| The deputy chairman of the Russian State Duma
Committee on Defence, the liberal Yabloko deputy, AlexeiArbatov,
has criticized Russia's policy on Georgia, which, he says, is
driving it into the arms of NATO and the West. In an interview
with Russian Ekho Moskvy radio, Arbatov also diverged from the
Russian government's line on Iraq. He said he supported a new
UN resolution against Baghdad, although he would not endorse a
US attack on Iraq which was not thoroughly justified. The following
is an excerpt from the interview broadcast live on Ekho Moskvy
radio on 2 October. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Presenter: Today's guest is Alexei
Arbatov, the deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defence...
Has Georgia done its job? Today we have had an important statement
from the [Russian] presidential administration. In particular,
[presidential aide] Sergei Yastrzhembsky has been speaking today
about the problems of Georgia and Chechnya. For example, he said
the terrorist infrastructure used to train fighters had finally
been smashed - this was quite a sensational statement... How do
you react to this quite powerful statement from the presidential
aide, that the terrorist infrastructure has been swept away?
Arbatov: He obviously knows more than
I do. If he is talking about Georgia, and first and foremost the
Pankisi Gorge, and in particular the destruction of fighter bases
in this area, this means that Georgia has taken the measures which
Russia has long been urging them to take. And this can be welcomed
as a positive development. However, I must say that I hadn't heard
about any major operations that had been conducted in the Pankisi
Gorge. An operation is going on there, but it is quite a low profile
operation, as far as one can judge from media reports. It may
be that only a few fighters are left there. Perhaps there are
no more there at all. Perhaps they have moved away somewhere else.
There haven't been any major armed clashes. Russian forces are
not carrying our operations there. So, if one can believe Mr Yastrzhembsky,
this means that in some way or other Georgia has managed to destroy
this infrastructure. And thank God for that. We can welcome this.
This rids Russia of the need to carry out any strikes, which would
have had the most adverse impact on relations between Russia and
Georgia.
Presenter: Of course, Sergei Yastrzhembsky
was talking first and foremost about Chechnya, when he was talking
about the destruction of the fighters' infrastructure... What
has actually been happening there [in the North Caucasus] lately?
Quite unexpectedly some sort of group emerges [from Georgia] onto
Russian territory. Fighting starts in Russia. What happened? Were
they driven out of there [Georgia], and, as it were, exposed to
Russian fire? Is that what happened? Rebels dream of conflict
between Russia and Georgia.
Arbatov: I don't think so. I think
that things happened differently. The fighters move quite freely
between Chechnya and Georgia, and in the North Caucasus as whole,
and Transcaucasus, as the borders there between Georgia and Russia
are very poorly guarded and equipped. These fighters are interested
in continually trying to provoke conflict between Russia and Georgia.
Their ultimate dream is some sort of armed conflict between Russia
and Georgia. This would open up the field for them, and they would
have the best conditions to conduct and expand their operations.
They would really be in their element, if an armed conflict broke
out between Russia and Georgia. Therefore I believe that they
are continually provoking these conflicts, by passing from one
country to the other. And this includes the recent clash in Ingushetia.
To judge from all we know, it is highly likely that these were
the motives behind this move. It is important for them to keep
on provoking Russia and Georgia to confront each other. That's
why they stage these sensational raids. Either they break through
from the Pankisi Gorge to the Sharo-Argun Gorge, where there was
fairly heavy fighting in August. Or they break through into Ingushetia
and shoot at helicopters and engage in armed clashes. All this
is done really for show.
After all, everybody knows that there are many ways to get into
Chechnya: through Ingushetia, through Dagestan, through Stavropol.
And even in Chechnya itself there are still a significant number
of fighters, who conduct guerrilla warfare there.
The infrastructure referred to by Mr Yastrzhembsky may have
been destroyed. However, unfortunately new infrastructure is created
very quickly, as the fighters' bases are not the same as army
bases, which can be destroyed and put out of action. Fighters'
bases are depots and shelters, types of settlement, which can
be recreated in a instant, when one has been destroyed. So they
can make good their losses very quickly, primarily from civilians
who go off to join the fighters for one reason or another, and
also, to some extent, from mercenaries, who come from abroad...
Russia needs to help Georgia with separatism
Presenter: If Russia helped Georgia
regain Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in return for a change in their
geopolitical orientation, would [Georgian President Eduard] Shevardnadze
go for this kind of deal?
Arbatov: Yes, of course he would.
In principle and in theory Russia is attempting to achieve this
goal, as Russian troops are stationed in these places as peacekeepers.
Unfortunately, for many years there has been no progress towards
a settlement. And talks between Georgia and the Georgian separatists,
considered separatists in Georgian eyes - the authorities in Abkhazia
and South Ossetia - these talks are in a state of stagnation that
stretches back over many years.
Your listener [who put the question] is quite right to mention
this.
When you listen to statements by a number of our TV stations
about Georgia, and hear how their accusations that the Georgians
are aiding the Chechens, you hardly ever hear about a number of
serious problems in the history of our relations.
