----- Original Message ----- From: Miroslav Antic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: BALKAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; SIEM NEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: NATO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sorabia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; NSP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:13 PM Subject: An interview with NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson [STOPNATO.ORG.UK] STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------- ListBot Sponsor -------------------------- Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Krasnaya Zvezda February 20, 2001 DIALOGUE, NOT CONFRONTATION An interview with NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson Author: Yuri Pankov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] IN THIS INTERVIEW WITH RUSSIA'S LEADING MILITARY NEWSPAPER, LORD ROBERTSON DISCUSSES NATO RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND THE AGENDA FOR HIS MOSCOW VISIT. HE COVERS EASTWARD EXPANSION, MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS, AND THE LEGACY OF THE BALKANS CONFLICT. HE SAYS RUSSIA AND NATO SHOULD CLARIFY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND IMPROVE COOPERATION. Question: Until recently, Russian-NATO relations have been described as a "Cold Peace". Do you agree with this definition? Lord George Robertson: No, I don't. Describing our relations in Cold War terms is absolutely unwarranted, both in form and in content. The very fact that the NATO Secretary-General is visiting Moscow for the second time within a year is a vivid example, I think. How can anyone seriously speak of a "Cold Peace" when Russian and NATO contingents are deployed side by side in the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo? Cooperation between them is working well, and there is certainly nothing "cold" about their professional rapport. Moreover, in the year since my previous visit, Russia and NATO have improved their cooperation, and not only in the Balkans. The Russian-NATO Permanent Council discussed our strategic concepts. General Manilov described in detail the new Russian military doctrine, and NATO explained its own strategic concept. All this enhanced mutual trust. As for what is planned, we are going to cooperate on all matters on the rather demanding agenda that took the form of the 2001 working program. It includes new and promising subjects. Cooperation in naval search-and-rescue operations and appropriate exercises is one of the priorities we defined after the Kursk submarine disaster. Moreover, I would like to recall NATO's recent proposals for confidence-building measures in the field of nuclear weapons, which are potentially very helpful. While in Moscow, I'm going to reopen the NATO information center which will operate under the aegis of the Belgian Embassy. This is an important milestone in our relations. I have no doubt that the information center will greatly contribute to mutual understanding between Russia and NATO. This is a difficult task, because your country is still laboring under many misapprehensions with regard to NATO. Well, perhaps it is only to be expected, after 40 years of suspicion and confrontation. But our own interests and European security interests make it necessary to bring these notions into line with reality. And last but not least, Marshal Sergeev and I have agreed to resume talks on establishing a NATO liaison mission in Moscow, as specified by the Russia-NATO Pact. This also confirms that our relations are far from "cold". Question: But Russia did suspend its relations with NATO in the wake of the Yugoslavian operation, which Moscow branded as aggression against a sovereign state. Now that our relations are being restored again, does NATO plan to take Moscow's opinion into account, or do you think the precedent may be repeated? Robertson: I don't think it will surprise you if I disagree with your way of phrasing the question. It was not an act of aggression on NATO's part. On the contrary, NATO stopped an aggressor engaged in a merciless campaign against a certain ethnic minority. On September 23, 1998 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1199. This was six months before NATO moved in. Citing Article VII of the UN Charter, this document called for an immediate end to all hostilities in Kosovo, and also demanded urgent measures on Yugoslavia's part to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. And by the way, Russia also voted in favor of this resolution. Russia was a part of the contact group; the G-8 and the Permanent Council discussed the growing crisis in Kosovo at length. This means that Russia's opinion was heeded then, just as it is heeded now. The 19 democratic nations of the Alliance did not commit an act of aggression against the Yugoslavian people. We did not have anything against them. We acted against Milosevic. I met with Yugoslavian Foreign Minister Mr. Svilanovic at the NATO headquarters last month. He said on behalf of his government that Yugoslavian and NATO armies were not enemies. I agree with that. Democratic changes in Belgrade and Milosevic's resignation have reopened a door into Europe for Yugoslavia. It is only welcome there, with the support of the European Union and Russia. A few minutes ago I said I have come to Russia to evaluate our achievements over the past year, and to discuss future progress in our relations. This progress is possible only because it is in our interests. President Putin said recently that development of relations with NATO on the basis of openness and constructive cooperation would greatly contribute to European stability and to Russia's security. I have no doubt that if these principles are followed, we will avoid any situation where the opinions of Russia and NATO diverge too greatly. Question: Moscow constantly repeats that NATO eastward expansion will damage Russia's military-political interests. To what extent is NATO prepared to take Russia's opinion into account? When do you plan to accept new members of NATO - and