|
RUSSIA REFOMRS ITS ARMED FORCES
Sergei BELOV, department head of military policy of the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, for RIA Novosti
Russia should have a smaller, but more effective and mobile army. This phrase, voiced at the November 9 session of the Russian Security Council in Moscow, formulates the main goal of the Council decision on the reform of the country's military organisation.
The military reform should have been launched long ago. Nine years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Post-Soviet Russia has a different scale and a new, democratic image, but the same army as during the existence of the Soviet Union. And this concerns not only its strength, but also the sentiments that developed during the Cold War and the period of confrontation of the two blocs.
Meanwhile, the new military doctrine of Russia, approved this year, proceeds from modern realities and is designed to improve the military organisation of the state and gear it to the tasks facing the country. Unlike previous similar documents, the doctrine does not provide a list of potential opponents. Instead, it says that Russia regards all countries as its partners, with the exception of those that are operating outside the UN Charter or are implementing aggressive plans with regard to the Russian Federation.
This circumstance, as well as the development of military hardware, precipitated a new view on the strength of the Russian armed forces. Even such a large country as Russia does not need a large army now. The thing is that the probability of a head-on collision of large army groups is very small now, and the army now has to tackle mostly counter-terrorist tasks and deal with guerrilla methods of warfare. And it takes a not very large, but a mobile and well-equipped army to do that.
Russia is a nuclear power and hence has weapons that can reliably protect it in case of any aggression. Consequently, the existence of a nuclear umbrella makes it inexpedient to maintain large armed forces and can be used to reform the army without worrying for the fighting ability of the country.
Another argument in favour of the reform is that the maintenance of a bulky and ineffective army is too expensive. Today all power departments of Russia have some 3 million servicemen, which is an impossible burden on the struggling national economy. This is why the decision of the Security Council on reducing the armed forces and civilian services that have troops by 600,000 in the next few years was timely and substantiated.
Although considerable funds are allocated to the army from the Russian budget, the military still complain of the shortage of funds. Of course, one could dispose of these funds more smartly. It is inadmissible to spend 70% of allocations on the maintenance of 3 million servicemen and less than 30% on their combat training and the purchase of novel weapons. Security Council Secretary Sergei Ivanov justly said that this disproportion could lead to bitter results.
He also stated that the combat component of the military organisation would not be reduced and that reductions would concern only the management structures of the power departments. This should surely appease those who fear that the planned reductions would have an adverse effect on the combat ability of the armed forces and undermine the defences of the country.
Much had been said about the need for the military reform in the 1990s, but the guidelines for its implementation have been outlined, the scale of reductions has been determined, and the deadlines set only now. Since the funds allocated on the military reforms were squandered in the preceding years, President Vladimir Putin instructed the government and the Security Council to strictly monitor the disposal of the funds allocated on the reform of the armed forces. "All allocations should be provided to the military department on time and in the amounts stipulated in the decision of the Security Council," the president stressed. Otherwise, this new attempt to reform the army would be doomed to failure, he warned. But it appears that we are at long last beginning to act in earnest and the military reform will be carried through this time.
top
RUSSIA'S ASIAN POLICY
The Russian papers comment on the regular Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit which has just ended in Brunei, the smallest East Asian state. The following is what Izvestia writes in this connection:
"The international APEC forum was established in 1989, and today it involves 21 countries. Russia joined the APEC in 1998. APEC member-countries account for 60% of the world's GDP, 50% of the world's foreign trade, and 40% of the world population...
The summit began with a meeting of the leaders of APEC member-states and the replies they gave to businessmen's questions. The subject of the discussion was defined in a typically Oriental style as "Reflections on the Globalization Problem." "The main speakers were Clinton, Putin and Jiang Zemin," specifies the newspaper Novye Izvestia. "US President Bill Clinton expressed the idea that the opening of markets is the best insurance for countries of the Asia-Pacific region against possible crises... The president stressed that the countries which had fenced themselves off from the world economy, cannot claim the fruits of its development in the future..
