Speech by
the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Igor IVANOV
at the Russian Press World Congress
(Moscow, June 22, 1999)

Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, allow me to cordially welcome you representatives of the Russian-language press who have gathered in Moscow for your World Congress. Though your personal stands, viewpoints and approaches to contemporary problems may largely differ, the thing that unites you is that you think and speak the Russian language. This is the language of Alexander Pushkin and Nikolai Gogol, Lev Tolstoi and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Let me recall the words of our classic Ivan Turgenev: "At times of doubt, at times of deep thoughts about the fate of my Motherland, you are my only hope and support, the great, mighty, truthful and free Russian language."

The period Russia - and the whole world for that matter - is going through at the end of this century is really crucial. Humankind has again found itself face to face with a principled choice - either a multipolar system of the world order, based on the rule of international law and the consolidation of the current international institutions, or a one-polar model, with one superpower dominating.

This alternative was vividly exposed by the recent developments in the Balkans and in the zone of the Persian Gulf. The positive results achieved in international relations after the Cold War had ended are called in question. The advance towards forming a new, really non- confrontational architecture of international and European security is hampered. Yet we do not give up our position. To put an end to the relapses of the past, President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin proposed at the G-8 Summit in Cologne that principles of a new conception of international relations in the 21st century, a "Conception of Peace," should be worked out. Its main task is to ensure the security of states and peoples through cooperation on the basis of the U.N. Charter, the principles and norms of international law.

The consistent and firm policy of the Russian leadership towards a political, rather than forcible settlement of international disputes finds broad support. Today, this is already a universally recognized fact - it is unthinkable to solve vital problems today without Russia's active participation and without reckoning with its national interests.

The Yugoslav tragedy has been a constant feature on newspaper front pages and TV screens for many months. Today, not a single even least known political and public figure can pass this topic over in silence.

From the very beginning, Russia had been against a military solution in Kosovo and censured NATO's aggression. Russia is pursuing an active and independent policy in the international efforts to undo the "Kosovo knot."

We did extremely tense and complex diplomatic work. Its main task was to stop the war and prevent the partition of Yugoslavia. That task was set Russia's Foreign Ministry by President Boris Yeltsin, and it was carried out. The war was stopped and the settlement process was brought back under the U.N. aegis. This was confirmed by both the special U.N. Security Council resolution on Kosovo, adopted on our initiative, and the decisions of the G-8 Summit in Cologne.

Also settled was the issue of our participation in the international civilian presence and the security presence in Kosovo. Here Russia has secured for itself the rights and duties fully commensurate with its major contribution to the Kosovo settlement.

The lessons of the Balkan tragedy are still to be studied closely and for long. The righteousness of conclusions will largely depend on the objectivity and responsibility of the mass media. The truth about the war in the Balkans is needed, the whole truth. Journalists can and must help restore the climate of trust and mutual understanding. As is said in the Ecclesiastes, "Wisdom is better than force. Wisdom is better than war guns."

Generally, the Balkan conflict has amply shown that international stability and sustained democratic development are only possible on the principles of multipolarity.

Only such principles can offer a correct answer to the current threats and challenges which involve the interests of all states. These are primarily the regional conflicts, the danger of a spread of mass annihilation weapons, international terrorism, political extremism, the problems of cross-boundary organised crime, refugees and, lastly, environmental problems.

We can only make progress here, acting in concert with the most influential members of the world community, which was again confirmed at the G-8 Summit in Cologne. As you see, Russia, despite the known differences with the United States and its allies, continues its policy line towards developing relations with the West on the non- confrontational basis, proceeding, of course, from one's national interests.

We are still confident that the United Nations Organisation remains a unique mechanism, in many cases having no alternative, for regulating the entire system of international relations. The U.N. is irreplaceable in finding agreed approaches to settling conflict situations, ensuring the progressive developments of states and solving global problems.

Russia is consistently acting for strengthening this world organisation. Even given its known drawbacks, it remains the only universal forum - both by its composition and by the extent of its agenda. Finally, only the U.N. has the necessary legal base and universally recognized legitimacy, which allow it to act in the international arena as an institution expressing the interests of all states and peoples.

Today, the issue of strengthening the authority of the U.N. and the role of the Security Council is as vital as ever. It is this body that carries the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and that is empowered with the exclusive prerogative to authorize coercive measures on behalf of the world community.

All attempts to justify forcible actions without the relevant consent of the U.N. Security Council, particularly the references to some "right to humanitarian interference," are beneath any criticism. Such use of force becomes hostage to political prejudices and a biased interpretation of events. One cannot arbitrarily - without any mandate from the international community - judge who is right or guilty and how the guilty one should be punished. This is a direct way to anarchy and chaos in the world.

Russia condemns the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, whoever and whenever commits them. At the same time we are confident that such phenomena can only be fought on the solid foundation of international law.

To be sure, the U.N. should be adapted to the new trends in international relations, including the growing tasks of peacekeeping activities and responses to crises. The efficiency of the Organisation should be raised by way of reforming its mechanisms on the basis of the inalienability of the U.N. Charter and the positive experience accumulated over several decades. These mechanisms should be adapted to the new realities of international life, which demand that the Organisation adopt decisions and carry them through more quickly.

In Europe, Russia is constantly seeking the establishment of a security and cooperation system which would dependably and for long guarantee the stability and prosperity of all the states of the continent.

Its backbone and coordinator should be the Organisation for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) as the only structure of an all-European format which practices not a fragmentary but a comprehensive and systems approach to security problems.

Europe needs today as badly as ever common political rules combined into a sort of all-European constitution. A Charter of European Security should become such an act. Russia wants this document to be weighty and contain concrete agreements, rather than being an empty-worded declaration.

We are for strengthening the operational potential of the OSCE along the entire length of the unbreakable chain - from early warning to postconflict rehabilitation, in what we also include peacekeeping. We believe that the important place of the OSCE in this sphere, combined with the leading role of the U.N., cannot and must not be called in question. As you know, recently the post of OSCE representative for liaison with the media was set up within the framework of that Organisation. I think we should more boldly use this institution in the interest of the Russian-language press in European countries.

Apart from the OSCE, the Council of Europe is to carry through the integration mission on the continent. The political declaration "For Big Europe Without Dividing Lines," adopted on May 7, 1999 in Budapest at the session of the C.E. Committee of Ministers, is a good reference-point for movement in this direction.

By shaping today a European legal social and cultural environment, the Council of Europe helps improve political interaction between states throughout Europe. Hence our proposals to expand the C.E. to all the countries of the continent without exception and our interest in renewing and increasing the efficiency of this organisation in conformity with today's demands.

Another key direction of our European policy is developing partner relations with the European Union. It is our biggest trade-and- economic and investment partner, which provides support for the conduct of the Russian reforms. A positive impetus to ties with the member-states of the European Union has been given by the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between Russia and the European Union, which came into force in December 1997. So far, we are making the first steps in using this Agreement's richest potential. Still lying ahead is some intensive and interesting work.

The dynamic nature of our relations has been also confirmed in the European Union's overall strategy in respect of Russia, adopted at the E.U. summit in Cologne in early June of 1999. We for our part are working on a similar document.

There are reserves, too, for raising the efficiency of our foreign policy intercourse with the European Union. As the E.U. progresses along the path of forming a "European defense identity," prospects appear for a dialogue on issues of military-political cooperation.

Now about relations with NATO. In the last few years, we have used much effort to make our contacts with the alliance a component element of the process of confidence-building, stability and security in Europe. In May 1997, the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security was signed with NATO. On its basis, Joint Permanent Council was formed to consider security issues causing general concern. One must say that it cost the Russian leadership much effort to induce a beginning of change in the negative attitude to the alliance that had become fixed during the Cold War years.

Useful discussions were held within the framework of the Council on issues of European security, non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, settlement of regional conflicts, and peace-making. We cooperated in the military sphere -- in the Bosnian operation, in the area of elimination of consequences of emergencies and natural disasters. Parliamentary and scientific contacts were maintained.

The crisis in the Balkans has changed the situation radically and caused a heavy damage to the established relations with NATO. The military operation undertaken by the alliance runs counter to the spirit and letter of the Founding Act and is at variance with the principle of renunciation of the use or threat of force against each other or any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner contradicting the U.N. Charter, which is fixed therein.

In these conditions, it has become impossible to continue the dialogue with NATO on the former scale. In keeping with an instruction released by the President of the Russian Federation, measures have been adopted "freezing" our contacts with the alliance as an organization which has shown disrespect to the fundamental foundations of international intercourse. Now that the combat operations against Yugoslavia have been stopped, we are studying closely what is to be done next. Clearly, an exacting conversation is required on the further fate of the Founding Act with an emphasis to be placed on efficacy of its implementation. In any case, what has happened is not our choice and Russia is not to blame for it. Russia was and remains a reliable and predictable partner.

One more aspect. The operation against Yugoslavia has become a practical implementation of the new strategic concept of the alliance, which was adopted at its Washington summit. Some serious concern is caused by NATO's orientation therein fixed towards the globalization of the sphere of its activities and the arrogation of a central role in the settlement of conflicts outside of the responsibility zone of the alliance, as determined by the 1949 Washington treaty on the creation of NATO. Remaining unimplemented is also the objective of the European members of the alliance to obtain a greater share of independence from the U.S. in defense matters. All plans to form so- called "European defense identity" have so far been dissolved in the strict logic of Atlantic solidarity.

There is a confirmation for our thesis to the effect that the NATO expansion is a major political mistake and undermines trust in international relations. We are not going to erect artificial barriers between ourselves and East European partners. But one cannot leave out of consideration the fact that by aiming to join NATO these countries inevitably distance themselves from Russia.

We respect the right of any state to choose ways of providing for its security, but as it structures its relations with these countries, the Russian side will be guided primarily by its own national interests, and we will judge about our partners' true intentions by their deeds.

It is no secret that the last few months have not been the simplest ones in Russian-American relations. At the same time, as confirmed by the latest meeting between Boris Yeltsin and President Bill Clinton in Cologne, the safety margin that has built up over the years makes it possible to count firmly on the overcoming of the present problems. Russian-American cooperation should continue to be an important factor of international stability and security.

NATO's actions in the Balkans have also become a serious test for the disarmament processes in progress in the world, particularly the arms control regime existing in Europe. These have generated in our public opinion a wave of skeptical estimates of the efficacy of the key "disarmament" instruments in ensuring stability and security in the continent. These international legal acts are not without shortcomings. But they create a generally acceptable basis for the maintenance and development of relations in the military-political area between their participants. An alternative to them is a collapse of the arms control regime and license in building up strength.

The process of reduction of nuclear arsenals is directly linked with the state of Russian-American relations and with the general international situation. The coming into force of the START-2 Treaty remains our priority objective. Its ratification in the State Duma has become suspended through no fault of Russia's. The reasons for that are known. An agreement was reached in Cologne that the Governments of Russia and the U.S. would do all in their power to assist the successful culmination of the ratification processes in their countries in respect of the START-2 Treaty.

An object of our close attention is a situation emerging in connection with the 1972 ABM Treaty. The United States is currently transferring to the practical plane its preparations for the deployment of a national territory anti-missile defense system. These are extremely dangerous steps. Such a deployment, should it be implemented, may wreck the ABM Treaty and through it the basis, on which the structure of strategic stability and the entire "disarmament" process have been built over the recent decades. Though this Treaty unites a narrow circle of participants, it, by virtue of its fundamental importance, affects the interests of many states. Russia is firmly in favor of preservation and strict observance of the ABM Treaty and for performance in full of the obligations assumed by the sides.

At the same time, one may well understand the desire to secure oneself against the threat of ballistic missiles. And that can be done. Not via undermining the foundations of stability but via the creation of a global system of control over non-proliferation of rockets and rocket technologies. It is this initiative that President of Russia Boris Yeltsin came up with at the summit in Cologne. The key principles of the global control system, as we see it, should be the following: openness for participation by all states concerned as well as its functioning under the U.N. aegis.

In conclusion of the talk about priorities, I wish to emphasize this particular point: the principal direction of Russia's foreign policy was and remains relationship with the member-states of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

For the present, the CIS is living through a difficult process of reform and improvement of its organizational structure. Jointly with our partners we are seeking to transform the Commonwealth, turning it into a dynamic integration union based on the principles of equality and respect for national interests. The priority task is organizing an effective intercourse in the economic sphere, primarily by way of creating a free trade zone. While supporting a different-speed and different-format cooperation, Russia is quite prepared to promote higher-level forms of integration with interested Commonwealth partners.

An example of Russia's "small-format" integration efforts is the Customs Union of Russia, Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, and Tajikistan. Some vigorous work is pursued currently within its framework to implement the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999.

On the bilateral plane, the most dynamically developing intercourse is the one existing within the framework of the Union of Russia and Byelorussia. The signing in Moscow in December 1998 of the Declaration on Further Unification of the Two States, Treaty of Equal Rights of Citizens, and Agreement on the Creation of Equal Conditions to Subjects of Economic Activity elevates the Russian - Byelorussian integration to a higher level. Of fundamental importance is the fact that this process takes place on a totally voluntary and mutually advantageous basis, given an unconditional respect for the sovereignty of both states.

