|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| RUSSIA'S ROLE | |
 June 8, 1999 
|
||
|
|
With peace in Yugoslavia on the horizon, diplomats and politicians are crediting Russia for its part in the negotiation process. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) discuss Russia's role as peace broker.
|
|
MARGARET WARNER: For perspective on Russia's role throughout the Kosovo
conflict, we turn to Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.
He served as chairman and ranking Democrat of the Armed SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: I believe that since President Yeltsin made a decision that participation of Russia with the United States was in Russia's best interest overall and long run -- or participation by Russia with other western nations that are part of the NATO alliance. In other words, at least from President Yeltsin's standpoint, Russia isn't likely to see an economic resurrection or progress really of coming back into a normal status with the rest of the world without that assistance. I think that point of view of President Yeltsin is disputed within Russia, substantially in the Duma, and even during these negotiations of the last few days it could very well be that President Yeltsin's support, former Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, who was doing the negotiating with Strobe Talbott and others for Russia, that perhaps Chernomyrdin's influence was countermanded by Ivanov, the foreign minister, or others -- in any event the basic question is that I think Yeltsin made a tip in that direction, and felt that was Russia's best interest. MARGARET WARNER: How do you see the way Russia's played it in this conflict?
MARGARET WARNER: Senator Lugar, do you think this struggle, I don't want to call it power struggle, but that explains the kind of uneven approach that Russia took. I mean, even today we see Yeltsin, on the one hand, telling Ivanov to cut the deal, on the other hand denouncing NATO once again. We saw Russia going back in forth in terms of either standing with Serbia or then trying to help mediate the conflict. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Russia and the Bosnia model. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Well, it's a very difficult role for Russia to
play, because clearly President Milosevic in MARGARET WARNER: Does this trouble you, Senator Nunn, the fact that Russia's role in this peacekeeping force is left a little murky for now? SAM NUNN: Yes, that troubles me because I think it's very important where the Russian troops are placed and their relationship to the chain of command. My guess is they'll end up with a British commander having two hats, one NATO and another either British or UN, and the Russians will consider themselves - if they go there at all - and have troops there -- reporting to the second hat, that is, the UN hat. So it is an important set of questions. MARGARET WARNER: Well, do you -- the President has mentioned several times that Bosnia will be the model. Do you find that the Bosnia model works well, as we just heard the British ambassador to the UN describe it, that the Russian commander does command his own unit but then he essentially responds to NATO's policies? SAM NUNN: I think President Clinton that is correct, that is likely to be the model. I think that we would be underestimating the difficulties here though if we believed that it was going to be like Bosnia, because it's going to be much more difficult. The hate here, the possibilities of terrorism by both the Serbs and the Kosovars, the continuing dispute about independence or autonomy, the fact that the KLA is going to be demilitarized by the occupying force, whatever that means, all of those things are much more difficult here than in Bosnia. And of course the rebuilding is going to be huge. It's going to take a long time to even prepare for the refugees to come back in.
SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Well, the 10,000 figure is surprising, because that's a great expense for Russia. Now, there has been some discussion of someone paying for the Russian experience there, although I found when I was in Brussels that NATO headquarters on Saturday that the feeling was clearly no one was going to pay other than Russia. And under those circumstances, the Russian contribution might very well be something more like 800 to 2,000 troops, as opposed to 5,000, 7,000 or 10,000 that were mentioned, I think, by Foreign Minister Ivanov today. How those 10,000 fit in, I think Senator Nunn makes a very good point that this whole chain of command situation is very complex. I wish the G-8 had also discussed the chain of command with regard to reconstruction of the country or physically who determines which house somebody gets as refugees rush in, or Serb people are separated from the ethnic Albanians. That whole business of who's in charge seems to me to be very much up in the air, and I found nobody at the NATO headquarters who had a better idea than the European organizations such as the E.U., O.S.C.E., some vestige of the United Nations, some combination of these, but it's not going to be NATO, and it will not be the security chain of command. And that's what has been discussed by the G-8 thus far with whatever results we found tonight.
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stabilizing the Russian economy. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: And, I mean, you're troubled because you think you probably need a security chain of command given the sort of chaotic situation that Senator Nunn described may occur. SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: I think that could be very troubled, but leaving aside whether they ever get the security straightened out, the problem simply of the civil government, the hollowing out that the British ambassador mentioned is all too real, and who will provide literally the civil government, the policing or constable functions, the courts, just how does life go on with a surge of what amounts to several hundred thousand refugees trying to find their way back to their homes, back to some normalcy in a fairly short period of time?
