Interview: Moscow eyes NATO membership By ROLAND FLAMINI, UPI International Editor
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 (UPI) -- Russia is prepared to join a U.S.-led coalition to fight international terrorism, but would require strong arguments to continue its support if the United States attacked Iraq, a senior leading Russian foreign policy specialist said Friday. In an interview with United Press International, Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Presidium of Moscow's Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, said Russia's interest in being part of the coalition the Bush administration was trying to create reflected a growing interest in Moscow in joining NATO. Karaganov also revealed that the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had agreed to provide support for a U.S. offensive against Afghanistan only after Moscow had promised to protect them from retaliation by Kabul. Q. What has been the impact in Russia of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? A. The overwhelming feelings were compassion and the necessity to help. Among some older members of the ruling elite there was a feeling of glee at first, but they were subdued, pushed aside by television and mainstream journalists. Q. To what extent will the Russian government cooperate with the Bush administration's campaign to form an international coalition against terrorism? A. At the beginning there were some very grave doubts on the part of some of the military. They didn't want to get involved in any kind of operation which could drag us into an Afghanistan situation, or a new Chechnya -- and there were some inherent anti-American feelings, because they didn't want Americans to be close to our borders again. But Putin took the whole thing in his hands, and now there is overall support for the operation. Of course, there is still a big question what kind of coalition it will be and what voice in that coalition Russia will retain. Q. But the United States will be allowed to use Uzbekistan and Tagikistan for military operations with Russian approval? A. Yes, we have approved that. Both countries were very doubtful. They are exactly on the border (with Afghanistan), and they were extremely afraid. But Russia supported them -- and they needed the support for the simple reason that they realize that if the operations go wrong the Americans will not come to their rescue, and the only place that would help them was Russia. We keep a large force in Tajikistan to defend that country from Afghan guerillas and troops. Q. Is there any likelihood of the Russians taking part in a ground operation? A. We got burned so thoroughly in Afghanistan we wouldn't do that. But we have shared intelligence (with the United States), because we have vast intelligence networks from previous years -- the old days, and I understand we have sent our specialists to the United States -- veterans from the Afghan war -- to prepare the Americans on what to expect. Q. What do you think will be the long term impact of this situation on Russian-American relations? A. At the moment, I think all cards are up in the air. There is a strong chance that a grand coalition could be formed, with the leadership of the United States. If the United States goes multi-lateral, and really takes into account the views and the interests of the other member countries, there is a growing sentiment in Moscow that Russia should joint and become part of the coalition. Many in Moscow think that we should become not only an ad hoc member of the the coalition but a formal member, and that's why some of us are already openly calling for membership of NATO. Q. What is the advantage to Russia to get involved in this U.S.-led operation? A. We Russians are sitting on two fences, one is between the poor and the rich, the other is between the radical Muslim world and the Christian world, for us it's a possibility to join a coalition of civilized Western interests. And then, Russia participated very actively in the earlier coalition put together by the first President Bush. We didn't send troops to the Gulf, but Russian planes were flying troops to the area. This first coalition dissolved over differences over Yugoslavia. This time something more robust could emerge. Q. Would the United States still be able to count on Russia's support, if -- as some people in Washington believe -- the operation does not stop with Osama bin Laden, but will be expanded and there will be an offensive against, for example, Iraq? A. That will depend on (the American) arguments. If the arguments are plausible, I think we will support them even then. If the Americans can prove that Saddam Hussein has indeed been supporting terrorism, then we would remain neutral, but understanding. If however there is no evidence -- or there is very little evidence -- then we will withhold support altogether. Q. You were once quoted as saying that the collapse of Russian communism challenged the West, and the West failed the challenge. Do you see the current situation as a historical second chance? A. Yes, but I'm not sure whether this administration will be able to grasp that chance. If so, it would be the start of a different history -- the nucleus of a new world order of civilized nations based on non-proliferation, the fight against terrorism, and in addition helping those states that would become members of a grand coalition like India. China could become a member. The philosophical idea is, help those who help themselves. We saw what happened in Russia when misplaced help was delivered. That help was wasted: It prolonged the agony and corrupted the regime -- not in terms of direct money but in terms of giving the regime the possibility of doing nothing. We in Russia avoided structural reforms for almost 10 years: It's only now that we are starting them in a somewhat different direction. Q. President Putin has recently been less critical of NATO than in the past. Does this represent a shift in attitude? A. Russians very well understand that NATO is becoming the only visible and viable organization for European security, and it could