#4
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
December 20, 2001
THE WEST DEMONSTRATES A NEW FORMAT OF COOPERATION
But Nezavisimaya Gazeta experts are not in a hurry to become euphoric
Author: Andrei Artemov, Mikhai Khodarenok
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
AN INTERVIEW WITH SERGEI KARAGANOV AND COLONEL GENERAL LEONID IVASHOV.

The new format of relations between Russia and the West, the talk of the day, was reiterated on Tuesday evening. When NATO defense ministers and their Russian counterpart Sergei Ivanov met in Brussels, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced an counter-terrorism operation in Somalia.

Ivanov made it clear that Russia will support military strikes at other countries provided it was shown irrefutable evidence of some regime's connection with terrorism.

When the Russian-NATO United Permanent Council met, Ivanov and NATO General Secretary George Robertson exchanged documents on the opening of the military liaison mission of the Alliance in Moscow. The level of relations within the Format 20 will be formed by May 2002, Ivanov said. The subjects that may be discussed in this format include war on terrorism, nonproliferation of mass destruction weapons, peacekeeping, prevention of crises including civil ones, and European anti-ballistic missile defense. The discussion is supposed to be on equal terms, with Russia having the veto right as well. The Alliance retains the right to act and made decisions all on its own (sans Russia) in the matters concerning its obligations and responsibilities. The final decision on the new rules of relations between Russia an NATO is to be made in Reykjavik next May.

Commenting on the outcome of his meetings and conversations in Brussels, Ivanov emphasized that the war on terrorism and nonproliferation of mass destruction weapons were the top priorities in the new Russian-NATO relations. Ivanov said in a TV interview that Russia was not going to participate in the international peacekeeping contingent in Afghanistan.

The Nezavisimaya Gazeta asked Sergei Karaganov of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council and Major General Leonid Ivashov to comment on Ivanov's latest statement.

Question: To what extent would you say the refusal to participate in the peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan concurs with Russia's national interests?

Sergei Karaganov: I know that the Russian leadership is not yet decided on the matter. On the one hand, there is the temptation to participate in the hope to build up or retain political clout. On the other, Russian society openly fears involvement in another Afghani tangle. I think therefore that the decision should also be ascribed to the allergy to the presence of Russian military contingents, peacekeeping or not, in Afghanistan that exists in Russia.

Leonid Ivashov: The decision is absolutely correct because the Americans and their allies are essentially establishing military- political control over this important regions of the world and will eventually establish it all over Eurasia. Russian influence is going to weaken gradually. I think that given time, Russia will find itself driven out of Central Asia altogether.

As for involvement in the peacekeeping operation, Moscow has already done a lot for the Americans helping them settle in the region for a long time to come. Military-political situation being what it is, our involvement in the operation will be superfluous. In the long run, it will only answer America's interests. We should not steer clear of the processes taking place in Afghanistan but our involvement should be somewhat different. It should be something where interests of Russia and its allies and partners are taken into account.

Question: Is it possible to see some analogies between the upcoming deployment of peacekeepers in Afghanistan and how and under what circumstances peacekeepers entered Kosovo more than two years ago?

Sergei Karaganov: I do not think there is a lot of likeliness here. It was different in 1999 but this time peacekeepers will be sent to Afghanistan with the consent of all leading world powers including Russia and probably even under the UN aegis if not with the UN Security Council mandate. It means that the international community is decided on the matter. I think it a serious difference.

Leonid Ivashov: There is something common about Kosovo and Afghanistan. I'm talking about Washington's eagerness to build up its influence in the Balkans in the former case and in Central Asia in the latter. Russia was, however, the first in Kosovo. It deployed its units in Pristina and Slatina. Our single battalion put the Americans and all their allies behind the eighth ball.

And when we were negotiating matters even before that, we were openly thrown out of the upcoming peacekeeping operation. Some insignificant part was reserved for Russia - just a battalion or two in the American sector. The battalion Moscow sent to Pristina changed a lot.

The situation in Afghanistan is different to a certain extent. Russia, Iran, and other Central Asian states supported the Northern Alliance long before the American counter-terrorism operation against the Taliban. At the same time, we tried to persuade the warring sides to seek a political settlement. It should be noted here that the Americans outperformed us in Afghanistan. At best, we may play the second role in this country now. We do not have a bridgehead in Afghanistan nowadays.

That's is why I think Russia should concentrate on a political settlement of the conflict and formation of the new Afghani government, promoting into the upper echelons the men we know for a fact will be our allies and partners. And yes, relief aid to the population should continue as well as assistance in post-war economic restoration.

Question: How broadly shall we interpret the Brussels accord on Russian-NATO close cooperation in the war on international terrorism?

Sergei Karaganov: In the first place, we cannot yet say how broad and deep Russian-NATO cooperation in the war on international terrorism is going to be. NATO is still fairly inexperienced in this sphere. It is a different matter altogether that there exist serious objective reasons for our cooperation with the Alliance in this sphere.

Last but not the least, we should always remember that the war on international terrorism should be waged not only together with NATO but first probably together with the European Union. Probably within the framework of the concept of the European security zone discussed nowadays.

Talking of joint counter-terrorism efforts, we do not bring up the matter of participation of any foreign contingents in suppression of terrorists in Chechnya. We do invite observers from the Council of Europe and OSCE, we constantly discuss the matter in our dialogue with the European Union. I think Russia will manage all on its own.

I repeat that the war on terrorism in Europe should not be restricted to military actions alone. It should involve first and foremost exchange of information, interaction of secret services, and interaction of services maintaining security of society.

Leonid Ivashov: I dislike the term, you know. As I see it, combating international terrorism in Afghanistan is only a secondary mission as far as the Americans are concerned. Demonstration of its military might is what the United States is really after. I even think that there is more to objectives of the operation that the war on terrorism as such. In other words, the counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan may be viewed as a means of crushing the Taliban and, more importantly, establishing American hegemony in this part of the world. The Americans themselves do not deny it, by the way, referring to their strategy of national security.

Along with that, Russia's political support of the operation against terrorists in Afghanistan is correct because these terrorists posed a potential threat to our southern borders and security of our partners in the Central Asian region. I want to emphasize that Russia's support and assistance to the Northern Alliance dates back to before the beginning of the dates back to before the beginning of the American operation in Afghanistan. Putting it blindly, the Americans all but refused to recognize the Northern Alliance then. All the same, Washington made cunning use of our accomplishments and solved a lot of its problems with the hands of the Northern Alliance. It has outplayed Moscow in this respect. As for our own counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya, the West is still using the policy of dual standards I think.

BACK TO THE TOP    #185 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION