Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov

The catastrophe of World War II became a powerful catalyst for the awareness of Europeans of the need to build a common home, in which human rights would be effectively protected, democracy would flourish, the rule of law would be ensured, and social problems would be tackled. The implementation of this European project, of which the Council of Europe has become an integral part, would be impossible without tremendous human sacrifices made by all nations of the European continent and North America, but, above all, the peoples of the Soviet Union.

Russia has never divided and does not divide the Victory in the Second World War into “ours” and “theirs.” All anti-Hitler coalition allies won the war. But we will never forget that the Soviet Union with its cities, towns, and villages bore the brunt of Hitler’s invasion. Three-quarters of the armed forces of Nazi Germany were sent to the Eastern Front and were defeated there.

For the future of Europe it is important that the vanquishers of the “brown-shirt plague” in those years rose above their ideological differences. Communists, monarchists, anarchists, members of the left-wing, and conservative forces selflessly gave their lives in the struggle against fascism. Mutual trust to achieve a common goal did not come easy, if you remember everything that had preceded the war. Yet we managed to unite.

On June 22, 1941, in a radio address to the nation, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said: “The Russian danger is therefore our danger and the danger of the United States just as the cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe.”

This was our common Victory, the Victory of the values that make us human. We all want the same thing for our children and grandchildren – peace, prosperity, mutual respect, a free exchange of ideas, an open society; in short, a common future.

For the sake of this future, we must say to each other in all honesty that only the knowledge of the historical truth in its entirety – without any politicization to suit momentary expediency – can ensure the strength of the Greater Europe that we are creating.

Even when World War II veterans, participants, and witnesses of those events lived on different sides of the Iron Curtain and often were adversaries in the Cold War, they carried in their hearts a feeling of deep respect for each other, a sense of mutual understanding and brotherhood, welded by the common disaster and by one common Victory. The same feelings led to the reconciliation of the former enemies. The French-German and the Russian-German reconciliation provide the most vivid examples. Profound symbolism imbues what is happening in the relationship between Russia and Poland.

I sincerely believe, as does the vast majority of Russians and Poles, that the empathy between the two peoples over the tragedy near Smolensk will become a turning point in overcoming the common tragic past, and thus contribute to the creation of a truly Greater Europe which is inconceivable in the absence of the human dimension in the relationship between states.

Russia always advocated for the joint work of historians to study the most convoluted moments of shared history. We are also prepared for this task today.

The new Russia has officially condemned Stalinism and never acted in defense of its ideology and practice. However, we categorically reject any attempt on the pretext of the struggle against Stalinism to falsify history, blaming Russia for all the sins of European politics.

It is our duty to convey the truth about the Second World War to young Europeans. We have proposed to arrange for them under the auspices of the Council of Europe a program called “European Routes of Remembrance of the Second World War.” This project will have a powerful unifying charge. Its implementation should involve veterans, so there is no break in continuity between the times. As in the other C.I.S. countries, in Russia, the year 2010 is declared the Year of the Great Patriotic War veterans. Its motto – “We won together!” – has pan-European significance in full measure.

Questions of history

The lessons of 20th-century European history should not be lost upon us. It is paradoxical that the promises of a just society were realized only in the environment of the Cold War, when America and the Soviet Union, NATO and the Warsaw Pact held over Europe a canopy of bipolarity, under which West Europeans felt comfortable and managed to find a stable foundation for their development: a socially oriented market economy and a broadly representative democracy based on the middle class.

But if we take the period between the First and the Second World Wars, it was marked by feverish wavering that led to the authoritarian tendencies in the vast majority of European countries and to trying on – to varying degrees – the fascist idea. What this ended in is well known. That’s why the notorious effect of the “thawing-out” of nationalistic sentiment, caused by the end of the Cold War, is extremely dangerous.

Perhaps now it will be useful to refer to the 1923 manifesto “Pan-Europa” of Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. At the time, the father of the European Idea, correctly assessing the catastrophic state of the continent, spoke of the need to build relationships, including between the “United States of Europe” and Russia, and to start with the economy, without interference in internal affairs. He wrote: “Europe itself can escape from the economic catastrophe, into which the war had plunged it, only if it cooperates with Russia and participates in its reconstruction. Russia and Europe need each other to work together to be reborn.” These ideas resonate with the precepts of George Kennan.

