NATO Secretary General Lord ROBERTSON: “The alliance plans no operations on the territory of the former USSR”

NATO undoubtedly considers itself winner in today’s big league European games. The new Secretary General of the alliance, Lord George Robertson, stressed this rather diplomatically but firmly in the interview he gave The Day on the eve of his visit to Ukraine. He also stressed he had no doubts about the advisability and morality of such NATO actions as the one it did last year in the Balkans, that it is important for NATO to have Ukraine on its side, and that NATO, as a winner, would like to strike a new deal with Russia, but perhaps from different positions this time.

“Do you really think the relations between Ukraine and NATO can be characterized as partnership, especially in the light of the fact that nobody consulted Ukraine before the alliance’s operation in the Balkans, with which many in Kyiv were disappointed?”

“Ukraine is one of the most important countries on the European continent, and it is a very important partner in achieving stability in Europe. This is why I will be meeting all Ukrainian leaders during my visit. This is my fourth trip to Ukraine but the first in my capacity as Secretary General. This will be followed on February 8 by the visit of the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark. Of course, of equal importance will also be the North Atlantic Council session in Kyiv on March 1-2 and the first session to be held in Kyiv of the Ukraine-NATO Commission. This testifies to our having the relationship of special partnership which has been developing since the Madrid summit. We have a very good program of political consultations and carry out practical cooperation in the military and non-military fields. This also bears witness the usefulness of our partnership.

“You mentioned the Kosovo crisis. NATO was at the time completely open to its partners, explaining to them its actions during the operation, as well as their future implications. As the Defense Secretary of Great Britain, I visited Kyiv and explained why that operation was necessary and why NATO victory in it was so important. This again stresses the importance of relations between NATO and Ukraine and my personal interest in the development of these relations. And we are very grateful to Ukraine for the understanding it expressed in those difficult times.”

“Do you share the opinion that Ukraine should address its claims for the damages it incurred during the NATO Balkan operation, particularly caused by the suspension of the Danube navigation, directly to President Slobodan Milosevic?”

“We admit that many countries of that region suffered very seriously during the Kosovo crisis. NATO member-states also bore a high cost for that campaign. It was carried out to stop violence and allow refugees to return home. But responsibility for everything that happened in Kosovo and for all damages incurred lies, of course, on the shoulders of Slobodan Milosevic himself. Some initiatives were recently advanced to clean up the Danube. But Milosevic is standing his ground and does not agree even to the implementation of these minimal projects.”

“Has stability really come to the region, following this NATO operation?”

“The situation in the region has improved. But long-term stability is still as far-off, as before. Yet, I would like to note that the region has become more stable and safe than it would have been if Milosevic had been allowed to evade responsibility for ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He would not have stopped there. Beyond doubt, next in line would have been Vojvodina and Montenegro. And then war would have broken out again in the whole region. Now a NATO-led peacekeeping force is stationed in Kosovo. And I would like to give special tribute to the Ukrainian soldiers now serving in Kosovo and those who served earlier in Bosnia. They have made a substantial contribution to the improvement of life in that region.”

“In that case, how would you comment on the dissatisfaction in some Ukrainian circles with the Ukrainian contingent having stayed so long in Macedonia, not Kosovo?”

“The KFOR commander himself is free to make a decision on the location of troops. Perhaps the point was in fact to wait for your turn. For Macedonia hosts the troops of all NATO states. It is advisable to carry out a rotation of military forces, with the security of the whole region in view. It is for this reason that a military presence is still being preserved in Macedonia and Albania.”

“Did NATO ever draw up plans of peacekeeping operations, let us say, on former Soviet Union’s territory?”

“No. We do not wish to be involved in operations on the territory of sovereign states with which we maintain mutual relations.”

“Will Russia and NATO be able, in your opinion, to resume the previous level of relations?”

“I hope we will be able to do so. The relationship was broken last year because Russia came out against the operation NATO had to perform in Kosovo. But Russia, thanks to Viktor Chernomyrdin, played a basic role in achieving the final solution to the problem. And when all was said and done, Russia resumed talks with NATO. But it still insists that we only discuss the Kosovo-related problems. I would like to visit Moscow in the immediate future. I hope the new Russian leadership will admit that there are very many dangers to European security, among them the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, ethnic problems, etc. These are all questions we could discuss together, instead of confronting each other in this connection.”

“What does the possibility of military and technical cooperation, declared in the Charter of Special Partnership, really mean?”

“It is clear we are studying the areas where it would be beneficial to develop cooperation. One such possible area is restructuring the defense industry. Ukraine would only stand to gain from this. As to defense projects, the An-70 aircraft project for example, these problems should be solved by specific states in the development of their relations with Ukraine.”

“You represent Great Britain which was one of the initiators of European security and defense. Is this initiative a kind of challenge to NATO?”

“As I was one of those who was at the outset of the latest European defense initiative, I would probably be expected that I support it. It is not at all a challenge to NATO. On the contrary, this initiative is aimed at strengthening NATO. For it suggests not rivalry with NATO but reinforcement of the overall NATO potential at the expense of the European allies assuming a greater share of the responsibility and resources. This is necessary in order to make the alliance more balanced. For it sometimes happens that the Americans are asked to contribute more than their fair share.”

“If you again mean the last year’s NATO operation, why did such an imbalance occur?”

“Because the Americans had the required military potential, which they in fact contributed. Too many European NATO allies have cut their military budgets, very often investing in Cold War period arms. These countries should do more to modernize their defenses. We call upon them to do so in accordance with the Washington summit initiative.”