radiation terrorism. Since the rapid spread of fear can cause more damage
than radiation, social problems must be considered. Partly as a result
of such social factors, the Chernobyl disaster affected life in every region
of Russia. Abortions increased even in areas where contamination was minor.
Crops were suspected of being contaminated. When ionizing radiation sources
are used for terrorism, they cannot easily cause massive human casualties.
Large casualties occur only when a powerful explosive device disperses
radioactive materials. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> However, inaccurate estimates of the radiation danger may have serious
consequences, including loss of life and unnecessary economic damage as
a result of panic. After the Chernobyl accident, more than 120,000 people
had to be evacuated. Over 7,000,000 were affected and about 600,000 were
involved in the clean-up. If rescue operations had been more effective,
evacuations would still have been necessary, but at least half of those
evacuated could have returned home later. People have an unrealistic view
of radiation risk because the existing norms of ecological safety are in
conflict with actual science. Thus the criteria for ecological disaster,
which is supposed to be an additional dose of irradiation equal to 10 mZv
a year, is incorrect. Chernobyl tests have shown that a negative effect occurs when the dose is between 200 and 300 mZv for land animals and over
2,000 mZv a year for ocean fish.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The media were responsible for creating excessive fears over the Three
Mile Island accident as well as mad cow disease. On the other hand, the
press can help control a crisis. Lowering the risk of radiation is a strategic
task of society. The wealthier the country, the more it can afford to do
so. In Russia, dozens of projects have been carried out in over 30 cities
on the effects of chemicals that affect health by environmental contamination.
These studies show that the greatest carcinogenic risk is to the air and
drinking water. Chemicals such as butadiene, hexavalent chromium, and bensol
take the lead among the carcinogens. The maximum level of acceptable concentrations
of these chemicals creates 10 times more risk than was created by yearly
radiation doses of 1 mZv. To address a related topic, the risk connected
with high levels of air pollution in cities is considered to be acceptable.
Yet, in Russia nearly 40,000 people die every year from air pollution.
The radiation risk for populations that reside in areas beyond the limits
of the Chernobyl accident zone is tens and even hundreds of times less:
8 deaths a year per 100,000 people. When society—in defiance of all objective
scientific data—arbitrarily considers one factor to be more dangerous than
the others, inappropriate risk-control strategies can do a great harm to
the economy. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="center" class="style60"><span class="style73"><B>SECURITY CHALLENGES IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE,
THE BLACK SEA REGION, AND THE CAUCASUS</B></span><B><a name="two"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Philippe Welti, Director for Security Policy, Swiss Confederation.</I>
The interaction between Southeast Europe, the Black Sea region, and the
Caucasus will affect the stability of nearby European areas. Southeast
Europe recently suffered from civil wars and remains fragile. The 1995
Dayton Accord ended inter-ethnic hostilities in part of the former Yugoslavia
but did not end conflicts in the region. Bosnia-Herzegovina gained internationally
imposed stability, but potential conflicts in Kosovo and Macedonia were
not successfully prevented. In 1999, NATO intervened in Kosovo and then
in Macedonia.<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> In the future, Southeast Europe must develop state institutions so that
democracy and the rule of law can foster reliable relations among neighboring
countries. Until then, corruption in government, the military, the police,
and border patrols will be a severe problem. Given the Black Sea region’s
great economic potential, there is also potential for strategic competition.
In fact, the crisis concerning the Ukrainian Tuzla Island in the straits
of Kerch seems to be part of a chess game that merits international attention.
It could provoke Ukraine to revitalize the bargaining power of the Russian
Black Sea Fleet harbors in the Crimea, i.e., in Ukraine. The dangers are
aggravated by the unresolved status of Transdnistria and the lack of any
acceptable standards of state institutions and democratically legitimized
state control and functioning border control in some parts of that region.
In the Caucasus, Georgia is at risk of becoming a failed state because
of Abkhazia’s secession. Given the situation in Chechnya, Russia must avoid
becoming an oppressive power with colonialist undertones. Ukraine will
seek security and strategic partnership within NATO because of the instability
to its east, and that will be of concern to Russia. With regard to effective
rule of law, border control, and overall state authority, the Caucasus
remains a no-man’s land and a corridor for arms and drug trafficking, linking
“uncharted waters” such as Afghanistan to Europe and the rest of the world.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Dr. Ioan Mircea Pascu, Minister of National Defense of Romania</I>. </span>For the
first time, the Balkans have a chance to escape from their confrontational
mentality, since local populations now see that prospects for integration
with Europe are more attractive than the continuation of old feuds. Countries
are reforming to avoid isolation from the mainstream, but there remain
asymmetrical threats and attempts to merge politics with criminal activities.
