#8
BBC Monitoring
Russia-NATO relations still "cat and mouse" -
newspaper
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow, in Russian 24 Oct 01
Moscow's stance in the fight against antiterrorism has been lavished with praise in recent weeks by NATO and US officials. It would, however, be premature to interpret this as anything more than a temporary halt to long-running disagreements between Russia and the alliance. The following is the text of a report by the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta on 24 October.
Despite the fact that people are engrossed in political and military matters relating to antiterrorism, not a day goes by without pleasant compliments being paid about Russian policy on both sides of the Atlantic. US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and NATO Secretary-General George Robertson represent by no means a complete list of the statesmen who have publicly delivered highly positive evaluations of Moscow's stance in the fight against terrorism, of its readiness to do as much as it can to help afflicted America, and so on. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has noted the "huge improvement" in US-Russian relations since 11 September. The head of US diplomacy, like Ms Rice, no longer finds anything improbable - including Russia's admission to the NATO alliance. At NATO headquarters new structures are being proposed in addition to the Russia-NATO Council to bring about further progress and cooperation. All of this is being presented as fresh political thinking, a new future for Russia and Europe, a new concept of mutual trust.
But what is strange is that if we ignore the pointed friendliness and the increase in the number of contacts and good intentions (which, as experience shows, by no means always pave the road to heaven), in actual fact there has been little change as yet in Russia-NATO relations. The bloc's political centres seem to be continuing to turn a blind eye to Russia's concern about certain aspects of its policy. It does not seem as if, in the current situation of "fundamental change on a historic scale", as Mr Powell put it, the alliance's powers have even given any thought to whether its old plans need revision or amendment.
On the contrary, they are clearly fully resolved to press on, particularly with plans for NATO's eastward expansion, including coming closer to other Russian borders apart from the Kaliningrad exclave. The head of US diplomacy, while praising Moscow, voiced the hope that the "new spirit" in relations with it [Moscow] "will also stimulate the discussion on NATO expansion", to ensure that nobody feels under threat. In other words, whatever may change in Europe and the world, Washington continues to be set on implementing its own intentions without taking very much notice of Russia.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta correspondent Yuriy Bogolepov reports from Ottawa that the agenda for the four-day NATO Parliamentary Assembly session that was held there was, needless to say, amended in connection with the events of recent weeks. The session's participants adopted a resolution of solidarity with the United States, promising it "political, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military support" in the fight against terrorism. But the deputies also discussed a document on the further expansion of NATO, which recommends in principle that Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia be admitted. So even the parliaments in the alliance countries see this as a topical matter.
But the most striking thing was the collection of heads of state and government from the aforementioned countries that met in Sofia on 5 October. Croatia, which has not as yet submitted an application for NATO membership, was invited to the candidates' meeting as the 10th participant. Formally the event was organized to express support for the United States. But, at the same time, its participants declared themselves to be de facto members of the alliance, since, as is noted in the statement adopted by the loyal subjects, the time has come for the candidate states to show that they also view the alliance as an obligation on the part of Europeans to be concerned about US security. An attack on America, the statement stresses, "is viewed by us as an attack on us all".
There is every reason to suppose that this high-profile meeting in Sofia was initiated by politicians from NATO's Brussels headquarters. It took place virtually the day after significant discussions in the Belgian capital between George Robertson and the Russian president. It is not known whether the secretary-general informed him about his forthcoming trip to the Sofia meeting and its purpose. But there, in Sofia, he told the enlarged selection of candidates that the acts of terrorism against the United States and the new situation would in no way halt the process of NATO expansion or close the door to the bloc. For their part, the heads of the 10 countries supported in every possible way the alliance's speediest movement eastward, using the topical argument that this would help to protect the world from terrorism. By hook or by crook, as the saying goes.
Having said that, be it a question of alliance expansion or Russia's participation in it, in the Russia-NATO political sphere this is all reminiscent of a game of cat and mouse. NATO leaders, without giving up their old plans, are clearly trying to use compliments and hints of a possible joint allied future to assuage Moscow's opposition to the bloc's eastward progress - and one that would involve the "capture" of a number of former Soviet republics. The Kremlin is playing a game of its own and is even winning, forcing the NATO powers into unconvincing explanations of why they are moving their military-political bloc up to Russia's borders if they do not see Russia as an adversary and dream only of partnership with it.
Both sides know perfectly well that the real conditions are that there can be no NATO with Russia and that the mutual relationship between them can only be limited. When Winston Churchill philosophized about admitting the "new Russia" to NATO in 1956, Lord Ismay, Mr Robertson's predecessor as secretary-general at the time, remarked dryly that, if such a day were to dawn, the alliance's raison d'etre would disappear. Since then Russia has changed fundamentally and has started being called a "new" country. But, as a Frankfurter Allgemeine observer noted, "what is more important is that, because of its size, its sense of being a great power, and specific interests, it would by its presence, even despite itself, deprive NATO of its identity".
So the game goes on....
Next Article