These problems primarily concern Abkhazia, and, to some extent,
South Ossetia. Several hundred thousand refugees from Abkhazia
are living in Georgia, which creates a big social and economic
problem for them.
This forms the permanent background for Georgia's relations
with Russia. Even if someone wanted to cooperate with Russia over
the Pankisi Gorge, or on the Kodori Gorge, you have to consider
that a great mass of the Georgian people, and people in Georgian
government and political circles, are very negative about Russia.
And this is due to a number of factors linked to separatism in
Georgia.
Just imagine if Russia did not have eastern Siberia, or the
Far East, if these areas were occupied by peacekeepers from another
country. What. in these circumstances, would Russia's attitude
be to this country? We should bear in mind, that in relation to
Georgia's territory Abkhazia and South Ossetia are the same if
not greater than the regions which I referred to [relative to
Russia]...
Presenter: Why doesn't Russia want
to resolve the Abkhaz-Ossetia question and why is it fuelling
separatism by illegally issuing Russian passports to the people
there, and introducing separate visa arrangements for them? Do
you not think that these actions are driving Georgia into the
arms of NATO?...
Arbatov: On the first question I would
say that, in my view, Russia really hasplayed a negative role
in the events in Abkhazia, when it secretly supported the Abkhaz
separatists. However, if Russia now suddenly withdrew, there would
be war again. There would be bloodshed and violence, and no good
would come of it.
In fact, Russia should contribute more actively to a peaceful
settlement. Russia recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia.
And Georgia should grant the maximum amount of autonomy to Abkhazia
and South Ossetia.
A particularly thorny problem concerns the return of refugees
and the restitution of property. All the property in Abkhazia
which previously belonged to Georgians has been divided up among
other people. Still, international experience shows that with
the requisite diligence and patience, and with some financial
contributions these problems can be resolved. Russia should work
more intensively to achieve this goal. This would make it easier
to cooperate with Georgia to resolve Russian problems of a similar
nature, namely the Chechen problem.
Regarding the passports, until the passage ofthe new citizenship
law recently, the process for obtaining citizenship and a Russian
passport was very simple. An overwhelming proportion of the Abkhaz
population exploited this situation and became Russian citizens.
However, this does not mean that Abkhazia is no longer part
of Georgia, albeit it a part which occupies a special position
at present, owing to the previous war. Russia should seek a solution
to this issue in a way which is acceptable to all the parties.
Primarily this should be on the basis of the territorial integrity
of Georgia. We apply the same main principle to Chechnya. We refer
to the territorial integrity of Russia. Thousands of our people
have died to defend this principle in Chechnya: This clearly indicates
how important this issue is for every state...
Wanted: Money for borders
Presenter: The border in the North
Caucasus should be well equipped. We are talking about 1,500km
of mountainous border. Is this at all realistic?
Arbatov: This is completely realistic.
And we have the means to achieve this goal.
Why are the funds not being made available for this goal ? I
would say that this is attributable to bureaucratic irresponsibility.
In our country, the bureaucracy decides how the budget is deployed.
The Duma can only make marginal corrections.
Let me give you an example. Not long ago a government representative
appeared at a closed session of the Duma, and said that we needed
something like RUR100 billion to equip all our dangerous and porous
external borders, in the south, the west, or the east. At first
sight, this appeared to be an enormous amount. However, if we
consider that RUR20 billion a year would be spent on the borders
over five years - you don't have to equip all the borders at once,
let's start with the most dangerous, those in the Caucasus, in
Chechnya, and Central Asia - and remember that we spend RUR600
billion on the army and law-enforcement agencies, then RUR20 billion
is quite a small sum in comparison.
If the state is not capable of concentrating resources on what
is important, then there is not a proper authority in this country.
In principle, RUR20 billion out of RUR600 billion may be spent
defending the borders. Over five years this would provide comprehensive
protection for our borders. This is not being done at present.
Into the arms of the West
Presenter: While we are thinking about
ways to strengthen our borders, it looks as if the West is making
inroads. For example, the USA and the UK have announced plans
to play an extremely active role in settling conflicts in Georgia.
The secretary of the Georgian National Security Council, [Tedo]
Dhaparidze, told Interfax that the process of conflict resolutin
was entering a very interesting phase. He said this because a
special advisor to the US president and state secretary [Rudolf
Perina] had come to Tbilisi. And it would seem to be true that
Georgia is drawing closer and closer [to the West] and is moving
further away from Russia. It is getting close to the West, NATO
and Washington. In these circumstances, what role would you say
is there for the USA in settling these conflicts in Georgia?
Arbatov: If the USA and UK become
actively involved in these issues, the role of Russia will dwindle
sharply. This is crystal clear. However, it should be understood
that this is a not a cause but a consequence of our differences
with Georgia.
The most recent stage in our relations, when Russia warned Georgia
that it might carry out strikes on its territory, has driven Georgia
even further away. This is despite the fact that it would be possible
to cooperate with them.
