|
The inaccurate translation of Yavlinsky’s and Robertson’s declarations
has laid the basis for the construction of
the European ABM.
The recent visit of the NATO Secretary General George Robertson to
Moscow became a hot topic, thanks to a
translator's mistakes. When Robertson was talking to Dmitry Rogozin of
the Duma's Foreign Relations Committee,
he said diplomatically that he had never ruled out the possibility of
Russia's membership in NATO. A poor
translation made these words look like an invitation. It goes without
saying that this nuance pushed the vital part
of the negotiations - discussion of European anti-ballistic missile
defence system - into the background.
Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev and Robertson exchanged proposals
regarding establishment of a
non-strategic anti-ballistic missile defence system. The texts are quite
similar because, however strange this may
seem, both sides based their proposal on the same source.
In this case too, the blame lies with translators. Yavlinsky made
a speech at the forum Europe Without
Borders in Berlin on January 20, 2001. The leader of Yabloko presented
his ideas a letter that President Putin could
have sent to the President of the USA. The German version of the translation looked as though Yavlinsky was quoting a top
secret letter from President Putin to
President Bush.
The emerging semi-comic misunderstanding jolted the negotiating
sides into action and resulted in specific
decisions by NATO and the Russian Ministry of Defence. Marshall Sergeyev
virtually proposed to the Alliance five
clauses from the programme formulated by Yavlinsky in Berlin. Robertson,
in his turn, proposed to Sergeyev
virtually the same thing.
First, Russia would create a non-strategic anti-ballistic missile
defence system. Non-strategic means here
defence from so-called local challenges from the rogue countries, and
not from intercontinental missiles in case of
a total nuclear war. It is delicately called “protection in some missile
threatening directions”.
Second, the production of the Russian military-industrial complex
would become the base for the European
ABM. Our missile complexes, such as the S-300 Favourite, S-300V
Antei-2500, Tor, Buk-M1, are unrivalled in terms
of both tactical-technical characteristics and cost.
Third, NATO would participate in construction of the Russian non-
strategic anti-ballistic missile defence
system and Russia would participate in construction of the European
system. In other words, any duplication here
is ruled out and the two systems would be joined together.
And finally, fourthly, the USA and Russia must reduce their
arsenals of warheads to 1,500., as the nuclear
danger in the world does not originate from superpowers any more: it
noew comes from third countries that may
not even be members of the “Nuclear Club”.
Yavlinsky’s proposals on the Russian-European non-strategic
anti-ballistic missile defence system were formulated
three years ago. Today, they virtually formed the basis of Russia's
official doctrine.
Expert Comments.
Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee of the State Duma (Yabloko faction):
For the time being, the Americans want a nuclear umbrella of their own.
This would mean that their European
allies would be left to their own devices. Europe does not have the
basis on which to build an anti-ballistic missile
defence system of its own. This means that Europeans have to persuade
Americans to either take care of them or
accept Russia's proposals on the development of a joint ABM system on
the basis of Russian military technologies.
There is a chance now that the concept oriented onto Russia will
prevail; whereas it is not anti-American. The
joint European anti-ballistic missile defence system will not directly
cover the American territory, but American troops and the European citizens will
be under its cover. Thus, the USA will have
to participate in the programme, which would provide a transatlantic
"connection" between Europe and the United
States.
Russia proposed to the Secretary General of NATO a system which
envisages employment of a number of
important military-technical installations on the territory of the
former USSR and common command.
It is foolish to build a common protection from ballistic missiles
without having protection from guided missiles or
aviation: this means that we write down “joint ABM” meaning “and joint
anti-aircraft defence too”. In this case,
however, it would be strange to orient our conventional forces to a
rejection of NATO’s aggression. In fact, we
obtain a joint defence complex, on which our common security will
depend. Programmes like this obviously
envisage very close and long-term military-political contacts, almost an
alliance.
See also:
Russia's ABM Initiatives
| 