Mikhail Gorbachev’s remarks opening the Munich Conference of the New Policy Forum

I welcome all participants – a very representative cross-section, that augurs well for a good, meaningful debate.
The subject of our conference – Security for the Global World: A European Answer – was chosen several months ago but it has now assumed particular urgency, as though taken direct from the front pages of today’s newspapers.

The events in Libya will of course give rise to a lively debate here, with differing viewpoints expressed, but one thing is clear: the fact that military force is now being used on a large scale is nothing to rejoice about.

The use of force is always a symptom of policy failure; this must be regarded as axiomatic. Conclusion should be drawn from this both by policy-makers and by those who seek to provide the intellectual underpinning for international politics.
I’ve been saying for some time that international politics is not keeping pace with the rapidly changing world – and that refers both to those who make policies and the intellectuals.

It is increasingly evident that the old concept of security, based on defending the country’s territory and protecting the inviolability of its borders and its national interests, has become too narrow. In fact, it condemns us to a purely reactive approach, to “waiting for the storm.”

If we want to avoid the storm, two new factors affecting security today must be fully understood.

First, that the toughest challenges to international security now arise from the nations’ internal problems, from interethnic and interfaith conflicts, and from failed states. We seem to be unprepared for that.

Secondly – and that refers rather to a potential security challenge that we must prepare for – there is a danger that major internal and international conflicts could be unleashed by problems of the environment, resources and migration.
To stimulate the debate on these subjects, let me suggest some points for reflection.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen turmoil in the Arab world and North Africa. Their problems are rooted within countries. An entire civilization is trying to respond to the challenges of the global world and of democracy. It is, inevitably, a painful process.

But was the international community ready to face it? Has it been able to exert a positive impact and to channel it in a peaceful direction, to react to negative developments? It would seem that the answer is no. This is why it has come to the point where we see military action in Libya.

The events there started not a few days but several weeks ago. Yet what was the response of the regional organization that according to the United Nations Charter must be the first to react, the Arab League? Did it try to influence Kaddafi’s behavior? And if the regional level faltered, then the UN itself should have acted much earlier to address the problem.

Perhaps the Security Council should have appointed a special envoy to be on site and to convey to the authorities its demands and monitor compliance with them. Perhaps some other way forward could be devised. Whatever the case may be, the Council should have addressed the different options instead of just watching from the sidelines.

This was a major setback, pointing to the need for the international community to look for ways and means to influence the internal processes within nations. One cannot sit idly by when, for example, state failure, as in Somalia, leads to piracy becoming a dangerous “international business” or when entire nations fall into the hands of irresponsible regimes capable of using heavy weapons, tanks and aircraft against their own people.

In the final analysis, the outcome depends on how the nations in the region will respond to the challenge of democracy. But some important caveats should be born in mind.

First, people there remember that Western democracies felt rather comfortable dealing with authoritarian regimes and, under the guise of fighting extremism and terrorism, sold weapons and befriended dictators and authoritarian rulers.
And second, the challenge of democracy must not loom in the form of missiles and tanks.

As for the threats to security that lie at the intersection of the problems of the environment, migration and poverty, I have not noticed as yet any new ideas that would make it possible to predict their scenarios and devise preventive policies – policies that would be in line with the task of demilitarizing politics and international affairs, that I have called for at many of our meetings. Indeed, we need truly new policies here! Without them, we could have many unpleasant surprises in store for us very soon.

Europe and Russia as its part have unique experience, both of a positive and of a negative nature, in addressing security issues. Today, as mankind has embarked upon a dynamic and potentially unstable, unpredictable phase in its development, it is very important for us to take a strong stand and make our voice heard.

I have proposed that we work towards a transcontinental space of security and cooperation from Vancouver to Vladivostok, which could become both an example and a partner to other global centers whose power and influence is bound to grow. This is another aspect that I ask you to consider during our discussions here.