|
|
 |
Rogozin: Moscow's Scrawny Hand Doesn't Reach Inside the Alliance
Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin comments on the course and outcome of the alliance's summit for Kommersant special correspondent Mikhail Zygar.
Are you pleased that NATO did not decide to present Georgia and Ukraine with membership action plans?
Its was a predictable decision. We understand that there was a tense discussion in NATO. Formulae were mouthed to the end so as not to offend anybody. The decision stems from an analysis of the situation in Georgia and Ukraine. NATO, of course, would like to make a bold political decision on membership action plans, but n o one wants to make another's headaches one's own.
Was the decision a triumph of Russian diplomacy?
There were no cheers or uncorked champagne bottles, nor will there be. We accepted it calmly. Gloating would not be to our benefit. Obviously, Russia's arguments were heard, but other things played a role as well. There was also the concern that they would have to take on others' problems. NATO's potential now is wrapped up in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo. If Ukraine and Georgia were added to that, NATO would become bloated.
Which countries specifically were for and against membership action plans for Ukraine and Georgia?
You know, Moscow's scrawny hand doesn't reach inside the alliance. We know what their positions were before the summit. Some said the current summit is a test of NATO's ability to make a decision based on solidarity, that the United States should be given its tribute of respect as the leader of the alliance and its advice be heeded without hesitation. There is another position, that there is no need to irritate Russia, the dialog with it should continue. And there is a third position. the new countries that are being accepted into NATO wholesale always pro-American positions. Adding Yushchenko and Saakashvili would continue that tendency and NATO would turn into a pro-American construct. The secretary of the party committee and Komsomol members will have the majority and the old party members will be left out in the cold. Old Europe can't not be annoyed by that.
What will happen at the Russia-NATO council? Is there still a danger that there will be no joint declaration?
The problem remains. The text of the declaration has not yet been conciliated. The formulation of the spirit of partnership is the sticking point. It seems we have a different understanding of the spirit of partnership. We understand partnership as mutual consideration of interests and consider it impermissible to reach our own goals at the expense of our partners' interests. But our partners have another view.
So there might not be a declaration?
There is no need to dramatize. The fact that there is a dialog as part of the NATO summit is already a success. Possibly Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be able to smooth out the text even before President Putin arrives. We have to dramatize only when they don't listen to us and understand us.
You lament the lack of mutual understanding. But didn't the decision not to give Ukraine and Georgia membership action plans show they are ready to pay heed to Russia?
Yes. But our cooperation goes far beyond Ukraine and Georgia. It's also Afghanistan, arms control and possibly cooperation on missile defense. It will be no tragedy of the political document itself does not work out. We have excellent cooperation with NATO. The point of no return has not been reached.
Membership action plans for Georgia and Ukraine would have been the point of no return?
I think so. But now we should emphasize that there are no winners in that situation.
Does one of the problems between Russia and NATO concern the creation of a public forum, a structure that would enlist noncommercial organizations to increase public awareness of the cooperation between Russia and NATO? What is the disagreement over?
There are no particular problems here. In the long term, we are in favor of bringing the analytical and scientific communities into the discussion of security issues in Europe. The issue is that the mechanism for the selection of scientific personnel need further thought. I would not like it, if someone in Brussels would name participants from Russia, but we wouldn't be able to choose American political scientists. Let the state itself formulate the selection principles.
Before the summit began, Russian representatives charged that the program of the Russia-NATO council is somehow prejudicial toward President Putin and doesn't allow him to speak. But there are no public appearances in the format of the meeting.
There was a slight protocol disagreement. About a week and a half ago, they sent me the program for the Russia-NATO council session. It was written there that NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer would open the meeting, then President Putin would say a few words of greeting. That format suited us. The attendance of a NATO summit by the president of Russia is a symbolic, unprecedented event. I am certain that journalists would be interested in seeing and hearing that. But another paper came on Friday, in which it was written that only Jaap de Hoop Scheffer would speak. That doesn't happen in serious protocol issues. I asked them which paper was right. They created a problem out of nothing. And that misunderstanding coincided with Scheffer's statement that Putin should refrain from empty rhetoric. It made the impression that they were trying to gag him.
Why would they do that?
Their decision was a ill-considered. Putin is a creative person. He will always find a way to have his say. And the more they pressure him, the stronger his response will be. But that protocol discussion should not eclipse the conceptual differences. The impression should not be that that controversy is almost the main event of the summit. The key moment for us connected with conciliating the political document.
And President Putin will speak at the summit after all?
It would be strange, if we were restricted to the confidential communications of the presidents and left Bucharest without any comments. We can expect Sergey Lavorv to speak at least. As for a speech by the president, the confidential format, based on the confirmed format, does not anticipate the use of megaphone diplomacy. Practically all the heads of state will stay in Bucharest to attend the Russia-NATO council. I will be there too, and I am certain that I will be witness to an attempt to find a compromise. Will there be a formal reaction by the president? If the negotiations are constructive, why should he explain anything? The comments of the Foreign Ministry will be enough.
Interview by Mikhail Zygar
All the Article in Russian as of Apr. 04, 2008
|
|
|