In its relations with Ukraine, Russia consistently pursues a line for the deepening of strategic partnership. We attach first-rate importance to the complete implementation of the "Grand Treaty." Our course for developing stably friendly relations with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia remains unchanged. Growing strengthened is Russia's intercourse with the CIS Central Asian states, including on the multi-lateral basis.

Russia considers the Collective Security Treaty to be a major consolidating instrument of military and military-technical cooperation with the CIS. In April 1999 six states -- Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Russia and Tajikistan -- signed a Protocol on prolonging the Treaty for another five-year term. Extensive work is under way to turn it into a real mechanism of meeting common and individual interests of the signatory states.

The hard but necessary task for Russia is to ensure, jointly with the other CIS states, the security of state borders, and to cooperate in combatting organized crime and the spread of drugs. Peacekeeping occupies has a special part to play in the CIS activities. With Russia's active participation the conflicts in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, Trans-Dniestria, Tajikistan and South Ossetia have been switched from armed confrontation into a phase of political settlement. But the path to final normalization in those seats of conflict is still long and thorny.

In conclusion, I should like again to refer to Russian as a language uniting all of us. Here we see several directions in which we could work together.

Protection of the rights and legitimate interests of ethnic Russians in the republics of the former USSR, and elsewhere in the world for that matter; and assistance in solving their cultural, educational, information, social and other problems remains a constant concern for Russia's foreign policy.

Work on concrete projects to support Russian fellow-countrymen is carried out by the Government Commission for Countrymen Abroad. Unfortunately, its work, to put it straight, has shown little progress in recent years. That has been caused, among other things, by the well-known economic difficulties in Russia.

Nonetheless, in the near future we expect to consider the main ways of extending financial aid to our countrymen in the Baltic states and in the CIS countries. This concerns, in particular, aid to Russian- language schools in acquiring, delivering and distributing text-books, methodological literature and fiction, conducting upgrading studies for teachers in Russia, preserving and developing the Russian language and the Russophonic cultural and information area, and so on.

Of special significance is support for the Russian-language press in the states formed on the Soviet Union's territory. This does not mean that we are trying to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. There exist effective international legal means, developed by civilization, for that.In recent years the Concept of the CIS Information Space has been formulated and approved and the international Mir TV and radio company has been established. Inter- governmental agreements on cooperation in information, TV and radio broadcasting, on the status of correspondents, and others have been signed with most of the CIS countries.

We realize also that some of the countrymen's problems in the CIS countries remain unresolved. The time of TV and radio broadcasting in Russian is being reduced. This tendency is observed in the circulation of newspapers and magazines and in book publishing. To overcome these tendencies is part of our common efforts to ensure human rights and democratic liberties there.

Support for the countrymen is becoming increasingly concrete. It is gratifying that the Russian Embassies and Consulates are becoming a home for ethnic Russians. Russian diplomats work to ensure respect for the rights of the Russian-speaking population through the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other organizations.

This means, above all, reduction and elimination of the no-citizenship status and a great increase of the naturalization rate in Latvia and Estonia. Hundreds of thousands of people without citizenship cannot be regarded as a stability factor. The point is that at the present rate of naturalization denial of citizenship to masses of people in Latvia and Estonia will persist until the middle of the 21st century. Providing a possibility for study in the Russian language and using the native tongue is a no less acute problem in the entire post-Soviet area.

I should like to emphasize again with all responsibility that the countrymen issue is not a fleeting one for us. It is our moral duty, our pain in some cases and our joy in others.

Cultural contacts are another major aspect of our cooperation in the long term.

The international vocabulary includes notions like the British Community of Nations, and Francophonic and Ibero-American communities. They all are built on a sound foundation of language community and the cultural and other traditions following from it.

In the year of the 200th anniversary of Alexander Pushkin, a great classic of the Russian language, it is our common duty to think what we can do to strengthen the ties between Russophonic communities in various countries. Frankly speaking, we are concerned over the steadily shrinking area where Russian, an official language of the UN and the OSCE, is used. What are we to do to preserve the truly invaluable traditions of the Russian language and Russian culture, which have made such a notable contribution to the development of the world civilization? Let us together plan and effect practical actions that are possible in the present conditions to that end

As Anton Chekhov said, "If you work for the present, your work will turn out insignificant -- one should work keeping only the future in mind."

Thank you for your attention.