|
See also Grigory A. Yavlinsky, Observation, analysis, and forecast,
2001 London Meeting, TRILATERAL* MEMORANDUM, Number 13, March 10, 2001
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
 I would like to take this opportunity to present my country's expectations of the future development of our relations with the countries of the European Union countries and the new administration in the United States of America in a straightforward and understandable manner. I want to avoid the wishful thinking and notion of working miracles that leads to disappointment and misunderstanding.
In my opinion, the Russian administration should no longer pretend to be the West's "strategic partner" or to belong to the same club and share common values. Simultaneously, neither you nor we should consider the West our ideological tutor or financial sponsor who can guide us towards democracy. For good or bad - there is no external force in the world which can guide Russia towards democracy.
However, Russia's political leadership does not consider the Western world as an enemy. The end of the Cold War is irreversible. Russia wants to develop a pragmatic, fair and businesslike relationship with the U.S.A., as well as with countries of the European Union. If our nations want to establish a long-lasting relationship based on equality, we need you to provide us with a feeling that you have a clear vision of Russia and Russia's strategic priorities.
Russia, just like the United States and Europe, has the right to protect itself against non-strategic nuclear weapons that can be used by terrorists and also by some unpredictable countries. The creation of a Russian-European missile defense system is one of the most important strategic priorities and also political objectives for us. Military experts from the United States are well aware that it is next to impossible to create a
reliable anti-nuclear umbrella for Europe without using Russian territory from our western border to the Ural mountains.
Russia is absolutely aware that a Russian-European missile defense system (REMD) can only be created in close cooperation and full support from the U.S.A. and NATO in general. There is no reason to imagine that this initiative is meant to oppose the U.S.A.
Against this background I want to suggest to our authorities to negotiate some improvements of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the main nuclear powers of the world - the U.S.A., Russia, Great Britain and France, and China in the formula 4+1. This 4+1 meeting should define mutual restrictions on both the Russian-European and American systems.
After clarifying what we want for the future, I suggest that we seriously discuss the current strategic balance. As you probably know, we have decided to radically reform our military forces including their strategic element - this will be a bottom-up reform. In particular, our President has announced our readiness to reduce the number of our nuclear warheads to 1,500 if America agrees to do the same. Russia's military experts think that this number is more than enough.
Given our geopolitical situation, the further development and modernisation of Russia's military industrial complex is of key importance for us. Russia is able to take an active and equal part in the technical creation of a REMD system, as well as of any other regional anti-ballistic missile systems. This would not only result in real practical
business cooperation, but also demonstrate our good faith and mutual trust.
Discussion on strategic issues cannot bypass the question of supplying Russian weapons to Iran. Regarding the supply of Russian strategic missile and nuclear arms technologies to the present Iranian government, as this regime openly sponsors the most radical Islamic extremists, Russian authorities should guarantee that they will do everything they can to avoid supplying them with these technologies. It is in our own vital interest. Regarding the supply of conventional weapons, the reality is that it is a key arms market for us. Those sales are purely commercial and do not present a threat to the security interests of the West. If we were not there, somebody else would take our place. We are well aware that arms would be supplied there anyhow. And we are not willing to step aside. It is a very important source of income, and also a way of developing high-tech for us. However, some sales provoke serious regional concerns and I would propose that the Russian authorities discuss an agreement of commercial and political nature with the West's side. Certainly, other possibilities can also be considered if they could provide the same results in terms of income and high-tech. It would be interesting to know whether the West has some additional proposals on this issue.
Serious negotiations are impossible without considering the problem of terrorism. I do not know whether the West understands that during 1996-99, using Islamic extremism as their cover ideology, criminal groups in Chechnya and Central Asia were militarised and managed (with the help of outside support) to build up a large number of unruly local armed detachments, thus becoming a serious threat, in particular in the context of the present situation in the Caucasus and Central Asia: Ferghana Valley, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Chechnya, which in 1992-1994 was the first place to create its own unlawful army, is our first priority in this respect. We would very much welcome information from your intelligence sources on who provided the funds, who provided the arms for those criminal extremist movements. Russia also needs your cooperation in diplomatic and political efforts to stop this.
Our strategy will always necessarily be based on the fact that Russia has the longest border with the most unstable and unpredictable states in the world. We are bordering the countries that harbour almost half of the
poorest population of the globe. Paradoxically, the most stable border we now have is our western frontier.
In the proposed discussion the issue of China cannot be avoided. In particular and above all, I want to stress that Russia's goal is to protect stability in China and, first of all, of course along our common border.
For centuries, Russia has more or less been successfully moving along the way of European civilization, pulling alongside all of Euro-Asia. What we need now is a clear and concrete public statement from the USA and the West that their long-term priority is a strong and prosperous Russia within her present borders. If this is the case, we have a common strategic interest in the Northeast Asian region that would be a long-term basis for economic cooperation.
I think that the aforementioned issues are crucial. As long as they remain unresolved, it is better not to push forward the process of NATO expansion. Russia has nothing against the expansion of the European Economic Union. On the contrary, we welcome moves of the European Economic Union to come closer to our border. And we are prepared to cooperate productively, for instance, on the Kaliningrad issue. However, when a military bloc in which we are not included approaches our borders this is not in our interest. An obvious illustration which seriously increased our concerns was NATO intervention in Kosovo, which turned out to be not very productive and rather doubtful from the political point of view.
It is my hope that during the first hundred days of his administration President Bush will give top priority to a serious attempt to develop a strategic relationship with Russia. This attempt will have good chances of success only if Russia's interests are taken into account alongside America's realistic strategic interest. Russia needs to devise a clear-cut common Russian-American strategy that would cover both their national security interests. The Russian authorities should be prepared to do their best to understand the perspective pursued by the West. And vice versa, we need the West to be ready to understand Russia's point of view.
See also Grigory A. Yavlinsky, Observation, analysis, and forecast,
2001 London Meeting, TRILATERAL* MEMORANDUM, Number 13, March 10, 2001
* The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Japan,
Europe (European Union countries), and North America (United States and Canada)
to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas
of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international
system. The members of the Trilateral Commission are about 350 distinguished leaders in business,
media, academia, public service (excluding current national Cabinet Ministers),
labor unions, and other non-governmental organizations from the three regions.
other members. See also: http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm
| 