| JRL HOME | SUPPORT | SUBSCRIBE | RESEARCH & ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT | |
Old Saint Basil's Cathedral in MoscowJohnson's Russia List title and scenes of Saint Petersburg
Excerpts from the JRL E-Mail Community :: Founded and Edited by David Johnson
#1
Moscow Times
October 12, 2001
An Old Russia Hand at the Helm
By Megan Twohey

He is new to the job, but not new to the territory. Alexander Vershbow, who took up the duties of U.S. Ambassador to Russia in July, first served in the embassy 20 years ago. Since then, he has landed at the Soviet desks of the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council. He most recently served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

In his new post, Vershbow, 48, has sought ways to simplify the visa application process, and to shift U.S. aid to Russia from the public to the private sector. Since the events of Sept. 11, he has been drawn into the public relations campaign for Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led military operation that has earned strong Russian support. Vershbow spoke with The Moscow Times on Thursday about the war on terrorism and U.S.-Russia relations.

Q: What is the latest on Russia's role in ongoing allied military operations in Afghanistan?

A: Nothing dramatically new has happened this week, except that the different tracks of cooperation are becoming even more active. The intelligence-sharing is quite extraordinary, in terms of trying to get information on the actual terrorist networks and movements as well as on the financial flow of support to these terrorist groups. The use of [Russian] airspace has been very valuable in moving assets to the region devoted to the humanitarian airlift, which is accompanying the air strikes.

This may not be widely known. We've had here in the past week a team of experts from the Pentagon, working on formalizing actual arrangements in which Russian and American forces cooperate in search and rescue operations for a downed pilot, or track units somewhere in the zone of conflict. That team is now together with Russian experts in the theater, finalizing how this would work in an emergency scenario.

Q: Russia has said that it will not commit land troops to a war in Afghanistan. Can you tell us anything different?

A: No, that's been understood for sometime. And we respect that that's the limit of what Russia feels capable of doing both physically and politically. We're not seeking any additional areas. We're satisfied and want to continue the existing areas of cooperation.

Q: Has Russia been consulted about possible U.S. military action outside Afghanistan, specifically in Iraq?

A: Well, I think the whole issue is based more on speculation rather than fact. The focus of U.S. military action right now is Afghanistan and going after the Taliban and Osama bin Laden network. We've said that if other countries are proven to be directly involved in terrorist activities that they can run but they can't hide. But there's no active work going on with respect to other countries.

Q: So there have been no consultations with Russian officials about other military actions?

A: No. That could happen at a future stage depending on what other countries do with these terrorists. So-called rogue states still cause a lot of suspicion.

[...] One of the risks for Russia is that retaliatory actions by terrorists could take place on Russian soil, whether it's directed against American interests or Russians themselves.

One of the fundamental priorities of the embassy is to work with the Russians to prevent that. But priority No. 1, 24-7, is the safety and security of Americans here -- not only those in the embassy community, but other Americans in Moscow and scattered throughout the country.

Americans here who haven't registered with the embassy or one of the consulates should do so, so we know where they are and where to contact them if there is a general warning message about changes in security conditions.

Q: How instrumental has Russia been in the United States gaining access to bases in Central Asia?

A: We think they've been helpful. We've obviously been dealing with the governments directly. But we recognize that Russia has both influence and interests in the area. And we've been totally transparent with them about what we're seeking from these countries, and sought and received Russian assistance in helping to persuade them to do things that we've asked. Clearly the Russians have underlying anxieties about the potential spillover of the conflict into the Central Asian republics, and eventually into Russia itself, in terms of refugees. So we think it's important to work with them instead of around them.

Q: Has Russia placed any conditions on its support?

A: In a word, no. What's been especially encouraging is the fact that President [Vladimir] Putin made clear that he is not going to bargain over Russia's support, or link it to concessions on missile defense or NATO expansion.

Q: There is widespread speculation in Russia that Putin is banking on his support of allied operations to blunt criticism from the West as he turns up the heat in Chechnya.

A: Well, the Chechnya issue is a very tricky one. We're trying to walk a very fine line. We continue to have deep concerns about the Russians' military tactics, the loss of life to the civilian population and the human rights abuses against the civilian population. And we continue to argue that a political solution is the only way out. That being said, we have long recognized that Osama bin Laden and other international networks have been fueling the flames in Chechnya, including the involvement of foreign commanders, like Khattab. So notwithstanding our concerns, we're working more energetically with the Russians to cut off these external sources of support, and that includes intelligence-sharing, and working with Georgia to try to get Georgia to tighten up controls. We're also trying to nurture a small opening for a peace process by making clear to the Chechens that they should break their ties to these foreign terrorists and take up the offer for a dialogue that Putin raised on Sept. 24.

Q: After the Sept. 11 attacks you said: "There is a terrorist dimension to the Chechnya conflict, but we also have to say that the Russian approach to solving that conflict is leading them down the wrong path." You were criticized in Russia for that statement. Since then you've offered a less categorical assessment of Russia's Chechnya policy. Did you get any heat from Washington for your comments?

A: Not in the slightest. In fact, I was fully backed by Secretary [of State Colin] Powell when he met with Foreign Minister [Igor] Ivanov on Sept. 19. If you look at what President Bush said at the end of his press conference two days ago with Chancellor Schršder, you'll see similar distinctions being drawn between concerns about human rights and the futility of the search for a military solution; the desire for a political solution, but also trying to help them with foreign terrorists.

So my role here is to represent American policy, not necessarily say things the Russians like to hear.

Q: Could you elaborate on what you meant by "a wrong path"?

A: Well, our view is that the relentless escalation of military pressure is not just destroying Chechnya and displacing the majority of the civilian population, but that it's radicalizing the Chechen people into the hands of the extremists and making a political compromise harder to achieve.

That is not to say that Russia doesn't have a right to defend its territorial integrity. We're opposed to Chechnya independence. We're opposed to anybody trying to break away from any country by force. But they're making it harder to get to a solution.

The right path would be to find some interlocutors who can speak for the Chechen people and work out a political solution that leads to disarmament -- as we tried to achieve in the Balkans -- and normalization of rebuilding Chechen society.

Q: What role can Russia realistically play within NATO?

A: The time has come for some radical new thinking about Russia's relationship to NATO. NATO needs to open up its deliberations more to Russian involvement. Russia, for its part, has to develop the same kind of spirit of consensus-building, not look to be the spoiler, but to find ways to maximize cooperation and joint action. Then things can really grow to the point that Russia will see that NATO enlargement has nothing to do with marginalizing Russia, but in fact has its own logic, and that Russia is integrating into the NATO agenda. Back to the Top    Next Section