Systems of priorities in the field of international cooperation by j26QdXa


									                                                                           V. Krivokhiza

           Systems of priorities in the field of international cooperation
            to mitigate current terrorism: Russian interests and course

      The scale and the complexity of the problem, which lays in the title, a lot of
views on the subject itself, make necessary to start with few preliminary remarks.
      This paper should be considered as one more attempt to attract attention to
political context of international cooperation to mitigate terrorism and to such key
aspect as better understanding of the basic interests of different states (in given case –
Russian interests). Let us keep in mind but put aside in this paper the very difficult
question for analysis (because of a lot of reasons) about specific weight of internal
and external components in terrorist activity in different concrete cases. The
correlation of these two factors may play a crucial role for readiness to cooperate on
international level and the very results of such partnership. Although it seems to
discover new and new divergences can turn to be easier.
      Having got papers prepared by participants of PMP on terrorism we could in
the process of comparative analysis come to some conclusions to what extent systems
of priorities of different states coincide or overlap with each others. It is possible to
suggest that the result first of all from viewpoint of at least partial identity will prove
to be in the wide spectrum of concrete scenarios. But even such partial result could be
considered as useful just because the visual possibility to identify concrete directions
inside the concrete cases to elaborate further on practical recommendations to cope
(more or less) with some forms of current international terrorism.
      That is why it seems reasonable for PMP to produce a number of papers on
different countries interests. Although no doubts that papers like this in a large
measure will reflect personal views of authors. Fairly, for instance in Russia, two
researchers can come to two totally identical viewpoints on countries interests and
hierarchy of priorities in the sphere of international efforts to struggle against
terrorism even looking thoroughly on official papers, speeches as well as taking into
consideration the experts calculations. It has become quite obvious that this type of

uncertainty is typical not only for the countries which go through next in turn
transition period of their history with all accompanying attributes, but even for the
states with relatively stable stage of development.
      In spite of all the differences in politics and visions of the nature of different
problems in the field already the call upon and the understanding of very necessity
for cooperation has acquired axiomatic status. And in parallel way this circumstances
produced pretty good and legally solid basis to move step by step forward in
interstate cohesion.
      In this sense I would like to accentuate that interest in multilateral efforts now
in comparison with, for example, motives behind expressed readiness to recognize
nuclear terrorism as actual acute international problem (in realities – to find new
impressive arguments to widen the foundation in the 80-s for Soviet-American
cooperation) is quite clear and obvious, especially taking in account the explosions
which now and again are produced throughout the countries territory and first of all
in the context of military situation in Northern Caucasus. And now we have got
maybe not numerous but actual examples of cooperation. Among the last ones
information received from French secret service concerning preparation of the
explosions in Moscow metro. The plan was changed and two suicide bombers carried
out attacks this spring. But nevertheless the information gave some clue for the
working versions to unmask those extremists who could be behind those acts of
      Another aspect, whatever the actual or declared function of national security
concept (doctrine) of any given country is, it gives some orientation in the system of
state interests. In this sense acquaintance with Russian National Security Concept
opens a lot of evidence that struggle with current terrorism and international
cooperation in this field are among countries high priorities.
      Among the reasons why international terrorism became such acute problem
one may elicit a few motives. First of all, the disintegration of the USSR has
produced a lot of radical trends in the spheres of politics, economy, religion, self-
identification in which a number of different social, ethnic, radical religious and, of

course, criminal groups of population (some of them with strong transnational
component) are involved in very active way.
      The most radical among these groups which use terror, different forms of
clandestine military operations as prime instrument of their course receive direct
support from abroad ranging from finance and foreign military advisers (and
combatants) to indoctrination of their future members in religious centers throughout
the world, support in mass media. The permanent terrorist activity in the variety of
forms in the sub-region of Northern Caucasus and explosions which have taken place
now and again in some cities of the country give enough illustration to see Russian
interest in mitigating terrorism on multinational basis. This interest includes
conformable to realities in Northern Caucasus coverage of events in official
comments and mass media in a lot of countries. Moreover, this interest has got
longstanding nature just because the high level of the activity of current wave of
terror is a result and an essential part of few dominant processes of global
transformation for the time being. These processes originated in different quite
distant from each other regions may intercross and produce in the most unexpected,
whimsical way the whole knot of features which label some situations as having very
strange but explainable post-factum logic in their development. The history of
Taliban (in retrospect of its origin as well as organized moments, supporters,
changing the rivals, some specific features of warfare and connections among the
opponents in Afghanistan, and every new leak of classified information discloses new
facts but does not change the known nature of situation itself, etc.) is a very
interesting in this sense example.
      This circumstance allows understanding why the problem of international
terrorism displays itself not only in regions which are considered to be the regions of
traditional conflicts with active foreign involvement (such as Near East or Southern
Asia) but also in the most developed, politically stable and safe states – in the USA
and Western Europe.

        Although because of the very specific policy (but rational in certain sense) of
promulgation on the attempts of the acts of terror, for instance, on the US territory the
real level of terrorism activity there is not much transparent and clear.
        Expansion of the areas, spheres of implication and increase in danger of
terrorism with emergence of its new forms (potentially – WMD), unsettled,
sometimes latent nature of various quarrel situations in which terrorism has its roots
as well as growing participation of structures of the transnational organized crime in
international terrorist activity, appreciable increase in scales of illegal circulation of
drugs (Afghanistan is a very bright example), weapons and dangerous materials
represent in total serious global threat to international community. So the foundation
for international cooperation seems to be quite clear: the international character of the
challenges which are common (more or less) for a number of countries dictates
necessity for international cooperation to cope with these common problems. It is
next to impossible to argue with this thesis and nobody does it, but if it was not for
divergence or contradiction of the national interests of involved states in any concrete
        And if we consider the problem of current international terrorism in link with
actual global problems of present international agenda (these ones which unite and
divide international community) it turns to be that many basic characteristics peculiar
to these problems are general for and inherent to origin and development of current
forms of international terrorism. It is possible to single out following characteristics
and features:
         process of globalization have sharpened the vivid differentiation of states
on the rich and those are believed in their righteousness, on the one hand, and more
large and motley group of the countries, on the other. On this surface – the adherence
to traditional ways of life inherent to the societies of the last group of countries
allowed them during centuries under pressure of often forceful outward influence to
withstand and to survive in quest for traditional values. And inevitably in the depths
more or less well hidden motives conditioned by today pragmatic political interests of
different type of participants;

       in different periods of their history because of various reasons (often –
rivalry among great powers) the mentioned above group of countries (poor,
developing) not rare succeeded in their struggle for national identity and heritage. But
great powers rivalry in parallel way put some limitations on the forms, instrument
and scale of different types of quarrels.
          Today in the conditions of globalization, current structure of world
influence and dominance, situation is becoming for number of countries more and
more challenging. Plus different strata of their population face not only peculiar for
each social group but some common problems, and what is important – in almost all
basic spheres which define possibility to live successfully in the world community.
So it should not be much strange that the problem of current international terrorism is
directly connected with such spheres as social life, policy and economy, religion,
activity of criminal communities, influence of national politics, etc;
       in its own turn revolution in information, wide circulation of mass media
establish conditions to use achievements of technical progress as effective tool to
manipulate with public opinion, consciousness;
       there are a lot of places of regional instability which create combustible
material to escalate further by acts of terrorism the permanent level of certain
       from time to time there are as well displays of the acts of state terrorism
conditioned by attempts to eliminate popular foreign politicians, including heads of
other states, to provoke coup d'états. Sometimes terrorist activity in such areas may
play in the interests of one or another country;
       among a lot of other circumstances may be mentioned such aspect of the
problem as close ties between corrupted government officials, functionaries of
different levels and criminal, radical political groups.
      The list of characteristics of terrorism may be continued. But it is already quite
clear that terrorism has become an essential part of today international system and
that situation is aggravated by its transitional nature. The current economic crisis only
contributes additionally in the very complex problem of contemporary terrorism.

         But future of the system of international relations is still quite vague. After the
era of bi-polar confrontation interests of the members of world community are
appeared were again divided between two possible perspectives. The first is shown in
strengthening relative influence, economic and political positions of significant
number of states and their various integration associations not very successful yet in
development and establishing mechanisms of more adequate to multisided
participation in managing the key international processes. Russian is known as one of
the most noticeable protagonists in favor of such tendency.
         The second principle and also probable perspective is shown through attempts
of forming by western group of countries the international structure based on typical
for last decades projection of their dominance and/or substantial influence throughout
the world. This circumstance explains partly why among some of these states one can
find in official rhetoric an enthusiasm and unanimity concerning the goal to
overcome challengers of modern economic crisis, although the preferable concrete
approaches to overcome common by appearance challengers may be very different.
Problem here derives from a different source – it seems that primarily purpose for the
countries is not just to terminate with crisis but to occupy better position in the
hierarchy of the most influential world actors. There is the weight of examples to the
viewpoint that global crisis is tried to be used as a tool in forming the future
international system just because its results for different states will predetermine a lot
of basic features of world politics for next historical period.
         All mentioned above and many other aspects create some system of orientation
for the countries in world politics as well as in the process of elaboration of their
course in sphere of international cooperation to mitigate international terrorism of
         For the purpose of analysis it has sense to keep in mind also that two principle
expert approaches may be used: one is concentrated on the struggle of secret services
to prevent, first of all, the very acts of terrorism or on the process of post-factum
actions (“hot pursuit” to some degree) to annihilate or inflict as much damage and
punishment to terrorism organizations as possible. For a number of reasons not a lot

of information about this area of international cooperation is available. That is why it
is next to impossible to estimate in the most correct and well balanced way the real
situation there.
      And there is another more productive in “positive” clue analytical vision – to
pay attention to mechanisms, norms and legal procedures, declared priorities of
military-diplomatic activity to withstand terrorism. Occupying position like this one
may in the process of analysis come to more optimistic position on international
cooperation, especially if not to concentrate main attention on the implementation of
achieved agreement and on the principle goal to minimize terrorist activity and to
exclude probability of most destructive forms of terror. To what extent actions of
secret services throughout the world are adequate to internationally accepted norms
and procedures of behavior largely is “grey” area. But in any case it is quite obvious
that extraordinary situations demand extraordinary means of reaction to cope with
concrete challenges and that any given case is marked with its own degree of
      Analysis of international cooperation mostly concentrates on the problems in
the realm of the last one approach and allows, as mentioned, to come to quite positive
and optimistic conclusions, especially when it concerns to the considerable extent
mostly potential threats or bridges the divergent positions of the actors and achieved
agreements lay in the framework of already internationally accepted trend.
      Good example in this sense is greetings sent by President D. Medvedev to the
participants of plenary meeting on the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
(GICNT) gathered in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, on June 29, 2010 (as it
was stated in the mass media):
      “Your meeting agenda includes key issues of strengthening the nuclear non-
proliferation regime and the search for optimal tools for combating the threat of
nuclear terrorism. These global challenges can be addressed only through joint
coordinated actions. To a great extent, their success will determine stability and
security on the planet.

      At this stage it is of great importance to find effective mechanisms precluding
unsanctioned procurement of nuclear materials and technologies. This approach was
supported by the recent Nuclear Security Summit and the NPT Review Conference.
      The agreements reached must be followed up with tight monitoring of the
trafficking in nuclear materials, adherence to the highest security standards in the
nuclear industry and the implementation of the International Convention for the
Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the amended Convention on the
Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.
      We are satisfied to note the growing constructive role of the Global Initiative
to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The initiative became even stronger over the past year;
now it unites 81 states and is firmly moving along the path to practical realization.
We fully expect that the number of its participants, united by shared goals, will
continue to steadily increase.
      Russia is focused on achieving optimal results at this meeting and continuing
active efforts of improving and strengthening the global non-proliferation regime.”
      The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism was launched jointly by the
Presidents of Russia and the United States in July 2006 during the G8 Summit in St
      Even inside “positive” analytical vision the disorder of opinions concerning an
estimation of efficiency of the international cooperation to mitigate terrorism is rather
wide. And the results of such divergences in opinions lay not only in the
circumstances that different aspects of the problem are taken to estimate effectiveness
of the pool of agreed measures but because of noticeable difference in the system of
criteria for separate experts.
      Certainly, hierarchy of priorities for any groups or pairs of states may be
different as well. For instance hierarchy of Russian priorities inside the CIS and
concerning other outward groups can differ. But in any case in spite of vivid reasons
which allow characterizing some situations as the result of the politics of “double
standards” (as though earlier the mankind lived under and strictly followed the whole

indivisible system of political standards) international community has accumulated a
lot of positive experience.
      The reasons of such posture of affairs are various: from traditional divergence
of interests (both international and domestic) and state political courses for some
concrete periods and countries up to distinctions in accounts on those or other
components, results of process of international cooperation in the given sphere. From
here – one of principle causes of those difficulties with which the international
community collides, for example, trying to elaborate and accept the definition of
modern terrorism comprehensible to all countries.
      In this connection it is meaningful not to be limited to direct immediate results
(first of all in field of operative character) of international cooperation. It appears that
attempt to take a look more widely, in the all spectrum (formats) of such cooperation
from viewpoints of interested states may be more correct.
      In this context fundamental interests of Russia to mitigate terrorism
internationally overlap largely with the other members of world community including
those for whom terrorists operating in Russia still may be represented in mass media
or even in political declarations as “freedom-fighters” and the use of this term in
some cases have a lot of concrete practical sense.
      Although putting on public display such type of the sympathies with the years
is becoming less vivid and enthusiastic. Anyway the mentioned above situation is a
usual part of current reality in relationships among partners cooperating against
international terrorism. Nevertheless, tendency for more or less consecutive
partnership is prevailing and overwhelming now and again temptation to use
pragmatically in own interests (and against the interest of partner) emerging short-
time opportunities. Actually the situations around any given case of terrorist activity
in this sense are unique. But in parallel way (and maybe because of this very reason)
one can see progress in establishing international system of commonly acceptable,
with some exceptions but of course, principles, norms and institutes.
      The illustration to aforesaid may serve the attention which is given
permanently by G8 to international cooperation against terrorism. The basic

directions which were formulated within G8 with active Russian participation allow
to understand the spheres of agreed understanding in attitude of common interests:
          the appeal to all states to make efforts to join the existing treaties,
agreements concerning struggle against terrorism;
          to promote the strengthening of international system of mutual legal
assistance, including (what is in Russian and some other countries interests)
extradition of terrorists;
          to reach more practical level of cooperation in exchange of prospective
data and information on terrorist activity;
          to move forward to strengthen the setting up system of institutions,
measures and procedures on prevention of use by terrorists of dangerous nuclear,
chemical and biological materials;
          to come to common understanding of necessity and acceptance of the
practice of refuse in granting formidable concessions to terrorists in exchange of
hostages (although there are not much examples of total successive following to this
principle) and to do the best to handle persons who have taken hostages for further
legal procedure;
          to undertake all adequate measures to prevent using by terrorists the
forging documents for moving from one place to another;
          to strengthen protection against terrorist attacks on air, see and other types
of transportation;
          to struggle against spreading geographically terrorism inside one given
country: to mitigate with act of terror against not only the infrastructure of highest
state power but against attempts of terror directed against infrastructure of regional or
municipal administrative level. Urban terrorism and countryside (“field”) terrorism
are not the same. This sphere has its own specific (provincial) features and
motivation of parochial radical groups, with or without direct outside influence and
          to close as much as possible the access of terrorists to financial sources;

         to cooperate on training and measures of preparedness in the sphere of
struggle with terrorism at whole.
      It is clear that there is a room for a lot of the other activity along each of
mentioned above and some additional spheres of mutual interest and cooperation.
      Some decisions were adopted on March 23-30, 2010, Gatineau, Canada during
the meeting of G8 ministers of foreign affairs and the summit in Washington on April
13-14, 2010. The ministers have condemned the acts of terrorism in Moscow on
March 29 and as usually the statement of solidarity with Russia was issued
underlining determination of the participants and urging to call upon the criminals to
take answer.
      In accordance with Russia initiative the participants agreed to prepare for
summer summit the plan of actions to strengthen the contribution of G8 global efforts
to mitigate terrorism including stimulating activity of the Roman/Lyons group and
the Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG).
      Also the arrangement has been reached on carrying out comprehensive
(complex) estimation of results of various international agreements (systems) of
cooperation against proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction.
Ridiculously but this fact allows better understanding of some current realities – that
it happens easier to collaborate on international basis on comprehensive estimation in
the field of proliferation than in the sphere of every day activity of international
terrorism using conventional weapons and the explosives.
      The Russian minister while demonstrating priorities of interests in particular
paid attention to the necessity of intensification and closer coordination of
multilateral efforts to suppress activity of extremist ideology and close as much as
possible the financial sources of terrorism. In this context Russian representative
made accent on priority of contending with production of drugs and narcotraffic from
Afghanistan. In parallel way participants of meeting have approved the initiative of
the Canadian presidency directed on support of constructive interaction between
Kabul and Islamabad.

      Having in mind recent leak of information in the US which gave additional
evidence concerning cooperation of some Pakistan officials with Taliban this
Canadian suggestion was on time. If to consider both (Russian and Canadian)
initiatives as one system of links it seems that one may come to conclusion that for
the Western countries the actual perspective to struggle with production of narcotics
in Afghanistan is associated with quite different approach and is suspended on some
indefinite time when situation with the foreign military presence in the country and
correlation of interstate relations in the sub-region (or even region itself) is different.
      And it is not accidental that (again under the initiative of Canada what is
natural with its presidency) questions of coordination of the international assistance
in stabilization efforts for regions vulnerable of quick destructive transformation in
the result of activity of radical, extreme groups of influence have been examined.
Participants supported the idea of rationality in complex international approach to
make peacekeeping more constructive and to prop up the efforts of some
international groups of people to establish peaceful and democratic basis for public
life. Russia considers traffic of Afghanistan narcotics as the equate problem of today
and guess that it is necessary to cope with this problem right now.
      In the context of the subject it is meaningful to say a few words about some
circumstances and fundamental principles of Russian position.
      1. Cooperation with the members of international community in struggle
against global threat of terrorism Russia construct in view of central and coordinating
role of the United Nations. Although this phrase sounds as quite banal remark for the
today international systems it means crucial moment for understanding of Russian
position – the priority of the multilateral actions based on international agreements
over actions are undertaken abroad and based on domestic legal norms and interests.
          For the sake of objectivity it is possible to add that if one meets somebody’s
wishes it is possible to find quotations of high positioned Russian officials like – that
Russian side under pressure of force-majeure circumstances can attack using strategic
bombers and cruise missiles terrorist facilities far abroad…

          By the way the threat of such attack was successfully used decades ago to
release three persons with Soviet embassy staff in Lebanon captured by one of the
radical Islamic organization.
          The global counterterrorist strategy was adopted and accepted by the UN
General Assembly in 2006, has planned a wide range of systematic work on
counteraction to international terrorism and, what is important, has adequately
determined its priority directions.
          It is significant that on the foreground of the international cooperation the
tasks connected with wide preventive measures to struggle terrorism are put forward
today. And the role of different branches of power, administrative units in this
process have become more and more vivid.
          Consecutive work on perfection of the legislation in the framework of better
implementation of 13 available now universal antiterrorist conventions as well as
corresponding resolutions of Security Council, including the basic Resolution 1373
(2001) and also the Resolution 1624 (2005) aimed on suppression of instigation to
terrorism has from the Russian point of view fundamental value. The important
aspect – the prevention of radicalization of public moods, first of all, in some Muslim
      2. Cooperation on antiterrorist direction is the important component of
relations between Russian and the European Union. Such cooperation develops in
formats of corresponding “Road maps” on formation of “Common Areas” on internal
and external safety. Now key elements of future cooperation in this sphere are taking
into account in the process of elaboration on the new base agreement Russia-EU.
          Regular expert consultations on the complex problems of struggle against
terrorism (COTER) have taken place with participation of foreign and profile
antiterrorist governmental branches and the countries of supervising Group of Three
(G3) in this field of the EU; staff of Commission of the European Communities
          From Russian viewpoint the consultations allow to specify aspects of
concurrence of interests, to change opinions on priority aspects of counteraction. In

this connection it is possible to note once again that purpose of preventing terrorism,
suppression and putting obstacles (limitations) to the process of wide-spreading of
terrorist ideology and propaganda, recruitment on this base new members and
different type of supporters in terrorist groupings is more and more allocated.
      3. In the format of OSCE the antiterrorist agenda for the time being may be
considered from Russian position as more potential, long-range than current trend of
multilateral activity. And nevertheless, from the point of view of the Russian interests
and vision of the sense of activity this subject is favorably allocated in comparison to
many other international problems within the limits of the organization.
          That is why in spite of well known criticism in Russia in the address of this
organization a lot of experts believe that the OSCE all the same justifies its role of
relatively effective “conductor” of antiterrorist decisions of the UN on the all-
European platform that in parallel way is considered as precondition for this
organization to find its more reasonable place in “labor sharing” (allocation of
functions) with the other regional and global organizations, at least as one of the key
directions of its activity. The OSCE has adopted a number of sound political
documents in sphere of anti-terror, organizes on regular basis workshops useful from
practical point of view in attitude of finding mutual denominators for the positions of
its members, is trying to involve in struggle with terrorism the institutes of civil
societies what is itself almost innovative approach.
      4. The Russian side highly appreciates work of the Council of Europe (CE) on
directions of the international cooperation to mitigate terrorism. Within the limits of
the CE can be effectively solved many such questions as for example perfection of
law-enforcement system, justice, migration policy (politics), formation of integrated
border-guard system, traditional attention to the protection of human rights,
harmonization of legislation, etc., including in this sense, first of all, such touchy and
complicated issues as human rights protection during terrorist and antiterrorist
          Russian interest in cooperation was proved by the fact that Russia was the
first country which ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of

Terrorism (2005, CECPT). Positions of the Convention may be traced in antiterrorist
legislation accepted by the Russian Federation in 2006. Moreover, Russia has already
acquired some experience of implementation the Convention which can be useful to
foreign partners. Russia welcomed the decision of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe to allot the Committee of Experts (the leading working body of
antiterrorist cooperation) with function of monitoring the implementation of the
Convention. It is possible to refer also to the activity of the CE in the sphere of
cybercrime, in particular in the field of preventing the use of cyberspace in the
terrorist purposes. However Russia disagreements concerning some key positions of
the treaty concluded under aegis of the CE – Convention on Cybercrime (2001,
Budapest) are kept. So, in particular, positions of article 39 allow, by estimation of
Russian experts, not authorized access of one state to cybersystems of other states.
That is why Russia insists on the amendments to the text of the Convention.
      5. At last Russian side highly appreciates a bilateral format in antiterrorist
foreign cooperation. This format allows to touch upon or even discuss in concrete and
practical way the most acute current challenges, elaborate on common plans and its
implementations (when and if the interests, let say even with ad hoc partners, may
temporary coincide), to prepare jointly and to promote initiatives for adaptation on
multilateral basis.
          Now briefly about direct participation of the Russian Federation in
international antiterrorist cooperation. First of all, Russia is interested in
strengthening antiterrorist potential of mechanisms of the UN like Counter-Terrorism
Committee (CTC) and its the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate
(CTED) which carries out monitoring by states Resolution 1373 (2001) and
coordinating multilateral efforts on strengthening potentials of state security in this
field. Being interested in the increasing and deepening of the contacts of the CTED
with different international and regional organizations, in first turn within Russian
participation. The Russian Federation continues the practice of annual briefings of the
CTC for leadership of special services, heads of security services and law
enforcement official branches.

          One of the priority tasks in the Committee 1267 of the Security Council on
this direction is still actualization (the further elaboration) on the regime of sanctions
(the list of terrorist and supporting units) against Al-Qaeda, Taliban and persons and
organizations connected with their activity.
          Because of the general degradation of military-political situation in
Afghanistan this goal became even more primarily one and motivated Russian
activity during the process of working up new sanctional Resolution of the SC 1904
adopted on December 17, 2009.
          Particular attention here was paid to those persons and organizations which
support financially terrorists from the sources of production of drugs. In this
connection Russia is in favor of the caution and well balanced approach to the
question of periodical reappraisal of the sanctional list (delistening).
          Within the limits of the Rome/Lion Group of the G8 the work on the
number of projects which are initiated by Russia has been continued. The thematic
scope of the subjects which are in the focus includes the problems of the reasons and
conditions promoting the radicalization and recruitment of the population into
terrorist organizations, concomitant processes which seems to be extended;
counteraction to the using of Internet and other modern communication facilities in
the terrorist and illegal purposes at whole; cooperation in the area of possible law
enforcement measures in case of imminent threat or produced act of terror;
application of biometric systems of identification; transport safety, etc.
          A lot of consultations are held on bilateral basis – with the US, China,
Germany, Canada, Kazakhstan, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, India,
Algeria, Egypt, Mali and Pakistan.
          The line of Russia on the development of cooperation with NATO on the
subject was kept and first of all in the format of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC).
So in Brussels the seminar of experts concerning the protection of pipelines has taken
place last summer. On October 2009 the session of Special Working Group of NRC
on terrorist challengers in the Euro-Atlantic region and threats to the crucial power

infrastructure was held with participation from Russian side not only officials but
representatives of business community (“LUKOIL”) as well.
          Within the limits of OSCE at leading activity of Russian party the seminar
concerning strengthening state-private partnership to prevent the use of non-
commercial organizations to finance terrorism was organized in Vienna (September,
2009) and seminar on the betterment of partnership of the official powers (states) and
mass media to mitigate terrorism (Vienna, October, 2009).
          The results of the exchange of opinions during those seminars have brought
the essential contribution to the agenda and decisions of the session of the OSCE
Ministerial Council (Athens, December, 2009).
          Antiterrorist cooperation was proceeded with the European Union in the
format “Russia – the Group of Three (G3)” during a number of seminars. In the most
possible practical way, the profound exchange of estimations has taken place on the
aspects of global and regional terrorist threat at the present stage. Participants came to
mutual understanding of some directions and format for prospective international
          Activity on the platform of the CIS is developing, especially (for Russian
positions) taking in mind the Russian presidency in the Organization in 2010. Being
aimed to strict implementation of long term programs of cooperation adopted by the
members of the CIS the main accent is made on the struggle against terrorism,
narcotraffics and trans-boundary organized crime for the period of 2008-2010.
Perfection of legal regulation in those areas of cooperation where practical deeds
stumble with the deficiency of legal basis (also there is no need to exaggerate this
moment if interests of the participants coincide and first of all – in the efforts to cope
with illegal weapons market).
          Inside the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO) the scope of interests approximately the same but with accent on prompt call
for Collective Rapid Reaction Force (in Russian abbreviation – KSOR) as well as on
the continuation of the multilateral anti-narcotic operation “Channel” which is called

upon to suppress the traffics of drugs from Afghanistan, and shape it into the status of
the permanent regional project.
          Within the limits of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) the
attention was mainly paid to two subjects – convention of this organization to
mitigate terrorism on qualitatively new level and agreement of cooperation in the
sphere of international information security are prepared.
          Anti-terror occupies important place in Russian activity in various
international organizations. So, for example, the preliminary work is under way on
the subject in view of prospective Russian presidency in the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) Forum in 2012.
          On the platform of special APEC Group on the struggle against terrorism
the document has been completed which have accumulated techniques and
experience concerning the cases of best safeguarding (at least to the extent it is
possible to calculate threats in advance) of energy infrastructure.

      At the moment Russia is interested in moving ahead some ideas connected
with the efforts to stop (to limit is more precisely) the conditions for cyberterrorism
and the other illegal actions in this sphere.
      As it was already spoken the problem of financing terrorism to which a number
of international legislative acts are devoted and accepted is among the priority
directions of Russian international cooperation. Russia works actively in a number of
corresponding international organizations as, for instance:
          since 2003 Russia participates in Financial Actions Task Force on Money
Laundering (FATF);
          for efficient struggle with this type of crime in many countries the
specialized state structures have been established and usually received the name of
“divisions on financial investigation” or “financial intelligence”. Starting with the
operation on predominantly national level such groups since 1995 began to
coordinate their efforts. Firstly, it was informal cooperation under the name Egmont

Group of Financial Intelligence Units. Now this group consists of financial units from
106 states throughout the world.
      Russia has achieved a lot of progress on this direction of international
cooperation. For a short period of time Russia has turned from the prime suspect and
object of criticism in co-author in the multilateral efforts to work out
recommendations and standards directed against legalization of criminal incomes.
And in 2003 the Berlin FATF plenary session admitted Russia in full members.
During that meeting 40 recommendations – type of international rules for struggle
with “money laundering” have been approved. Of course not all problems are solved.
There is also a place for mutual criticism. It originated often, to my mind, in practice
of some countries to use information on illegal money funds in their own interests
and purposes beyond the declared motives of cooperation. But there are also the
problems of different nature. So, in FATF recommendations it is spoken about
inclusion of the lawyers in the list of persons who should inform financial
investigation processes on their clients. To follow these recommendations means for
Russia necessity to amend the articles, for example, 44 and 45 of the Russian
Constitution with their provisions for the guarantees of rendering qualified legal aid
or else about the right not to testify against themselves.
      Moreover, notarial system is getting in the same list of the informers what
means practically that the notaries should “close the eyes” on the basic principles of
the job – the secrecy of notarial actions. This problem still should be solved in some
format. But meanwhile this summer the Financial Intelligence of Russia was
qualified by President as one of the most efficient governmental structures. In the
own turn Council on Financial Market under the auspices of the President of the
Russian Federation (together with Moscow officials) had to prepare by this summer
recommendations concerning organization of Financial Center of the Russian
Federation as well as suggestions with all concomitant best legal norms incorporated
by worldwide practice in this field.
      The idea of rationality and necessity of establishing the Consultative Council
with participation of Russian and foreign organization and prominent figures was

recognized and accepted. The government has prepared the package of draft-laws on
different aspects of financial regulation. And, of course, terrorist aspect is one among
priorities. To the end of this year government must elaborate and adopt the
comprehensive Plan of Actions for purpose to join the Explanatory Memorandum of
the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) having provided
entering necessary changes (amendments) into normative legal regulations of the
market of financial papers.
      Inside the CIS framework of various levels and forms of cooperation the basic
directions are:
      1. Permanent analysis and monitoring of the factors and conditions promoting
the occurrence of terrorism and extremism, forecasting the tendencies of their
development and probable situations in this sense on the territory of the state-
participations of the CIS.
      2. Development the potential (mechanism, instruments, etc.) which is
adequate to the challenges from terrorist activity on the territory of the CIS.
      3. Flexible counteraction to propaganda and basic ideas behind terrorist and
extremist methods of achieving their aims.
      4. Prevention, eliciting, counteracting and investigating the crimes of terrorist
and extremist character, developing techniques and training to minimize
consequences of the acts of terrorism.
      5. Prevention of use or the threat of use in the terrorist purposes the weapons
of mass destruction and delivery systems, radioactive, toxic and other dangerous
substances, materials and technologies which are needed for their production.
      6. Perfection of legal basis for cooperation in struggle against terrorism and
      7. Strengthening the conditions and elaborating on legal basis which make
inevitable punishment for crimes of terrorist and extremist nature.
      8. Counteraction to the use of different schemes of financing the terrorist and
extremist activity.