PRC Chairman Jiang Zemin quite expectedly acted as Clinton's main opponent when he said that globalization leads to a widening of the gap between the rich North and poor South. However, he did not produce any specific counter-proposals, but only urged that the system of education be developed and economic liberalization deepened for the attraction of foreign investments.
In that discussion President Putin preferred active neutrality. He listed among the common aims greater transparency in the sphere of finances and business, and political stability as a condition for the growth of investments, including into Russia. And he presented Russia's economic priorities that are attractive for investors, i.e., the tax reform which is being implemented in the country, sanation of the Russian Federation's banking system to make it more transparent, and restricted interference of the state into the economy." Nezavisimaya Gazeta draws attention to the specificities of the APEC as an international forum. "The APEC is a forum of businessmen and for businessmen in the first place. Small wonder that the leaders of states are called here "leaders of the economies..." Among APEC members are countries with unlike economies and different interests. The results of the current forum will evidently be considered as a success in the majority of APEC member-countries, and as a failure in the USA.
The situation at the forum reflected the struggle between two ideologies in the APEC, continues the paper. "For one -- above all, the American side -- the organization is a tool for opening all markets of the Asia-Pacific region. For the majority of others the essence of the organization lies elsewhere -- precisely that the Pacific community should work out and implement programs, with the help of which all peoples of the region could take advantage of the fruits of the world economy's globalization." Nezavisimaya Gazeta says that "Russia, a newcomer in the APEC, is quite competently using the situation proceeding from the realities of its economy. This has found reflection, above all, in President Putin's speech.
Putin began his speech by recalling the great Russian scientist, Vladimir Vernadsky, and his conception of the Earth's noosphere as a combination of nature, society, knowledge and state policy. The audience received with great interest that definition of globalization made at the dawn of the century.
Furthermore, President Putin stated that globalization changes the conditions of work for the entire business -- from the trans-national companies to the shop-keepers. The problem now is that the financial upheavals which are specific for our epoch should not affect the social sphere, that the interests of business are brought in line with those of all of society. And for that Putin suggested, in particular, that the dialogue be revived between "North and South," between "the golden billion of mankind" and the rest of humankind. The line between the rich North and the poor South, noted the Russian President, runs through the APEC, too." Parlamentskaya Gazeta writes: "Defining the nature of Russia's foreign political activity, President Putin declared at the APEC summit that it had made a resolute turn in the direction of the Asia-Pacific region.
Vladimir Putin said that Russia has always considered itself a Eurasian country, an integration junction that links Asia, Europe and America, but it has not always made use of that advantage. Putin stressed that in Russia tremendous resources are concentrated precisely in the Asian part of Siberia and in the Far East, while APEC countries need these resources and, above all, the power ones. Russia, in its turn, would regard as useful the assistance of the countries of the Asia-Pacific region in developing an infrastructure in Siberia and the Far East." At APEC summits, apart from the economic forum itself, meetings of heads of state on a bilateral basis have become traditional. Pressmen single out two among the Russian president's meetings -- that with the American President and the other with Japan's Prime Minister.
"A light view was taken of the meeting with the outgoing Clinton," writes Nezavisimaya Gazeta. "But it was precisely after it that Vladimir Putin spoke of a breakthrough which President Clinton has made in Russian-US relations. There is no doubt that the matter concerns, above all, strategic security." Against the backdrop of the difficult current situation in his own country, it was extremely important for the Prime Minister of Japan to raise the question of the Kuriles during his meeting with President Putin. "But, judging from the few reports that came from Brunei on that score," writes the paper Kommersant, "no particular headway was made there. After the meeting President Putin only noted that "there has been a positive shift in the economic cooperation between the two countries." One can consider as the main result the agreement reached by the leaders of Russia and Japan not to interrupt their peace treaty dialogue, despite the approaching deadline set for its signing -- December 31, 2000. Vladimir Putin and Yoshiro Mori instructed their foreign ministers to prepare a regular summit which could be held already in the beginning of 2001 in Irkutsk (Russia)."
top
RUSSIA AND BYELORUSSIA TO HAVE A COMMON CURRENCY
By Marina SHAKINA /RIA Novosti political analyst/
In Moscow recently, the prime ministers of Russia and Byelorussia have signed an agreement on the introduction of a single currency on the territory of the Union state of Russia and Byelorussia. Effective January 1, 2005 such a common currency of the two states will be the Russian rouble and a common issuing centre the Central Bank of Russia.
But effective January 1, 2008 it will be replaced by a new common union currency, with nothing yet known of its nature. As is believed in both governments, Moscow and Minsk still have time to define their ultimate positions and decide on the Union's monetary unit. Such a monetary unit may well remain the Russian rouble if the sides agree on the advisability of its functioning. But as is said in the Russian national bank, in 2008 both states are planning an exchange of banknotes. And the hypothetical transformation in 2008 of the Russian rouble into a single union currency will all the same mean changing the appropriate symbols and outward appearance of money.
So it can be stated that Russian-Byelorussian integration has taken another substantial step forward. The rapprochement between Russia and Byelorussia began in 1995 when Presidents Boris Yeltsin and Alexander Lukashenko signed a treaty on friendship, good-neighbourliness and cooperation. Later on, Russian-Byelorussian integration went through the forms of a community, a union of two states and finally the Union state.
Introduction of a common currency in Russian-Byelorussian economic space was first mooted in Moscow and Minsk only eleven months ago and many believed that this idea is unlikely to be acted on in the next few years, the economic systems of Russia and Byelorussia being too dissimilar.
Russia had in 1992 embarked on the path of market development, maximum deregulation of the economy, rapid privatisation, price liberalisation, and the state's withdrawal from economic administration - with all ensuing pluses and minuses. Russia does not suffer from a commodity squeeze and has developing business. On the other hand, a considerable proportion of its population lives below the poverty line.
Byelorussia was not in a hurry with market measures, and carried out privatisation and price deregulation very cautiously, unhurriedly, while continuing with state regulation of the economy. Byelorussia often suffers from crisis phenomena and goods shortages. And although the Russian right-wing considers its neighbour to be backward, it each time points out that Byelorussia has no "wildcat capitalism", and such corruption, economic crimes and a gap in the living standards between rich and poor as in Russia. And it ought to be said that President Lukashenko has supporters among the masses of Russian working people.
The economic integration of the two states required steps to meet each other half way - it was mainly Byelorussia that had to adapt its economic policy to Russian standards, because it became evident that without market reforms the Byelorussian economy can hardly have a future.
As Russia's Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov noted with satisfaction, Byelorussia within the first 11 months was able to ditch multiple exchange rates for its national currency and to create conditions for free settlements between Russian and Byelorussian enterprises both in Russian and Byelorussian roubles.
"This is an indication that rapprochement of our economies is proceeding at full speed, and Byelorussia's further steps in this direction should be backed by Russia," Kasyanov pointed out. It has been decided that the Byelorussian rouble will be pegged to the Russian rouble, and Russia will grant Byelorussia a credit of 100 million dollars to set up a stabilisation fund for the national currency and maintain the country's payments balance. The first 30 million dollars will reach Minsk as early as December of this year.
The introduction of a common currency from January 1, 2005 on the territory of Russia and Byelorussia will be preceded by active efforts to bring the two economies closer together. The agenda mainly features market reforms in monetary, credit and currency policy and structural adjustments, which should affect not only Byelorussia. Russia, as Central Bank specialists claim, will have in its turn to continue economic reforms needed for more vigorous development.
The tax legislation of the two countries is practically fully unified, but substantial differences remain in customs regulation. As the sides say, these problems will be solved by July, 2001.
top
MOSCOW INVITES WASHINGTON TO ACTIVATE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT DIALOGUE
Valentin KUNIN, RIA Novosti political analyst
At a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Bill Clinton at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Brunei one of the key topics discussed was a recent statement by the Russian leader on nuclear disarmament issues.
