Kremlin Is Seen Spending More After Setback

NATO and Russia Can Defend Together

By ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

We are bringing stability to Afghanistan, and stemming the flood of narcotics out of the country — together. We are fighting terrorism in our cities and our airspaces — together. We are combating piracy off the Horn of Africa — together. This cooperation benefits all of us. At Lisbon, we also agreed to discuss pursuing missile defense cooperation.

The missile threat we face is grave and growing. Over 30 states are working on advanced missile technology. Some of them already have ballistic missiles that can be fitted with conventional warheads or with weapons of mass destruction. Some of our major cities are already in range. That is why at the Lisbon summit, NATO agreed to develop a missile defense capability to protect its population, territory and forces. That remains our position today. We owe it to our people to defend them.

Along with a prominent U.S. contribution, a number of allies have made significant announcements, including Turkey, Poland, Romania, Spain, the Netherlands and France. These national contributions will be brought together under a common NATO command and control system. Key elements of it have already been tested successfully. By the time of our summit meeting in Chicago in May, we expect initial components of the system to be in place.

NATO’s system is a strong demonstration of solidarity in action. It also shows the strength of the trans-Atlantic link between North America and Europe. Our 28 nations agree on the significance of the threat and the importance of working together to address it. And by cooperating within NATO, rather than as nations working alone, we deliver a far more effective system at a far lower price.

Our threat perceptions may currently differ, but Russia could also be threatened by ballistic missiles. So it makes sense for us to cooperate in defending against them, by building two separate systems with the same goal. It makes sense practically, militarily and politically. It would show once and for all that we can build security with each other, rather than against each other.

NATO and Russia have held many discussions on missile defense. We have made it clear that our missile defense system is not directed at Russia. It is designed to protect European nations in NATO against threats from outside Europe; it is a defensive system.

Allies and NATO as a whole have made three practical proposals to allay Russian concerns. First, we offered transparency on missile defense programs through exchanges at the NATO-Russia Council, which is our forum for political dialogue, and we issued a standing invitation to Russian experts to observe and analyze missile defense tests. Second, we proposed holding joint NATO-Russia theater missile defense exercises next year. And third, we suggested establishing two joint missile defense centers, one for sharing data and the other for supporting planning.

Russia has also said it needs legal guarantees that NATO missile defenses are not a threat. In fact, when NATO and Russia signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, we agreed that we will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. So the guarantee has been there for over a decade.

Some of President Dmitri Medvedev’s recent comments about NATO’s missile defense system reflect a misunderstanding of the system. As a result, Russia has suggested deploying missiles in areas neighboring the alliance. Such suggestions reflect the rhetoric of the past and are inconsistent with the strategic relationship NATO and Russia agreed to seek. I am, however, pleased that Medvedev has not closed the door on continued dialogue with NATO about missile defense.

Missile defense cooperation can radically change the way NATO and Russia look at each other. In the 21st century, confrontation is not a choice. The only real choice is cooperation.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is the secretary general of NATO.

Flour and machine guns don’t count

­During the International Conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov reminded participants about the support Moscow has provided to international military forces since the beginning of the Operation Enduring Freedom.  

In the last 10 years, our country has written off $11 billion of Afghanistan’s debt.

We have supplied 40,000 tons of wheat flour and about $50 million dollars’ worth of non-military equipment to Afghanistan as part of humanitarian aid. Russia has donated a significant amount of small arms and ammunition (20,000 machine guns and 2.5 million rounds of ammunition), and has been providing free training to the Afghan army. Recently, Moscow donated 3,000 tons of wheat flour and 40 trucks to Kabul. It would seem that such an impressive amount of “logistical support” would guarantee that Russia’s voice would be heard in the discussion of regional problems by the Western coalition in Afghanistan. But prior to the Bonn conference, Zamir Kabulov, a special envoy to Afghanistan grimly stated: “Russian proposals usually leave our partners indifferent.”   

Most of Moscow’s initiatives address the practical steps necessary to restore the Afghan economy. “We have declared our readiness to allocate funds to the amount of $500 million for the implementation of the transnational energy project ‘CASA-1000’. We expect our participating partners, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to issue a joint address with an invitation to participate in its implementation,” explained Kabulov.   

The West remains wary of all Russian declarations of willingness to cooperate in the construction of a hydro-electric power station and other infrastructure in Afghanistan. Coalition participants, mainly the United States, look at Afghanistan as their personal playground, to which access of “strangers” ought to be closed.

Moscow’s proposals of involving regional international organizations where Russia has a fairly strong presence in the Afghan settlement have been continuously rejected. In the West, we are regarded as merely a transit state, a supplier of humanitarian aid. In his speech in Bonn, Sergey Lavrov once again urged conference participants to reconsider their attitudes toward the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. “In future, this structure could become a high-priority platform for the coordination of international efforts in Afghanistan.” It’s possible that, this time, the Russian foreign minister has been heard.       

On the eve of the conference, Germany's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Michael Steiner, said that at the Bonn conference “the international community will ensure in a credible way that it will not repeat the mistakes of the past [following 2014]”. What mistakes did the German diplomat have in mind?

In a New York Times article, published before the conference, its authors – influential American experts – argued: “Instead of relying heavily on Pakistan as a supply corridor, the United States should expand its cooperation with Russia, which has been playing an increasingly important role in military transit to and from Afghanistan.” It’s too early to say that “the ice has been broken,” but the initial signs of progress are evident. Collective Security Treaty Organization Secretary General Nikolay Bordyuzha has taken part in the International Conference on Afghanistan for the first time. An invitation to Bonn was also extended to the SCO Secretary General M. Imanaliev.     

Afghanistan’s problems call for the inclusion of qualitatively different players with untainted reputations who enjoy a certain amount of influence in the region. But convincing Washington of the need to replace the players won’t be easy. Before the conference, US officials had made statements regarding the possible continuation of the US military base presence in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of international forces in 2014. Russia considers such actions unjustified. Moscow is urging a complete withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan and the restoration of the country’s neutral status.    

At the conference in Bonn, the majority of participants urged the Afghan government to engage in a dialogue with political opponents, resolve the problem of drug trafficking, and fight corruption. It was noticeable that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who sat in his traditional green robe on a podium in the center of the hall, was rather tense when hearing these proposals. “There is a growing understanding of the special role of Afghanistan’s neighbors,” said Lavrov, addressing Karzai in his speech.   

But based on the final outcomes of the conference in Bonn, the settlement process was not smooth, which is typical of such annual meetings. President Hamid Karzai and his ministers were, once again, given a “pass grade” for their work. Russia’s initiatives on the inclusion of the SCO and the CSTO in the Afghan settlement did not make it into the final documents of the Bonn conference.