which nations are viewed as candidates? Robertson: Yes, NATO expansion represents a serious problem in our relations. On the other hand, this is a problem of attitudes rather than reality. It is absolutely wrong to present NATO expansion as an expansion of a hostile military bloc eager to surround Russia on all sides - but this is essentially what Russia has been doing. NATO expansion is a natural process, one of the elements of the new architecture of security in Europe. Like expansion of the European Union, this process is meant to facilitate security for all European countries, not to undermine the security of any given nation. I hope that the first wave of expansion has made this fact absolutely clear to everyone who is accustomed to seeing things the way they really are. We live in a Europe where integration and cooperation processes are underway. In this new Europe, the old logic no longer applies - a victory for one does not imply a defeat for another. It is a fact of life that with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic now being NATO members, general stability and security in Europe have improved. NATO does not automatically offer membership to any nation. A consensus of all 19 NATO members is needed. Needless to say, Moscow's opinion will be taken into consideration, but this doesn't mean that Russia will have veto power. NATO plans to invite new members in future, but no specific decisions have been made as yet. The matter will be discussed at the NATO summit in Prague in 2002. Question: The new strategic concept allows the Alliance to use force at the discretion of the NATO Council, without the mandate of the UN Security Council. So it is reasonable to assume that NATO is prepared to intervene in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, without bothering to obtain UN approval... Robertson: Again, I disagree. The new strategic concept is absolutely in line with the UN Charter, and with the Russia-NATO Pact. Anyone who is interested can study it at the NATO website: www.nato.org. Besides, the document will be available at 3 Mytnaya Street, Moscow, when the NATO information center is established there. Despite what you may be thinking, the new strategic concept is not a manifesto of unilateral intervention. Certain clauses of the concept do explain the legal foundations of NATO operations launched in response to crises. The preamble to the major objectives of the Alliance reiterates that NATO honors the UN Charter. In other words, NATO is going to act only when it has ample legal grounds to do so. Question: There is heated debate in NATO's European member states about US plans to create a national missile defense regardless of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, and Russia's proposal for a European theater missile defense system... What is your position? Robertson: Well. Firstly, there can be no doubts whatsoever that the new US administration is seriously concerned about nuclear proliferation, and particularly by the proliferation of ICBMs and related technologies, and that it sees national missile defense as a means of averting this threat. As things are now, we don't yet know what kind of missile defense system Washington intends to deploy. Secondly, the consequences for NATO will apparently depend on the overall approach to the matter. We discussed this within NATO last year, and we intend to continue consultations now. Still, we cannot say with any degree of accuracy what the outcome of these consultations will be. Thirdly, we would of course like to know as much as possible about Russia's missile defense ideas, and we are prepared to discuss the matter at the Russian-NATO Permanent Council. I'm still waiting for details of the Russian proposal for a tactical missile defense system. I think it would benefit both Russia and NATO to discuss the problem of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and our potential cooperation in this sphere. After all, Russia and NATO are both concerned about the consequences of proliferation and its impact on international security and stability. In 2000, the Russian and US presidents agreed on that. Missile defense is one of the ways of coping with the problem. Question: The European Union intends to set up its own military forces independent of NATO. Is NATO prepared to approve the formation of a European security system independent of the Alliance? Robertson: Yes, NATO is prepared to help the European Union form its own rapid response forces. We believe, you see, that a stronger Europe will mean a fairer trans-Atlantic distribution of burdens and responsibilities. It will also promote healthier trans-Atlantic relations and a healthier NATO. Now that the Cold War is over, it is difficult to explain to our American allies why the European Union, already the economic equal of the United States, does not do its fair share in dealing with regional conflicts on the borders of the European Union itself. Europe should be doing better than that. Given the small-scale crises and conflicts in Europe, it is wrong for all of us to have a situation where it is "NATO or nothing". In assisting the increase of defense resources in the European Union, we don't mean that this is going to become a structure analogous to NATO. NATO retains responsibility for collective defense of its members. NATO does not merely approve; it is prepared to help Europe increase its capacities for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. All NATO countries agree on this, for two reasons. In the first place, European countries are far behind their American ally in these areas. Secondly, it is possible that situations may arise in which the United States could refuse to be directly involved. If I may, I would like to send my best wishes to all readers of "Krasnaya Zvezda". Your colleagues in NATO are prepared to cooperate with the Russian military in facilitating our partnership, to the benefit of all peoples and in the interests of security and stability in Europe. ****** Miroslav Antic, http://www.antic.org/SNN/ ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