      9. Rendering all necessary assistance in rehabilitation to the persons with
traumatic experience caused by the crimes of terrorist and extremist character.
      10. Counteraction to terrorism on all types of transportation, the objects of
life-support and some other crucial infrastructure.
      11. Struggle with cyberterrorism.
      12. Perfection of the techniques for cooperation with civil societies and mass
media in a view of increase of efficiency of mitigating terrorism and extremism.
      13. Wider international cooperation and collective antiterrorist operations,
efforts associated with the assistance to formation of global strategy of counteraction
to new challenges and threats under the auspices of the United Nations.
      14. Rendering the assistance to the third states interested in cooperation with
state-participants of the CIS.
      The basic forms of cooperation of CIS state-participants on this field conclude:
       carrying out the meetings aimed at coordination in joint and/or agreed field
operative actions, investigatory proceedings;
       exchange of information;
       creation of specialized banks of data;
       rendering mutual legal aid and extradition to the persons wanted for crimes
of terrorist and extremist character as well as those ones participating in financing of
these forms of illegal activity. Perfection of legislation and working contracts among
the appropriate governmental structures insider the CIS;
       professional training of staff in different governmental branches, exchange
of the operational techniques and experience, joint analysis of accumulated data and
monitoring including fulfillment of recommendations in the sphere of mitigating
terrorism and extremism.
      The list of main principles, directions and forms of international cooperation
could be enlarged and continued. The education systems or difficulties with mass
media coverage of the problems of terrorism, the legal basis, forms, methods and
instruments of communication in the process of interaction of official structures with
journalists deserve special attention. But adding new aspects to the pool of problems

fairly change the principle vision of the whole picture. Already mentioned above is
enough to realize that positively it is not a shortage (a lack) of legal instruments and
different types of agreements which impede more purposeful and productive
international cooperation. The legal basis for such cooperation is developing in a
pretty good pace. Nevertheless, the main problem of struggle with terrorism on the
unified, solid international basis, even, for instance, in the boundaries of Europe, is a
weak, in a sense of practical orientation, coordination among special (secret) services
of the countries which share interest in international cooperation. And the
establishing of the position of “Coordinator” on the questions of mitigating terrorism
could not solve the problem and not only because of the reason of shortage of
financing, which is often addressed. As result the first place in the coordinating
efforts still occupies the Interpol.
      As a matter of fact the key obstacles for wide global cooperation in this sphere
roots in the hierarchy of divergent systems of priorities of different states. Any given
country has its own particular set of common with other countries and simultaneously
individual, sometimes very specific features which allow concluding that coincidence
of the interstate interests in bi-lateral, sub-regional or regional levels outweigh partial
overlapping of interests on global level. This circumstance discovers the sources of
“the pluses” for the adoption of global universal agreements which, as it turns to be,
more easier to recognize and accept because very often the high (almost abstract)
level of generalization inherent to some international agreements than to come to
agreements (based on these universal provisions) on concrete cases with very
complicated configuration of interstate and internal interests. And even more difficult
to implement taken obligations in practice in full scale. Thus bilateral, sub- or
regional agreements in practical way look more preferably.
      The efficiency of international cooperation to mitigate terrorism depends also
on two (at least) factors. The manner of behavior of great powers, of some other key
actors on global stage must not create preconditions for accuses in policy of so called
“double standards” especially when internal legislation and domestic interests
obviously dominate in substantiation of coercive actions abroad. On the other hand,

there is such sub-regional, regional specificity as cooperation of officials of some
states with terrorists and extremists organizations, and not only in the limits of their
own regions.
      So manifestation from time to time of necessity for some politically motivated
tolerance (in different combinations of the aspects) in attitude of some cases makes
take a look more thoroughly on the very nature of the problems in the sphere of
terrorist mitigation. Such a current reality and not much can be made to change
situation for better when even problem of extradition exists among some very close
      Nevertheless, in strategic perspective in the process of formation of new and
relatively stable for the next historical period structure of international relations must
inevitably appear more pragmatic view on international cooperation in the discussed
field. Active actors on the world arena will be engaged more in struggle against
international terrorism itself than in the maneuvering (from time to time
demonstrating the sketchy masterpieces in diplomacy) to withstand many
international and internal challenges they face actively using the subject of struggle
against terrorism. As it happened previously also the very basis for terrorism as a
form of international contending (if we reorganize the other side of the same medal –
international character of current terrorism) will be narrowed. Terrorism will be put
inside more strict framework of international development and the conflict of “the
cultures and civilizations” in parallel way will be transformed, for some period of
time, in co-existence with less radical and destructive forms of behavior in achieving
goals by some radical actors in world affairs.

To top