#10
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 22
2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
ARBATOV ON POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF PUTIN-BUSH SUMMIT IN MOSCOW

The USA has proclaimed war on those countries that present certain interest for Russia. What should Russia do in this situation? What can be the results of the future Moscow meeting of Vladimir Putin and George Bush? Who is responsible for making rash and unwise decisions that diminished Russia's defence ability? Alexei ARBATOV, deputy chairman of the State Duma defence committee, answers these and other questions in an interview he granted to Lidia ANDRUSENKO.

Question: In his recent address to the joint session of the Congress President Bush outlined the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran and North Korea - and repeated that those who are not with the USA are against it, a formula that is directed at other countries, including Russia. However, the countries that Bush denounced as an axis of evil are Russia's trade partners or debtors.

Answer: First, we should remember that such speeches include a large measure of rhetoric designed to impress the people at home. Political pressure will be more likely. The designation of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as new targets after the successful military operation in Afghanistan was made to scare the leaders of their states who may possibly search for ways to come to an agreement now.

For example, it is rumoured that Saddam Hussein is already looking for a way to avoid a military strike. He is negotiating with the UN and will possibly agree to allow international inspection groups into the country. The Americans believe that if China does not support North Korea, the latter will make a compromise, too. It is believed in the USA that mass dissatisfaction with the rule of ayatollahs and mullahs is growing in Iran and that this situation can be used to topple the fundamentalist Islamic regime. But it will not be so simple to deal with Iran in view of its domination in the region and contacts with Russia.

Question: The Clinton administration tried to introduce sanctions against Russia for its military-technical cooperation with Iran.

Answer: Moreover, it did introduce sanctions against several Russian research centres. But today the USA cannot openly threaten to do this because Russia is praised as a partner. This would undermine the foundations of the new US doctrine.

Iran is a difficult problem for Russia, too. And not only because we sell vast amounts of conventional weapons and hardware to that country or are building a nuclear power station in Bushehr. Iran is Russia's silent ally as opposed to several countries that are our silent regional opponents (Turkey and Pakistan). If I could advise President Putin how we should behave in this situation, I would tell him this.

We do not have special sympathy for the three "axis-of-evil countries" yet it is wrong and useless to force democracy on them. Besides, there are several other undemocratic countries, which are also suspected of involvement in the creation of mass destruction weapons and of sponsoring terrorism. Consequently, here is how we should act. First, we need proof of the accusations advanced by the Americans. And second, no exception must be made for those regimes that have better relations with the USA than Iran does if these regimes are suspected of misdeeds.

Question: What states do you mean?

Answer: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and, to a degree, Turkey and Albania. If we supply the USA with proof of their guilt, we expect the entire package of measures to be taken against them. Moreover, I would tell the Americans, off record, that the Taliban was an exceptional case, a genuine rogue regime.

And it found itself in complete isolation after it lost the support of your allies - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But this will not happen in the case of North Korea and Iran.

Question: The Americans will hardly listen to reason today. They are euphoric with victory.

Answer: Yes, this is true. The tragic defeat of the USA and the subsequent brilliant victory created an explosive mixture of super-arrogance compounded by super-nationalism. The USA may decide to disregard everyone, including Russia, China and India and even its allies, who fear this possibility very much. In this case we will simply stop collaborating with them as we did in Afghanistan. But challenging the USA to a fight over these states would be silly and useless; we should not stand up against the whole world.

Politically, Russia and China could have refused to support the USA [in the case of Afghanistan] and in this case it should have acted contrary to the UN Security Council. This would have amounted to contempt of international law. I don't think the USA has lost all contact with reality and is prepared to resolve all problems with the use of military force.

Question: What is the forthcoming Putin-Bush summit expected to achieve to strengthen Russia-US relationship?

Answer: Nobody knows. It is not clear who is taking part in preparing it and on what grounds and who is advising what. In the past, we knew nearly everything but the process of decision- making was badly tuned. Today this mechanism is working well but its operation is concealed from everyone. I don't think the May summit will bring us "valuable presents." Judging by everything, we will calmly accept another declaration, another communique, another joint press conference and more statements by high-ranking officials about "another giant step forward."

Question: And what about a treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons, which is being discussed now at all levels?

Answer: I think there will be no treaty.

Question: Maybe nobody needs it and Russia is pressing for its signing only to calm the public and satisfy its own ambitions?

Answer: No, we need this treaty. It is another matter that the Americans agreed to discuss it for charity reasons. They don't need it at all. They know that we have made the decision to unilaterally reduce and overhaul our strategic forces. This is why there is no base for negotiations. They don't ask us for anything and prefer to keep their freedom of movement, too. Hence the idea that we should trust each other's word, just as gentlemen do.

Question: But the USA has no such treaties with Britain or France.

Answer: Britain and France are its allies. If the Americans told us: We invite you to join NATO; let's discuss the date and conditions, the situation would have been completely different.

We have hinted that we would like to hear them say this, if only to please our ego. But they disregarded our hints. Even the NATO-20 formula, which is more than simply 19 + 1 but provides for equitable Russian involvement in the tackling of certain issues, is no longer discussed seriously. So, nobody invites us to become an ally, but they offer us to bury treaties. I think this is political demagoguery and hypocrisy.

Question: Do you think Putin made a foreign policy mistake?

Answer: Yes, in the sense that the president has the final say and hence bears the brunt of responsibility for everything. On the other hand, we should remember that the current policy and the constitution that stipulates the rights and powers are two different things. When Putin became president, he listened to the advice of different people and I would say that the brunt of responsibility should be borne by those who advised him to do this.

Question: Do you know the "culprits"?

Answer: It is above all Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin, who was the main advocate of this idea. And several military leaders of lower rank from his entourage. They advised the president proceeding from considerations that have nothing to do with national security. They acted on the basis of narrow departmental and personal interests. Seeking to remove chief commander Yakovlev, who was the main candidate to the post of defence minister, they destroyed the Strategic Missile Forces, liquidating them as a service.

They made a decision on incredible unilateral reductions and restructuring of our armed forces, modelling them after the US triad, but this is a triad for the poor. They are responsible for what is happening at the Russo-American talks. Two years ago the US administration seriously negotiated amendments to the ABM Treaty and a START-3 treaty with us. But the Americans lost any interest in these negotiations after we had made such radical decisions.

BACK TO THE TOP    #193 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION