One immediately recalls here the myths of ancient Greece and the beginning of history when Zeus abducted the beautiful Europe, daughter of king Agenor. The beginning, seemed to be much more romantic than the modern debate about the end of history or about "the end of Eurasia" some are too eager to see. Although it is evident that today, alas, nobody has anymore an oracle capable of foretelling the future.

We can, however, draw on the historical experience, try to define the notions and consider geopolitical trends. Thus the future of Europe and the emerging world shapes out to be both controversial and multioptional.

What is indeed Europe at the beginning of 21st century?

No doubt, it is much more than just geography, although the debate about its geographic boundaries is still not over. It is also more than a sum of nation states and interrelations between controversial factors - "land states" and "sea states", Atlanticism and Eurasianism, the North and the South, the development, confrontation and synthesis of civilizations, and mutual pervasion of cultures.

We believe that the notion of Europe implies a community of a higher civilizational level: a common history, a chosen development model focused on the social and humanitarian dimension, common problems and challenges, a common moral and ideological space. At all stages of its history - from ancient Mediterranean hearth through Christian world, Renaissance and Revival, break-up and integration of states to contemporary search for a new place in today's world Europe managed to retain its identity. The ability to change while preserving its identity is a supreme quality in the process of evolution, basic principle of survival and self-improvement. Is there a feeling that at the beginning of the third millennium this principle turns out to be under the danger of the new challenges?

The loss in the past centuries of political predominance of Europe in the world may end in the 21st century either in emergence of a unipolar world or preservation of its multipolarity. The current strengthening of political integration processes, including the ongoing debate about the shape future integration will take, seems to indicate clearly the European strategy in this regard.

Economic, scientific and technological challenge. As the world economic recession develops, the Europe's position will become more complicated. Here are two examples - by 2025 Europe will import 90 per cent of energy resources, and funneling of 200 billion dollars into advanced military technologies can make a scientific and technological divide insurmountable. The educational and intellectual headstart advantage is not everlasting either.

Demographic factor does not work in favor of Europe either - it is growing older. And in 30 years, according to the UN statistics, one billion people will live close to its southern confines. Half of this population will be under 30 years of age and out of them two thirds will have no permanent employment. Given the gap in the level of consumption of 14 to 1 between Europe and, say, Africa there is no need to comment any further.

According to a scientific forecast, the ecological resources of the Northern Hemisphere will last for about 50 years. There are also gloomier evaluations - in 20 to 25 years an irreversible climatic and environmental change might begin.

Finally, I would like to dwell on a very contradictory process.

Globalization. For centuries, if not for millennia, the world, as discovered and cultivated by Europeans, grew larger. This process has reversed at the beginning of the third millennium - the world becomes smaller. Extensive growth has been completed.

The next stage is to be a qualitative internal development based on common problems and partnership in their settlement. This seems to be the backbone of the globalization process. But why does it arouse in many quarters the feeling of impending danger? Those who initiate deplorable disorders hardly march against hamburgers from McDonald's. Are growing nationalism and right-wing shift in political spectrum in some parts of Europe, often very safe and secure, not a sad manifestation of this rather subliminal anxiety?

There has been a sharp acceleration of the process of integration in regional economic and political structures - North America (NAFTA), Western Europe (EU), Asia (APEC), in the territory of the former USSR (the CIS, Eurasian Union), a new geography of cooperation - the Shanghai Forum - has emerged. The regional integration seems to reflect the desire to participate in globalization with a higher level of protection and safeguarding of one's interests.

I would invite you to consider a following approach to the problem.

The globalization process, having successfully passed the initial stage of linking information and telecommunications resources of humanity, is instrumental today in the world economic life. This seems to be understood and accepted.

But it goes beyond and begins intruding into the spiritual and intellectual life of societies and groups of people, starts to level and subjugate morals and ethics. It is a painful process that gives rise to instinctive rejection, all the more so when it is interpreted as a manifestation of ideological Messionism or a new intellectual "crusade".

In today's political and other statements, no other notion is used so often as "values". The variations are different - unity of values, common values, shared values, European values, Euro-Atlantic values, etc., it being presented as an axiom that these are very similar notions.

Values become a category prevailing over all others - here we can find a substitute for international law and contractual commitments, justification for international actions and politics, they take precedence over sovereignty and established principles of interstate relations. They can be claimed to justify nearly everything in the world notwithstanding that the term itself is sufficiently amorphous and vague. Has anyone been able to provide a clear definition? And who has been vested with a right to provide one?

The notion of values in itself has a deep positive sense. It is a sort of a list of ethnic bearings of the human civilization. For its Euro-Christian branch, it is a certain balance of highest spiritual and ethical rules of interpersonal relations. Among them are the Sermon on the Mount, ideas of the Reformation, ideals of the Great French Revolution, attractiveness of the concepts of social justice, dignity and protection of a human being. The experience both of the Council of Europe and the European Union shows that a comprehensive code is difficult to work out. Of course, it includes the principles of democracy, political pluralism, market economy, civil society, dignity and sovereignty of a human being and, probably, much much else.

But what one should do if values, or our understanding of them, do not fully coincide or the order of their priority is different? How does one put together masterpieces of William Shakespeare and the maxim of the XXI century "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?" How do we correlate the humanitarian concepts on the rules of war by Hugo Grotius and "humanitarian bombings", how can the advancement of the founding principle of the freedom of the mass media be combined with the destruction of the Belgrade TV station with journalists inside.

