A Report of the George C. Marshall 

European Center for Security Studies 

Conference on

Sponsored by:

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 

Prepared by:

Ms. Ella Akerman

Mediterranean Studies

King's College London, UK

A Report of the George C. Marshall

European Center for Security Studies Conference on

Managing the Challenges of 

Soft Security Threats

in the 21st Century

7 - 9 April 2003

Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany

Sponsored by:

The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 

Prepared by:

Ms. Ella Akerman

Mediterranean Studies, King's College London, UK

Contents

Contents 1

Executive Summary 3

PART I: Introduction to the Conference 5

The Dynamics of Soft Security Threats in the 21st Century 5

The Soft Security Threats in the New Europe 6

PART II: Specific Soft Security Threats 8

1. Illegal Migration 8

2. Trafficking 10

3. Weapons Transfer 12

PART III: International and National Responses 13

International:OSCE 13

Baltics and CIS 13

National: Belarus 15

Estonia 15

Russia 16

PART IV: New Ideas for Practical Security Cooperation

The Workshops: Illegal Migration 18

Trafficking 20

Weapons Transfer 22

Conference Conclusions: The Way Ahead 23

General Conclusion 25

Appendix A 26

Appendix B 31

1
2
Executive Summary

From 7 to 9 April 2003 the George C. Marshall Center for Se c u r i t y

Studies sponsored a conference in Garmisch, Ge r m a n y, which is to be the

first in a series of seminars addressing cooperative security issues for Ru s s i a ,

Ukraine, Be l a rus, the Baltic States and Poland. The aim of this confere n c e

was to examine existing soft security threats on the regional and national

l e vels, and more importantly to develop new approaches to manage the

challenges posed by these threats. On a broader level, this event aimed at

s t rengthening Eu ro - Atlantic ties with East Eu ropean countries and exploring practical ways of enhancing regional cooperative security. In view of

the eastward NATO enlargement and the future extension of the EU to

p o s t - Soviet space, the topic of the conference is particularly re l e vant and

d e s e rves increased attention from national governments and regional coope r a t i ve stru c t u res. 

O ver sixty high level experts from Russia, Ukraine, Be l a rus, the Ba l t i c

States and Poland participated in this conference, providing a wide spect rum of expertise and experience on the issues, and allowing for the elaboration of fresh ideas and approaches in debates that took place during the

c o n f e rence, as well as in private discussions.

The conference pursued the following objective s :

1. Examination of current soft security threats and challenges to Eu ro p e a n

s t a b i l i t y, their nature and the dynamics that sustain them

2. Analysis of the responses to these threats on national, regional and international levels 

3. Proposal of new cooperative responses to combat and diminish

these thre a t s

The conference greatly benefited from the variety of approaches and different perspectives of the participants from academia, government, the armed

f o rces and law enforcement, who by their expertise and practical experience

pinpointed deficiencies in dealing with soft security issues and made suggestions to reduce the current thre a t s .

This re p o rt highlights the main themes of the conference, summarizing the

p resentations given by the speakers and giving the flavor of the overall discussions by the conference participants. In addition, this re p o rt provides 

3
recommendations for dealing with soft security threats pre p a red by the

t h ree working groups in separate sessions.

Appendices A and B outline the conference agenda and participant 

list re s p e c t i ve l y.

4
Part I: Introduction to the Conference

Following the opening remarks and a warm welcome by MG (Ret)

Michael McCarthy, the Deputy Director of the George C. Marshall

Center and Ms. Jone Gittinger, one of the main organizers of the conference, the first session chaired by Dr. Graeme Herd, Professor of

Civil-Military relations at the George C. Marshall Center, examined the

nature of soft security, highlighted the implications of soft security

threats, and introduced the definition of the main concepts of hard and

soft security.

The Dynamics of Soft Security Threats in the 21st Century

In his presentation Dr. Julian Lindley-French, a staff member of the

Geneva Center for Security Policy, analyzed the underlying dynamics of

soft security threats in the 21st century. With regard to soft and hard

security concepts, the speaker emphasized that the nature of a threat

requires a distinction between soft and hard security. The approaches to

these issues are not about different tools to tackle them, but rather in

their distinction. At present, there is no clear definition of soft security.

In his view there appears to be a fracture in the transatlantic security

community, with the United States primarily focusing on hard security

issues, emphasizing national interest and pre-emption, and the

European Union exposing Wilson’s idealism, paradoxically demonstrating the role reversal in their approaches to security. In this context, soft

security frequently means no security at all. In his opinion, governments will have to balance resources between hard and soft concepts of

security. The speaker observed that soft security issues have dramatically changed over the last few years. One camp in view of the intent and

capability of the threat, which results in strategic asymmetry, advocates

the pre-emptive strike, and the re-interpretation of the Articles 5 and

71 of the United Nations Charter. However, for the opposing camp,

including Germany, Russia and France, the intent must be addressed

before the response. Accordingly, the role of the UN remains pivotal,

and even if a regime is found in the material breach of a UN resolution, no automatic response is allowed to follow. For them, a constant

process of engagement and re-evaluation of soft security is essential. 

Despite differences in opinions within the latter camp, Western Europe

in general appears to desire to distance itself from the United States and

might look for an alternative, regardless of the fact that European 

5
security was largely guaranteed by the U.S. Dr. Lindley-French noted

that the gap between Europe and America exists because the U.S. tends

to militarize security, whereas Europe tends to over-civilianize it. 

In conclusion, the speaker pointed out that flexibility, consistency and

patience are required to deal with soft security issues. Transnational

cooperation and military intelligence need to be improved and governments need to work closer together. In addition, the role of NGOs and

national governments will be vital in addressing these issues and creating a multi-national approach to soft security threats. Finally, distribution of aid, reconstruction of societies, and re-assessment of cooperation and coercion are essential for the successful fight against these

threats. The term soft security must mean security and not be used as a

slogan to avoid security.

The discussion following this presentation addressed a variety of questions raised by Dr. Lindley-French, including the role of institutions in

dealing with soft security threats, the existing vacuum in international

legitimacy following the war on Iraq, the role of the United Nations in

the present international system, as well as terrorism as a part of both a

soft and a hard security threat. 

Soft Security Threats in the New Europe

In the second presentation of this panel, Dr. Fotios Moustakis, senior

lecturer in Strategic Studies at the Britannia Royal Naval College, spoke

on the title, ‘Soft Security Threats in New Europe’. His presentation

provided a generic picture of the Balkan security threats, providing a

case study of a region suffering from a variety of soft-security threats,

and assisted by the international community in creating a stable and

peaceful environment. The speaker pointed out that although security

is a central concept in International Relations, and general agreement

exists about the definition of security as ‘the freedom from threat’, no

consent has been reached about the means to achieve security.

According to Dr. Moustakis, the two concepts of security can be

defined in the following way: hard security involves military defense of

a state, whereas soft security as a non-military concept, focuses on

political, social and economic threats to a state. The speaker highlighted the main issues facing the Balkans today, such as organized crime,

drug and human trafficking, and demographic shifts, which have

caused a change in the population structure of the Balkan states—

specifically in Macedonia. The dilemma for the EU is to integrate the

6
Balkan states, and at the same time, isolate soft security threats predominant in the region. 

In conclusion, Dr. Moustakis pointed out that the main challenges for

the Balkans today are the Schengen enlargement, which required the

harmonization of migration procedures, the prevention and combat of

drug and human trafficking, and more importantly the integration of

values that would lead to the creation of a stable region. 

In the discussion following, some concern was raised about certain

issues such as Kosovo as a concentrated example of regional problems,

the impact of the demographics of the increasing Albanian minority in

Macedonia and the role of the EU in the region. However, general

optimism was expressed with regard to future developments in the

Balkans. ■

7
Part II: Specific Soft Security Issues

Having provided the broad definitions of soft security threats, analyzed

the nature of these threats and provided a concrete example of the ways

to address or neglect soft security threats in Balkans, the second morning/afternoon session focused on particular soft security issues, such as

illegal migration, drug and human trafficking, as well as weapons

transfer, allowing the experts from the participant countries Russia,

Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States to express their opinion and

share their views on the major problems related to these issues in their

respective countries. 

1. Illegal Migration:

The first panel examined illegal migration as one of the main soft security threats faced by the international community. The first speaker, Mr.

Leonid Po l y a k ov, director of military programs at the Ukrainian Center

for Economic and Political Studies in Kiev, focused on illegal migration

in Ukraine. Since its independence, the Ukraine has increasingly become

a transit country and source country for illegal migration to the We s t

with growing potential to become a target country for illegal migration

f rom the third countries, in part i c u l a r, Asia. Mr. Po l y a k ov pointed out

that although there are no precise statistics re g a rding the number of illegal migrants in Ukraine, the estimates between official sources and independent experts va ry up to seventeen times. In the last two years, 23,000

Ukrainians we re deported from third countries, such as, Tu rk e y,

Hu n g a ry, Sl ovakia or Ge r m a n y. Closely related to illegal migration is

human trafficking. Around 400,000 women have left Ukraine for

Tu rk e y, United States, Czech Republic, Hu n g a ry or Ge r m a n y, transported by the same criminal groups responsible for drug trafficking.

Ac c o rding to the speaker, the importance of Ukraine as a transit country

has dramatically increased since the early 1990s. So far, 40,000 illegal

migrants have become subject of administrative punishment and corru ption. In conclusion Mr. Po l y a k ov pointed out that since the 1990s the

Ukrainian government has had great difficulty tackling soft security issues

due to lack of re s o u rces and appropriate legislative base.

The next speaker, Dr. Irina Ivakhniok, senior re s e a rcher from the Fa c u l t y

of Economics at Mo s c ow State Un i ve r s i t y, turned the spotlight on the

illegal migration in the Russian Federation. First, she emphasized the new

role that Russia is playing in the international arena since the break-up of

8
the Soviet Union. Dr. Ivakhniok said that the break-up of the Sov i e t

Union greatly impacted migration processes in Russia. In fact, Ru s s i a

became a new center of a new migrational system. Ac c o rding to official

estimates, there are 1.5 million illegal migrants in Russia. Howe ve r, it is

u n c e rtain how the term “m i g r a n t” is defined. In Dr. Iva k h n i o k’s view the

reason illegal migrants from the Commonwealth of Independent St a t e s

(CIS) go to Russia is to engage in illegal labor. These migrants remain in

Russia for several years without being able to legalize their status. Dr.

Ivakhniok questioned the threat that these migrants re p resent for Ru s s i a .

They cannot be counted, they contribute to the development of the

s h a d ow economic market and they provoke conflicts on ethnic gro u n d s .

She argued that, in re a l i t y, the negative impact of these migrants is eve n

higher than most believe because they lead to the deformation of the

labor market, posing a real threat to the economic security of Russia. At

the same time, migration from CIS to Russia is of great importance since

Russia is experiencing a dramatic demographic decline. It is estimated

that in 2050, the Russian population might be reduced by half of its current numbers, and consequently Russia needs migration. The question

remains in what form.

The speaker pointed out that there are also invisible aspects of migration.

As the neighboring countries go through economic crisis, and their citizens migrate to Russia, they are creating a re n ewed dependency on

Russia, even if this dependency is in a different form. 

The speaker then turned her attention to Chinese migration, citing the

g reat numbers of Chinese migrants to Russia. Chinese migration is we l l

o r g a n i zed and greatly encouraged by the Chinese government. T h e

migration is promoted because it helps extend Chinese political and economic influence. Against this background, Russia has become a new

jumping board for economic activities and re s o u rces re q u i red by China,

as well as the transit route for many Chinese who are on their way to

Eu rope and America. At present there are 500,000 Chinese in the

Russian Federation, and according to the speaker, their number will grow

with the stabilization of Russian economy.

In conclusion, Dr. Ivakhniok noted that migration re p resents a thre a t ,

but at the same time constitutes a factor in regional stability. 

The last presentation of the illegal migration panel examined the situation in the Baltic States. Dr. Olegas Skinderskis, Di rector of In t e r n a t i o n a l

Relations and EU Integration at the Mi n i s t ry of Interior of Lithuania

noted that developed countries need the import of labor force due to

9
population declines and age stru c t u re. Legal migration, as such, does not

consume all re s o u rces of such countries, leaving enough space for illegal

migration. The speaker pointed out that in 1997, Lithuania detained

1,500 migrants attempting to enter the country. This number is substantial for Lithuania, and as a result, re l e vant amendments have been made

in the legislation to tackle this problem. Howe ve r, the activities of the

criminal groups continue to thrive. For example, before 1997 the ave rage price for trafficking one person through Lithuania was aro u n d

$1,000 – $2,000, following 1998 the price increased to up to $5,000.

Permanent strengthening of border control and international cooperation

a re re q u i red to combat illegal migration. The speaker suggested it is also

i m p o rtant to reduce the level of corruption of the officials and improve

a d m i n i s t r a t i ve capabilities.

