|
 Our
party has from the outset ultimately backed the position expressed
by President Vladimir Putin in his television address to the nation
on September 11, 2001, - solidarity with the US in the fight against
international terrorism, a course towards rapprochement with the
West and the establishment of a partnership and preferably an
alliance.
First, this was the only possible moral reaction to the tragedy
in New York and Washington, and to the honour of our country our
President reacted immediately and spontaneously. Unlike the largest
part of our elite, that did not hide its gloating and began hypocritical
speculations that "we pity Americans, but not America".
Second, as the decision to support the global anti-terror coalition
was exclusively pragmatic from the viewpoint of Russia’s national
security interests. I should note here that a year before the
September tragedy the leadership of the RF Security Council had
publicly discussed the issues of a possible bombing of terrorist
camps and the Taliban’s positions in Afghanistan. In the present
condition of our unreformed army such an action would lead the
country to developments that are very dangerous for us. But the
threat to Russia's security remained, and the Defence Ministry
planned the creation of a 50,000 grouping in the Southern direction.
The support, including military assistance, provided by Russia
to the US and its allies played a key role in the destruction
of the Al-Kaida structure and the Taliban regime that supported
it. Thus, the most important task of Russia's security was resolved.
The diplomatic resource created on the initiative of the President
of Russia made it possible to use in our interests the military
and economic potential of the USA.
But in addition to the pragmatic aspect, the choice made by the
Russian leader in September 2001 can and is strategically important.
This represents a choice in favour of a long-term union with the
Western, European civilisation, and Russia plays a limited clear.
It is obvious to us that the great Russian culture is an integral
part of European culture and the heritage of European civilisation
which would in turn be impossible without Russia.
We shall support and fight for this long-term strategic course,
because we are convinced that Russia which has the longest borders
with the most unstable regions in the world will only be able
to resolve the problems of its security within the framework of
its union with the West, while the Western countries need a union
with a leading Eurasian state.
But we are also supporting this course for the simple reason
that if this choice is consistent and long-term, it will inevitably
affect the domestic development of the country. Such a course
in the historic perspective will be incompatible with the system
of oligarchic capitalism that dooms the majority of the nation
to poverty, with the creation of a manageable democracy and a
restraint on freedom of speech and human rights.
At the same time serious questions need to be answered today.
How honest is the West, and first of all its undisputable leader
- the USA about the strategic union with Russia, a union which
would reflect the mutual interests of its participants?
Whether the global fight against terrorism threats the democratic
institutions in the countries leading such a fight? Whether their
governments would restrain human rights for the sake of victory
in such a fight? When such concerns emerge in the countries with
democratic traditions dating back several hundred years, then
what should we say about Russia, where the sheer words "human
rights" still stir a conditioned reflex "names, surnames
and secret addresses!"
And, finally, no unions should let us close our eyes to our national
catastrophe - the war in Chechnya, moreover pass it for "the
fight with international terrorism".
Let us start with the first issue. Regarding Europe - the answer
today is "yes". The leading European leaders (Blair,
Schroder and Chirac) and the public opinion of European countries
are interested in a strategic union with Russia.
The situation with Russian-American relations is more complicated.
The decision to support the US in the fight with international
terrorism was highly appreciated by American society, as reflected
in the expression of gratitude from President Bush to his Russian
colleague during his visit to the USA.
However, we should not ignore the fact that there is an influential
group of supporters of strongly ideologised and dogmatic views
on foreign policies within the republican administration in the
USA. It would be inaccurate to call this group "anti-Russian".
Its philosophy of unilateralism is we could say so, global in
nature, rather than any specific anti-Russian stance. This creates
problems even in American-European relationships. This philosophy
can be summed up as the intention of the USA to get rid of any
international legal restrictions, including those of the allies,
in arms control and other areas of security. This is not simply
criticism of the outdated ABM treaty of 1972, but principled resistance
to any possible kinds of treaties in international security. On
such a basis it is difficult to create something really stable
and long-term.
Consequently the prospects of the current Russian-American negotiations
on a reduction in strategic weapons will be quite significant.
I see here some aspects that mirror negotiations on the ABM problem.