Attempts to resolve that problem in the 20th century through violence and disregard for the individual, while trying to build an ideal social and political system, failed and cost so dear. Also, it can hardly be resolved in the "consuming society", and crusades have been disgracefully tragic at all times, even if the sword is replaced by the Internet and television.

A "value dimension" of globalization may become the main conflict zone of the 21st century. The society able to provide the strongest motivation and moral ground for its members may be the winner. And Europe has distinct and, in many respects, superior positions here.

On the European ground, a humanistic ideal of a human being as the utmost value of the world has been shaped now in the course of the history of the continent. This implies a spirit of dialogue, pluralism, tolerance inherent in the European civilization. It is Europe, with its great experience in intracivilization contacts, that can become a laboratory to preserve, develop and renovate a spiritual potential of the civilization.

Certainly, a high level of openness and readiness to interaction on the global scale as well as the alignment of partnerships both towards the West and the East are required to achieve this purpose.

In this context, a few remarks about the European policy of Russia.

As a Eurasian state, Russia is interested in active partnerships both in the western and the eastern vectors of its foreign policy. That constant of the Russian diplomacy has also been set in the new foreign-policy strategy of the country. It is also an opportunity for Western Europe to bridge the space to approach Asia and to mould an advantageous geopolitical configuration.

Nevertheless, the persistency shown by Russia over centuries to make in particular the western civilized choice and, to put it mildly, the cold shower poured on it in reply are somewhat amazing.

A thousand years ago, prince Vladimir made Russia a Christian country, that is, in modern language, made a geopolitical choice. In response, there were Livonian wars and Teutonic invasion. Russia managed to hold out by using its "Asian resource".

Three hundred years ago, Peter I definitely decided to Europeanize Russia. In response - struggle for the space from "the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea". This term, by the way, has not just recently appeared. This is a slogan advanced by the Swedish king Karl XII in the war against Russia.

In the next century, the invasion by Napoleon took place. And again, the "Eastern resource" saved Russia. "To lose Moscow does not imply the loss of Russia", Kutuzov said when the French troops entered the city.

Early in the 20th century, Russia implements in its territory the concept of the communist society sprung up in Western Europe. In response - invasion of 19 states and the subsequent "sanitary cordon". Under these circumstances, the formation of the Soviet Union is a single possible geopolitical option to preserve the State.

The middle of the 20th century has been marked by the defeat of fascism in Europe. There is no need to talk about the contribution of the USSR to liberating Europe from this gfobal menace. The United Nations has been established and the genuine world community has begun to form. Then followed the Fulton speech. Its purpose has been to divide Western Europe and Russia by the Iron Curtain rather than to protect democracy.

It seemed that the time had come to learn the lessons of history. But in contrast, by the end of the 20th century Moscow made a new attempt to move towards the West under the banner of "common human values". The response was the first wave of the NATO expansion.

The beginning of the 21st century: in the final document of the Russia-European Union summit held in May 2000 the new Russian leadership has made a strategic statement: "The development of situation in Russia supported by the population of the country confirms its European vocation. Russia is, and will be, a constructive, reliable and responsible partner in the activities aimed at forming a multipolar system of international relations based on the strict compliance with international law".

All subsequent actions of Russia for developing cooperation with the EU, the CE, dialogue with NATO, work within the OSCE confirmed once again the serious intentions in implementing the stated position.

Much depends now on what the response will be. We hope that it will not just be that of a next wave of NATO expansion, designed only to draw a new dividing line and cut off Russia from the rest of Europe rather than provide any realistic military or political advantages for Europe.

Of course, even in that case we would keep several options open except one: Russia cannot afford to be, and would not be, a neutral strip or a buffer zone at the boundary of ethnic and civilizational integrations. Neither can Russia afford an option for development other than a strong, stable, united state. An alternative could threaten its very existence. The blueprint for states exploding into oblivion has become rather clear as a result of geopolitical conflicts in the Balkans.

Also, there is no answer to the question whether the possible rupture of the Euroatlantic and the Eurasian spaces will make feasible the emergence of the Greater Europe. A personal opinion - it will as a result become highly improbable. So the grand chessboard still offers a number of options to choose from. The endgame is not anywhere near.

Our best-case scenario: Russia firmly integrated in a community of democratic states - partners in resolving common challenges. We will work to this end.

In conclusion, I would like to revert to the myth about the so called abduction of beautiful Europe by Zeus so that to give a more optimistic tone to the attempts to find an answer to the questions raised. Let me remind you the prehistory of the act as narrated be Moshe in his "Idillias":

Once the daughter of Agenor had a dream. She saw Asia and the continent which was separated from Asia by sea in the guise of two women having a fight over her. Each of them wanted to possess Europe. Asia lost the fight and gave up. Frightened Europe woke up, not understanding the meaning of the dream. The youthful daughter of Agenor humbly began to prey so that the Gods avert the misfortunes from her if the dream was fraught with them.

At that time the wise Gods of Olympus saved Europe: Zeus himself turned into a golden ox, carried away the beauty and hid her on Crete. Europe remained Europe. A very nice story indeed.

Thank you.


___________________________________________________________
© Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.