2. Trafficking:

The next panel focused on trafficking as a soft security threat facing the

international community and national governments. In this context,

trafficking includes drugs as well as human trafficking-both a part of

the activities of organized crime networks. The first speaker, Mr. Robert

Cozzolina, Chief of the Non-proliferation and Border Security Team at

the U.S. Department of State in Latvia observed that the crime pattern

has dramatically altered in the last decade. EU extension has led to the

decrease of border control, and therefore to the extension of the market

for organized crime. As the Baltic States join the Schengen agreement,

cooperation and joint operations must expand. The speaker emphasized

that the Baltic States are transit states for drug trafficking. Heroin,

together with opium, ecstasy and cocaine are transported through the

Baltics to Russia and the Nordic countries. In Estonia, 70 per cent of

drugs are destined for transit, while 30 per cent are for local use. In

Latvia narcotics are smuggled over land in common hiding places by

train, car, truck, and mail. Lithuania is also part of the major route for

transport, and drugs are brought into the country for local use. In addition to drug trafficking, human trafficking also represents an important

issue. According to the speaker, 500 women are annually deported from

other countries back to Latvia. Finally, cigarettes appears to be another

smuggled commodity. Fighting trafficking will require stricter measures to dismantle organized groups that control the traffic towards

Western Europe, and in particular, to the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, Mr. Cozzolina pointed out that one common trend in

transit countries is corruption. Corruption needs to be addressed as the

first step in combating trafficking as a soft security threat. 

10
In his presentation Dr. Ramazan Daurov, Vice-President of the Moscow

Center for Strategic and Political Studies, analyzed the global illicit

drug trade, in particular, from Central Asia into Russia. Russia has

became not only an important transit route for Central Asian drugs

into Western Europe, but also one of the main destinations for drugs

for local use. Since 1990 the number of drug users in Russia has

increased by 400 per cent, and in 2001 625,000 drug addicts were

enrolled in state-run drug treatment centers. There has also been a dramatic increase in drug related crimes and HIV cases. Drug trafficking,

therefore, represents a major challenge for the Russian authorities for

the years to come. In the view of the speaker, Afghanistan and

Tajikistan are the main trouble spots for drug trafficking. The annual

production of opium amounted to 2,200 metric tons in Afghanistan in

April 2002. According to Dr. Daurov, drugs are currently stockpiled in

northern Afghanistan near the border with Tajikistan. Similarly, as a

result of the dismantlement of large laboratories in eastern Afghanistan,

the heroin processing laboratories recently moved to the Afghan-Tajik

border for easier access of raw materials and precursors, as well as for

closer location to the major drug trade routes via Central Asia. 

In conclusion, the speaker pointed out that there has been an increased

cross-border movement in drug trafficking recently. This, combined

with changes in the drug trade patterns, require new approaches not

only on the part of the states concerned, but also well-concerted

regional cooperation. 

The final speaker on this panel, Colonel (Ret.) Nick Pratt, from the

College of International Security Studies at George C. Marshall Center

examined the nature and the operation of human trafficking.

According to Colonel Pratt, organized crime tends to target countries

in transition, undermining the trust in the government and destroying

domestic stability. The speaker pointed out that there has been a major

rise in human trafficking. One million people per year are sold into

slavery as a result of globalization of the economy, demands for personal services and the increased need for organ transplants. In fact, human

trafficking as the fastest growing criminal business in the world.

Colonel Pratt especially focused on transplant mafia that capitalizes on

the needs of the West, and endemic poverty that encourages people to

sell their organs, for instance in India. However, human and organ trafficking is a dangerous business to expose, and therefore continues to

operate unpunished. 

11
In conclusion, the speaker emphasized the political criminal nexus that

facilitates trafficking. Corruption within the government allows for

infiltration of criminal elements, making the problem extremely difficult to tackle.

3. Weapons Transfer:

Having examined trafficking as one of the major soft security threats, the

next panel turned its attention to weapons transfer, in particular in the Ba l t i c

States and Russia. Ms. Jevgenia Vi k t o rova, from the De p a rtment of

International Relations at St. Andrews Un i versity in Scotland, first focused

on the distinction between small and conventional weapons, which appears

i m p o rtant for arms trade. Thus, it is easier to monitor the transfer of conve ntional weapons, as there are fewer manufacturers. In the case of small

weapons, due to a much larger number of producers, is more difficult to cont rol. The speaker then examined Estonia’s national policies with re g a rd to

weapons transfer. She pointed out that although a Law on Im p o rt, Ex p o rt

and Transit of Strategic Goods has been enacted, there is a clear gap betwe e n

policy and implementation. Of f i c i a l l y, howe ve r, there are no arms export s .

Un o f f i c i a l l y, some cases in the recent ye a r, such the ‘Russian channel’, the

‘ Finish affair’ and the ‘Polish affair’ clearly demonstrated that the pro b l e m

exists, even though on a limited scale.

The next speaker, Dr. Leonid Ryabikhin, Senior Re s e a rch Associate at the

Institute for World Economy and International Relations in Mo s c ow, examined the implications of the weapons transfer for the international communit y. In his opinion, weapon transfers undermine the balance of power posing a

t h reat to the international community. At the same time, it is extremely difficult to trace these transfers due to the existence of black market channels and

we l l - o r g a n i zed crime networks that operate on a large-scale. Ac c o rding to Dr.

Ryabikhin what is needed are initiatives on three levels – international,

regional and local, as well the establishment of international norms, transp a rency and accountability. In addition, cooperation among intelligence and

diplomats, and more importantly the availability of information appears vital

for successfully combating this soft security thre a t .

12
PART III: International and National Responses

The analysis of the nature of the specific issues and the roots of the

problems caused by the major soft security threats – illegal migration,

trafficking and weapons transfer would not be complete without the

examination of the international and national approaches to these

issues. The following two panels therefore present the current responses

of international community and national governments, and more

importantly point out deficiencies in the ways these threats are dealt

with.

In the first panel, Colonel Oliver Macdonald, School Commandant at

the United Nations Training School in Ireland provided an analysis of

the security responses on the part of the OSCE. He pointed out that at

present the OSCE is the only mechanism to encompass all Europe, and

that deals with issues that concern all European governments. In his

view security cannot be divided in ‘soft’ and ‘hard’, as in the final

analysis ‘soft’ security could develop into a security threat that requires

a military response. There are many examples of situations where ‘soft’

security issues became ‘hard’ security issues.

The effectiveness and the achievements of the OSCE in addressing soft

security threats have been well documented. Colonel Macdonald

emphasized that with increased awareness of the risks of soft security

threats, as well as determination and political will of the international

community, and improved measures to regulate trafficking, we can continue to “inch forward” to solve these problems.

International Responses:

Turning to other international responses, Mr. Robert Cozzolina examined the responses of the Baltic States to soft security threats. In his

view, cross-border cooperation requires a concrete commitment on the

part of the governments involved. The need to utilize the investigative

tool of “controlled deliveries” needs to be encouraged. Utilizing this

methodology will lead to the identification of those individuals who are

controlling the smuggling operation rather than arresting and prosecuting low-level couriers. Cross Border Cooperation, utilizing this tool,

should be increased, as different organized criminal groups have no

regard for national sovereignty. Task force operations should be

increased and all entities should work to enhance cooperation, however,

13
prosecutors are still left out of the loop, often leading to failed legal

processes. The speaker pointed out that one American strategy is to

follow the money. This effort tends to cause greater disruption and

harm to criminal organizations, more so than just seizing the contraband. By following the profits of crime, law enforcement can identify a

variety of illegal criminal activities. In the United States, confiscated

money can be used to acquire more instruments/tools for law enforcement; for example, confiscated monies can be used to fund expensive

wiretaps. In Mr. Cozzolina’s opinion, therefore, one crucial task, in the

fight against trans-national criminals, is to undermine the financial

basis of the criminal net works. 

The next speaker, Dr. Leonid Polyakov analyzed Ukraine’s and CIS

policies with regard to soft security threats. First, the speaker noted that

proper assessment of the problem is required in order to develop appropriate responses. According to Mr. Polyakov, the following factors characterize the current security environment:

■ there is post-Cold War security vacuum filled by non-state actors

■ areas suffering ethnic conflicts and separatism became hostages to

criminal groups

■ the democracies in most countries of the former Soviet Union are

weak and susceptible to criminal elements

■ there are outside security interests in the regions: EU, NATO,

United States

The problem faced by the CIS appears directly related to Russian predominance, lack of resources, and lack of commitment. However,

cooperative arrangements do exist between the EU and Ukraine, and

assistance is provided from individual countries, such as USA,

Germany, United Kingdom and Turkey.

With regard to weapons transfer, public and parliamentary control is

currently absent.

Mr. Polyakov suggested three types of responses: accountability (tracking the weapons officially sold to governments), conversion (as along as

there is demand and supply there will always be trade); and disruption

(measures directed at limiting and combating the criminal activities in

this field).

In conclusion the speaker argued that in order to provide an effective

response, shared responsibility is required on the part of the civil socie14
ty and the multi-lateral organizations. The CIS countries must 

find mechanisms to regulate and coordinate their responses on the

regional level. 

National Responses:

The following panel focused on the national responses, in particular on

the part of Belarus, Estonia and Russia. General Col. Pavel Kazlouski,

President of the International Fund for the Rehabilitation of Former

Servicemen, argued that due to numerous factors, Belarus is losing its

international status and attraction for regional cooperation, investments

and economic development. The population does not have the trust in

the government, and there is no legislative framework to tackle issues of

great importance. In this situation, national responses to soft security

threats appear ineffective. 

In contrast to this pessimistic picture, Jevgenia Victorova acknowledged

the pursuit of the Baltic States to update legislation in response to soft

security issues. She cited a number of laws adopted by Estonia for this

purpose, such as the Aliens Act in 1993, the State Border Act in 1994,

the Refugees Act in 1997 and the Obligation to Depart and

Prohibition of Entry Act in 1999. In addition, Estonia’s security concept identifies a shift in the security risks from the traditional military

to non-military and the so-called asymmetric threats: organized crime,

international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,

trafficking of arms and drugs across borders and illegal migration. The

interconnected character of many of these threats is recognized, and

their trans-border, trans-global reach has prompted the development of

international measures to combat them. Hence the Government of

Estonia has accomplished several of the security priorities of Estonia –

political and economic integration in the Euro-Atlantic structures,

NATO and the EU, as well as participation in the respective international conventions and agreements. The development of adequate legislation and administrative skills is considered as important as establishing military defense capabilities. Once the accession negotiations with

the EU have been completed in December 2002, Estonian legislation

can be considered compatible with the EU standards. 

As a result, increasing the efficiency of border control constitutes an

important policy direction, as it reduces the opportunities for the traffickers to engage in their illegal activities. Here, national efforts are

built into a wider framework of the EU measures, such as Schengen

Information System (SIS) and the proposed establishment of European

15
Border Police and European Corps of Border Guards, which span the

areas of national and European jurisdiction, in administrative as well as

financial terms. Illegal migration threats must be addressed in a wider

framework of issues which serve as causes for migration, e.g. social deprivation, lack of economic opportunities, environmental degradation,

and political discrimination. 

In the speaker’s view, although it would be far-fetched to speak of ubiquity of criminalization and corruption, it is difficult to assess their actual scope. Two factors allow for a shade of optimism here. First, the

development of political culture and second, a greater international

transparency of legal measures is likely to make the delineation between

legal and illegal activities clearer, and reduce opportunities of manipulating the law.

The final presentation in this panel examined Russian national responses to soft security threats discussed in the earlier sessions. Ella Akerman

from King’s College London argued that throughout the 1990s Russian

policies towards these issues were characterized by three main factors:

lack of coherent approach, lack of a legislative framework and a proper

law enforcement regime, as well as lack of governmental capacity and

funds to address these problems. Whereas some issues, such as illegal

migration and drug trafficking received some attention on the part of

state authorities, others, such as human trafficking and prostitution did

not prompt responses on the federal level. Turning to the specific

responses, the speaker noted Russia’s responses to illegal migration

should be viewed against the background of the country’s demographic

decline and the new role of Russia as a migration magnet. In fact,

Russian migration policy went through several stages throughout the

1990s in an attempt to adapt to the new challenges posed by this phenomenon. Several laws were adopted to regulate migration. However,

their implementation appears hampered by the lack of a proper law

enforcement regime. In particular, this issue received increased attention from President Putin who is determined to effectively regulate

migration. The first step was the adoption of a new Law on the Legal

Status of Foreign Citizens in 2002, which was aimed at the improvement of governmental control over migrants from abroad. Similarly,

drug trafficking has received a great deal of attention from the state

authorities, expressed not only in national legislation, but also in broad

regional collaboration in the framework of the CIS, as well as in close

cooperation with relevant international bodies. In contrast, human trafficking has not been addressed adequately, as there are no specific laws

dealing with this major issue. 

16
In conclusion, Ms. Akerman noted that the successful regulation of soft

security threats in Russian in the 21st century requires the improvement of the legal framework together with the uniform implementation

of the law, better coordination of activities between federal and regional

agencies, as well as broader regional and international cooperation.

17
PART IV: New Ideas for Practical Security

Cooperation:

The second part of the conference focused on the elaboration of concre t e

m e a s u res to address soft security threats discussed in the plenary sessions.

For this purpose, three working groups we re formed to concentrate on a

specific issue and suggest new approaches in small group discussions. 

Each working group presented their proposals to the plenary session later

in the conference. Summaries from the workshops follow :

Workshop Illegal Migration: 

The re p o rt of the first gro u p, presented by Dr. Irina Ivakhniok emphasize d

that group members unanimously agreed that international migration as a

social process, plays an important positive role in the development of world

e c o n o m y, as well as in the enrichment of cultures. Howe ve r, no mechanisms

for effective regulation of migration on the inter-state level have been deve loped so far, allowing for illegal migration to thrive .

The group members also agreed that when dealing with illegal migration on

the state-level, the following two distinctions should be applied:

1. illegal migration as a particular form of labor migration

2. the criminal activities of organizations specializing in the illegal human

trafficking 

The re g u l a t i ve measures should take into account these two, different categories. With re g a rd to illegal labor migration, an alternative solution could

be a balanced long-term migration policy on the national and regional leve l s

aimed at the extension of legal migration. 

The group members observed that in their re s p e c t i ve countries there is not

only a lack of mechanisms regulating migration, but more import a n t l y, no

clear concept of migration policy that would take into account the contemp o r a ry context of national and regional security. At the same time, the

impact of illegal migration on national security is obv i o u s :

■ Deformation of the labor market and economic losses as a result of the

e xclusion of illegal migrants

■ Contribution to increases in criminality

18
■ Potential for increased ethno-social tensions in the form of national intolerance and migranophobia 

Concerning human trafficking, in particular women and children, the fight

against this phenomenon should proceed on the most serious level in combined efforts of law enforcement agencies – border forces, police, migration

agencies, and other state authorities, as well as NGOs .

The success of these measures largely depends on the joint activities of states

on the regional level. Only through close collaboration and cooperation,

will the dismantlement of the financial basis of this we l l - o r g a n i zed business

be accomplished. 

Group members suggested a set of practical measures on the national and

regional leve l s :

I. Regional Leve l :

■ Im p rovement of cooperation between the law enforcement organs and

other state stru c t u res responsible for the regulation of migration

■ Establishment of regional mechanisms for regulation of illegal migration

and its transition into the legal field

■ Creation of a complex informational and analytical system providing the

re l e vant law enforcement agencies with information concerning the data

related, for instance, to the illegal crossing of the border and the means of

illegal transport a t i o n

■ C o o rdination of activities of the customs, border control and police of

the state of the re g i o n

■ Conclusion of re l e vant agreements by the states invo l ve d

II. National Leve l :

■ Im p rovement of national legislation aimed at the reduction of illegal

migration, illegal attraction and use of illegal labor, facilitation of transport

of illegal migrants

■ Better coordination of activities of state institutions

■ Collaboration with non-governmental law organizations

■ Se a rch for the mechanisms to combat corruption in the early stages

■ Persecution of activities of criminal groups specialized in illegal migration

■ Public awareness campaigns related to the risks of illegal migration

■ De velopment of special agencies for psychological and other support for

the victims of trafficking and their rehabilitation into the society 

19
In conclusion, the working group emphasized the lack of activity in the field

of combating illegal migration and human trafficking cannot be justified,

and the lost time might lead to the appearance of new, more serious thre a t s

to the security of the state, the society and the individual.

Wo rkshop Tr a f f i c k i n g :

The re p o rt of the second working group was presented by Je v g e n i a

Vi k t o rova and focused on the design of measures that can be enforced by

the Baltic States. The opinion of the group is that not only national and

international measures should be discussed, but also attention should be

paid to individual invo l vement. Pa rticipants agreed that people can’t hide

behind official mechanisms. Re g u l a t o ry framew o rks are designed to encourage individuals to actively participate in policy formation. 

Howe ve r, in the case of Eastern Eu rope most stru c t u res for dealing with

these problems are inherited from the Soviet past and the change is slow.

Would adapting the judicial systems to the Western standards be a solution?

Those who have determination can circ u m vent any system, howe ver strict,

especially where money is invo l ved. The Western stru c t u res are not a safeg u a rd against corruption; otherwise the problem of trafficking would be

limited to Eastern Eu rope. Trafficking problems existed before the communist regime collapsed, but officials did not admit the problems. It is important to bear in mind that in the case of human trafficking we are dealing

with the same criminal stru c t u res that started with smuggling cigare t t e s ,

alcohol and, later, drugs, and switched to human trafficking as soon as it

was discove red that human trafficking is a more profitable business. T h e

n a t u re of organized crime is to explore new sources of income when the old

a venues dry up, due to whatever reason, including the introduction of

stricter legislation. 

The women who fall victims of trafficking have little local knowledge and

a re totally dependent on the traffickers. Victims are left without documents

or money to return to their homes. They are intimidated by what may happen to their families if they start cooperating with the police. The most

e f f e c t i ve way to contact these women is through NGOs, Christian organizations, and even ethnic emigrant societies. The women who work as pro s t itutes, for instance, almost never go to their embassies when in trouble, not

t rusting the re p re s e n t a t i ves of their own states. Pa rticipants of this work i n g

g roup listed the following support mechanisms that should be in place to

eliminate a significant part of the pro b l e m :

20
■ Monitoring the channels by which the people are deceived (e.g. new s p aper adve rts). En s u re the ability of immigrants to communicate with the

authorities (their re p resentations in the countries of destination) and re t u r n

home. 

■ Establishment of legal channels in order to assist the illegal migrants.

T h e re are few mechanisms in place to return the illegal migrants to the

realm of legality. These mechanisms should be established in the sourc e

countries as well as destination countries.

■ Establishment of a common policy tow a rds these issues in the EU. Fo r

example, in some of the member states, drug consumption, prostitution are

not considered criminal offenses. When only part of the chain is criminali zed (e.g., consumption is legal but trade is not), and the standards differ

f rom country to country, it is difficult to address the problem legally as there

is no agreement on what constitutes a crime. 

■ The dilemma is whether to impose strict regulations on trafficking, with

little hope of effective enforcement, or loosen the re g u l a t i o n s / l e g a l i ze as

much as we can and try to eliminate the problem by letting the individual

bear re s p o n s i b i l i t y. 

■ Confiscating the finances of the organized crime groups is import a n t ;

h owe ve r, officials have had difficulty in proving the illegality of the funds.

Western governments have attempted to come up with different policy solutions and none have proven perfect. Officials re c o g n i ze that it is difficult to

tackle international crime when the mechanisms are restricted to national

jurisdiction. One solution is to harmonize Eu ropean legislation, devise

Common Eu ropean enforcement agencies and intelligence. Another solution is to stick to a policy of “case by case” cooperation, which has proven to

be ve ry successful, especially in information sharing, combating trafficking

and production of drugs, and in witness protection programs. 

■ Pre vention is equally important. Raising awareness among the potential

victims, either prostitutes or drug consumers, is being attempted thro u g h

schools, churches, and sport societies. Pre vention doesn’t work as well as

many would hope. Attitudes tow a rds illegal immigrants (the victims) who

bear no personal responsibility for their fate, don’t help in tackling the pro blem. 

■ The EU is perc e i ved as an irrational entity. When Eastern Eu ro p e a n

states turn to the EU for practical solutions, they often get inconsistent

21
responses. Without solutions, it is difficult to justify to the angry populations, the need for increased openness in Eu rope. This anger, whether a

result of prejudice or frustration from inefficient policies, favors the fragmentation of Eu rope and the erection of new barriers.

■ Because of the differences in income that low-paid civil servants can make

legally and through connections with criminal groups, these civil serva n t s

a re an immediate security problem. On the other hand, if officials’ salaries

a re too high, there is a danger of corruption invo l ved in the ve ry access to

these positions. T h e re f o re, raising salaries of civil servants would not be an

instant solution. Howe ve r, free movement of labor in Eu rope might solve

some of the pro b l e m .

In conclusion, the group pointed out that the work in international framew o rks should not preclude the governments from doing their best on the

national level. 

Wo rkshop Weapons Tr a n s f e r :

The re p o rt of the third working gro u p, presented by Dr. Leonid Po l y a k ov

reflected the difficulties in dealing with weapons transfer, and the need to

examine the nature of the problem. The group members focused on the

n a t u re of the issue and the political developments in weapons transfer, as

well as possible consequences and recommendations for official policies.

Ac c o rd i n g l y, the root of the problem appears in the disintegration of the

Soviet Union and the subsequent difficulties of the successor states to establish effective control over the weapons located on their territories. In addition, the legalization of private economic activity together with the collapse

of the social system of the states has acted as a catalyst for weapons transfer.

Fi n a l l y, the double standards of the West invo l ved in weapons transfer

despite condemning it, provides skepticism on the part of the East Eu ro p e a n

countries, discouraging them to tackle the issue in a serious manner.

Although the group members agreed that dialogue is possible, they could

not agree on cooperative ways to combat this soft security threat. New

a p p roaches and mediators appear to be re q u i red for the elaboration of effect i ve measure s .

22
Conclusions – The Way Ahead

In the final part of the conference, Mr. James Sh e r r, Fe l l ow of the Conflict

Studies Re s e a rch Centre, UK Defense Ac a d e m y, examined soft security

t h reats and the future of the Eu ropean St a b i l i t y, highlighting the difficulties currently faced by the post-Soviet countries and outlining the re q u i rements for successful reduction of soft security risks. In his view, the root of

the problems faced by the post-Soviet states today, lies in a number of

continuities between the communist and post-communist ord e r. The official restrictions placed on private enterprises in the “s o c i a l i s t’ ( C o m m u n i s t )

system inevitably produced illegal economic activity. Economic stagnation and pere s t roika expanded this illegal activity gradually transforming

“s h a d ow” individuals into “s h a d ow stru c t u re s”, operating in illicit collusion with the state. The eventual collapse of the “s o c i a l i s t” system produced a collapse of authority, crating a vacuum and allowing these gro u p s

to dominate the “p r i va t i z a t i o n” process. This heritage and transformation

h a ve created a distinctive business culture in Eastern Eu rope: collusive ,

based on networks, which remain unaccountable and opaque.

In Mr. Sh e r r’s opinion, one of the fundamental errors of Western engagement in the post-Soviet space has been insufficient emphasis placed on the

d e velopment of institutions, allowing people to think that democracy is

simply about mechanics (e.g., free and fair elections), and not about a system of values underpinned by institutions willing and able to defend

them. The result is a lack of legitimacy and trust between official authorities and socity. Without legitimacy, states will not be effective. Un l e s s

state stru c t u res become transparent, accountable and professional, soft

security threats will develop and spread. In addition, non-re c o g n i ze d

states, such as Prednistria, Abkhasia and Nagorny Karabakh pose a dire c t

t h reat to regional security, weakening their neighbors and underming the

policies as well as the law enforcement and security services of the neighboring states.

Ac c o rding to the speaker, there is a clear relationship to the international

dimension, as the NATO and EU enlargements are designed not only to

s t rengthen integration, but also exclude actors and entities that could

undermine the enlarged Eu ro - Atlantic community. In the speaker’s view,

the EU’s primary interest the foreign policies of the Eastern states, but

their internal policies, judged according to the way in which institutions,

security and law enforcement bodies behave in practice. As a result, EU

p o l i c y, combined with differences in political and economic culture, are

23
c reating new dividing lines in Eu rope. By seeking to contain threats, the

EU is not only erecting barriers against harmful actors and practices, but

also, neighboring states. In addition:

■ Se veral post-Communist states are forced to live with contradictory

b o rder re g i m e s ;

■ EU policy has been re a c t i ve, instead of pro - a c t i ve ;

■ Post-Communist states need the prospect of the EU membership in

o rder to mobilize people to introduce courageous measures to democratize

and modernize their political ord e r s ;

In conclusion, Mr. Sherr argued that the route to solving problems of soft

security does not lie in strengthening international mechanisms, but in 

the implementation of practical internal and external political changes.

Without real changes in the way institutions work and economies are

run, it will not be possible to integrate states within themselves, let 

alone strengthen Eu ropean integration and create a stable and peaceful

e n v i ro n m e n t .

24
General Conclusions:

Although there was no general agreement on the definition of soft security threats, there was unanimous recognition that the issues discussed –

illegal migration, drug trafficking, human trafficking and weapons

transfer – constitute a direct threat to national and international security and are major challenges for the 21st century. Among all the beneficial aspects and cultural enrichment of globalization, it has also brought

about a universalization of security issues, which can no longer be contained within a defined territory. In the light of these developments,

regional and international cooperation appears crucial for the attainment of stability and peace on the global scale.

In this sense, the conference allowed high-level specialists from Eastern

Europe to share their views and experiences in dealing with threats

faced by their governments and the international community as a

whole. The conference provided a great opportunity to discuss common problems and seek new approaches to issues in the specific environment of the post-Soviet space. 

In particular, the work of the three workshops allowed for focused

debates on the major soft security threats, resulting in well-presented

recommendations for practical measures that deserve the attention of

the relevant national and regional policy-making bodies. The development of new approaches towards these threats should be regarded as an

important step towards greater cooperative security on the East

European and Euro-Atlantic level. 

25
Appendix A: Agenda

Sunday, 6 April - Arrivals

Monday, 7 April

0900-0910

Opening Remarks

MG (Ret) Michael McCarthy,

U.S. Deputy Director,

George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies 

Mrs. Jone Gittinger,

Conference Center, George C. Marshall Center

Session 1: 

SOFT SECURITY ISSUES: 

THREATS & SECURITY IMPLICATIONS

Moderator: 

Mr. James Sherr, Senior Lecturer,

Conflict Studies Research Centre, (CSRC), UK Defence Academy

0910-0945

Hard and Soft European Security Dynamics in the 21st Century

Dr. Julian Lindley-French, 

Faculty Member,

Geneva Centre for Security Policy,

Geneva, Switzerland 

0945-1015

Open Discussion

1015-1030

Coffee Break

1030-1110

Soft Security Threats in the New Europe

Dr. Fotios Moustakis, 

Senior Lecturer in Strategic Studies, 

Britannia Royal Naval College, UK

26
1110-1140

Open Discussion 

Session 2: 

ISSUE PANELS

Moderator: Professor Natalie Hassman, 

College of International Security Studies,

George C. Marshall Center

1140-1225

Illegal Migration Panel

Dr. Leonid Polyakov, Director, Military Programs, Ukrainian

Center for Economic & Political Studies, Kiev, Ukraine

Dr. Irina Ivakhniouk, Senior Researcher, Faculty of Economics,

Moscow State “Lomonosov” University

Mr. Olegas Skinderskis, Director, International Relations & EU

Integration, Ministry of Interior, Lithuania

1225-1300

Open Discussion

1300-1310

Group Photograph

1310-1430

Lunch

1430-1510

Trafficking Panel

Mr. Robert Cozzolina, Chief, Non-Proliferation and Border

Security Team, U.S. Department of State, Riga, Lativa

Dr. Ramazan Daurov, Vice President, International Center for

Strategic and Political Studies, Moscow, Russia

Col. (Ret) Nick Pratt, College of International Security Studies,

George C. Marshall Center

1510-1540

Open Discussion

1540-1600

Coffee Break

27
1600-1630

Weapons Transfer – Full Spectrum Panel

Ms. Jevgenia Viktorova, Department of International Relations,

University of St. Andrews, London, England

Dr. Leonid Ryabikhin, Senior Research Associate, Institute for

World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Moscow,

Russia

1630-1700

Open Discussion/Workshop Introduction

1700-1730 

Marshall Center Briefing

1900-2000 

Hosted Reception

Tuesday, 8 April

Session 3:

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL RESPONSES

Moderator: 

Mrs. Anne Aldis, Research Manager,

Conflict Studies Research Centre, (CSRC), UK Defence Academy

0900-0930

Security Responses - OSCE

Colonel Oliver A.K. Macdonald, School Commandant, United

Nations Training School, Ireland (UNTSI), Ireland

0930-1000

Open Discussion

1000-1030

Coffee Break

1030-1110

Other International Responses - Baltics and CIS

Mr. Robert Cozzolina, US Department of State, Riga, Latvia

Dr. Leonid Polyakov, Ukrainian Center for Economic 

& Political Studies, Kiev, Ukraine

28
1110-1130

Open Discussion

1130-1215

National Responses Panel – Belarus, Estonia and Russia

Gen. Col. Pavel Kazlouski, President, International Fund for the

Rehabilitation of Former Servicemen

Ms. Jevgenia Viktorova,

University of St. Andrews, Kingdom of Fife, UK

Ms. Ella Akerman, 

Mediterranean Studies, King's College London, UK

1215-1240

Open Discussion

1240-1400

Lunch

Session 4:

WORKSHOP/DISCUSSION

(1520-1540 - Coffee Break)

1400-1700

New Ideas for Practical Security Cooperation

Group A: Migration/ Illegal Migration

Moderator: Colonel Oliver Macdonald, UNTSI

Group B: Trafficking

Moderator: 

Mrs. Anne Aldis, 

CSRC, UK Defence Academy

Group C: Weapons Transfers

Moderator: 

Mr. James Sherr,

CSRC, UK Defence Academy

1830

Bus transportation to Bavarian Night (1900-2130)

Wednesday, 9 April

Session 5:

WORKSHOP REPORTS

29
Moderator:

Dr. Graeme Herd, Professor,

College of International Security Studies, 

George C. Marshall Center

0900-1030

Sub-Regional Group Reports and Discussion

1030-1050 Coffee Break

Session 6:

CONCLUSIONS: THE WAY AHEAD

1050-1130

“Enforced Partnership”

or “Partnership of the Willing”:

Soft Security Threats and the Future of European Stability

Mr. James Sherr, CSRC, UK Defence Academy

1130-1145

Final Discussion

1145-1200

Closing Remarks

MG (Ret) Michael McCarthy, U.S. Deputy Director, George C.

Marshall Center for Security Studies 

30
APPENDIX B: Attendees 

ALBANIA

REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

Ms. Iryna A. CHUTKOVA

Ministry of Labor and Social Protection

Head

Family Policy and Gender Issues Department

Ms. Raisa V. DYMKOVA

Ministry of Labor and Social Protection

Head

Migration Department

Ms. Larysa N. ISTOMAVA

BPW Brest Belarus

President

Ms. Natallia A. PAULOVA

YWCA of Belarus

Manager Assistant

Social Assistance Campaign - La Strada Belarus Program

Ms. Natalia V. ZHAK

International Organization for Migration

Program Manager

 REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA

Mr. Juri KAHN

Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu)

Director

Foreign Relations Department

Ms. Siiri KONIGSBERG

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia

Second Secretary

Policy Planning Department

31
Mr. Jaan KUKS

Ministry of Defense, Estonia

Deputy Director

International Cooperation

Mr. Ahto KUUSEOK

Ministry of Defense, Estonia

Deputy Secretary General for Military Service

Mr. Andrus NORMET

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia

Director of Division

Ms. Pille PAKANE

Ministry of Defense, Estonia 

PfP Coordinator 

Mr. Arvi UUSTALU

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Estonia

Chief Specialist

REPUBLIC OF LATVIA

Mr. Raimonds BLUKIS

Ministry of Interior

Deputy State Secretary

COL Juris DALBINS

Saeima (parliament) Of The Republic Of Latvia

Member of Parliament

Ms. Evija DUMPE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Latvia

Head of International Law Division

Mrs. Ieva JIRGENSONE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Latvia

3rd Secretary-Arms Control Division

Mr. Paulis KLAVINS

Saeima (Parliament) Of The Republic Of Latvia

Member of Parliament

32
Mr. Dzintars RASNACS

Ministry of Defense, Latvia

Parliamentary Secretary

Mr. Juris REKSNA

Ministry of Interior, Latvia

State Secretary

Dr. Alberts SARKANIS

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Latvia

Inspector General

REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

Ms. Dalia G. DAVIDENIENE

Seimas (Parliament) of the Republic of Lithuania

Senior Advisor

Committee on Foreign Affairs

Mr. Julius DIRMA

Lithuanian Parliament

Advisor

Committee on Legal Affairs

Mr. Mantas LAPINSKAS

Ministry of Defense

Head of System Planning Division

Policy & Planning Department

Mr. Marius PUODZIUNAS

Ministry of National Defense

Senior Executive Officer

Ms. Ramute STANKEVICIUTE

Ministry of Defense, Lithuania

Senior Specialist/Desk Officer

Dr. Irena VALAINYTE

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lithuania

Head of Consular Assistance Division

34
Mr. Deivis VALIULIS

Seimas (Parliament) of the Republic of Lithuania

Senior Advisor

Mr. Vilmantas VITKAUSKAS

Ministry of National Defense

Head of Division

Second Investigation Department

 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

COL Victor MACRINSCHI

Main Staff of the National Army

Chief

Operations Directorate

COL Victor MURZAC

Ministry of Defense, Moldova

Chief

Military Policy and Foreign Relations Directorate

REPUBLIC OF POLAND

Prof. Jaroslaw BRATKIEWICZ

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland

Deputy Director

Strategy and Policy Planning

Mr. Marek J. SZCZYGIEL

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Deputy Director

Department for Security Policy

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Prof. Dr. Alexander N. CHUMAKOV

