Speaker: Prof. Grigori Sergeevich Khozin
(Dept. of Foreign Policy and International Relations, Russian Diplomatic Academy,
5 January 2001
The speaker broadly divided his speech into two parts—methodology and problem. The ‘juncture’ of Millennium was taken as last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. For the speaker the ‘juncture’ of the Millennium marked a shift of paradigm. He called it a ‘post-non-classical paradigm’, distinguished by learning from the past and emphasising the human dimension. This new paradigm is close to the tenets of Indian philosophy. The new paradigm is characterised by three elements:
1. Optimum means;
2. Maximum goals; and
3. Minimum consequences.
Moving on within the above framework, the present Russian policy has both continuity and change vis-ÃƒÂ -vis the old paradigm. The Soviet period was dominated by ideology and military domination. It was a zero-sum game. So far as continuity with this paradigm is concerned,
still suffers from the animosity of NATO and the
is facing a resource crunch, it could not follow its earlier policies. On the other hand, the change is positive with some elements of form and thinking. It is also more transparent and pragmatic. With this pragmatism in mind,
has adopted in the year 2000, a
· Concept of National Security;
· Concept of Foreign Policy;
· Military Doctrine; and
· National Information Security Doctrine, to tackle the crucial problems of national security.
The concept of ‘security’ is defined as the security of individuals and proceeds upwards to the security of the nation-state. Security is not seen as one dimensional, but as arising from multiple threats like resource constrains, economic, anthropological threats etc.
’s official position is reflected in these concepts and the highest priority is given to national, regional and global security. The military doctrine, as an instrument of foreign policy, is pragmatic and directly related to
’s vision—its future. Information security is aimed at protecting the information space, concentrating on the mass media to form a new consciousness among the general public.
’s idea of ‘comprehensive security’ goes a step forward; it is a new vision. It is a dynamic state consisting of different parameters comprising:
1. Traditional military security, which has two components: self-sufficiency, not superiority and build-down, not built-up.
2. Political Security consisting of the idea of openness and confidence building measures.
3. Economic Security questioning how efficient the economic system is to sustain the individual.
4. Humanitarian Security involves human rights and social welfare system.
5. Environmental Security for sustainable development.
6. Informational Security to protect untoward influences and educating the public.
7. An element left blank and reserved for contingencies which might arise in future.
Q; Human security and humane governance are important. In
we have a crisis of governance which makes the operationalisation of comprehensive security extremely difficult. Do you face the same problem in
R: Yes. As the pluralist model of governance and good party system are absent in our country, we face a grave crisis of governance. We have also not found the correlation between the lower, middle and higher level in our governance. This has added to our problems. We have to learn a lot from Indian society which is more plural but can live together.
Q: You have mentioned various types of security. Among these, does military security precede economic security?
R: No. One will not displace the other. There is, in fact, a strong inter-relation between military and economic security. They are not independent. However, the inter-relationship depends on the particular conditions in each country.
Q: What are the key elements of your ‘aggressive’ nuclear policy?
R: Our nuclear doctrine is not aggressive. If one’s conventional military strength is weakened, one has to depend on nuclear deterrent. For economic and rational reasons we have decided to reduce our armed forces to one million strength and hence need to place more reliance on nuclear weapons, but have decided to downsize it to 1500 warheads.
Q: What do you think about the
R: In the nuclear triangle,
’s nuclear forces are larger and more self-relient.
wants to influence or dominate some part of the world, but its policies are not directed against
. On the other hand,
influence each other’s nuclear deterrent posture. We do not want to take sides in this respect.
Q: What are the Russian views on terrorism?
R: We are also the objects of terrorism and it is very painful for us. Reaction against terrorism is very strong in our country. We are activating our efforts against it to the extent of appointing a separate deputy minister for terrorism. Even in our institute (
), we have a separate department for it. But the issue is being approached in a very controversial manner by the West ignoring the main issue in the name of human rights etc.
Q: What will be the impact of the new
’s policy towards
, and what is your views of NMD?
R: President-elect Bush is not a gift for Russians. We shall have to suffer the power moves by the new government. But, our people know we have the capability to be a potential rival for the
. They cannot push us into a corner. US is playing anti-Russian games in the former-Soviet areas. But, it will not help the
interests. As far as NMD is concerned, our Duma has expressed concern about the breakdown of the ABM Treaty and weakening the START-II Treaty. I fully agree that it is not technologically feasible. It is a kind of mental madness to make machines the decision-makers.
Q: Is it possible to include the nuclear dimension in CBMs?
R: In a sensitive nuclear zone, a third party acceptable to both sides could bring about understanding and confidence between the two rivals. Such a player must be impartial, not like in the
. I tell
that the accumulation of nuclear weapons at the cost of economic development is not advisable. On the other hand,
’s position is humane and rational, and it is moving in the right direction.
Q: You said it is not a bi-polar world. Some say it is uni-multi-polar world. What kind of world is this, and what role does
has to play?
R: It is futile for the
to strive for a uni-polar world. We should organise many or collective poles to make the entire world ordered and balanced. Our vision is: do not put countries into shelves; give them freedom of choice, and this will make the world more inter-independent.
Q; How does the brain drain of scientists affect
R; It is a very unfortunate trend, this emigration from high-skill professions. The average age of scientists now is 55. This aspect of the problem was not thought through properly. However, measures now are being taken to avoid this brain drain, like increased stipends to science students and improved salaries of scientists.