#10
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 38
March 6, 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
SERGEI KARAGANOV: "RUSSIA SHOULD FORM A NORMAL UNION WITH THE WEST"
Sergei Karaganov believes that Russia needs NATO
By Lidia ANDRUSENKO

The subject of Russia-NATO rapprochement has been given a new lease on life in the past few days. Several respected Western newspapers recalled the idea voiced by British premier Tony Blair, which was seemingly buried last November. I mean the transformation of Russia-NATO relations from the 19 + 1 to NATO-20 formula.

On February 27 the issue was raised at the working session of the NATO Council held at the ambassadorial level. It was said once again at the session that Russia could be invited to participate in discussions with bloc members, but only discussions held in-between confidential meetings of decision- making NATO members and strictly limited to such issues as terrorism, non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, and joint peacekeeping and rescue operations in emergency situations.

The project is to be presented at the May session of the NATO Council at the level of foreign ministers, to be held in Reykjavik.

The US press writes that actually Russia will be invited to sit at a round table, which underlines the unofficial nature of relations. In deed, these relations are absolutely unlike the carefully regulated NATO mechanisms of operation based on the multilateral Washington Treaty and a system of clear-cut mutual agreements and obligations. It is more like the G8, where Russia was a kind of a country "on call."

Sergei KARAGANOV, president of the Council of Foreign and Defence Policy, speaks about what Russia expects from NATO and if Russia-NATO relations will develop into genuine and not formal cooperation in the future.

Question: The other day the Western press wrote that NATO is ready to overhaul its relations with Russia, yet the articles on this issue are rather contradictory. In particular, The Financial Times announced the sensational NATO decision to upgrade the 19 + 1 formula into a full-fledged group of 20 and the possible transformation of the bloc into a political union. The International Herald Tribune only wrote about the need to improve relations with Russia in view of the admission of seven new members - East European countries - to the bloc. And the BBC claimed that the point at issue was not Russia's involvement in NATO but the creation of a parallel organisation where Russia would play a major role. Judging by everything, there is no unity on the issue in the West and Russia should not expect a clear-cut decision soon?

Answer: Indeed, the West is not unanimous on the issue. The main reason for this is that the idea of Tony Blair was not welcomed by some of his Western colleagues. And although it had most probably been coordinated with the White House and the Pentagon, where conservative sentiments run strong, it provoked resistance. Second, work is underway to create a kind of an effective forum on outstanding issues in NATO without Russia, but not a forum that would serve to camouflage Russia's agreement or disagreement with the NATO enlargement. It is not clear if the idea is viable. The concept of Tony Blair is being translated into life at the talks inside NATO and at the NATO-Russia and Russia-US talks.

Question: A NATO official has stated that Russia should first learn to play the collective game by the Western rules. But do we need to do this if we keep saying that it would be humiliating for us to queue for NATO membership?

Answer: We must not stand in the queue. If NATO decides to turn into a genuine international security organisation, it can invite us to join. The point at issue today is to develop genuine cooperation with NATO. Regrettably, the experience of the 19 + 1 formula was largely negative because the Russian and NATO bureaucracy hardly worked at all. It was a formal agency.

Question: Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said in Brussels that Russia and NATO would come to an agreement on "a new level of relations" by May 2002. But in his latest interview the minister said that Russia's joining NATO would be senseless from the military viewpoint. And that the question should be formulated differently: What is the purpose of NATO? So, it appears that Russia wants to collaborate with NATO yet regards it as absolutely useless?

Answer: If NATO accepts Russia as a member, it will amount to a fundamental transformation of the bloc. In this case it will turn into an organisation of international and not only European or Euro-Atlantic security. In this sense Ivanov is absolutely right. As for the possibility of collaboration, there is a number of issues on which we can collaborate.

For example, high-ranking officials unofficially offer collaboration in the sphere of nuclear non-proliferation, which is a vital issue for us. It is possible to collaborate in the creation of a joint system of tracking air and space objects with a view to precluding mega-terrorism. There is a possibility, although vague, of jointly creating a European ABM system. And lastly, we can work jointly to prevent international conflicts.

But the question is, will NATO and Russia agree to such genuine collaboration? Do we have the financial and military- political capabilities for this? At the same time, Russia has to accept the inevitability of the NATO enlargement in the current situation. For while remaining de facto a universal organisation of European security, NATO is losing its usefulness in the eyes of the USA. In this situation we can be interested in the preservation of NATO despite our complaints to it. If only because it is an instrument that limits the US unilateralism.

Question: That is, this is a delicate diplomatic game where we may play on the side of NATO?

Answer: The current US administration believes that it actually does not need NATO. The Americans want to act single- handed. In this situation - although it may seem paradoxical - Russia needs NATO to preserve, at least for some time, its role of a restraint on the US actions that can lead to unpredictable decisions. At the same time, Russia does not want NATO to expand.

This is objective reality. But the main thing is that we should look behind the facade when a part of the US ruling group says that NATO is not necessary any more. For NATO is not only a military organisation, in particular an organisation spearheaded against Russia, but also a structure that streamlines relations within itself and is an instrument of European - and now also Russian - influence on the US policy. In other words, we should play a much more delicate diplomatic game than the one we have been playing.

Question: Can the creation of a new structure facilitate this? Or maybe it would be simpler to press for an equal NATO membership for Russia?

Answer: It is apparent that since NATO membership is hardly a realistic prospect for Russia in the near future, we should not only develop collaboration with NATO in the spheres where this can benefit us but also think about a new security union designed to combat new threats. It can be a union of Russia and NATO members.

Question: Without the USA or with its active involvement?

Answer: With its active involvement. But since the bureaucratic inertia is very strong in NATO, I think the best variant would be the creation of a new security union. Made up of G8 countries and such vital countries as China, possibly India and some other countries, such a union would be spearheaded against really new and much more dangerous and substantial threats. I mean nuclear non-proliferation and the deep destabilisation of the situation in Central Asia and the Middle East. In principle, this is a task for the near future, provided the pro-Western elite understands this and we press for it. This problem should be constantly on the agenda of Russian diplomacy.

Question: Do you think the West in general and the USA in particular are mounting pressure on Russia?

Answer: I don't detect serious pressure. There are only traditional words characteristic of US diplomacy. Western politicians are worried much more about such vital issues as resistance to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, growing instability in Asia and potential aggravation of the situation on the market of energy resources, because the Middle Eastern regimes are becoming more vulnerable. The role of Russia as a potential and reliable provider of energy resources to the world market is growing in this situation. Consequently, I think that given energetic diplomatic efforts, Russia is now in a better position than ever before - despite our internal problems. So, we must stop overestimating or underestimating statements.

Everything is in motion now and we must see if we can benefit in any way from this situation.

Question: That is, everything depends on us?

Answer: Not quite. Much also depends on what our Western colleagues do. As far as I know, President Bush demands that Russia be given broader opportunities for collaboration with NATO. And not only on the issues on the old agenda but also on the issues that are on the new agenda. But this is not enough. We need a normal union, possibly even a formalised one, with the leading Western countries and with all leading countries to resist all these threats.

Question: Can the improvement of our relations with the West be affected by the union of Russia and Belarus?

Answer: Yes, the West has a negative attitude to Belarus. But Russia has a strategic interest in it and we should not only have a common monetary union but also force Belarus to modernise its economy and political life. Of course, we want this to be done with a major involvement of Russia so as to stop Belarus from disintegrating in 5 or 6 years. To do this we should have a special and very energetic Belarussian policy. It is a component but not a formal part of issues on the agenda.

BACK TO THE TOP    #196 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION