In an interview with Gazeta.Ru Valery Manilov, former first deputy chief of the General Staff of Russian Army and vice commander of the federal troops in Chechnya who is now a member of the Federation Council, said that if America unleashes a war on Iraq, it could entail disastrous consequences for the whole world.
In your opinion, will the US decide to launch a military operation in Iraq?
I think that the president G.W.Bush' statement on “the axis of evil” was a test balloon. How will the world community react? Russia’s reaction is harsh and negative.
Generally speaking, the wording itself “the axis of evil” smells of the cold war: once there was another axis – Rome, Tokyo, Berlin, and “the empire of evil”. All that is political atavism.
But now Russia will not tolerate the arbitrary use of the military force against sovereign states. It could destroy world stability and security.
As provided in our concept of the national security (by the way, I personally took part in its elaboration), political and other peaceful means of settling such issues are given priority.
Military power may be used only after all other means are exhausted.
Of course there are precedents of the US acting at its own discretion. For instance, that happened when the States attacked Yugoslavia and when, acting without the UN Security Council sanctions, the Americans bombarded Iraq.
But all that happened in another epoch, before September 11. Now the world community has a different approach to such matters.
In general, the US has already got a response, a harshly negative one, and not only from Russia but also from European states – members of NATO, from China, India and other states.
That’s why Washington rushed to amend the formula. Colin Powell asserted that Bush’s statement was misunderstood and that the US intends to seek peaceful ways to influence the rogue states.
There are rumours, that Russia has been offered a seat in the NATO or, at least, a veto right in the Alliance in exchange for being more tractable on the Iraq issue?
That sounds more like political speculation. Firstly, we will never allow any “exchange” or a secret accord for we know how such accords usually end.
We insist on clarity, transparency and lucidity. Its affects our national interests and our world image.
Our official position on Iraq, North Korea, and Iran is as follows: the situation in these states may be normalised only through inviting them to participate in joint international projects.
Sanctions can do no good. Cooperation is what’s needed. Driving someone into a corner, dubbing him a rogue will do no good. If driven into a corner will bite even a rabbit will bite.
As for the proposal (on Russia’s accession to NATO), I doubt such an offer has been made. Russia has no use for being a member of a regional military organisation that pursues unjustified political goals such as collective defence from an ambiguous threat, and that endeavours to preserve itself as a military machine at any cost.
We have said many times that NATO should re-organise. The military treaty alliance set up to defend the member-states from aggression needs to be transformed into something new.
However, the members of that organisation are, on the contrary, trying to turn NATO into a universal international organisation, authorised to act arbitrarily without sanction from the UNO beyond their own borders.
We should be partners who enjoy equal rights. And this implies the joint assessment of security threats, joint decision-making and joint and equal participation in the implementation of such decisions.
It is not for the Americans alone to decide where threats emanate, from Iraq or from Iran. We must do that together in cooperation.
And we must cooperate in the sphere of security, not defence. Even at the NATO sessions I used to say that Russia has never asked for the veto right on the collective defence issues, only on security issues.
And Russia will never agree to a place in the antechamber so I consider such rumours not only as speculation, but also a provocation.
Hypothetically, what would happen if there were a war in Iraq?
Only hypothetically speaking, I think that if the US takes such a tragic step for all humanity, the consequences would be unpredictable.
In the US Congress, in the Senate by the way, there are those who understand the danger of such policy because if the US attacks Iraq, the neighbouring states could be dragged into that war too. And the consequences of such war for the world as a whole, for the environment could be disastrous.
It is a pity that little is being said about what has happened and what is happening in Yugoslavia. For many more years not only Yugoslavia, but also the neighbouring states will suffer from the consequences of using of super-modern depleted uranium ammunition.
And what about the destroyed dams and bridges? What about the damage to the environmental balance in Europe? And how many more victims there will be? How many more cases of radiation related illnesses?
I am deeply concerned about the US’ statements on the unprecedented build-up of the military budget, on huge allocations for the development of the anti-missile system.
How will the situation in Afghanistan develop?
The euphoria over the defeat of the Taliban and the ultimate eradication of the nest of terrorism is unfounded. I know the nature of terrorism well. I know that the beginnings and the cradles of terrorism are based not only in Afghanistan, but also beyond its borders and they have not been destroyed. It is a global network, a financial, political network.
Of course the Taliban has not been destroyed and I would refrain from proclaiming a complete victory over the Taliban, as some American partners like to do.
The Taliban have disguised themselves and will keep quiet for a while. They have weapons and resources and in certain circumstances, everything may recur and then Russia again will find itself close to a kindling fire. So for Russia it would be advantageous if the Americans see to it that the Taliban military forces never rise again.
But to secure that goal the creation of certain organisations that would ensure security in the region on a permanent basis is needed.
That’s why we hailed the military stage of the counter-terrorist operation as positive because the attack was directed against our foes.
We also hail the creation of a military infrastructure that will ensure the restoration of Afghanistan. But if that mission is exceeded, Russia will have to take the necessary measures.
We intend to develop our cooperation in the counter-terrorist operation. And this is not only the military operation.
We insist that through joint efforts political measures are taken aimed at restoring legitimate authorities in Afghanistan, and that the world community should render social and economic help to the region.
We need to give people who have been warring for many years a chance to make their living through working, not by selling drugs or fighting.
What are the chances of Russia loosing its influence in Central Asia and in Afghanistan?
I think that Russia must not allow itself to be driven out of the region or to be pressurised.
But we should honestly and impartially evaluate the challenge we are facing now that the counter-terrorist operation is complete and the US has got a chance to reinforce its positions in the region.
And Russia must take measures to safeguard its security interests in the changed circumstances. And Russia does have a real opportunity to do so. Firstly, there are traditional ties between Russia and Afghanistan – economic, humanitarian, military and military-technical cooperation.
We should not forget that almost 100% of the weaponry in Afghanistan is of Soviet-Russian origin.
Military servicemen who received training in the USSR or in the Russian Federation form the backbone of the Afghan army.
Afghan people treat Russians with great kindness and we must make use of that. The work has already begun: representatives of the Russian government have visited Afghanistan and met with Afghan leaders here in Moscow.
As for the Central Asian republics, historically their interests are closely entwined with those of Russia. And not only in the cultural sphere.
There is still great potential for a strong revival of our friendship, military-technical potential, and economic ties.
The real sovereignty of these states is so much dependent on the friendship with Russia that no financial injections, nobody’s military power can ruin those ties.