.
Weapons industry not happy:
Michael McFaul, 10/24/2001: “The military industrial complex does not welcome the new Western orientation [of Pres. Putin]. These companies enjoy contracts with American enemies.”…
………………………..
10/3/2001, “Speech by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, and the Russian President Putin," nato.int, Brussels
“Ladies and Gentlemen,
 |
President Putin and I have had a long conversation about a whole series of issues of mutual interest to Russia and to NATO. I think these discussions have marked a major milestone in NATO-Russia relationships and I think the two of us have acquired the habit of straight talking which allows us to make our relationship the relationship between Russia and NATO, ever more relevant.
The recent horrifying atrocities in the United States I think have underlined the fact that
there is far more that unites NATO and Russia than has divided us in the past few years.
And on behalf of the North Atlantic Alliance I would like to offer
my profound thanks to President Putin and to the Russian people
for this spontaneous way in which they have reacted to the terrible atrocity
which affected America three weeks ago.
And what the people of the world now expect is decisive leadership from the leaders of the democratic world at a time when their safety has become overshadowed by international terrorism and its tentacles.
 |
For some forty years NATO and Russia sat and glowered at each other, for another ten years we tip-toed around each other but now I believe that we are entering an era where substantial and practical cooperation is going to build a unique relationship between us.
Russia is a special and a major partner of NATO and in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council we have already established a very considerable programme of cooperation on subjects and areas that
would have been unimaginable only a few years ago.
And today we have identified a number of new areas where
NATO and Russia can work together
only some of them arising out of the need to deal with the terrorist challenge which faces all of us equally.
Yesterday, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation declared that the attack on the United States of America on the 11th of September should be taken as an attack on all other 18 NATO allies.
The attack at the heart of the United States was not just an attack on the United States and members of NATO
values that unite Russia with the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance
and that must make us all the more committed to acting decisively against those who bring such wanton and reckless violence into the heart of any civilised city.
President Putin (interpreter)
 |
“I would like to reiterate that the questions on the issues related to the terrorist threat were at the centre of our discussion but our discussion also went far beyond that and encompassed the entire spectrum of relationship between Russia and NATO. I must say that the discussion was very frank and very concrete. We discussed the developments in different regions of the world and also the development of relations in the partnership and intercourse between NATO and Russia.
We have accumulated a wealth of experience and I think we could examine, explore the possibility, opportunity to sew our relationship at least in two directions. This includes our cooperation in purely political area
and the enhancement to our cooperation in the fight against international terrorism.
Secretary General did not mention it but I don’t think that I would divulge any secrets here by mentioning that Secretary General NATO proposed setting up a special “working body” to examine the different dimensions of political operations among others of the qualitative changes of the relationship between Russia and NATO. I find this proposal extremely good, businesslike and we support it.
Thank you.
One question please.
I have a question for President Putin.
This morning the American administration submitted a list of request to all members of NATO in the fight against terrorism – have you been informed about that and what is your reaction?
 |
I think that within such an Alliance as NATO and those within the context of Article 5, such a request is quite appropriate and quite a normal practice. And quite naturally this list was sent, distributed amongst the NATO members and was not sent to Russia because Russia is not a NATO member. But we are familiar with the contents of the list of the issues and problems. There was no secret about this list for Russia. The exchange of information in the area that you mentioned is underway as we speak between Russia and the United States on a bilateral basis. At the political level we are extremely satisfied with the way things develop while at the operational level the mechanisms that exist would require further improvement and refinement.
Final question please.
Mr President in your recent speech in Bundestag you said that you want that our new relationship with NATO be built, not on declarations but
on the partnership, equality and mutual respect.
We would like also to hear the reiteration of this position here and we would also like to hear a comment of Lord Robertson on this.
Second part: Could you comment on the opposition regarding the enlargement of NATO.
President Putin
I will start from the second part.
I have, as I recall, just answered a similar question from a “Le Monde” correspondent during our press conference on the results of our meeting with the European Union. Our position with regard to the NATO enlargement is known in principle and there is no change to this position. Of course we discussed it with the Secretary General of NATO. And in the light of recent developments the following considerations should be absolutely clear, clear-cut for everyone.
 |
For example, the NATO enlargement will take place. Some new members will be adopted into that organisation.
Whose security will that action enhance?
Which country of Europe which country of the world
and citizens of which country of the world would feel more secure?
If you go to Paris or Berlin and ask a person in the street whether he or she would feel more secure after the expansion of NATO, enlargement of NATO and whether that person from the street would feel secure against the threat of terrorism – the answer most probably would be No. I think we should abandon this logic under which every time the subject matter of NATO enlargement is discussed it creates some kind of destructive, rather than, productive argument. We should abandon this. And with this I would like to answer the first part of your question.
Whether Western leaders heard our signals, signalling our great readiness to cooperate and interact.
We have a feeling that those signals were heeded. We will have to see how it could be realised in practical terms. We have felt clear changes in the position and the attitude of President Bush which was made publicly and in no uncertain terms and we also feel the change in the attitude and in the outlook of all the Western partners and western community
after the United States President [Bush #2] has made his new position and new vision known.
And we believe that things are moving towards the qualitative changes of our relationship. Approximately the same feeling I have gathered from my meetings with my partners in the European Union.
And the practical proposals made by the Secretary General of NATO runs in same direction and represents
yet another testimony that NATO is also prepared to change the quality of our partnership of our interaction. We are ready for this.
Thank you.”
I agree with the President that there will be an enlargement of NATO next year
but there has been no decision taken as to how many countries will join the Alliance.
At the moment there is no application from Russia but what there is, is a partnership that is growing in importance, in depth and in relevance
and that is what we must focus on just now.
It is a right of any country in the world to choose its own security arrangements and that right
applies to the Russian Federation just as it applies to any other country.
today’s discussion was about how we increase the quality of the
unique and special partnership that NATO has with Russia and how to make it work better in the interest not only of NATO and Russia
but of the wider Euro-Atlantic community as well.
NATO is not interested in recreating any dividing lines in the Euro-Atlantic area. What we are interested in is building up relationships that matter, that are based on mutual respect, based on a grown-up attitude to the common problems that we face. That is what we discussed today and that is
the way we will take forward the NATO-Russia relationship.””
*****************************
Added: Michael McFaul, 10/24/2001: “The military industrial complex does not welcome the new Western orientation [of Pres. Putin]. These companies enjoy contracts with American enemies…and hope to develop even further relations with other American enemies in the Middle East…A Russian realignment in the Middle East means fewer hard cash contracts. These military enterprises enjoy strong support within the Duma.”
10/24/2001, “U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001,” Carnegie Endowment, Michael McFaul
represented a significant shift in Russian foreign policy.
Before September 11th, President Putin has vacillated between pro-Western and anti-Western foreign policy stances….In the wake of September 11th, however, Putin has seemed to lean much further towards the West and the United States in particular. (Before September 11th, Putin had placed relations with Europe as a higher priority than relations with the United States).
His acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled
a reversal of two hundred years
of Russian foreign policy.
Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always considered Central Asia as its ‘sphere of influence.’
Putin broke with that tradition.
Bush rewarded this supportive turn in Russian foreign policy two days later by changing the way he spoke about Russia’s ‘war against terrorism.’ On September 26th, White House press spokesperson Ari Fleischer communicated President Bush’s appreciation for Putin’s statement. The White House press spokesperson also stated that the “Chechnya leadership, like all responsible political leaders in the world, must immediately and conditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups, such as Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization.” The Clinton Administration had previously connected some Chechen fighters to bin Laden’s network. The Bush Administration had not….
Before September 11th, the Bush Administration had not made Chechnya a top priority in its policy towards Russia. The statement of support, however, did underscore the notion that the United States and Russia faced a common enemy. Putin had been pushing this theme for two years with his American counterparts. Putin was pleased to hear that President Bush finally
recognized publicly their common cause.
Domestic Resistance to Putin’s Pro-American Lean In deciding to make concrete policy changes to reflect his rhetorical support for the American war against terrorism, Putin has acted against the preferences of many important constituencies within Russia. Publicly, direct criticism of Putin has been limited.
After all, Putin still enjoys tremendous popularity,
making it unwise politically to speak out against him. Below the surface, however, there are subtle signs of discontent with Putin’s new support for American military action in Russia’s own backyard. The military, first and foremost, cannot be happy about NATO troops in Central Asia. Uzbek President Islam Karimov has hinted that he would like to see the American armed forces stay in Uzbekistan for an indefinite period of time to help protect Uzbekistan from terrorists, and though never stated publicly, the Russians. American troops have demonstrated a pattern of staying in places well after the fighting has ended. For Russian military officers still fighting the last war – the Cold War – the thought of American troops based permanently in a former Soviet republic must be horrifying, especially in a place as strategic and anti-Russian as Uzbekistan.
Second, the intelligence services, including Putin’s own alma mater, the KGB (now called the FSB)
do not welcome the new alliance.
Putin’s Minister of Defense and former KGB general, Sergei Ivanov, has reversed his earlier remarks and pledged support for Putin’s position. Nonetheless, many Russian observers believe that Ivanov could become the focal point of opposition to Putin within the government should the pro-American policy adopted by Putin not yield results.
Third, the military industrial complex does not welcome
the new Western orientation [of Pres. Putin].
These companies enjoy contracts with American enemies such as Iran and Syria
and hope to develop even further relations with other American enemies in the Middle East such as Iraq.
For them, therefore, a Russian realignment in the Middle East
means fewer hard cash contracts.
These military enterprises enjoy strong support within the Duma.
Fourth, the Communist Part of the Russian Federation and Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
have spoken openly against Russia’s new foreign policy orientation,
arguing that Putin’s new strategy represents
a sell out of Russian national security interests.
Fortunately, these two groups matter less than ever before. Yet, their public statements are shared by many more privately….
Finally, Russian society is divided. While the majority in polls has expressed solidarity with the American cause, this same society is divided about the wisdom of engaging in another war with Afghanistan….
If Russia does not realize some benefits from new pro-American orientation, backlash will occur. Some Russian analysts already are drawing parallels between Putin’s current foreign policy reorientation and that undertaken by Gorbachev at the end of the 1980s. For many in Russia’s foreign policy and security establishment, the Gorbachev analogy connotes a negative experience that must not be repeated.”
............
No comments:
Post a Comment