Russian Philosophical Society

First Vice-President

CDR Alexander V. MILANOV

Ministry of Defense, Russia

Main Specialist International Treaty Department

Main Department International Military Cooperation

35
Prof. Dr. Yuri Y. MOROZOV

International Center for Strategic & Political Studies

Senior Expert

Institute of Europe, RAS

MG Sergey L. NIKOLENKO

General Staff of the Russian Federation

First Deputy Chief of the Department

Gen Lt Nikolay PERSHUTKIN

Head

Main Directorate for Security

Gen Maj Evgeniy SEMENCHENKO

Deputy Director

Main Directorate for the Fight Against Organized Crime

UKRAINE

COL Oleg S. ALEKSANDROV

National Security & Defense Council, Ukraine

Assistant First Deputy Secretary

Gen Lt Oleg I. BYTSIUK

Ministry of Defense, Ukraine

Deputy Chief of General Staff

General Staff of Ukrainian Armed Forces

Mr. Yuri O. HONCHARYK

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine

Chief of Directorate

COL Volodymyr A. KOSHKYN

Ministry of Defense, Ukraine

Chief of Military Technical Cooperation Department

COL(Ret) Andriy S. SHAPOVALOV

International Anti-terrorist Unity

Secretary of Executive Committee

COL Victor TSYMBALIUK

Embassy of Ukraine in Germany

Military Attache

36
Gen Lt Grygoriy V. YEPUR

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ukraine

Deputy State Secretary

COL Mykola K. ZAKORCHEVNKI

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ukraine

Chief of Criminal Investigation Section

National Central Bureau of Interpol of Ukraine

COL Anatoliy M. ZARYTSKY

State Border Security Committee, Ukraine

Chief of Department

International Cooperation

CONFERENCE SPEAKERS & MODERATORS

Ms. Ella AKERMAN

Kings College, University of London

Mrs. Anne C. ALDIS

Conflict Studies Research Center

Research Manager

Mr. Robert COZZOLINA

Embassy of the United States of America

Chief

Non-Profileration and Border Security Team

Dr. Ramazan D. DAUROV

International Center for Strategic & Political Studies, Russia

Vice-President

Prof. Natalie HASSMAN

The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

Professor

College of International Security Studies (CISS)

Dr. Graeme HERD

The George C. Marshall Center

Professor

College of International Security Studies (CISS)

37
Dr. Irina V. IVAKHNIOUK

Moscow State "Lomonosov" University

Senior Researcher

Gen Col Pavel P. KAZLOUSKI

Int'l Fund for the Rehabilitation of Former Servicement

President

Dr. Julian LINDLEY-FRENCH

Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP), Switzerland

Director, European Security Policy

COL Oliver A. MACDONALD

School Commandant

Dr. Fotios MOUSTAKIS

Britannia Royal Naval College

Senior Lecturer In Strategic Studies

Mr. Leonid I. POLYAKOV

Razumkov Centre

Director

Ukrainian Center for Economic & Political Studies

COL(Ret) Nick PRATT

The George C. Marshall Center

Director, Leaders Course

College of International Security Studies

CAPT(Ret) Leonid F. RYABIKHIN

Institute of World Economy and International Relations

Senior Research Associate

Center of Inernational Security

Mr. James SHERR

Conflict Studies Research Centre

Mr. Olegas SKINDERSKIS

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Director

International Relations & EU Integration

38
Ms. Jevgenia VIKTOROVA

University of St Andrews

THE MARSHALL CENTER

Ms. Michelle DURIG

The George C. Marshall Center

Administrative Specialist

Mrs. Jone GITTINGER

The George C. Marshall Center

Division Chief

COL (GEAF) Franz-Xaver LAUTERER

The George C. Marshall Center

Director

Conference Center

MG(Ret) Michael MCCARTHY

The George C. Marshall Center

Deputy Director, US

Office of the Director

CSM (GEA) Walter VIESSMANN

The George C. Marshall Center

Operations Officer

INTERNATIONAL

Ms. Ludmilla MULLOVA

Conference Interpreter

Ms. Marina SCHLICHTER

Ms. Marina Schlichter

Interpreter

Mr. Vitaly SURKOV

Mr. Vitaly Surkov

Interpreter

39
40
THE GEORGE C. MARSHALL CONFERENCE CENTER

MISSION

The Conference Center’s mission is to serve as an international forum for defense contacts,

to share ideas vital to European security and to focus on methods to promote regional 

cooperation by incorporating the principles of democracy and the conditions for a market

economy. Additionally, the Conference Center assists Partnership for Peace nations in their

efforts to establish national security structures and supporting institutions which are compatible with democratic principles and processes, for example, the establishment of civilian 

oversight of the military and market economies. To accomplish this mission, the Conference

Center targets very senior civilian and military government officials and parliamentarians from

the Atlantic to Eurasia.

SCHEDULING

The Marshall Center solicits requests for conference/seminar topics through American

embassies in January for the Conference Schedule which begins that October. Responses

are due by the end of February. Requests should include: a detailed purpose or expected

outcome; the scope of the conference (number and level of attendees); identification of

participating countries; duration (normally 5 days but shorter or longer if necessary); location;

dates; support that the requestor can provide and a point of contact. 

Requests are consolidated and submitted to the Director, Marshall Center by 15 April. 

The final list and budget is submitted to higher headquarters by June. A complete Conference

Schedule for the year can be found at the Marshall Center web site.

Conferences can be requested at anytime for consideration; however, once the Fiscal Year

program has been established, it may take several months to satisfy a request, and only

those requests able to demonstrate exceptional urgency.

SUBMIT REQUESTS THROUGH THE AMERICAN OR GERMAN EMBASSY OR TO: 

Director, Conference Center

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

Gernacker Strasse 2

D • 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen 

ON THE WEB: http://www.marshallcenter.org

DSN: 440-2882 COM: (08821) 750 882

E-mail Address: gcmc@marshallcenter.org

FAX: 49-8821-750-841