The Kremlin invited the United States to activate a dialogue whose aim is to make further deep cuts in nuclear arms and to ensure global strategic stability. In Putin's view, there is every prerequisites for that at present.
A meaningful dialogue on disarmament issues took place at the Millennium Summit in New York, while the Russian parliament ratified the treaty on further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons (START-II), a package of New York 1997 accords on anti-ballistic missiles and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
Putin suggested to the American leadership that they should aim at achieving radically lowered levels of nuclear warheads in both countries of 1,500 each, which, in his view, is quite feasible to do by 2008. What is more, Moscow does not consider this a limit and is prepared later on to examine even lower levels, since mutual experience has been accumulated for such accords and there are legal mechanisms within START-I and START-II .
But successful implementation of further mutual cuts in strategic nuclear arms is possible only given one main and indispensable condition - retention and strengthening of the Moscow ABM Treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1972, since this treaty has been and remains to be the main pillar of global strategic stability and security.
It was the ABM Treaty that provided the basis for unfolding the entire process of mutual reductions in strategic offensive arms, including the conclusion of START-I and START-II.
It has been reported that Bill Clinton, during his meeting with Putin in Brunei, responded "positively" to Moscow's latest disarmament initiatives and instructed the Department of State and his administration's experts "to make a serious study and analysis" of them. At the same time, Clinton made it clear that a political decision on these proposals will be taken by the next United States administration.
That is understandable, considering that in two months' time the White House will get a new occupant. The question is, will the new American President continue Star Wars initiated by Ronald Reagan in 1983 and stepped up sharply during Clinton's eight years in office?
It was during that period that the United States spent tens of billions of dollars on an effort to develop a national missile defence system under the pretext of countering "missile threats" that have emerged in recent years and stem from "states of concern", among which Washington includes Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Although the far-fetched nature of such arguments is stressed not only by Russian and West European experts, but also by many American specialists, one cannot yet discern signs that Washington is prepared to abandon its plans undermining the very foundations of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
If anything, both claimants of the White House - Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W.Bush - have repeatedly stated during their election campaigns that one of defence policy priorities of their administration will be not only a continuation but also an intensification of the effort to develop a national missile defence shield. The most radical was Bush, who said that he was ready, if necessary, even to pull out of the ABM Treaty unilaterally if that were required "to ensure the security of American citizens".
Time will show how serious such statements were. At any rate, Moscow believes that both Gore and Bush are sufficiently responsible politicians, who are well aware of all the risks of a continued Star Wars programme, which apart from tensions in relations with Russia and erosion in international security, will bring nothing.
top
COLONEL GENERAL GENNADY TROSHEV: "THERE WILL BE PEACE IN CHECHNYA!"
Since the beginning of the second Chechen war, 2,600 Russian soldiers and officers have died. Over the past year the Russian federal forces have annihilated over 15,000 Chechen guerillas; destroyed hundreds of bases, camps, and training centers. General Troshev believes that the war has ended in full defeat of the Chechen guerillas. Currently the guerillas are unable to carry out any large scale operation.
Q - Mr. Troshev, the last time we interviewed you your regiments were in Argun. (…) It was about a year ago. Today is the first anniversary of the second Chechen war. Do you think launching a war was the only possible decision a year ago, or there was any other way out of the situation?
Troshev - (…) I'm definitely sure that the decision to start a liberation campaign in Chechnya a year ago was the only possible, there were no alternatives. (…) Just think, over the past year the Russian federal forces have annihilated over 15,000 Chechen guerillas; destroyed hundreds of bases, camps, and training centers. We have confiscated thousands of weapons, thousand tones of ammunition. The Federal Grouping has also released from slavery thousands of men, women and children. Hundreds of hostages have also been given freedom.