<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> While integrating Romania and Bulgaria into NATO will help, Southeastern
Europe will continue to test the ability of the EU, NATO, and the UN to
work together. For the first time in 150 years, the Black Sea is becoming
economically and politically important. BLACKSEAFOR was created successfully
to respond to emergencies—but the region must still address problems of
international terrorism, illegal immigration, transportation of prohibited
materials, sex slavery, and the lack of final agreements on many issues
of bilateral importance. In the Caucasus, where the chemistry is very different,
intentions to integrate with the international community are overwhelmed
by local problems. Nonetheless, regional leaders understand that integration
is the only viable future for the Caucasus, that the approaches that worked
in the Balkans can help them too, and that the international community
supports the move to a more cooperative environment. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style60"><span class="style73"><B>RUSSIA’S NEW GLOBAL STRATEGIC ROLE:
LINKING THE U.S., EUROPE, AND ASIA</B><a name="three"></a> </span><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"><B> </B>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Werner Fasslabend, Member of the Austrian National Assembly, Former
Minister of Defense.</I> What strategies are needed to face the new dangers
of the 21<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">st century? Who will develop them? And what instruments and institutions
will be needed? While much progress has been made (barely 10 years ago,
the U.S. and Russia were enemies), the UN Security Council simply does
not work and has not worked since the Korean War. Therefore, should we
not have a Global Partnership for Peace that would include Europe, India,
Japan, and some other countries? </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> As to Russia, its role is potentially very important: it is the only country
that neighbors on all the other global powers—Europe, China, Japan, and
the United States. Russia leads Saudi Arabia in oil production, is strong
in gas and other resources, has significant capabilities in the nuclear,
space, and military sectors—and is far stronger in engineering than many
realize. But Russia’s political and intellectual influence does not correspond
to its geographical situation. Moreover, while Moscow is not distant from
European capitals, it is very far from Washington. Still, Russia can be
a factor of stability between Europe, China, and India—at a time when Europe
(as Michael Portillo has pointed out), China, the U.S., and certainly Russia
itself are over-stretching.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60">
<span class="style64"><I>Dr. Andrey Piontkovskiy, Director, Strategic Studies Center, Moscow.</I></span><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> While
the Iraq crisis suggests it is time to change the existing world order,
it is a delusion that an international security architecture, consecrated
by law and supported by effective international institutions, has existed
since Yalta. The bipolar world was based on “the law of the fist,” and
the UN Security Council was a mere stage for superpower competition. Consider
the Cuban missile crisis: Adlai Stevenson spoke dramatically at the UN,
but the superpowers resolved the crisis themselves. The ABM Treaty, SALT-1,
and SALT-2 were lessons that the superpowers learned from the crisis. The
goal of these treaties was to codify fundamentally hostile relations in
order to prevent tensions from growing into grave crises or nuclear war.
War became impossible because both superpowers accepted MAD (mutually assured
destruction)—which was the real foundation of the international security
system (not the UN). During this period, MAD saved the world from destruction,
but did not prevent millions from dying in local conflicts in which the
superpowers were directly or indirectly involved. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Despite nostalgic refrains concerning the inviolability of national sovereignty,
national sovereignty was violated repeatedly (in Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
and Afghanistan). At least once, it was a good thing: Vietnamese troops
saved one-third of the population by invading Cambodia. The collapse of
the bipolar world generated widely-shared hope for a peaceful future, but
the disintegration of Yugoslavia and other conflicts arrived instead.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The events of September 11 were a totally new challenge. And not only was
the UN unable to respond, the norms of international law (sovereignty and
territorial integrity of nations; the right of nations to self-determination;
the human rights formulated in the UN declaration and reiterated in the
laws of the majority of nations, including Russia; the right of states
to self-defense) proved inadequate as a guide to nations. Some of these
legal principles are contradictory, and it is a fundamental fact of logic
that a system containing contradictions can be used to prove any desired
result. Moreover, these contradictions have been noticed by leading politicians
including Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Cold War principle of deterrence
will not work against suicide bombers: only preventive measures will work.
The “New U.S. National Security Doctrine” published in September 2002,
setting forth the right to conduct preventive strikes has been widely criticized
in Russia. But both President Putin and Defense Minister Ivanov have made
similar proclamations. Who is to say whether the concept of a preventive
strike is acceptable? Surely not the UN!
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has attempted to play the role of an
institution that sets the rules for international behavior. But neither
Americans themselves nor peoples in other countries welcome such a situation.
The world community needs to focus on developing a new international system
by finding reasonable rules to balance the conflicting principles of international
law. But even with a new international system, there must be an alliance
of responsible world powers, with shared values and the necessary political,
economic, and military resources to implement their policy. This organization
cannot be the United Nations, but the UN could help arrange the necessary
discussions and negotiations to set up a new international structure. Currently,
the Group of Eight comes closest to the kind of organization that is needed.
The U.S. will continue as its leader and Russia as a full-member. It is
in the interest of the world community not to alienate the U.S. but to
convert it into a responsible leader.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Serguey Rogov, Director, Institute of the USA and Canada, Russian Academy
of Sciences.</I> Russia will eventually become a political democracy based
on a market economy, but it will take time. In the meantime, there is no
strategy for integrating Russia into the West. The arms control regime
inherited from the Cold War (ABM Treaty, SALT, START) was based on a bipolar
system that no longer exists—and is no longer ideal. Since the U.K. and
France have nuclear weapons without either feeling threatened by the other,
why can’t the U.S. and Russia have a similar relationship? We should use
the statements on ballistic missile defense that Bush and Putin signed
in May 2002 as a basis for moving forward. Although the nuclear “rules
of the game” are understood for Russia and the U.S., there are no such
rules for countries such as China, France, the U.K., India, Pakistan, or
Israel. In fact, any system of rules (or quotas) for countries such as
India and Pakistan that violated the MAD regime would reward them for past
bad behavior. But appropriate multinational arrangements should be worked
out urgently, since the growing terrorist threat means that anything could
happen in Kashmir tomorrow. Perhaps U.S.—Russia relations could serve as
a useful tool for developing a multilateral approach—since these two countries
proved that they could handle the difficult challenges of the Cold War
period. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> In any case, a key question is how does Russia become a “full member of
the Western community”? Perhaps Russia’s global security contributions
should be in the economic area—not in the military field. For example,
less than 1% of the ASEAN “economic highway” passes through Russia, but
Russia—as a great Eurasian country—could facilitate trade between Europe
and Asia. Such an effort would develop Russia’s infrastructure and also
help keep Russia together, from Kalingrad to Vladivostok. And Kaliningrad
could take on a completely new dimension as an economic gateway! </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73">
NEW CONCEPTS OF DETERRENCE AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS<a name="four"></a> </P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">General Ashok K Mehta, AVSM, FRGS, Consulting Editor, Indian Defense Review.</I> For India, September 11 is not the only landmark date for terrorism; on
December 13, 2001, a grave assault on India’s democracy showed that the
epicenter of terrorism had shifted from the Middle East to Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Since 1990, more than 3,000 people have been killed by so-called
Islamic Jihadis in Jammu and Kashmir. India has lost more security personnel
by the actions of non-state actors than it has during wars. In fact, a
non-state actor, namely the Taliban, became a state actor in Afghanistan
with the help of a neighboring state. It therefore seems possible that
a state might even permit transfer of nuclear material to a non-state actor. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The great dangers now facing us include weapons of mass destruction; suicide
bombers (the attack on the Twin Towers was a case of using a human bomber
as a weapon of mass destruction), and organized crime. According to an
IAEA report, the last decade has seen approximately 175 cases for nuclear
material trafficking and 201 cases for radioactive material—supporting
the widely held belief that a radioactive bomb is within the grasp of terrorists.
This is a rather unhappy state of affairs.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>The Rt Hon Bruce George, MP, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the OSCE, Chair of the House of Commons Defense Committee, United Kingdom</I>. </span>The threat is “super terrorism”—the terrorists are resourceful, and they
are many (three-quarters of those trained in Afghanistan are alive and
dispersed globally); some are suicide bombers; and they put no limits on
the casualties they will cause. They are even likely to use a radiation
bomb. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">Our means of deterrence and nuclear weapons in particular are not useful
against distant, amorphous, undetected terrorist organizations. The British
approach has several strands: detection of emerging terrorist organizations;
understanding the causes, motivations, intentions, and capabilities; maintaining
support of the public; and communicating the government’s willingness to
respond. Dealing with the root causes is imperative, especially for the
Israel-Palestine conflict and the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir.
In case terrorism cannot be prevented, civil defense preparations are vital.
We must recognize that most Muslims are peace-loving, but, if there is
going to be another war, it should not be a unilateral action: “Unilateralism
will drastically and devastatingly erode the capability of many governments
to defeat the growing curse of Islamic terrorism.”
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Robert Nurick, Director, Carnegie Moscow Center.</I> Deterring terrorists
and other non-state actors is a challenge. During the Cold War, deterrence
was based on state-to-state relations and assumed: (a) an identifiable
adversary with (b) highly-valued assets and (c) the means to threaten those
assets credibly. In dealing with “super-terrorism,” however, these conditions
are not easily met. In fact, groups may wish to hurt the U.S. so badly
that the only feasible action is to reduce their ability to attack. (According
to a concept of “deterrence by denial,” groups may eventually give up if
it is too difficult to carry out their attacks. But this is an approach
for the long-term.) <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Some traditional concepts of deterrence may be relevant nonetheless: (a)
identify links to states—since terrorists will often need state support—and
punish a state that supports the terrorists (the Iraq War represents a
marginally credible attempt to do so), (b) understand your adversary including
his strengths and weaknesses (this explains the high levels of support
in past years for Soviet studies in the U.S. and vice versa), (c) in cases
where deterrence will not work, preemption is also unlikely to be successful,
for similar reasons. Another important question is how international organizations
should respond. Should NATO handle high-end military responses, while the
EU focuses on non-military approaches such as justice, home affairs, or
long-term actions? Whatever the choice, the EU and NATO should begin coordinating
more effectively.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ingénieur Général de l’Armement Robert Ranquet, Deputy Director of Strategic
Affairs, French Ministry of Defense.</I> According to a recent UN report, Al
Qaeda “may be down but it is not out.” In fact, the bombing in Casablanca
points to a new generation of Al Qaeda terrorists who were not trained
in Afghanistan. At the present time, such terrorism is the greatest threat
to democracies since it is linked to trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> A key question is the extent to which conventional military force is relevant
in the war on terrorism, which can be best prevented by economic development
and by education. In fact, international terrorism, strictly speaking,
is not a threat, but “a tactic that has been upgraded to the level of a
global strategy.” Globalization of terrorism has “ideological, financial,
and human roots” that need to be countered by a globally coordinated response
at the strategic level. Combating international terrorism calls for an
emphasis on intelligence “leading to a global understanding of the phenomenon.” Controlling the flow of people and goods may not be an ideal approach,
since experience suggests that it takes a toll on individual liberties
without reducing the threat. It may be better to watch our flight academies
and airports than develop new preemptive weapons. Afghanistan was a case
study for international military intervention and the Taliban regime was
defeated. However, reconstructing Afghanistan is proving difficult and
will take many years: only the international community can do it (the UN,
the EU, or other international bodies). And as to deterring terrorism,
only international institutions have the credibility to do it. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>AFTER THE PRAGUE SUMMIT: MORE
OR LESS SECURITY FOR EUROPE?<a name="five"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">His Excellency Linas Linkevicius, Minister of Defense of Lithuania.</I> While
the enlargement of NATO will undoubtedly enhance security, new challenges
will continue to arise. Cooperation among countries will be necessary—especially
with Russia. By common accord, Russia is an indispensable part of the Euro-Atlantic
community and Lithuania’s own experience has shown us the damage that isolation
can create. While old ways of thinking still exist within Russia and many
in the West want to keep Russia out of the international community, we
must seize this historic opportunity. Since the Baltic Sea region is relatively
stable, we should use the regions’ existing frameworks (Council of the
Baltic Sea, Northern Dimension Initiative, Northern European Initiative,
and BALTSEA) to do so. Moreover, Russia, Ukraine, the South Caucasus, and
Central Asian countries should all be engaged in the process. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> At the same time, we should not forget the aspirations of Macedonia, Albania,
and Croatia for cooperation with the Alliance. As to the U.S., its interests
in and commitment to Europe must be maintained in order to save the transatlantic
alliance. To match words with deeds, Lithuania is currently participating
with 300 troops in seven international missions—a substantial role for
a country of 3.5 million.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">State Secretary Ivan Korcok, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia. </I>Among
the decisions of the Prague Summit were the development of “niche capabilities” through PCC, the creation of a NATO Response Force, and the adaptation
of the military command structure. For Slovakia, the Prague Summit was
important because it focused attention on the need for reform of our defense
and security organizations, instead of continuing to rely on forces inherited
from communist regimes. These defense reforms are vital because (a) they
give Slovakia a better, more affordable defense system and (b) they give
not only NATO but the EU enhanced capacity to achieve their aspirations.