MARGARET WARNER: But you connect those two things to -- SAM NUNN: Margaret, it was already moving in that direction. This made it a quantum leap in that direction and gave the elements of the Russian military who wanted to move in that direction and the Russian politicians a real edge in the debate. MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it, Senator Lugar, in terms of lasting, semi-lasting damage between the United States and Russia? SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: I don't believe that this will come about. I think that clearly for Russia there are values right now in the so-called cooperative threat reduction programs, which have surpassed really their desire to show their anxiety and their anger. But clearly the cutbacks they've made come because they lack the money in their defense budgets and they've had to go to the dangerous expedients Sam Nunn just talked about, in part at least to impress the rest of the world or their potential adversaries. That is a dangerous predicament and unlikely to be reversed until Russia gets well financially, until they're able to pay their bills both military and others. They blame us frequently for very bad advice, and yet at the same time the Russians have made horrendous mistakes, and the real hope we have to have is that a government that may come about will lead to more constructive progress for Russia. But Russians have told both Sam and me that's not going to happen, until they have the Duma elections and the presidential elections, there's a hiatus of maybe 18 months which is going to be dangerous for them and dangerous for us. MARGARET WARNER: In the meantime, Senator Nunn, do you agree with --
I'm going to characterize what Senator SAM NUNN: I definitely think he has acted responsibly in this case, though I think it's a very big mistake for us not to reach out to the other elements in the Russian political scene, the other candidates who may be running. And I think it would be a big mistake for us not to say clearly that we want any succession in Russia to be by constitutional means. That ought to be very clear, because even with all their economic woes, they're hanging on to some elements of democracy, including the constitutional system, and including some elements of freedom of press. Those are very important, and has we say to President Yeltsin, yes, we are proud of your role and what you've done here, we ought to also say quietly but firmly we want the elections to be real elections and we want Russia to follow constitutional means. MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar. Thank you both very much. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
Services
Committee, and is now chairman of the board at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies. Senator Lugar, why do you think, after weeks
of denouncing the NATO bombing, criticizing the mission, Russia agreed
to this draft resolution, essentially on NATO's terms? 
SAM
NUNN: Well, I'm delighted that we've gotten what apparently is an agreement
by the G-8, and we're going to have a UN resolution hopefully when the
withdrawal begins and when the bombing stops. The Russian role was very
important here, and I think if Russia had been left out, the serious
damage that has been done to U.S.-Russian relations by Kosovo would
have been much more serious. And I think what Senator Lugar said is
entirely correct. The economic equation played a role in -- I'm sure
-- President Yeltsin's decision, but also I believe that the democratic
elements in Russia were under severe pressure, because the nationalists
and the Communists were gaining considerable support from the people
that were increasingly anti-American, and the fact that Russia has now
played a role helps psychologically somewhat, even though there will
be elements in Russia, as Senator Lugar said, that continue to oppose
this. And the question of Russian troops being - that has not concluded
yet.
Serbia
is using the Russian situation, and/or perhaps hoping for some Chinese
interference to continue to make the best deal possible. I suspect eventually
Milosevic will make the deal and the Serbians will come out, but they're
at least going to try the patience of everybody as long as possible,
trying to find division between Russia and the NATO allies, or the NATO
allies and the United Nations resolution or the sequence of when the
bombing stops and when something else starts. I think we're in for a
lot of that, and of course the problem, as you've pointed out, is the
Russian role in terms of this chain of command is still not very clear.
I'm not certain that was a good idea to leave it unclear, although Secretary
Albright and others have felt this annex is an integral part of the
agreement, but it seems to me that that daylight or the loopholes that
were left the last time the G-8 came together led to some of the problems
over the weekend, and the lack of resolution at least of the Serbs pulling
out and the refugees coming back in. 
MARGARET
WARNER: Senator Lugar, one final question on Russia's role in the peacekeeping
force. The Russians have talked about sending 10,000 troops, the whole
NATO force is only supposed to be 50,000. Do you think NATO should necessarily
want 10,000 Russian troops in Kosovo? 
MARGARET
WARNER: Before we end, let's go back to Russia. Senator Nunn, do you
-- people have talked about that there's been a lot of damage to the
U.S.-Russia relationship by this conflict. Do you agree, how much damage,
is it lasting?
Lugar
said -- that, for now, President Yeltsin, however erratic he may be,
is the U.S.'s best friend there? He has looked out for U.S. interests?