(…)
Before this war Chechen guerillas felt comfortable throughout the North Caucasus. They took hostages in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Daghestan, and brought them to Chechnya. Moreover, Chechnya was dangerous not only for Russia, Georgia or Daghestan: terrorists were well trained there and then sent to many other countries. (…)
Q - But soldiers still die in Chechnya. According to some media, the war is still in full swing and it is impossible to win it, since it is a "partisan war". What do you think of the current situation in Chechnya?
Troshev: As the Commander of the North Caucasus military district I can attest that at least over the last five months there have been no war in Chechnya. My forces do not lead any war. (…)
The war was ended in full defeat of the Chechen guerillas. Currently the guerillas are unable to carry out any large-scale operation. Only the Russian forces can initiate something in the republic. We control all cities, towns and settlements. That is why guerillas who have been driven into the corner have started terrorist operation again: they mine roads and buildings, attack solitary serviceman. Of course, Russian forces suffer losses in such fights, but this is far from being a war. It is rather banditry, not the army has to fight it, but the special services and the Interior Ministry. Currently not military operation should be carried out in Chechnya, but special operations, constant searches, discovery and annihilation of underground guerillas' bases. In fact, at the moment all the aforementioned measures are taken in the republic.
For instance, in the past week over fifty Chechen guerillas have been cracked down and arrested; special forces have also arrested one of Maskhadov's unit heads, some other field commanders.
Currently, the units of the Russian Armed Forces, which serve in Chechnya, are helping reinforce local authorities. I certainly know that even now guerillas could make an effort and unit in a number of large gangs again, but they do not dire to do this just because they know that they will be annihilated in minutes. That is why they have to hide in their homes, skulk. And this is the business of the Interior Ministry and the Federal Security Service to find and detain them.
Q - How does it come that guerillas' leaders have not been arrested yet? Why after a year have Basayev, Maskhadov, Khattab, Barayev and others not been eliminated? Is this because of the incompetence of the Russian secret services, or Russia's incapability, or, according to some media, just unwillingness to touch them?
Troshev: In my opinion, Maskhadov, Basayev, Khattab and other guerillas' leaders are still free and alive only because the Chechens have not regained themselves after the past years of the war. They are still scared. They are scared of these gangsters, that is why they hide them, give them a shelter or refuge.
(…) Many Chechens remember very well the events of the first Chechen war, when they believed promises of the Russian government to stop the arbitrariness of guerillas, followed them - and we betrayed them. Just left them to the mercy of guerillas - and the latter have no mercy. Lots of people were executed, even more became refugees. And today people still do not trust the Russians, they are still afraid. That is why even longing to see the guerillas' leaders dead, they help them "just to be on the safe side", so to say.
(…)
Q - What do you think of incumbent Chechen leader Akhmad Kadyrov? There are lots of contradictory rumours about him. It is said that during the first Chechen war he was one of Maskhadov's right hand men, then all of a sudden broke up with guerillas. He was almost announced "number one" enemy. However, currently he is again being accused of cooperating with guerillas; they say he is giving Chechnya to them on the sly. What do you think of all of this?
Troshev - Kadyrov joined us at the very difficult time. In fact, there is no a single more or less authoritative Chechen leader supported Russia. Chechens from the Moscow Diaspora did not suit for the role, since they could not evaluate the situation in Chechnya properly.
(…)
Thus, we needed the leader who could understand the current situation and could lead the Chechen people. And Chechen Mufti Akhmad Kadyrov became such a leader. (…)
Having become the Chechen leader, Kadyrov has considerably changed: he became more interested in administrative intrigues than in real issues. And currently, the right for appointment of "his" local heads of administration, distribution of material and financial means have become of greater importance for him than work with people and efforts for uniting of Chechen society. It is impossible to rule the republic if stay all the time in your house.
