YEVGENY PRIMAKOV ON RF FOREIGN POLICY
[NOCHNOYE VREMYA ORT NEWS PROGRAM, 24:00, JULY 23, 2002] SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)
Anchor: Yevgeny Maximovich, the relations with the United States after a fairly long period of cooling -- suffice it to recall your famous U-turn over the Atlantic -- are on the rise. At the same time some experts think that the peak in these relations is already behind us. What is your point of view?
Primakov: I wouldn't measure everything in terms of falls, rises, peaks and so on. I think that we are reaching a level relationship with the United States. These relations will strengthen though of course that depends in many ways on the United States. I think we are very much interested to see our relations with the United States develop. And that is right because the United States is currently waging an anti-terrorist war, or implementing an anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan and we have supported them. That was absolutely right.
Q: The foreign policy successes Russia has achieved in the past few months -- we have joined the NATO twenty, we have signed a treaty with the United States on cutting strategic offensive potentials and Russia has after all been recognized as a market economy. That too is a big plus and a big achievement. What we have achieved in recent times would have taken years previously. How do you account for it? Do you put it down to the September 11 phenomenon?
A: To some extent, yes. But you say that in former times it would have taken years. But during these years a considerable potential has built up on the basis of which progress could be made now and all this could have been achieved.
I would like to draw the attention of our audience to what has been accomplished in three areas. You have mentioned the signing of the treaty. I'd like to say that this was not a treaty that suited us in every way. Nevertheless, we have signed it and I think we have scored a success there. Why? Because one should look at developments in context. And how did events develop? As you know the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. And it ten stated its position on strategic offensive arms reductions. That position was as follows: we don't want any limitations, we don't want any verifications, we don't want any binding documents. We just want to do it whenever we want and in the form that we like without any outside interference.
If that position had prevailed it would have created a very bad situation. It would have canceled out many of the successes achieved in the past. Because the United States would have entirely embarked on the path of independent decisions made single-handed regardless of public opinion and sentiments, regardless of the world community as a whole and so on. By signing the treaty we have managed to dislodge the United States from that position. They have signed a binding document and I think Russia claims much credit for that and I think that the whole world is aware of this.
Or take another example. You have spoken about the creation of the "committee at twenty." But let us look at this issue in context. And the context is as follows. As soon as the Bush administration came to power in the United States the United States wanted to consolidate its position of ignoring the United Nations and supporting so-called "humanitarian interventions." At present the whole meaning of the "twenty" is that there should be decisions taken by consensus with Russian participation on operations NATO would carry out outside its zone if such operations are carried out. And in this context it is clear that Russia acquires some sort of right, if not exactly the right of veto -- but perhaps even of veto. But in any case Russia acquires a degree of influence on the situation.
And this has the consent of Western states, I mean West European states because they too are not happy about the United States making all decisions by itself.
And in this connection I would also like to mention what I consider to be also a very important aspect of the issue. We have already said that the United States has established a military presence in Central Asian countries. This has been prompted by the needs of the operation in Afghanistan. But will they leave Asia nor not? Will they leave Central Asia? Will they leave the former republics of the Soviet Union where there are American bases at present? That is by no mean a rhetorical question, it is rather a historical question.
We did the right thing in helping the united States to get these military opportunities there. It was necessary for the military operation. And anyway I am sure that even without us Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzia would have lent these bases and these opportunities to the United States.
Q: What to do now?
A: What to do now. In this context I think we rightly emphasize, the emphasis is not yet very noticeable, but I think we will be emphasizing more and more the collective security of the "Shanghai Six".
Q: If I got you right and summing up, the period of individual leadership of the United States is behind us?
A: I wouldn't put it that way especially since the United States has not yet finally determined its position. I think a lot depends on whether it will continue to strike at countries which regimes that it doesn't like in the wake of Afghanistan. If this is the case, it would be too bad. At the same time many experience something that I would call "self-determination" odd though it may sound. The former allies of the United States think that the United States should be stopped and should be made to act in a positive way in the world.
Q: In spite of all the positive things that are happening, in spite of the foreign policy breakthroughs the Russian Foreign Ministry comes increasingly under criticism for not being proactive. Is it justified criticism and what should be done?
A: I think this is not justified criticism. The country's leader, President Putin, is not just a formal organizer of our foreign policy, but he does it in fact. This was not the case previously. And when this was not the case the Foreign Ministry probably had a higher profile. But now the voice of the Foreign Ministry is less loud perhaps, but it is pursuing a clear-cut and solid line.
Q: My colleague, Anatoly Lazarev, went out into the streets of Moscow today and asked Russians about how they feel about foreign policy. I would like you to look at the this material.
Some curious figures are cited in this story. 47 percent of those polled think Russia should maintain closer relations with the European states and only 4 percent mentioned the United States. At the same time the respondents spoke with some apprehension about European countries citing the example of the Kaliningrad region and what is happening around it. What is your comment on the attitude of our people?
A: First, I would like to speak out against the "either-or" approach. This is not a viable approach. We cannot orient our policy either to unqualified support of the United States and turn our back on all the others or go along with Europe and try to encourage European resentment against some American actions. None of these approaches exist or can exist. So, one should combine the development of relations with the United States which are particularly important at this stage and the development of our strategic relations with Europe and other countries.
Anchor: Thank you, Yevgeny Maximovich.