become more so if it takes in Russia, because there is no other force. NATO could become a supplement to the U.N., the armed hand of the U.N., if it includes Russia. Q. Are you envisioning Russia as a full member of NATO? A. I'm talking -- and quite a few other people are talking -- about full membership. It could be full membership French style initially. (France participates at the political level, but not militarily.) Q. What realistic time table would you see for Russian membership, and between now and then what is Russia's attitude going to be to expansion. If there are clear signs of Russian entry in the future, would Russian objection to expansion dissolve? A. First of all, we have lost the moral right to fight against expansion because we have legitimized expansion by the back door (by standing aside and letting ex-Soviet republics negotiate membership). We are still against expansion because it diminishes Russia's role (in world affairs) and it brings NATO which is not a friendly alliance right up to our door. That's why we approved the membership of the Baltic states in the European Union, but not NATO. The Russian leadership is against the expansion of NATO which doesn't take Russia in. The best way out of this blind alley is two fold: One is take Russia first, or second take some other countries and then take Russia. Q. Is this a prevailing view about NATO membership in the Russian leadership? A. I don't think it could be called a prevailing view. Nobody on an official level has said what I am saying now. But I would say it is a view of Russian politicians and intellectuals close to the mainstream. Q. What would NATO have to do to convince the Russians that it was serious about early membership? A. Give a time-table -- but a firm time-table. Q. Would you forsee a debate in Russia over NATO membership? A. There is already a debate on that. It has several traits, one argument against is that we would have to learn to change all our technical standards and to forget about our military industry, but this is not true. We all know that France still keeps some of its own calibers for other uses. The second argument is China, and we have to deal with that seriously. The third is traditional anti-NATO sentiment, but many believe that would be subdued. Many educated Russians who are shaping the opinion of the country believe that Russia should belong to the West. Being in NATO will give us a future. Q. Recently U.S. officials have been more understanding of Russia's problem with Chechnya. There have been less references to Russian human rights violations. Do you think this is part of a quid pro quo for offered Russian cooperation in the U.S. response to the terrorist attack? A. I don't think we can talk about a quid pro quo because Chechnya is an issue of national importance. But we feel deeply the link between the fighting in Chechnya and international terrorism. Read Putin's statements over the last three years. He was the leader who mentioned the threat of international terrorism more than any other because he felt that the Chechnya rebels would not have been able to survive without outside support. The Chechens were getting money from militant Islamic sources, and then they got intellectual and ideological influence, and gradually they deteriorated into a fanatical Islamic state, which previously they were not. Partially, we were to blame for that, but partially they were infiltrated, there's no question about that. Q. Where do you see Russia's relationship developing with the European Union? A. Russia eventually, if it develops at a normal rate, should become a member of the European Union. But it's a much more complicated process than membership of NATO because NATO's criteria for membership are in a sense artificial, it's political expediency. But if we develop well, and in 15 years from now we will have a European Union of 25 -- 27 states, very far from the hope of a federal state but still a powerful integrated body, at that juncture Russia could be a valuable addition. Unfortunately, the EU's security dimension is going nowhere, or almost nowhere, and is no substitute for NATO membership. Q. So you would, in fact, abandon the common European home rhetoric and think in terms of the wider Atlantic and the Eurasian partnership? A. Economically and culturally we would not abandon the European Union because we are culturally much closer to Europe than to the United States, but in the global age the security could not be confined to Europe. Most prospective challenges in terms of security are coming from outside (Europe) and the European Union can not deal with these challenges. It can only deal with them aligned with the United States, with Russia, with China. Q. There is one issue that could disrupt relations between America and Russia and also between American and Europe to some extent, and that's missile defense. If Russia is moving into closer relationship with the Americans over terrorism and it's also developing a different attitude towards NATO membership, how will that affect Russia's attitude towards missile defense? A. First of all, if you're allies, there is a big difference in attitude. Second, Americans do not know what they want to deploy, and what they are able to deploy, and Russia would be the last country to suffer. The current scenarios do not endanger Russian security directly. They create problems for China, for Europe, but not for Russia. So Russia is not going to be the errand boy for Europe on this issue, or the ABM issue. But U.S. missile defense would be an impediment to a coalition set-up. Another impediment could be American unilateral action. If they act according to their own interests that would be dangerous and would ruin any kind of coalition. The United States acting independently of anybody else, would in any case be less potent. Because it is very clear that America could lead the world only as a member of a large coalition. THE END ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrHhl.bVKZIr 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 ==^================================================================