Besides, lately he has tended to resolve Chechen issues and problems at our expense: he is trying to use Russian forces to do the work of local militia, local administration, local courts. (…) All the aforesaid cannot add the respect of local residents to Kadyrov, and the Russian government is greatly concerned about this.
Q - Mr. Troshev, you have participated in both Chechen wars. Could you tell what are the major differences between them? Or, perhaps, it has been just one long war; and the years between them were just a short armistice? Same people have played leading roles in both wars; same generals, same commanders of army unites and divisions from Russia and same Maskhadov, same Basayev, same Khattab, same Gelayev from Chechnya. Is there any "successions" between the two wars?
Troshev: No, they are two completely different wars. And although many participants have remained the same, these are different wars, both by their results, tactics, and strategies, and first of all their character. In fact, during the first war Russia had hardly any aim. (…)
The second war is completely different. This time Russian forces entered Chechnya having concrete objective - to liquidate guerillas' and gangsters' arbitrariness and to settle order in the republic. This time we knew what to expect, what we could encounter here. And what is of great importance, this time Chechnya has been completely different. (…) Of course, nobody met us as liberators, but people met us with hope.
Q - Lately the media has often discussed the social issues of the Russian army; there have been many comments on the issues of the federal forces in Chechnya: they say the Russian government doesn't pay "combat allowances". (…) How can you comment this statement?
Troshev - First of all, currently payment of "combat allowances", which are money allowances for participants in military operations, has already been sharply reduced. In my opinion, it is an absolutely correct measure. Now there are no military operations in Chechnya; and the majority of military units and divisions is living ordinary garrison live. Only special military detachments, reconnaissance and commando units carry out special operations. (…)
That is why the categories of soldiers and officers, who receive "combat allowances", as well as their exact tasks, have been clearly determined.
(…)
The so-called "rally of contract servicemen", that has been broadcast by many television networks and channels, has also been just a soap bubble. The case of each contract serviceman, who participated in the rally, was thoroughly examined. And it turned out that only two or three contract servicemen have not been paid correctly because of carelessness of some local directors. As of the rest of the rally participants, they simply decided to cause some disturbances. The majority of them have been dismissed from the army either because they broke the contract terms (hard drinking, other violations including refusals to fulfill orders of their commanders doing a military operation or cowardice) or they voluntary broke their contracts.
During the last phase of the Chechen war, only about 40% of the United Grouping in the North Caucasus participated in real operations: commandos, special militia detachments, motorized infantrymen, reconnaissance. Of course, these soldiers and officers have been paid "combat allowances". At the same time if a soldier or an officer doesn't participate in combat military operations, if he service in the rear, his salary is correspondently lower. Many contract servicemen were not satisfied with this and they broke their contracts.
(…)
As to me, I was indignant about the situation, and this has made me to reconsider the whole idea of contract service in the army. Can people, who go to the army for money, be trusted? (...) Who needs such an army? Russia or Washington? I doubt it.
Real soldiers fight in Chechnya instead of rallying with slogans asking for money.
Q - Ingush President Ruslan Aushev has recently sharply criticised you. He accused you for prolonging the Chechen war and unwillingness to start peace negotiations with militants. Are you really against peace negotiations?
Troshev- Negotiations can have sense only when there are people to negotiate with and there is something to negotiate about. I don't think there is any use negotiating with Maskhadov now. He has long stopped being a commander and a ruler. Currently Maskhadov is forth of fifth after Basayev and Khattab, and nothing depends on him. As far the latter, we have nothing to negotiate with these beasts. They must be annihilated.
As for Aushev, my attitude towards him is less than cold. I think he is a coward, who is trying to fish in the troubled waters of the Chechen war. He is afraid of Chechen guerrillas, and is trying to please them by any means, either claiming to be an intermediary in the peace negotiations, or expanding on "poor Chechen people" and asking for loans for Chechen refugees. He also is trying to convince everyone that he is almost the only peacekeeper and Russia's ally.
At the same time, guerrillas are feeling themselves rather comfortable in Ingushetia. Russian columns and helicopters have been thousand of times fired at flying over or passing through Ingushetia.