The evolution of events, including the idea of Atlanticism, the Cold War’s end, and globalization, gave strong arguments for speaking of collective security from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Today, when the situation calls for a radical revision of existing institutions, when, in the words of Robert Hutchings, “any new global order cannot be controlled by the U.S.-European condominium,” and when regionalization takes place in global politics, there is simply no reasonable alternative to this course of action.

Instead of the negative – and relative – Cold War-era stability, we all urgently need stability that is positive, based on collective interaction. The interests of joint survival demand joining forces and resources and sharing the comparative advantages of each country. The beginning of such a joint movement for all practical purposes could be the Modernization Partnership, which we have agreed to develop between the European Union and Russia.

It’s hard not to agree with the view of Thomas Gomart (set out in the NATO and the “Russian Question” article in the newspaper Vremya Novostei for March 15, 2010) that “for the West the ‘Russian question’ turns into a global one.” In the U.S.-Europe-Russia triangle there is a need for a qualitatively different relationship that would allow us to solve our common problems and address global concerns.

In the spring of 1923, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote that “perpetually looking back to yesterday is the main reason for European reaction and fragmentation” and that “an indifferent neighborliness” was no longer possible on our continent. Judging by the current feelings in Europe, the continent is again facing the same choice – revival or decline. Coudenhove-Kalergi’s words are still relevant. The great thinker is on point with his calls for convergence and synthesis, notions that are the key to a realization of the future of the European civilization and its proper place in today’s increasingly competitive world, which we can secure only by acting together.

New architecture

A full-fledged open regional system of collective security – with legal obligations and support mechanisms – should become an inalienable component of that synthesis.

It would seem that with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union there would begin a new era of deideologized relations between the countries and peoples. We had a real chance to make the OSCE the embodiment of true European unity. But apparently, the Berlin walls were still very strong in the minds of many at the time. The set of false ideas, instincts, and prejudices accumulated in the past era and transferred into the new reality, led to what Dostoevsky called the “self-poisoning with one’s own imagination.” As a result, a European architecture that would integrate all states of the Euro-Atlantic region without exception into a single organization based on clear, legally-binding principles that could ensure equal security for all failed to take place. The principle of indivisibility of security, as proclaimed in the Euro-Atlantic region in the 1990s at the highest level never received international legal confirmation either in the OSCE or in some other pan-European forums.

Devised by President Dmitry Medvedev in June 2008, the idea to make a European Security Treaty presupposes a clear and simple solution to this systemic problem. Our goal is to make the principle of indivisibility of security legally-binding. It is a matter of practical politics. Only in this way is it possible to “turn the page over” and finally resolve the question of “hard security,” which has been haunting Europe for centuries.

The “victory” in the Cold War was only an illusion. Now, after unsuccessful attempts by some countries to act according the “winner takes it all” principle, it is necessary to carry out a collective overview of the situation. It is important to grasp what the Cold War’s end meant and what constituted the compromise settlement resulting in the termination of the superpowers’ standoff. As a preliminary matter, we must return to traditional values in international relations – such as moderation, self-restraint, reconciliation, and focus on a balance of interests. We’re witnessing signs of just such a positive turn of events in Euro-Atlantic politics today. This is the path to get over the crisis of confidence that not so long ago ballooned to the size of strategic confusion that led many to speak of a “cold peace” and even a “new Cold War.”

Over the last 20 years Russia has sought a new relationship with the West, not always finding understanding and adequate response. Now there is a real opportunity to reverse this negative trend and to address the main issue facing European politics and Russia itself over the past three centuries. Equal, indivisible and assured security for all states must be turned from a catchy slogan into a reality. Strategic assurances only in words, without any action and practical changes, are not only devoid of meaning, but carry a risk of disappointment which is only one step away from politics of irritation and annoyance. At stake are the future of the entire Euro-Atlantic region and its role in an increasingly complex and polycentric international system of the XXI century.

