Condoleezza Rice (background) and U.S. President George W. Bush during the informal summit in St. Petersburg.
Photo: Dmitry Azarov
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Condoleezza Rice: The Situation within Russia Causes Us Concern
// Kommersant Exclusive
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, stopping off in Luxembourg yesterday, met with journalists from major European media and explained the U.S. administration's position on the processes going on in Russia and the former Soviet Union, as well as North Korea and Iran. Material from that meeting was prepared especially for Kommersant by Interfax correspondent Aleksandr Korzun, who represented the Russian media there.
The presidents of Russia and the United States will meet on February 24 in Bratislav. What message will President Bush have for his Russian colleague and what does he expect to hear from him?
The upcoming Russian-American summit in Slovakia will be one more opportunity for President Putin and President Bush to confirm that we have a productive and constructive relationship. Maybe the most productive and constructive relationship there has ever been between our countries. We are collaborating in many areas of security. Russians and Americans hold joint military exercises. Who thought a few years ago that it would be possible? We cooperate fully in the war on terrorism. We support Russia's efforts to become a member of the WTO. Minister German Gref and U.S. trade representative Robert Zellick met recently to examine a list of changes that should be carried out in Russia for it to become a member of the WTO. We cooperate in Afghanistan and the Balkans.
As for concerns about U.S.-Russian relations, of course, the situation within Russia is a cause for concern for us. But that doesn't mean we can't have productive relations. That means that the strengthening of relations, which are based on common values, should have a foundation in the democratic development of Russia.
There is concern about the role of the press, there is concern about the independent judicial system, there is concern about the rule of law in Russia. Those are worries that we can talk about. They are not things that should lead to the isolation of Russia.
I've heard them say that Russia should not become a member of the “Eight.” That would be a mistake. Russia is a country in transition. Many processes have not come to fruition. We should continue the dialog. I expect the negotiations in Bratislav to go very well. I think questions connected with nuclear security will be discussed. We had great cooperation in solving nuclear problems that were left over from the Cold War. It is a matter of nuclear disarmament and the safe storage of nuclear materials. Energy will also be discussed at the summit. So there are a lot of topics for discussion. That's a good relationship. There are a number of questions that we should discuss about our future. But I think that the future is clear enough.
We have a strong desire for the further development of a strong relationship with Russia. We are all looking for way we can support and strengthen civil society in Russia.
There are new moments in the development of Russia, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union was only 15 years ago and many more transitional moments should take place. Support for civil society through nongovernmental organizations is a way we can help Russian guarantee its democratic future. We suggest that a liberal economy and supremacy of law will also be important for the democratic future of Russia. So we still have a lot to do together. But relations between the United States and Russia and, I think, the European Union and Russia are based on strengthening common values. We are all trying to establish stronger and more productive relations with Russia.
Were you surprised by the announcement by the People's Republic of North Korea that it has nuclear weapons and is withdrawing from negotiations?
We have acknowledged since the mid-1990s that North Korea could have even material to make its own nuclear weapons. I want one thing to be clear: we have firm relations with South Korea and there are strong containment forces to deflect any threat coming from North Korea. The North Koreans are not talking about such things for the first time. Every time they say such things, they just increase their isolation, because nobody wants nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula – not South Korea, not Japan, not Russia, not the United States, not China. The reason six-sided negotiations are being conducted is that all sides can send a common message to Pyongyang about what kind of Korean Peninsula we want to have.
Can that become a failure for U.S. policy?
No. At the six-nation negotiations, we reached a single common position on the necessity to have a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. Imagine if they were only bilateral negotiations. Then the North Koreans would tell the United States that they refuse to negotiate.
Now the North Koreans are telling that to the Chinese, where the negotiations are being held and who are actively participating in the negotiations, that hey don't want to return to the negotiating table. We know that the Chinese government very much wants to bring the North Koreans into the negotiating process. Since there is a multilateral format, when the North Koreans leave the negotiations or refuse to return to them, it affects not just the United States. It affects all their neighbors and that is a big difference.
There is another way. They told North Korea that security guarantees are possible on a multilateral basis and, of course, if the United States is part of those guarantees. And so it is. The president of the United States told them, we don't want to attack or occupy you. That way, the North Koreans have a reason to participate in the six-nation negotiations and not increase their isolation.
What about the military option?
I don't want to speculate on that. I believe that everything can be decided by diplomatic means and that is the best choice for the North Koreans, to return to reasonable relations with its neighbors and the rest of the world.
As for American soldiers stationed on the Korean Peninsula, I say to everyone very definitely: the North Korean regime is very well informed of the abilities of the U.S. containment forces and their allies on the Korean Peninsula.
If the European countries and Iran reach an agreement and firm guarantees are provided that Iran will not take the route of creating nuclear weapons, will the United States support it?
First of all, Iran has to be made to acknowledge that it has obligations to the world community not to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civil atomic program. After several suspicious steps in that area by Iran were uncovered, I think everyone understood that it really is a big problem. As I already said, Iran should fulfill its obligations. What we must not let happen is for Iran to set new conditions of the type of what the United States can or cannot do in order to avoid answering the question being asked it, that is, are you ready to fulfill your international obligations? We will see whether Iran can convince the international community that it is really ready to observe its international obligations in a controlled manner. The nuclear problem is urgent and it must be viewed in the context of other problems and Iran is out of step in many respects with what is happening now in the Middle East. That includes its support for terrorism and its relations with its own people.
In America, how do they see the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining transatlantic structures, first of all NATO? What is your attitude toward the possibility of opening military bases in the new NATO member countries?
First, the United States is changing and removing structures from the time of the Cold War and not increasing its structures in Europe. So really we are holding discussions not just with NATO members but also with the Russian government, about the so-called global reexamination of positions and redeployment of our forces.
The structures of our bases is being reduced and not increased. Of course, we have good relations with the countries to the east of NATO, with the countries of Central Asia and so on.
We are conducting antiterrorism operations that are beneficial not just in the view of the United States, but in the view of neighboring countries as well, in the view of Russia. It stands to reason that NATO is undergoing a transformation and the tendency in the changes in the structure of the alliance is toward more mobile forces and not forces stationed in a definite place as they were during the Cold War, with its huge permanent bases and innumerable forces on constant alert with heavy weapons.
As for Ukraine and Georgia, we would very much like to see Ukraine and Georgia, just like other countries, part of the mainstream of the development of Europe. However, even though NATO's doors are open to any democracy in Europe, there are many practical that Ukraine and Georgia must take before joining NATO.
Aleksandr Korzun
All the Article in Russian as of Feb. 11, 2005
|
|
|