They want to hand over to the fightersthey have captured. It
might also be possible to cooperate in the Pankisi Gorge. However,
overall, Georgia is being driven away from Russia.
In foreign policy, it is very important to be able to put yourself
in the shoes of another country, and not be restricted to your
view of events.
In this regard, if we put ourselves in Georgia's place, then
we can see that from their point of view Russia is very far from
doing everything it could to resolve the extremely serious territorial
problems Georgia faces with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
And in the final analysis, which is, of course, bad for Russia,
Georgia has started to turn to other powers, especially after
the threats of strikes issued by Russia. If you say that powers
in Georgia are directly provoking the conflict, by wanting to
side regardless with NATO, the USA or the UK, you should remember
that these forces are not in the majority. They are becoming stronger,
however, owing to the growing differences between Georgia and
Russia. This needs to be borne in mind today...
The bigger Caucasus picture
Presenter: There is a question on
our pager. What are Georgia's relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia
like and what is their impact on Georgian-Russian relations?
Arbatov: Georgia has very close relations
with Azerbaijan. They signed an agreement the other day to lay
down an oil pipeline from the Caspian shelf via Azerbaijan to
Georgia and on to Turkey, that is, bypassing Russia. Passions
have been running high on this project for many years. For obvious
reasons Russia wanted this oil pipeline to pass through its territory
to Novorossiysk terminals. But not long ago this problem was resolved
in a different way. So Georgia and Azerbaijan have good and close
relations, they cooperate, and this is yet another example showing
that religion is not always a defining factor. Azerbaijan is a
predominantly Islamic country while Georgia is a Christian country
but they cooperate because they have common economic and political
interests.
Georgia's relations with Armenia are much worse. Obviously,
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been almost in a state of war for
a long time because of Karabakh. Russia supports and always supported
Armenia, first of all, from the mid-90s onwards, at least.
But Armenia is separated from Russia by Georgia, and without
good relations with Georgia Armenia can't overcome this blockade.
Russia's presence in Armenia is very vulnerable, as there are
no direct communications with Russia. So Georgia is a crucial
country for Russia in all respects - in relations with Azerbaijan,
Armenia and the Russian presence [in the area] in general. And
the current crisis in our relations is damaging our interests...
Pressure on Iraq
Presenter: We have just a few minutes
to talk about the problem of Iraq. When presenting the 2003 draft
budget to parliament [Prime Minister] Mikhail Kasyanov said that
Russia was ready for America's war with Iraq. Certain risks pertaining
to the possible military operation against Iraq have been planned,
regarding first of all oil prices. In your view, how realistic
is a US strike against Iraq?
Arbatov: Unfortunately, it is very
realistic. Today the USA made its draft Security Council resolution
available to the permanent members of the UN Security Council
and the UN secretary-general. This draft effectively gives the
USA carte blanche to interpret [Iraq leader] Saddam Husayn's actions,
to decide whether he hampers inspectors and, consequently, to
decide on whether to deliver a strike.
Presenter: But perhaps these are still
measures of intimidation?
Arbatov: I think that the USA is in
no mood to frighten Iraq. If it wanted to, it would have frightened
it a long time ago, brought the inspectors back and clarified
the real situation with nuclear materials and weapons of mass
destruction.
The USA's real goal is to abolish this regime and establish
a different one. And in this respect the worse Saddam behaves,
the better for the USA. It is using this as a pretext. It is good
that the USA has rejected immediate unilateral actions, tried
to proceed through the UN Security Council and tabled a relevant
resolution. But I think that it would be wrong to simply pass
the resolution, as it doesn't stipulate what the Security Council
should do next, while the UN Charter and international law state
that this is the main body which may sanction such actions.
I agree with those calling for a new resolution. This is at
variance with Moscow's official view. They believe that nothing
new is needed and what is already there is sufficient. Experience
has shown that Saddam Hussein is obstructing inspections, constantly
manoeuvring and changing tactics. He needs fairly harsh treatment
to ensure that there are no weapons of mass destruction there.
But it is wrong to set the goal of changing a regime, as in this
case arbitrary rule will serve as the grounds for using force
in world politics.
Presenter: Let's imagine that the
strike has already been carried out and you as deputy are to vote
on a certain resolution in the State Duma. What resolution would
you support in this case?
Arbatov: If this strike is carried
out by the USA unilaterally and without sufficient grounds, that
is there are no clear facts to show that Saddam Hussein has violated
inspections, I would vote to condemn this action. But if this
resolution stipulated Russia's involvement in a war on Saddam
Hussein's side, I, the Yabloko faction and, in my opinion, many
other deputies, would vote against such a resolution, as Russia's
interests are much broader and serious than relations with this
quite notorious regime which wages war on its neighbours, uses
chemical weapons against part of its own population and in general
behaves like an international criminal. But even criminals should
be treated on the basis of law rather than arbitrariness.
Presenter: We were talknig to AlexeiArbatov,
deputy chairman of the Duma Defence Committee and member of the
Russian democratic Yabloko party.
See also:
Relationships
between Russia and Georgia
| 