We would like to see the lessons of European history embodied in the people’s willingness to take a wide, open view of situations in the world. We should not be content with mere coexistence, as was the case during the Cold War. The qualitatively new situation in Europe and the world allows and requires us to go much further – namely, along the path of harmonization of interests within the common space of security, cooperation, and prosperity.

The role of the Council of Europe

Because of globalization processes and new challenges, the very notion of security has undergone qualitative transformation. Now it’s not about hostile states, against which we need to create coalitions. The new challenges and threats present us with transboundary phenomena that can be resisted only by collective, united efforts of all states in the broadest possible international cooperation to ensure the safety of individuals. It is the unresolved nature of the “hard security” problem – the residual agenda of Cold War vintage – that hampers the development of such cooperation. Hence, the activity of the Council of Europe that itself emerged from the ashes of World War II is also intended to ensure the security of every European. The more reliably guarded the social conditions of life are, the higher the quality of the legal field, the stronger the economy, the more secure people feel and the less reason exists to succumb to the temptation to solve problems by force.

It is in this context that we consider the possibility for the Council of Europe to become the humanitarian pillar of the new European security architecture. The supertask of the Council is to become an inherent part of a comprehensive solution to the European problem.

It is in the realm of “soft security,” that is related to the security of a person and human rights, that a pan-European structure represented by the Council of Europe has developed and is functioning quite well. A large number of European conventions have been produced by this international body. In contrast to the political documents of the OSCE, the Council’s documents are legally-binding and thus constitute a common legal framework for the continent. However, in the area of “hard security”, there is no such truly collective organization with an international legal personality. Incidentally, it would be a good idea in the context of the Corfu Process to have all OSCE members agree to adhere to the laws promulgated by the Council of Europe. This will benefit all.

The Russian Federation is interested in enhancing the authority and the role of the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly. We support the ideas of stepping up the reform process, as presented by the new Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland and endorsed by all Council of Europe member-states. These ideas are a logical development of the decisions of the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. The reform should result in a substantially stronger role for the Council of Europe as the generator of a common European legal and humanitarian space.

Suggestions to reduce the mandate and the competence of the Council of Europe and especially attempts to make it a subsidiary body of other European entities are unacceptable. The Strasbourg organization ought to be the leading European legislative body in the literal sense of the word. The reform should serve to strengthen the role of the Council of Europe in combating new challenges as well. The 2008 White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue of the Council of Europe should become an important tool in our communication with other civilizations. We suggest holding in the Council of Europe a series of discussions on the contemporary understanding of the European identity. The best minds of philosophical and political thought of our continent should be involved in that discussion.

One of the principal assets of the Council of Europe is its cultural and linguistic diversity. We believe that in its work the Council of Europe should also use the Russian language, as well as other languages, in addition to the two official languages of the governing body. The Council of Europe’s decisions affect the most vital issues in the people’s lives. This is especially true in the context of the socioeconomic impact of the global crisis.

The Russian leadership has made it a priority to invest in people – a key resource for development. President Dmitriy Medvedev declared a policy of comprehensive modernization of the country, which is based on the values and institutions of democracy, a socially oriented market economy, and the need to unfold the human potential. We will intensify our cooperation with the Council of Europe on these issues. In February 2009, Moscow hosted the 1st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for social cohesion. We support the adoption of a Council of Europe action plan in this field.

In the post-crisis period, all countries of the continent need to exert a lot of effort for the construction of a better, more equitable, and dynamic Europe. With a more efficient Council of Europe, our continent has the potential to become a truly unified space, in which human rights would be ensured on the basis of uniform standards, and all citizens of the Greater Europe would benefit from real mobility, embodied in the free movement of ideas and people.

It is quite hard to understand that the “visa iron curtain” is drawn, unlike during the Cold War, on the opposite side.

Ultimately, mutual understanding and trust depend on the level of mutual integration of European societies and on the richness of unhindered people-to-people contacts. Security can only be built by trusting each other. The aspirations and ideals of the founders of European integration, as well as the dreams of many generations of Europeans, would thus be realized. It is the creation of just such a Europe that was bequeathed to us by those who gave their lives for the liberation of the continent from the fascist plague, by those who paid a heavy price for all this tragic experience of the twentieth century. The dark historical epoch has come to represent the purgatory on our way to a common future. It is our common task to build that future together.