Agreements in some areas, namely common threats, and continuing disagreements on others, notably the role of NATO for Euro-Atlantic security, were the results of an April 6 meeting of NATO and Russian parliamentarians. Members of the NATO PA Civilian Dimension of Security, Defence and Security, and Political Committees held a very useful and productive exchange on European security issues with members of the Russian Duma and Federation Council as well as senior government officials. This was the first Joint Committee meeting in Moscow since the Duma suspended its participation in NATO PA activities as a result of NATO's 1999 air campaign over Kosovo.

Welcoming the resumption of the dialogue between the Assembly and the Russian Federal Parliament in their opening remarks, the heads of the Duma and Russian Federation Council, Ms. Lubov Sliska and Mr. Victor Ozerov, stressed the important role of parliaments in formulating foreign and security policy. All participants felt that "the ice has been broken". The Russian hosts as well as chairmen Peter Viggers (UK) and Jan Hoekema (NL) expressed satisfaction about the "environment of confidence" that had been re-established. In their introduction, the chairmen mapped out the areas of agreement as well as disagreement: the role of NATO and its relations with the OSCE and the UN, further enlargement of the Alliance, US plans for the missile defences (NMD), Russian foreign and security policy, defence reform, and the situation in Chechnya. The discussions included both the parliamentarians of the Russian Federal Assembly and of the NATO PA but also senior Russian government officials. The meeting provided an excellent stage for a very frank, but also fair, exchange of views.

As during the meeting of the NATO PA - Russian Federal Parliament Joint Monitoring Group a month before, Russian speakers were highly critical of NATO's 1999 Kosovo air campaign, to which they referred as NATO "aggression". Russian legislators and government representatives reiterated their points of criticism, notably that by using force against the FRY without prior authorisation of the UN Security Council, NATO had acted illegally and set a dangerous precedent. Moreover, with this action the Alliance had breached the principles of the Founding Act. Russian speakers viewed the recent attacks by radical Albanian extremists in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as a confirmation of their earlier assessment that the 1999 air campaign would prove futile in ending conflict in the region. Several Russian speakers demanded to investigate possible NATO crimes against humanity. One participant wanted to make a deepening NATO-Russia cooperation depended on this question. More specifically, the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition by NATO forces was criticised.

Acknowledging that NATO, too, would have preferred to act on a UN mandate, Assembly speakers explained again that, given the gridlock at the Security Council during this period, NATO felt obliged to act to prevent the continuation of "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo by the Milosevic regime. That the Balkan peninsula will remain for considerable time to come the most direct challenge to European security was unanimous. All participants agreed that the territorial integrity of Macedonia would be very important for the stability of the Balkans. Moreover, Russian speakers also stressed that Montenegro should remain part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).

The discussion over US plans for building defences against long-range ballistic missiles differed at least in style, if not in substance, from previous exchanges. In contrast to earlier meetings, the Russian side did not dismiss a potential risk of possible attacks by ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. As Colonel General Ivashov stressed, given its geographical proximity to some of the "states of concern" Russia is even more exposed to this threat. Several of the contributions adopted a slightly different tone by putting more emphasis on possible alternative, namely diplomatic, ways of tackling with the issue. Nevertheless, NATO and Russian parliamentarians agreed on the necessity to evaluate existing and developing threats. However, NATO parliamentarians stressed that there will be no divide between American and European members. Deputy Foreign Minister Gusarov suggested a two-step approach: first to initiate a joint threat evaluation, to be followed in a second step to develop appropriate means to defend against these threats.

Members of the NATO PA Committees welcomed the offer of Russian President Vladimir Putin to work together to develop a European theatre missile defence (TMD) against attacks with ballistic weapons armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads. All those who spoke shared the conviction that arms control remained an indispensable tool for international peace and stability. Russian speakers iterated the need for keeping the ABM treaty, while parliamentarians from NATO countries expressed the hope that Russia and the US can reach an agreement. The discussion revealed agreement about the important impact of the development and deployment of ballistic missile defences on China.

The Russian hosts were deeply concerned about the dangers generated by the use and trafficking of illicit drugs. A Russian member propsed that illicit drugs should be defined as "biological weapons" and argued that countries producing or trading should be targeted as "aggressor states". Ms. Sliska and other Russian speakers stressed the need to work together on ways to combat illicit drugs and drug-related crime. Russian parliamentarians repeatedly depicted Russia standing at the forefront of a "battle". The drugs problem was an issue close to the domestic concerns of several Alliance members. Recognising that NATO itself is not the most relevant organisation for co-ordinating the fight against drugs trafficking members considered that the Assembly could be a useful forum for the exchange of information and co-operation among parliamentarians.

That many Russians continue to regard NATO as a military bloc and much less as a primarily political alliance was reflected in the exchanges. There were several negative references to NATO military activities close to Russia's borders; with no acknowledgement that these were frequently exercises involving PfP nations in which Russia could be involved. Military activity was still seen through the prism of the Cold War. That a "military block" approaches Russia's border would be "unacceptable", NATO PA members were told. In the absence of an outside threat NATO should transform into an "instrument of trans-European security" and the role of the OSCE as well as the UN strengthened.

Not surprisingly, very different views existed on the Alliance' Open Door policy. On one side were speakers from NATO member countries as well as from associate countries to the NATO PA who argued that further NATO enlargement strengthened Euro-Atlantic security. Parliamentarians from the three new members pointed out that since the first round of enlargement round their bilateral relations with Russia had actually improved. But Russian speakers rejected this view, saying that enlargement would neither increase security for NATO nor for Europe as a whole. Deputy Foreign Minister Gusarov warned that further enlargement would negatively impact the military landscape of Europe as it would create different zones of security and could "destroy" arms control. Duma and Federation Council representatives maintained that the Russian society viewed enlargement of the Alliance as a major threat to security. But members NATO applicant countries were unambiguous that they wanted to join the Alliance as soon as possible. A Baltic parliamentarian reminded of Russia's obligations to honour its international commitments and the right of each country to freely choose its security affiliation. However, parliamentarians from Russia's immediate neighbours also stressed the desire for improved, closer relations with their Eastern partner.

Others, though, were critical of the impact of some of Russia's policies on their countries. For example, a Georgian representative argued that Russian policy would lead to the destabilisation of the Caucasus. He cited the still unresolved issue of Russian troop withdrawal from Georgia territory and the recently introduced Russian visa regime for Georgians which would exempt people from Northern Ossetia, Abchasia and other areas in Georgia, which, he maintained, encouraged separatists in these regions.

Not surprisingly, the issue of Chechnya was another area were Russian and NATO views continue to differ. Russian speakers were adamant in pointing out that Chechnya is an internal Russian matter. Assembly members were told that Chechnya should not be a matter for NATO-Russia, except for the aspect of combating terrorism. More generally, some Russian speakers also stressed that Russia does not want to see NATO involved in the Caucasus. On the other side, though acknowledging the security risks, Assembly speakers clearly stated that they could not endorse the means applied by Russian authorities. They called upon Russia to initiate steps to try to solve the conflict by non-military means. In a similar vein, several members from neighbouring countries criticised Russian measures towards Chechnya as "contradictory", "inhumane" or "inefficient".

The exchange also reflected, at least in part, different views of Russia's foreign policy towards its neighbours. Russian speakers expressed frustration over being unfairly accused of an "imperialist attitude" in relations with neighbouring countries. On the contrary, Deputy Foreign Minister Gusarov described the strengthening of relations with its partners in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as the "centrepiece of Russian foreign policy". Assembly members were informed that Russia's foreign policy and security concepts were, in the words of Deputy Minister Gusarov, based on "realism about its international situation" and a "realistic assessment of its own capabilities". In essence, Russian policy will be less guided by "internationalism" but increasingly driven by its national interests, namely providing for external and internal security and creating economic growth. This will mean a stronger focus on domestic issues, such as increasing the living standard and the protection of the rights of Russians, including those living abroad. But this new approach would not mean isolation or confrontation, the members of the Committee were assured. On the contrary, Russia's aims at building partnerships and increasing the number of allies, thus striving to build a "new world order" which will be characterised by a multi-polar world. Though Russia is a huge country covering two continents, the focus of its foreign policy will remain Europe.

Referring to the downsizing of Russian armed forces after the end of the Cold War, several Russian contributions expressed considerable dissatisfaction about what they considered unilateral Russian concessions that were not matched by NATO states. In this context, Russian speakers raised questions about the continuing US military presence in Europe. Plans for necessary adjustments in the Russia's military doctrine to a new security environment were in principle supported by the Parliament. Relating Russia's armed forces to the broader picture of current and future security challenges, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defence referred to the risks emanating from the proliferation of WMD and missiles as well as missile technology. He specifically stressed Russia's compliance with non-proliferation. The different emphasis of Russia's nuclear and conventional forces was also raised. Russia will try to reduce its nuclear arsenal while at the same time try to modernise conventional forces, putting increasing emphasis on mobility. The continuing economic crisis made it imperative, in the words of General Ivashov, to make the most efficient use of available resources.

As Ms. Sliska said, NATO and Russia should think together how to strengthen security. Europe and Russia face the same threats, namely through the proliferation of WMD weapons, and drugs. Other speakers added the fight against international organised crime where, in the words of Alexander Gurov, Chairman of the Duma's Committee on Security, "Russia failed to reduce organised crime. Ms. Sliska called for joint activities. The positive atmosphere and the unanimous perception of a very productive meeting was reflected, among others, in Russian proposals to initiate joint activities in two areas: first the Russian delegation suggested establishing a joint working group of Russian Federal Assembly and NATO PA members to evaluate the dangers arising from drug trafficking originating from Afghanistan; second, they put forward the proposal to create a NATO-Russia centre for the evaluation and coordination of international terrorism.

The Russian hosts and the members of the NATO PA Committees repeatedly emphasised the desire to exchange views much more frequently in order to develop a common stance on important foreign and security issues. There was agreement between the leaders of the Russian delegation and the Chairmen of the Assembly Committees that the meeting in Moscow should become a regular event but should be extended to two days to allow the individual Assembly Committees to meet their Russian counterparts on the second day for more focussed discussions.