Slovakia is transforming its forces into smaller and more capable units
that will meet NATO standards and, at the same time, is moving from a conscript
system to a fully professional army. In summary, NATO must be ready to
go out of area and the EU has an important role to play, but must reach
a balance between its ambitions and its resources.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Deputy State Secretary Gábor Bródi, Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.</I> The Prague Summit has had a reassuring effect on European security. Moreover,
enlargement has not caused problems for the Central European region, primarily
because new members were required to achieve political democratization,
market economies, defense reform, human rights reform, and well-settled
regional relations. The removal of dividing lines in Europe and the combined
fight against new threats is also reassuring for Russia (and Ukraine):
NATO and EU relations with Russia are improving, while Central European
countries are putting aside old grievances to steadily develop their bilateral
relations. Further expansion of the EU and NATO may include some of the
Balkan countries, but it may be even more useful to offer opportunities
for increased partnership. </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>THE WAY FORWARD—INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
IN THE NEW SECURITY ENVIRONMENT<a name="six"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Alfred Volkman, Director for International Cooperation, Office of the
United States Under Secretary of Defense, AT&L. </I>After September 11, the
U.S. did not act unilaterally: NATO aircraft protected U.S. airspace, while
countries including Russia provided important help. In the Iraq War, the
U.K. played a critical role near Basra; in Afghanistan, a German-Dutch
command is leading; and in Iraq, Poland is making a very significant contribution.
<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating the importance of technology
(including GPS, aerial refueling, air and sea lifts, air power and the
use of precision-guided munitions, and aerial ground surveillance). In
Iraq, 70% of munitions dropped were guided compared to 35% in Kosovo. The
Iraq War demonstrated the importance of the rapid transmission and fusion
of information and the great improvement that can be made in the conduct
of network-centric warfare. To win in Afghanistan, however, it will be
necessary for the U.S. and its allies to exercise political will. And to
narrow the capability gap between the U.S. and Europe, Europe will need
to exercise political will—especially in developing the airlift, aerial
refueling, and precision-guided munitions that are needed.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, Secretary General of Defense, Italian Ministry
of Defense.</I> We did too little to prevent the September 11, 2001, attack.
This attack, as well as the 1995 nerve gas attack in Tokyo, the anthrax
letters mailed just after September 11, the continuing potential for smuggling
radioactive materials, the proliferation of long-range missile technology,
and the waves of terrorist violence in the Middle East, Chechnya, Russia,
and Indonesia demonstrate that we face real dangers. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> We need to employ all our resources, with an emphasis on four areas: (a)
knowing the threat (improved intelligence, HUMINT, electronic surveillance,
communications, space, air, etc.); (b) prevention (preventive strikes,
solving problems at their roots, and persuasion); (c) defense; and (d)
neutralization so the threat cannot return (technologies including communications,
information technology, biometric recognition, spectrometric detection
of chemicals, and optoelectronics are often dual-use). The gravest dangers
are from chemical and biological agents and the proliferation of ballistic
missile technology. To develop ballistic missile defense systems, advanced
technologies, huge investments, and international cooperation will be needed.
For the struggle against terrorism, many useful technologies are in the
experimental stage: nano-technologies, robotics, direct energy weapons,
materials technology, information technology and computing systems, as
well as non-lethal weapons.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Above all, a comprehensive political strategy is required to foster dialogue
among nations and international organizations. We need a more stable and
reliable security framework in which reason and political means eclipse
conflict and violence. This will require a long-term political initiative
led by the most developed and responsible countries to prevent and solve
the problems at the basis of terrorism. Since these problems are mostly
rooted in economic and political underdevelopment, lack of education, injustice
and poverty, we must solve them through a comprehensive political, economic,
social, and cultural strategy supported, during emergencies, by technological
and military capabilities.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Robert Trice, Senior Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corporation.</I> In
order for North America and Europe to maintain healthy defense industries,
transatlantic industrial cooperation is essential. This requires focusing
on (a) governmental cooperation (harmonizing military requirements, joint
development and procurement), (b) defense trade barriers (a “Fortress Europe”
approach will eventually put Europe at a disadvantage), (c) procurement
priorities (networking, finding and striking targets with precision, defending
and sustaining forces), and (d) research and development (European industry
cannot develop the necessary R&D funding to be effective without North
America). Thus, Lockheed Martin works with European countries on cooperative
programs (F-35 JSF, C-27J with Alenia, the ILS launch vehicle with the
Khrunichev Space Center in Russia, MEADS with EADS and Finmeccanica, and
the Aegis system with Izar and Kongsberg).
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Carmelo Cosentino, Senior Vice President, Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A.</I> The new threats are unpredictable and asymmetric—leading to total global
insecurity, with internal and external security indistinguishable. The
U.S. is moving toward a more flexible concept of alliances and a strengthening
of its defense leadership (including its budget). In order to move from
global insecurity to security, Europe must increase its research and other
defense efforts. Europe spends half as much as the U.S. on defense, but,
in terms of cost effectiveness, the ratio is closer to one to a hundred.
For this reason, it is vital to increase collaboration with U.S. companies,
while focusing on European industry consolidation as well as cooperation
with the Russian system. Essential areas for defense industry concentration
include: surveillance systems (Maritime Patrol replacement), airlift (C-27J),
tankers (including the KC-767 with Boeing), combat aircraft (including
Eurofighter and the F-35/JSF), and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs and UCAVs).
