The U.S is ready to discuss European security with Russia and to work with it hand in hand on the fulfillment of a number of agreements, which have been reached in principle. However, Washington is ready to do this within the framework of the existing institutions, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Philip Gordon said at the Washington Foreign Press Centre.
The U.S. diplomat aimed to explain the speech of the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which she made in Paris last Friday. She said there that the USA did not find any benefits in signing a new treaty on European security because both the discussion and the approval of such a treaty will take time. Taking this into account, we can say that the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State said nothing new - his speech was only the repeat of his chief's words. True, he reiterated that America agrees with Russia that security interests can't be achieved at the expense of the other European countries. Washington also approves Moscow's thesis about the territorial identity principles.
Thus, it turns out that, recognizing, partly, the legality and expediency of the initiative of Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev for the signing of a new mandatory treaty on the Pan-European security, Washington actually rejects it. And this is strange enough: the point is that during the former Medvedev-Obama summits U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly stressed that he is ready to discuss in detail Medvedev's proposal on that score. And now we see that the USA is ready to consider the Euro-Atlantic security aspects, which are of interest for America only, and only within the framework of the currently operational European agencies. Including such as NATO and the OSCE. And this is even more surprising than anything else. You see, on the one hand, Russia is not a NATO member. And on the other, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has many times and also visually demonstrated its non-effectiveness. Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia, which neither it nor the West could prevent, despite all of Russia's warnings, has convincingly shown this once again. Equally groundless are Washington's arguments to the effect that relevant discussions and the signing of a new European security treaty may require much time and effort. Tell me then - was it easier to sign the Helsinki Final Act with the participation of 33 European countries, and also with the participation of the USA and Canada at the very height of the "cold war" in 1975? Meanwhile, the OSCE has been using it all this time as its basic document.
This situation seems in no way to be normal, taking into account the radical changes, which have occurred on the political map of the world. And they make the signing of new documents, which would guarantee lasting peace, stability and security on the vast space from Vancouver to Vladivostok, a dire necessity. Therefore, you can say with absolute certainty that despite today's duality of the USA's stand and that of some other NATO countries, the initiative of Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev will get the green light.
Please rate: