#7
Business Week Online
SEPTEMBER 21, 2001
NEWSMAKER Q&A
"Why Not Accept Russia into NATO?"
Sergei V. Stepashin, a former Prime Minister and a confidant of Vladimir
Putin, says Russia could do plenty to help the U.S., and in return...
For the first time since the end of World War II, former Cold War foes
Russia and the U.S. have a common enemy. The Kremlin has long claimed that
Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the
U.S., funded and trained rebels in Chechnya, the breakaway republic that
Russia blames for bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities in 1999.
Now, as the U.S. considers striking at terrorist bases in Afghanistan,
where bin Laden is thought to be hiding, President Bush may call upon
Russia to help the U.S. locate military bases or secure air space in the
republics of the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan. After meeting
on Sept. 19 with U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow, former Prime
Minister Sergei V. Stepashin, who is a close confidant of President
Vladimir V. Putin, spoke with BusinessWeek Moscow Correspondent Catherine
Belton to discuss what Russia would like to gain for its cooperation. The
surprising answer: A key role in a new, post-cold-war world order --
possibly even NATO membership. Here are edited excerpts from their
discussion:
Q: How can Russia help in the world fight against terrorism?
A: We can provide information on Afghanistan. We have been working for some
time with the Northern Alliance [the main opposition force in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the group that controls a buffer zone
between Afghanistan and Tajikistan]. We have military bases in Tajikistan
-- and I think we could provide serious military-operative information on
what is happening in Afghanistan.
I personally know [President Putin's] position. Russia is in solidarity
with the U.S. Putin is ready for a wide sphere of cooperation in this
situation. There are no ideological barriers. But Russia should not be in a
situation where the U.S. has already taken its decision and begun its
attack and, only then, asks Russia to join in. If we are partners, then we
should talk openly.
There is a historic precedent for this. In 1941, we fought together against
fascism, and I don't see any obstacles to returning to that old scheme of
cooperation. The two heads of state need to meet. A meeting of the G-8
would be the best way of coordinating a reaction to the attacks.
Q: Should the U.S. use military bases in Central Asia, such as Uzbekistan,
for possible strikes on Afghanistan?
A: As far as Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries are
concerned, including Uzbekistan, they are sovereign states, and it is their
right to decide. I understand well why [Uzbek President Islam] Karimov has
spoken in support of the U.S. The Taliban is a threat to his country. So if
sovereign Uzbek or other [former Soviet] states decide to provide such
help, it is their right. But there are military agreements with all the
member countries of the CIS, and any decision should be agreed [upon by]
all the states of the CIS -- or they should be at least informed of a
decision.
Q: Does Russia need to know the wider aims of the U.S. campaign -- such as
whether old friends of Russia's, such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Libya will
be targeted -- before it can give its agreement to lend military bases?
A: Russia can do a lot of work with the leaders of these countries,
especially with Syria, to bring them into the fight against terrorism. It
seems to me that the U.S. should rethink its position toward Iran. Iran
could take a very positive position. Iran has just the same anti-Taliban
positions.
[But] it's not just a question of this. It's also a question of military
expediency. Let's change the format of NATO-Russia relations. Now there is
a new political-military configuration. It is a new era. At first Putin
suggested this with a smile on his face -- but why not accept Russia into
NATO?
Q: What are the consequences for Russia-U.S. relations if Iraq is a target?
A: Let's not look at it in terms of geography. It's not a question of Iraq.
If there is clear evidence, checked carefully, then terrorist bases have to
be destroyed independent of where they are.
Q: Is joining NATO a condition for Russia's cooperation?
A: For today, the main thing is to achieve an absolutely open dialogue
between the U.S. and Russia on the measures to be taken -- and then we can
discuss further about changes to the format of NATO-Russia relations....
This is what Putin is insisting on now, and this is the message he sent
with [Foreign Minister Igor] Ivanov to the U.S.
It is difficult to say how Russia can cooperate and take part in action
with the U.S. if it doesn't know any concrete details of the military
operations. After all, the U.S. is much further away from Afghanistan than
Russia is. Just because of this, there has to be a significant expansion of
consultations. The ball is now in the U.S.'s court.
Q: Will Russia ask for concessions on missile defense in return for its
cooperation?
A: I would not like to tie these questions [together]. And, as I understand
the position of [President] Putin, this is a separate matter. What happened
in the U.S. shows that it's not a question of having a missile-defense
system or not. The threat is very different. If the missile-defense system
were there, what would it have done last week?
Walking out of the ABM treaty is also a political move. Russia has enough
means to defend itself and to adequately respond to any nuclear threats. We
have enough nuclear warheads to cause the onset of nuclear winter in the
world and not one terrorist would remain. So, here it's not a question of
threats directly connected to the security of our country. It's a question
of destroying a very fragile security situation. Let the U.S. President and
Congress decide. But it seems to me that one of the matters Bush and Putin
could discuss at a meeting could be creating a new collective system of
military security.
Q: What are the proposals from Russia on creating a new system of security?
A: So far, our position is clear. If there is a decision to breach the ABM
Treaty, then we will have to make the corresponding military and
technological responses. Our hands will be untied on conventional weapons
and other types of weapons. Does America need this? I don't think so. I
don't think this will lead to conflict with America, but it would seriously
complicate our cooperation in fighting terrorism -- psychologically and
militarily.
Q: U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in Moscow [on Sept. 18]
that the U.S. was making nonproliferation issues a top priority in the wake
of the terrorist attacks, and pointed to Russia's ties with Iraq and Iran
as being a matter for concern. Will Russia break its ties with those
countries?
A: We have not been supplying any military technology to Iraq for a long
time. I took care of problems connected to Iran myself when I was Prime
Minister. And no technology has been sent to Iran that would allow it to
create nuclear weapons.
Q: Does Russia have problems with the U.S. definition of terrorism? Might
Russians see a double standard at work because of the U.S.'s criticism of
Russian military action against rebels in Chechnya?
A: I think now our colleagues in the U.S. understand well that terrorism in
Chechnya, in Afghanistan, and in the Middle East have the same roots. The
main idea now is that we have the chance to really join together before the
face of a terrible threat.
