The Russian Security Council is facing new challenges in both its foreign and domestic policy. The council should have a substantial contribution to consolidating national defenses, completing the reform of the army and navy, upgrading the armed forces and equipping them with modern weapons and combat control systems (especially in view of the U.S. and NATO deployment of missile defenses), and to resolving the social problems of service personnel.

       June 3 marked the 20th anniversary of the Russian president’s decree on forming the Security Council of the Russian Federation and the corresponding provisions. During these twenty years the provisions have been repeatedly amended but one thing has remained unchanged: the status of the Security Council. It was defined as a consultative body at the head of the state; its mission was to draft the decisions of the president on protecting the vital interests of the individual, society and the state against domestic and external threats and to carry out uniform government policy on national security. Under the Law on Security, the council provides the conditions for implementing the president's constitutional powers on protecting civil rights and freedoms, as well as the country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

       A decree appointing members of the Security Council was one of the first decisions of Russia’s newly elected President Vladimir Putin. In addition to the president and the secretary of the Security Council, permanent member status was extended to the new prime minister, speakers of both chambers of the Duma, the head of the Presidential Executive Office, and the heads of the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the Interior Ministry, the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).

       At the first session of the reshaped council, its members discussed Russia’s cooperation with the European Union (EU) on the eve of their summit in St. Petersburg.

       They also reviewed the development of integration processes in the CIS in view of Putin’s upcoming visit to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, as well as the events in Syria.

       However, the task of the council is not just to discuss important issues on the eve of the president’s foreign trips. Its responsibilities are much broader. Suffice it to say, the council produced such major documents on the country’s long-term domestic and foreign policy as the National Security Concept and the Military Doctrine. Later, these documents were signed by the head of state. They continue to determine Russia’s policy in building the national defenses and the army’s combat potential, and improving the work of the law-enforcement bodies, the Foreign Ministry, and legislative and executive power.

       During the last two decades the political role and importance of the council in the life of Russia have changed several times. When Boris Yeltsin was president, and especially during the constitutional crisis and his confrontation with the Supreme Council in the early 1990s, the Security Council began to coordinate the activities of the power agencies and the head of state. When Gen. Alexander Lebed was the secretary of the council, he undertook to settle the armed conflict in Chechnya. Although the agreements reached at that time (I witnessed their signing) evoked a mixed response in Russian society, they halted the bloodshed in the North Caucasus for a long time. As secretary of the council, the late general was succeeded by Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, Andrei Kokoshin and Nikolai Bordyuzha, and all of them kept the council as open to the public and the media as possible. The council’s decisions were discussed with independent experts, influential politicians and leading journalists.

       The then FSB Director Putin became the council’s secretary in the late 1990s. This job became a springboard for his election to the presidential post. His successors in the council did not display much initiative and its link with the public and the expert community gradually faded away.

       Other countries also have security councils. The United States, Israel and Chile have their National Security Council; Turkmenistan and the Czech Republic have a State Security Council; Ukraine has the Council of National Security and Defense; and Iran has the Supreme Council of National Security. Many states have similar bodies that prepare their recommendations for their presidents or prime ministers. It is up to the leaders whether or not to take this advice to heart.

       Today, the Russian Security Council is facing new challenges in both its foreign and domestic policy. It is working on recommendations for the urgent issues of national economic and financial development, including the introduction of innovations in advanced industries and the overhaul of the defense industry as the engine of the country’s effective advancement. The council should have a substantial contribution to consolidating national defenses, completing the reform of the army and navy, upgrading the armed forces and equipping them with modern weapons and combat control systems (especially in view of the U.S. and NATO deployment of missile defenses), and to resolving the social problems of service personnel.

       The council is capable of coping with these tasks, with the close support of, and cooperation with, civil society.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.