We have long pose a question of transferring all refugee camps from Ingushetia back into Chechnya. It means the war is over, and there are no more military actions - high time for people to return home. Nonetherless, refugees do not want to go back home. By the way, it is very interesting that there is hardly any man among them: only women, children and old people. According to our sources, the majority of families of guerrillas are hiding themselves in such camps, and Russia keeps them, feeds them, dresses and cures them. Moreover, Russia is being reproached for all this.
Aushev needs the refugees: he has already received so much funds and humanitarian aid. (…)
Vladimir Shurgyn
top
STATEMENT OF RUSSIAN PRESIDENT ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
/Moscow Diary -- RIA Novosti/
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a statement on disarmament.
Below follows the text of the statement:
At the turn of the millennium the world has reached a crucial watershed in nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ensuring strategic stability. Some undoubted achievements have been reported here in the recent period: with very important decisions taken by a review conference on the implementation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a meaningful dialogue on disarmament issues held at the millennium summit in New York, and the First Committee of the UN Assembly approving a number of important resolutions. Russia has also made a contribution by ratifying the treaty on the reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-2), a package of 1997 New York accords on missile defence, and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. There is a consensus in the international community that there should be no pause in nuclear disarmament and that the disarmament process needs to be intensified. Radical progress in this direction is fully warranted.
Russia is prepared for it.
We see no reasons that would prevent further deep cuts in strategic offensive arms. We are known to have proposed to the US, including at the highest level, that we should set as our aim achievement of radically lower levels of nuclear warheads in our countries, down to 1,500 units each, which is quite feasible to do by 2008. But even that is not the limit - we are prepared in the future to consider still lower levels. We agree with an opinion voiced also in the US that to achieve such agreement there will be no need to conduct long-drawn-out talks and to begin everything from scratch - we have ample experience and there are juridical START-1 and START-2 mechanisms. Hopefully, the US Senate will follow the example of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and wrap up the ratification of the START-II Treaty and ABM accords. But the main thing now is for Russia and the US without delay to begin moving together or in parallel towards radically lowered ceilings on nuclear warheads.
This goal must be achieved with the 1971 ABM Treaty preserved and strengthened. We are told that the world situation over the past three decades has greatly changed: there are new missile threats and an appropriate change is reportedly required to the ABM Treaty. The situation has indeed changed, but not so much as to break up the established system of strategic stability by diluting the ABM Treaty. Measures to counter missile and missile technology proliferation can be taken without abandoning the framework of the ABM Treaty and by acting above all through political and diplomatic methods. An intensive US-North Korea dialogue on missile issues is a graphic example. Ways of improving political and legal mechanisms of missile non-proliferation are actively discussed in format involving many sides, and work is proceeding on a new code of conduct in this field and on a global system for monitoring missiles and missile technologies.
On the other hand, to countries that raise the need for a military technological "safety net", we again offer extensive cooperation in the TMD, which fits in with the ABM Treaty. Technological ideas for that already exist. An element of such cooperation might be the Moscow centre for exchange of data on rocket launches, now being created by Russia and the US, which should later be opened up to all interested countries. We have already invited European and other representatives to join in. My hope is that the new US leadership, too, will not object to such use of the Centre in the interests of strengthening regional and global stability.
What is more, Russia is prepared, without any pauses, to take up the dialogue with the US, began more than a year ago, on controversial ABM issues. A commitment to examine all issues relating to the ABM Treaty is written into the 1972 treaty itself. So we are opened to continuation of such discussions within the Standing Consultative Commission - a negotiating forum that has been successfully functioning under the Treaty since 1973 - by agreeing, if necessary, to raise the level of representation of the sides on the commission.
Implementation of a pragmatic and long overdue programme proposed by Russia for realistic nuclear disarmament will in practice strengthen strategic stability and international security at the threshold of the new, 21st, century.
top
|