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Vice Admiral Norman Ray (Ret.), President, Raytheon International Inc.,
Europe.</I> To achieve viable, independent and complementary U.S. and European
defense industries and technologies, two issues matter: market size and
market access. Since its market is not large, Europe finds it difficult
to make the defense technology investments that are needed to achieve independence.
Conversely, the U.S. market is so big, that it can distract U.S. companies
from giving proper attention to Europe’s potential. While capabilities
tend to conquer politics in large markets, the opposite may be true in
small markets. Worse, protectionist forces on both sides of the Atlantic
are making international cooperation difficult. In order to address these
problems, the U.S. should follow through on NSPD19, ITAR, and export control
reforms. The EU should go forward on its European defense procurement agency
in a manner untainted by protectionism.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Lieutenant General Rainer Schuwirth, Director General, European Union Military
Staff.</I> The EU’s addition of 10 new members should have complementary effects
since many are members of NATO, too. While EU/NATO relations were previously
a problem, there is now a useful permanent relationship. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Cooperation is vital: in fact, the involvement of both the EU and NATO
in FYROM may have prevented a civil war. Nonetheless, we must avoid undesirable
chains in the transfer of responsibilities, such as (a) an initial “coalition
of the willing” that evolves into (b) a NATO activity and subsequently
into (c) an EU one. Cooperation is also needed to improve on the fragmented
defense efforts of EU and NATO countries. Potentially, the new European
defense procurement agency is valuable—but only if countries actually use
it. The EU’s importance is further demonstrated by its military operation
in the Congo at UN request, with France as the so-called framework nation. </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>GLOBAL SECURITY: CONTRIBUTIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF
RUSSIA<a name="seven"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ms. Esther Dyson, President, EDventure Holdings.</I> For a homeland security
project in which I am involved, the challenge is in sharing data more than
getting software to work together or agreeing on technical protocols or
standardization. For example, the FBI is more concerned about data sharing
than the choice of its software. Fortunately, there are technical ways
to match data without revealing it to the other side by using encryption
and other tools. We will need to deal with this issue, since it is important
in the U.S. and even more critical when international cooperation is needed.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Sergey Kravchenko, President, Boeing Russia/CIS.</I> Over the last decade,
Boeing has signed more than $1 billion in contracts in Russia for cooperation
in areas ranging from space to commercial aircraft. We have learned that
the Russian information technology industry is as important as the titanium
that Russia provides for our aircraft. While Boeing has worked with India’s
IT industry for 15 years, Russia has quickly moved into second place—because
of the capabilities of Russian companies such as IBS. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> As one of the largest aerospace companies, Boeing’s products, which range
from defense against missiles to countering cyber-terrorism, depend on
information-technology systems. The Russian IT industry can contribute
in many areas, including cyber-terrorism as well as ballistic missile defense,
which has a strong IT component. After September 11, Condoleeza Rice said
that she would like to see the world’s best minds work together in the
struggle against terror. Given Russia’s tremendous potential, the presidents
of Russia and the U.S. should consider how our countries can work together
on the complex challenges of global security.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Anatoly Karachinsky, President, IBS Group (Russia), and Mr. Vasily
Suvorov, Chief Technology Officer, Luxoft.</I> Network security is a major
concern, since cyber attacks can do as much harm as violent terrorism by
damaging vital infrastructures. While an open network brings benefits,
it also carries risks. Systems are needed to detect and recover from virus
attacks in a manner similar to the human body’s response to infection.
Multi-agent systems, in combination with artificial intelligence techniques,
evolutionary computing, and genetic algorithms, can create systems that
display human-like behavior. Using DARPA initiatives such as active networks,
it is possible to design an adaptive system that does not require specific
knowledge about virus or hacker attacks. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> We have created a concept document for a network security center that can
be deployed not only in Russia but in other countries too. The center would
have response teams with technology to classify attacks and respond with
adaptive technologies. Visual simulation technology, as demonstrated at
the Moscow Workshop by Silicon Graphics, can be valuable in preparing for
emergencies. Visual simulations can test disaster plans for nuclear reactors,
chemical plants, or transportation systems. Recent graduates from Moscow
State University developed a robotic-vision technology that produces a
3-D model of surfaces. This technology makes it possible to treat a person’s
face as a 3-D surface, in order to provide more accurate identification
than 2-D photographs. The U.S. Department of Energy is pursuing a program
in Russia for the prevention of the proliferation of atomic and nuclear
technologies. As part of this program, Luxoft is retraining nuclear scientists
to become software developers.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Steve Coggins, Senior Vice President and General Manager (Europe),
Silicon Graphics International (SGI).</I> Relative to the rest of the world,
Russia has approximately 3% of the population, 13% of the territory, 24%
of the intellectual resources, and 41% of the natural resources. Russia’s
potential is enormous—and especially in information technology. In the
struggle against terrorism, data mining and visualization technologies
are among many that are potentially useful, since vast quantities of data
must be collected, managed, and displayed in real time to prevent decision
makers from being overwhelmed. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style76">SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES<a name="eight"></a> </P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Jaromir Novotny, Czech Ambassador to India.</I> In the future, wars
may be waged to control water resources. This is not only possible in the
Middle East (involving Israel and Arab countries), but in potential conflicts
between Turkey and Iraq, Iraq and Iran, as well as Egypt and the countries
controlling the Nile River. After signing a peace treaty with Israel, the
president of Egypt said that if his country were to wage war in the future,
it would only be for water. In fact, Egypt is the only desert state whose
army units train to fight in the jungle. India has agreements with both
Pakistan and Bangladesh about the distribution of water from the rivers
running through their territories. As an additional point of interest,
Yasser Arafat started his career many years ago by organizing a terrorist
attack on a water supply in Israel.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Mr. Satish Chandra, Deputy National Security Advisor of India</I></span><I>.</I> Water utilization
can become a matter of dispute, since water often passes through or lies
within more than one state. Over three billion people will soon live in
water-stressed countries. India has 16% of the world’s population but only
4% of the water. UNESCO identified 21 basins with the potential for conflict:
Aral, Ganges-Brahmaputra, Han, Incomati, Jordan, Kunene, Kura-Araks, Lake
Chad, La Plata, Lempa, Limpopo, Mekong, Nile, Ob [Ertis], Okavango, Orange,
Salween, Senegal, Tigris-Euphrates, Tumen, and Zambezi. International law
does not provide clear-cut positions on how to share and utilize the water.
