Not confrontation but cooperation
— that must be the logic of relations between Russia and
NATO. Both sides have a stake in a constant, constructive
dialogue. Moscow needs it because today NATO is the most
powerful military-political organization of the Western
world, a reality that cannot be ignored. At the same time,
the North Atlantic alliance also has to engage in a negotiating
process with Russia because, evading it, NATO turns into
a force which causes fears even among some members of
this organization.
The main avenues of cooperation
are already clear now. One of them is first of all settlement
of the Kosovo conflict. At the present time the situation
in Kosovo is rousing well-warranted concern in Moscow,
since the ousting of the Serbs from the province continues,
and since Kosovo has been actually taken out of Yugoslavia's
jurisdiction. But if U.N. Security Council Resolution
1244, which formalizes the Former Republic of Yugoslavia's
territorial integrity, is implemented in Kosovo, cooperation
of Russia and NATO will doubtless prove to be fruitful
and will allow the situation to be put under control and
to stop the negative processes.
Nuclear disarmament is a broad
field of cooperation. Russia recently made an important
step on this road — the State Duma ratified the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START II). Now much depends on
the political will of NATO leaders, primarily those in
Washington.
Regrettably, much of what
the United States does is now determined not by long-term
but by time-serving interests dictated by the internal
political situation — by the nearing presidential elections.
Hence the task of removing the questions of strategic
security from under the influence of the American election
campaign. This concerns first of all the talks on the
Russian-U.S. Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (ABM) Treaty
of 1972. The U.S. intention to build a national ABM system
which is prohibited by the treaty jeopardizes Washington's
allies in NATO because the national ABM system will protect
only the American continent, leaving the European partners
of the United States unprotected. For the first time in
NATO's history, a situation wherein different members
of the alliance will have different guarantees of security
will emerge, and this cannot but worry Great Britain,
Germany, France and other allies of the United States.
As for the problem of extension
of NATO and of its enlargement eastwards, which for Russia
is very painful, it seems that after the admission of
Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to the alliance
the leadership of the North Atlantic bloc decided to make
a pause, though officially nothing has been said about
this. If the pause were really made or even prolonged,
this would certainly help strengthen confidence between
Moscow and Brussels and make for better understanding.
The developments in Chechnya
— a North Caucasian republic where Moscow has been carrying
out an anti-terroristic operation — have also aggravated
relations between Russia and NATO to a certain extent.
The leaders of a number of countries participating in
the alliance have strongly criticized Moscow's actions,
forgetting that the Chechen conflict is an internal affair
of Russia, and it is entitled to resolve the problem in
the way it deems it proper. At the same time, Moscow agrees
that Chechnya is also a field for international cooperation.
The Russian leadership does not object to an international
system of observation of the developments in the North
Caucasus, but it will not allow anybody to call into question
the territorial integrity of Russia, nor the inviolability
of its borders.
Russia stands for equal and
constructive partnership with NATO. This is quite possible
to achieve. Now it is safe to say that the contacts between
Moscow and the North Atlantic bloc, discontinued because
of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, are being re-established.
The visit of NATO Secretary General George Robertson to
Moscow in February 2000 was the first step on the road
of these relations getting warmer. His talks with the
current president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir
Putin, and ministers of defense and foreign affairs, Igor
Sergeyev and Igor Ivanov respectively, were successful
enough and meant, in essence, normalization of relations.
To be sure, not only politicians
but also generals should meet. A step has already been
made in this direction, and new moves have been made on
this ground — including participation by the chief of
the general staff of the armed forces of the Russian Federation,
General of the Army Anatoly Kvashnin, in a meeting of
the Russia-NATO Joint Permanent Military Committee, and
his talks devoted to discussing military doctrines and
to prospects for military cooperation. These talks are
extremely important for establishing genuine relations
of confidence.
All this proves that Moscow
is open for a dialogue with NATO. As it was stated in
Mr. Putin's interview with well-known British analyst
David Frost, the Kremlin does not rule out even a possibility
of Russia's entry into NATO "if its interests are taken
into consideration, if it is an equal partner." But, in
my view, this is a purely academic prospect for the time
being. There are no practical conditions for its translation
into reality yet. Mr. Putin certainly did not mean the
present day or the immediate future. He simply implied
that Russia and NATO can reach an agreement on conditions
of full respect for their mutual interests. And for this
purpose it is necessary that the negotiating process does
not stop.