Throughout these years the position of our country has been inflexible,
dogmatic and weakly argued. Each time we lost the chance of compromises
and solutions that are profitable for our country, our representatives
reiterated in chorus the spell they had learned by heart: "The
ABM treaty of 1972 is a cornerstone of strategic stability."
The arguments of American officials who are reiterating today
the new, American spell, "We are friends, and what treaties
can be needed here?" is also inflexible, dogmatic and weakly
argumented.
Russian diplomacy holds an intellectually strong position in
this issue now: it has all the grounds to persuade the American
leadership and most of the American establishment that such a
position is just and well-substantiated and also forms the viewpoint
of America’s national security interests.
Now let me pass to the issue of a threat to democratic institutions.
Such a threat does exist. In general it should be noted here that
this will apply to any state where the executive authority is
certain that it is without sin and knows "what is best",
it will instinctively aspire to restrain the democratic rights
and liberties of its citizens. Therefore, happy and unhappy countries
differ in the degree of maturity of their civil societies capable
of curbing such instincts, rather than the instincts of their
heads. In general we should not worry about Western societies
in this respect. The attempts of the administrations of a number
of Western countries to abruptly expand, under the pretext of
an extraordinary situation, their proxies in control over the
information and everyday lives of their citizens have already
confronted adequate resistance both in society, congress, parliaments
and international human rights organisations. Unfortunately our
society possesses far weaker immunity to the authoritarian administrative
disease.
On the contrary, a number of recent developments - the "spy"
processes, ousting of independent mass media and profanation of
justice - demonstrates almost a feast of conservative leaders
of the security, military and interior who are either taking revenge
for their defeat in determining the course of Russia's foreign
policy or rushing to exploit opportunities under the pretext of
the fight with terrorism.
We shall resolutely struggle with these worrisome trends that
are so well-known from our history. Russia cannot become a stable
and economically flourishing country, without building a law-governed
state and the emergence of a developed civil society.
Similarly, Russia cannot become such a country without a political
resolution of the Chechen problem. International terrorism is
present in the Chechen conflict. But it would be a conscientious
and irresponsible deceit to consider this conflict only within
the context of the present fight with international terrorism.
It has lasted for several hundred years already.
Many Russian politicians state with content that t Western criticism
of Russia's actions in Chechnya has become weaker, or vice-versa,
note with irritation that such criticism has resumed. But neither
of the views refers to the real tragedy of the Russian-Chechen
conflict. We should be concerned about the families of our soldiers
and officers who are dying there daily the young people conscripted
to military service, honest and professional commanders, Russian
academics and experts would say about all this, rather than what
Bush, Chirac or even the Council of Europe would say about the
actions of Moscow. We should worry about the what Russian citizens
in the Chechen cities and villages, refugees camps in Ingushetia
would say, what Russian society would say about it. No one will
say any good words about them already.
But for the first time for the past 150 years Russia had a chance
to win this war in the hearts and minds of the residents of Chechnya
in September - October 1999. At that time refugees from Chechnya
damned Basayev and Khattab. We hope then to stop the [Russian]
troops at Terek river, begin returning life to normal in the Northern
part of Chechnya and conduct negotiations with Maskhadov, isolating
the forces linked with international terrorism.
Today, in a situation that is far worse for Russia, after all
the bombings and "cleansings", we are again proposing
negotiations, because there is no other solution. We are certain:
sooner or later a special conference at the top level involving
all the interested parties will be organised in Moscow to seek
a solution to the Chechen problem. Who today will be as cynical
as Chubais in 1999, to say that "the Russian army has been
returning to life in Chechnya"? Everyone knows that it is
rotting upted there, that the system of army conscription has
been failing owing to the hazing between soldiers in Chechnya.
And there is another aspect of the problem. A country that does
not have a professional army can ot be someone's real ally. Military
reform should not be left for those who conscientiously sabotage
it.
The new foreign policy, and virtually civilised, choice of the
Russian President can only succeed, provided receives strong support
form a nascent civil society. This requires daily struggle for
the assertion in our life of all the values required by this choice
- a socially-oriented market economy, political freedoms, human
rights and respect for human life, rather than compliments and
applause; moreover the forces categorically rejecting these values
are influential and powerful in all echelons of power.
See also:
Acts
of Terror in the USA
War
in Chechnya
The
Russian Army
The
ABM Treaty
Human
Rights
| 