Water conservation is therefore vital, especially in agricultural areas
that account for 70% of use. Price mechanisms will be vital.<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Since there are no accepted rules for the just allocation of waters, a
cooperative “win-win” approach is essential. In the case of India’s water
agreements with Pakistan, India enjoys unrestricted use of the three eastern
rivers and Pakistan enjoys the bulk of the flows of the three western rivers.
With Bangladesh, it has entailed a sharing of dry season scarcity in the
Ganges downstream of Farakka. India has developed a National Perspective
Plan designed to inter-link its rivers for transferring water from surplus
to deficit basins. The plan is expected to cost U.S. $120 billion, irrigate
150 million hectares, produce 35,000 MW of power, save 1.06 billion in
annual flood losses, increase food grain production by 70 million tons,
and provide employment to a million people annually for the next 10 years.
Defusing the water “time bomb” will demand the efficient management of
available water resources. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"><B class="style73">NETWORK-CENTRIC OPERATIONS<a name="nine"></a></B><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"><B> </B></FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Mr. Robert Lentz, Director of Information Assurance, Office of the U.S.
Assistant Secretary of Defense.</I></span><I> I</I>nformation superiority depends on information
assurance (IA), which, to the Department of Defense, is synonymous with “securing the net.” Our operations depend on a global information environment
over which we have little control. Given our vulnerability to a rapidly
growing number of sophisticated internal and external threats, we cannot
be satisfied with reactive static defenses or after-the-fact solutions.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Our strategy is Defense-in-Depth, in which layers of defense are used to
achieve balanced, overall information assurance. The strategy is based
on layered security solutions that allow us to maximize the use of commercial
off-the-shelf technology. Enclaves, for example, require a strong perimeter
to guard against malicious outsiders. Within each enclave, protection is
also needed against malicious insiders who have penetrated the perimeter.
In the area of intrusion detection, we are accelerating the development
of technologies to detect and respond to cyber attacks against critical
infrastructures. Current intrusion-detection techniques are extremely limited
in their ability to identify attacks, particularly large-scale attacks
against multiple points in the infrastructure, such as Distributed Denial
Of Service (DDOS) attacks against Internet service providers and e-commerce
companies. The success of the IA framework also depends upon law enforcement’s
ability to deter future cyber attacks through the successful prosecution
of cyber criminals. (The actions of the perpetrator of the “I Love You” virus did not constitute a crime in the Philippines, where it originated.)
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Priorities include establishing a National Cyberspace Security Response
System, developing a National Cyberspace Security Threat and Vulnerability
Reduction Program, encouraging regional organizations such as APEC, the
EU, and the OAS to address cyber security issues, and establishing an international
network capable of receiving, assessing, and disseminating cyber security-related
information globally. Above all, we must be ready to adapt to new threats
that will appear in the future.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">General Klaus Naumann, Former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.
</I>The nature of risks suggests that future conflicts may be transnational
in nature and global in scale; non-state actors will use military means
(perhaps WMD). The future of alliances is not clear, but they are certainly
superior to ad hoc coalitions of the willing. Since societies are aging,
none can afford wars of attrition, which would risk manpower shortages.
<FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Technology will push nations toward C4ISR, precision-strike capability,
network-centric warfare (NCW)—with the aim of paralyzing an opponent’s
command and control. NCW is a new warfare paradigm aimed at the opponent’s
C4ISR to make its forces blind, deaf, unable to control themselves, and
easy targets. In translating NCW into force structures, forces will organize
best along the lines of their roles in combat: highly networked engagement
forces, awareness and assessment forces that operate within the DBA architecture
and intimately deal with its products, and C2 forces that are temporarily
pulled from the other two groups. One could say that NCW would link three
grids together: the sensor grid, the C2 grid, and the shooter grid. The
truly new dimension of the Iraq War was NCW: the Iraqi Medina Division
saw its golden opportunity, under the cover of bad weather, and launched
a counterattack. But the Americans had Global Hawk UAVs waiting, and JSTARS,
AWACS and Rivet Joint on station. Thanks to the JSTARS, the Americans tasked
to do so vaporized a full army division within two days. Future forces
must be planned as a networked system rather than as a group of platforms,
which will require changing the still-prevailing armed forces mind set.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> The EU nations must act quickly to coordinate and redirect their uncoordinated
R&D programs. Since most nations possess some precision-strike capability
and some deployability, or have plans underway to possess them in the near
future, the key to transformation is C4ISR—not the transport or tanker
aircraft that are available on the market. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>DOING BUSINESS IN RUSSIA: LESSONS LEARNED<a name="ten"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. John Doughty, Vice President and General Manager, Motorola, Commercial,
Government, and Industrial Solutions Sector. </I>During the September 11 disaster,
fire brigades, police departments, and ambulance departments were unable
to communicate with each other, even though every communication device
on that site was made by Motorola. In fact, Motorola is actually able to
provide joined communications, but these different services could not communicate
because each had made its own decisions on technology and purchasing. Since
information during a crisis must be dispatched to people in the field through
wireless devices, governments everywhere must get their agencies to work
together. If another major disaster occurs soon—and we know it will—there
is not one western country whose critical agencies will be able to communicate. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Motorola has a very successful business in Russia. The country is growing
at 7.5% annually and, as a result of SARS, has overtaken China in growth.
In fact, Motorola sold more cell phones in Russia in the month of June
2003 than it did in all of 2002. We are also the major supplier of communications
equipment for the Ministry of the Interior (the Russian police forces).
To do so, Motorola began doing business in Russia before the market opened
up by supplying the communications system for the Moscow Olympics. Once
the market opened, the police were already impressed with our technology
and wanted to acquire it as soon as they could. We also invested heavily:
we have 600 employees in Russia, half of whom are software engineers. All
our employees are Russian—and they have tremendous levels of skill. In
fact, many of our early employees now hold key positions for Motorola in
other countries. The Russia market is so important that no company can
reasonably ignore it.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> `
<I class="style60"></I> Before the Soviet
Union collapsed, I headed a team that managed on-board computer systems
for Russian satellites. In 1991, I founded ELVIS+ with Sun Microsystems
as my first investor. But we were unable to export our product, the Wi-Fi
802.11 protocol PCMCIA card, from America to Russia because of export controls.
ELVIS+ also developed a firewall technology, which Sun acquired. After
this, I was encouraged to start my present business in Amsterdam. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> This gives me a basis for discussing doing business in Russia, which has
now entered a new period where countries have an opportunity to unite in
a fight against terrorism. There is no difference between U.S. and Russian
government bureaucracies. And there are no differences between high-tech
companies in the two countries. Government relations between the two countries
have not changed: there was no trust in the past, and none exists today.
It is possible to achieve trust at the business level, as Motorola and
other companies have done. Like relationships within a family, effective
and open communications are necessary to achieve understanding and trust.
Relations and especially investments need to be developed on a long-term
basis—good examples are Motorola and of course Intel. Another requirement
for doing business in Russia is to find the right people and build a balanced
team—a Russian team will know the local markets, local people, and how
to achieve results. Finally you must understand Russian culture. Russians,
who have grown up with a Marxist-Leninist philosophy, feel that they absolutely
must understand the purpose of whatever they are doing. This can make it
difficult to get anything done. While Russians have been renowned for their
conceptual and philosophical capabilities since the times of Dostoevsky
and Tolstoy, it requires much patience to turn conceptual thinking into
useful results. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>UKRAINE—OPPORTUNITIES GAINED AND LOST<a name="eleven"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Senior Fellow, Center for International Relations,
Warsaw, Former Minister of Defense of Poland. </I>During the Soviet period,
Moscow drained Kiev of its best minds and even appropriated the thousand-year
traditions of Kievan Rus—which Ukraine now proudly reclaims. Ukraine’s
economy and Russia’s were closely linked, especially in defense. Ukraine’s
large Russian minority (including in the Crimea, which Kruschev donated
to Ukraine in 1954) was also a problem. Other issues were the nuclear arms
in Ukraine, the division of weapons, satellite communications centers,
early warning systems, airspace control, management of outer-space, and
the future of the naval bases of the ex-Soviet Black Sea Fleet. During
this period, President Kravchuk defined the defense policy as that of a
non-nuclear neutral state, with a “multi-vectorial” policy based on building
good relations with all neighbors. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> In 1997, the then-Ukrainian foreign minister declared that “today the policy
of neutrality is losing its potential,” and in 1998 President Kuchma issued
a decree stating that Ukraine would seek to join the EU. Later, in 2001,
Kuchma reoriented foreign policy toward Russia—possibly to assure Moscow’s
much-needed support in the face of his growing political isolation at home.
(Ukraine’s flirtation with both the East and the West was partly due to
the fact that Ukraine was not welcomed by the EU.) Nonetheless, in 2002,
Ukraine feared it might be marginalized by the Russia-NATO relationship:
President Kuchma approved a decree that Ukraine would seek a relationship
with NATO. And its aspirations for EU membership also continue.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Despite large cuts in its armed forces since Soviet times, Ukraine’s troop
strength in 2001 was about 310,000 soldiers. Ukraine has 4,000 tanks and
over 4,000 APCs, as well as 240 combat helicopters and about 2,000 aircraft
(most are dated). From the Black Sea Fleet, Ukraine received over 100 warships,
including one submarine, one state-of-the-art missile cruiser (the “Ukraina”),
and other ships. Given Ukraine’s MOD annual budget of about $700 million,
its capabilities are declining. Yet, Ukraine still has highly successful
transport aircraft, including An-72s and the famed An-124 “Ruslan” with
a payload of 150 tons. Ukraine’s aerospace forces, however, may be the
most attractive of its military elements to NATO. Ukraine is one of the
world’s leaders in space technology. For example, in eastern Ukraine, space
companies are building heavy space-transport rockets such as the “Dnipro,”
which has successfully lifted off over 60 times to put commercial payloads
from China, India, France, Great Britain, and the U.S. into orbit. Ukraine’s
prospects for joining NATO are better than for joining the EU. However,
Ukraine must also realize that the path to NATO and the path to the European
Union are two lanes of the same highway. Of course, membership in NATO
or the European Union, which currently is building its defense identity,
cannot be reconciled to Ukraine’s neutral or even “non-bloc” status. Thus,
Ukraine will have to address the issue of the rapid decrease of its military
structural ties to Russia. The reform and modernization of Ukraine’s armed
forces, however, is stumbling because of immense financial shortages. The
year 2004 will be key for Ukraine’s future: the beginning of a post-Kuchma
period. </FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73"><B>CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COMMERCIAL AVIATION AND AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT:
SAFETY, SECURITY,
AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY<a name="twelve"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Mr. Hans-Joachim Gante, President, BDLI (German Aerospace Industries Association),
Former CEO of Airbus Deutschland. </I>Since 40% of global trade is carried
by air, economic conditions strongly affect aviation. After September 11,
U.S. airline losses exceeded $10 billion a year. Transatlantic traffic
has not recovered. The Far East market, which remained healthy, was struck
by SARS. Boeing cut aircraft production in half. And this year, Airbus
will produce 300 aircraft instead of 400 as planned. Over 2,000 aircraft
sit in the U.S. desert. <FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> </FONT>
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Nonetheless, we hope for a 5% to 6% annual increase in traffic, which makes
it vital to restore confidence in air travel. Initiatives include (a) securing
the transponder signal, (b) putting video cameras in the cabin, (c) permitting
stewards and pilots to communicate, (d) strengthening cockpit doors (Airbus
door kits are produced by Elbe Flugzeugwerke). Another product is Diehl
Avionik Systeme’s Geographical Envelope Protection Program (GEP). Israel
has developed proactive missile-warning systems, and the U.S. is seeking
ways to protect aircraft against attacks by surface-to-air missiles. Since
the financing of such solutions is an obstacle, R&D development must exploit
spin-offs of military applications for civilian use, and vice versa.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Dr. Agam Sinha, Vice President, MITRE Corporation.</I> As a result of September
11, the Iraq War, and SARS, the commercial aviation industry has experienced
losses, some carriers have filed for bankruptcy, and recovery will take
up to seven years. In order to provide the necessary security, protection
is needed for (a) passengers and cargo, (b) aircraft, airports, and ATC
facilities, and (c) information (through cyber security). We must remember
that terrorists are better financed and organized than before. At the same
time, we must avoid the temptation to “fight the last war”—since future
attacks are likely to be different. The cost-effectiveness of defenses
will depend on the successful sharing of information, coordinating police,
fire, and aviation personnel, and permitting common situation awareness
through physical and cyber security. The challenges are not technical,
but lie in policy, economics, coordination, and integration—for example,
in preventing the spread of cyber attacks, protecting individual privacy,
cooperating in information sharing, and, above all, closing the gap between
“knowing” and “doing.” </FONT>
</P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER" class="style73">
<B>NEW CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL SECURITY: WRAP-UP SESSION<a name="thirteen"></a> </B></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Alexandr Vondra, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for Security
Policy, Czech Republic. </I>NATO appears to be the only organization that could
realistically be called upon to work toward peace in the Middle East—a
fantastic development. The EU is developing a constitution designed to
give Europe a greater role in global affairs while maintaining a strong
transatlantic relationship—two objectives that may be difficult to reconcile.
As the world moves toward “uni-polarity,” countries such as Russia and
France prefer multi-polarity. While uni-polarity may be a form of natural
evolution, multi-polarity could very well lead to the proliferation of
nuclear and other weapons.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<span class="style64"><I>Dr. Nikolai Marschan, Finnish Ministry of Defense</I>.</span> After Sweden lost its
war with Russia in 1809, Finland became an autonomous member of the Russian
Empire, with its own laws and currency but a common foreign policy and
army. When the revolutionary events occurred in St. Petersburg in 1917,
the Finnish parliament declared Finland’s independence. After the war,
Finland was obliged to pay war compensation to the Soviet Union, but this
forced Finnish industry to become more dynamic. By the time war compensations
were fully paid in the early 1950s, Finland had normal trade with the Soviet
Union, Sweden, and other western countries.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Since the population of the nearby St. Petersburg region is more than twice
as large as Finland’s five million citizens, potential for trade with Russia
is enormous. With patience, excellent business relations can be developed.
Unfortunately, many Finnish businessmen invest in Russian companies with
the hope of obtaining profits within a year. This approach does not work,
since the Russian community expects that investors will remain for a long
time. It is also important to rely on local Russian experts. As a Russian
diplomat once said: “it is not possible to understand Russia with one’s
brains, nor possible to measure it with normal means. It has a special
soul: you just have to grasp it.”
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17">
<I class="style64">Ambassador Robert Hunter, RAND, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO. </I>September
11, 2001, gave the U.S. a new world view and perception as to how it should
shape the world for others. In the U.S., it gave a dominant place to the
war on terrorism together with the concern for WMD. The U.S. now “owns”
the Middle East in the sense that it has assumed responsibility for shaping
the Middle East’s future. We will persevere—not only for Iraq, but for
Iran, oil, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the transformation of societies.
NATO is a continuing focus, for which the U.S. agenda includes power projection,
the war on terrorism, WMD, and the greater Middle East. The U.S. understands
that its perception is not shared by all. India and Pakistan may pose the
greatest dangers, while China, Korea, and Japan are important, too.
</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"><FONT COLOR="#1f1a17"> Additional observations follow: (a) The U.S. will eventually assume a broader
view. (b) The U.S. will learn that it cannot do everything in Iraq by itself—partly
because of the casualties suffered by our troops. (c) Congress will not
give the monies that are required for reconstructing Iraq. (d) In nation-building
and in overall Middle East regional development, many countries have more
experience than we do. (e) The U.S. will need the assistance and cooperation
of other countries in addition to Britain. (f) We will need institutional
involvement by the UN or else find another means to provide legitimacy
for the use of force. (g) There must be a role for NATO. (h) A broad U.S.-European
Union strategic partnership should be formed, not only in the military
area. (i) Russia must be integrated into overall Western security.
</FONT></P>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td width="977" height="41" valign="top" class="style31">| <a href="#top"></a><a href="..//index.html">csdr home page</a>| <a href="#top">top of page</a>| ©2003, 2004 center for strategic decision research </td>
</tr>
</table>
<P ALIGN="LEFT" class="style60"> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>