Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------------------------
Business Week Online SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 NEWSMAKER Q&A "Why Not Accept Russia into NATO?" Sergei V. Stepashin, a former Prime Minister and a confidant of Vladimir Putin, says Russia could do plenty to help the U.S., and in return... For the first time since the end of World War II, former Cold War foes Russia and the U.S. have a common enemy. The Kremlin has long claimed that Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., funded and trained rebels in Chechnya, the breakaway republic that Russia blames for bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities in 1999. Now, as the U.S. considers striking at terrorist bases in Afghanistan, where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, President Bush may call upon Russia to help the U.S. locate military bases or secure air space in the republics of the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan. After meeting on Sept. 19 with U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow, former Prime Minister Sergei V. Stepashin, who is a close confidant of President Vladimir V. Putin, spoke with BusinessWeek Moscow Correspondent Catherine Belton to discuss what Russia would like to gain for its cooperation. The surprising answer: A key role in a new, post-cold-war world order -- possibly even NATO membership. Here are edited excerpts from their discussion: Q: How can Russia help in the world fight against terrorism? A: We can provide information on Afghanistan. We have been working for some time with the Northern Alliance [the main opposition force in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the group that controls a buffer zone between Afghanistan and Tajikistan]. We have military bases in Tajikistan -- and I think we could provide serious military-operative information on what is happening in Afghanistan. I personally know [President Putin's] position. Russia is in solidarity with the U.S. Putin is ready for a wide sphere of cooperation in this situation. There are no ideological barriers. But Russia should not be in a situation where the U.S. has already taken its decision and begun its attack and, only then, asks Russia to join in. If we are partners, then we should talk openly. There is a historic precedent for this. In 1941, we fought together against fascism, and I don't see any obstacles to returning to that old scheme of cooperation. The two heads of state need to meet. A meeting of the G-8 would be the best way of coordinating a reaction to the attacks. Q: Should the U.S. use military bases in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan, for possible strikes on Afghanistan? A: As far as Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries are concerned, including Uzbekistan, they are sovereign states, and it is their right to decide. I understand well why [Uzbek President Islam] Karimov has spoken in support of the U.S. The Taliban is a threat to his country. So if sovereign Uzbek or other [former Soviet] states decide to provide such help, it is their right. But there are military agreements with all the member countries of the CIS, and any decision should be agreed [upon by] all the states of the CIS -- or they should be at least informed of a decision. Q: Does Russia need to know the wider aims of the U.S. campaign -- such as whether old friends of Russia's, such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Libya will be targeted -- before it can give its agreement to lend military bases? A: Russia can do a lot of work with the leaders of these countries, especially with Syria, to bring them into the fight against terrorism. It seems to me that the U.S. should rethink its position toward Iran. Iran could take a very positive position. Iran has just the same anti-Taliban positions. [But] it's not just a question of this. It's also a question of military expediency. Let's change the format of NATO-Russia relations. Now there is a new political-military configuration. It is a new era. At first Putin suggested this with a smile on his face -- but why not accept Russia into NATO? Q: What are the consequences for Russia-U.S. relations if Iraq is a target? A: Let's not look at it in terms of geography. It's not a question of Iraq. If there is clear evidence, checked carefully, then terrorist bases have to be destroyed independent of where they are. Q: Is joining NATO a condition for Russia's cooperation? A: For today, the main thing is to achieve an absolutely open dialogue between the U.S. and Russia on the measures to be taken -- and then we can discuss further about changes to the format of NATO-Russia relations.... This is what Putin is insisting on now, and this is the message he sent with [Foreign Minister Igor] Ivanov to the U.S. It is difficult to say how Russia can cooperate and take part in action with the U.S. if it doesn't know any concrete details of the military operations. After all, the U.S. is much further away from Afghanistan than Russia is. Just because of this, there has to be a significant expansion of consultations. The ball is now in the U.S.'s court. Q: Will Russia ask for concessions on missile defense in return for its cooperation? A: I would not like to tie these questions [together]. And, as I understand the position of [President] Putin, this is a separate matter. What happened in the U.S. shows that it's not a question of having a missile-defense system or not. The threat is very different. If the missile-defense system were there, what would it have done last week? Walking out of the ABM treaty is also a political move. Russia has enough means to defend itself and to adequately respond to any nuclear threats. We have enough nuclear warheads to cause the onset of nuclear winter in the world and not one terrorist would remain. So, here it's not a question of threats directly connected to the security of our country. It's a question of destroying a very fragile security situation. Let the U.S. President and Congress decide. But it seems to me that one of the matters Bush and Putin could discuss at a meeting could be creating a new collective system of military security. Q: What are the proposals from Russia on creating a new system of security? A: So far, our position is clear. If there is a decision to breach the ABM Treaty, then we will have to make the corresponding military and technological responses. Our hands will be untied on conventional weapons and other types of weapons. Does America need this? I don't think so. I don't think this will lead to conflict with America, but it would seriously complicate our cooperation in fighting terrorism -- psychologically and militarily. Q: U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in Moscow [on Sept. 18] that the U.S. was making nonproliferation issues a top priority in the wake of the terrorist attacks, and pointed to Russia's ties with Iraq and Iran as being a matter for concern. Will Russia break its ties with those countries? A: We have not been supplying any military technology to Iraq for a long time. I took care of problems connected to Iran myself when I was Prime Minister. And no technology has been sent to Iran that would allow it to create nuclear weapons. Q: Does Russia have problems with the U.S. definition of terrorism? Might Russians see a double standard at work because of the U.S.'s criticism of Russian military action against rebels in Chechnya? A: I think now our colleagues in the U.S. understand well that terrorism in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, and in the Middle East have the same roots. The main idea now is that we have the chance to really join together before the face of a terrible threat. ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [email protected] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
