Center for Strategic Decision Research



Dr. Roger Weissinger-Baylon
Workshop Chairman and Founder
Director, Center for Strategic Decision Research

Russian Deputy Minister Dr. Andrey Fursenko, Ministry of Industry, Science, and Technology. 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. 

Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation. 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.

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. 

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. 

General George Joulwan (Ret.), Past Workshop Honorary General Chairman and Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe. 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 21 st 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 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? 

Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia and Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Senior Vice President, The Boeing Company. 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.

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. 

Dr. Vladimir Baranovsky, Deputy Director, Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences. 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.

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." 


Ambassador Jean de Ruyt, Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations. 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. 

Dr. Vladimir Lukin, Deputy Speaker of the Russian State Duma. 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).

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. 

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." 

Ambassador Hans-Friedrich von Ploetz, German Ambassador to the Russian Federation. 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. 

The Rt Hon Michael Portillo, MP, House of Commons, United Kingdom, Former Minister of Defense. 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)?

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. 

General Richard Wolsztynski, Chief of Staff of the French Air Force. 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.

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. 

Dr. Grigory Yavlinsky, Member of the Russian State Duma, Head of Yabloko Fraction. 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).

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. 

General of the Armed Forces Jirí Sedivý (Ret.), Former Chief of the General Staff, Armed Forces of the Czech Republic. 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.

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. 

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. 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.

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. 

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. 


Ambassador Philippe Welti, Director for Security Policy, Swiss Confederation. 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.

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. 

Dr. Ioan Mircea Pascu, Minister of National Defense of Romania. 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.

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. 


Dr. Werner Fasslabend, Member of the Austrian National Assembly, Former Minister of Defense. What strategies are needed to face the new dangers of the 21 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?

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. 

Dr. Andrey Piontkovskiy, Director, Strategic Studies Center, Moscow. 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.

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. 

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! 

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. 

Dr. Serguey Rogov, Director, Institute of the USA and Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences. 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.

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! 


General Ashok K Mehta, AVSM, FRGS, Consulting Editor, Indian Defense Review. 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.

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. 

The Rt Hon Bruce George, MP, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, Chair of the House of Commons Defense Committee, United Kingdom. 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.

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." 

Mr. Robert Nurick, Director, Carnegie Moscow Center. 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.)

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. 

Ingénieur Général de l'Armement Robert Ranquet, Deputy Director of Strategic Affairs, French Ministry of Defense. 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.

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. 


His Excellency Linas Linkevicius, Minister of Defense of Lithuania. 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.

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. 

State Secretary Ivan Korcok, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia. 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. 

Deputy State Secretary Gábor Bródi, Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 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. 


Mr. Alfred Volkman, Director for International Cooperation, Office of the United States Under Secretary of Defense, AT&L. 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.

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. 

Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, Secretary General of Defense, Italian Ministry of Defense. 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.

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. 

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. 

Dr. Robert Trice, Senior Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corporation. 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). 

Mr. Carmelo Cosentino, Senior Vice President, Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A. 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). 

Vice Admiral Norman Ray (Ret.), President, Raytheon International Inc., Europe. 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. 

Lieutenant General Rainer Schuwirth, Director General, European Union Military Staff. 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.

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. 


Ms. Esther Dyson, President, EDventure Holdings. 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. 

Mr. Sergey Kravchenko, President, Boeing Russia/CIS. 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.

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. 

Mr. Anatoly Karachinsky, President, IBS Group (Russia), and Mr. Vasily Suvorov, Chief Technology Officer, Luxoft. 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.

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. 

Mr. Steve Coggins, Senior Vice President and General Manager (Europe), Silicon Graphics International (SGI). 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. 


Ambassador Jaromir Novotny, Czech Ambassador to India. 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. 

Mr. Satish Chandra, Deputy National Security Advisor of India. 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.

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. 


Mr. Robert Lentz, Director of Information Assurance, Office of the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense. Information 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.  

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.)  

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. 

General Klaus Naumann, Former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. 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.

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.  

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. 


Mr. John Doughty, Vice President and General Manager, Motorola, Commercial, Government, and Industrial Solutions Sector. 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.

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. 

Mr. Alexander Galitsky, Founder and Former CEO, ELVIS+. 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.

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. 


Dr. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Senior Fellow, Center for International Relations, Warsaw, Former Minister of Defense of Poland. 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.

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. 

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. 


Mr. Hans-Joachim Gante, President, BDLI (German Aerospace Industries Association), Former CEO of Airbus Deutschland. 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.

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. 

Dr. Agam Sinha, Vice President, MITRE Corporation. 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." 


Ambassador Alexandr Vondra, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for Security Policy, Czech Republic. 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. 

Dr. Nikolai Marschan, Finnish Ministry of Defense. 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. 

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." 

Ambassador Robert Hunter, RAND, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO. 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. 

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. 


Top of page | Home | ©2003 Center for Strategic Decision Research