• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

29 May 2003

Vershbow Says Russia's Help Needed on Iran, North Korea

(Remarks at Russian institute -- INION RAN) (2980)
Russia has "a major role to play" in the international community's
efforts to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD), said U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow
in Moscow May 26.
"The cases of Iran and North Korea demonstrate that the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime is not working as intended," he
said. Russia can help determine "what new tools, what new forms of
leverage" can be brought to bear "to stop these two countries from
acquiring nuclear weapons, and to strengthen all the non-proliferation
regimes."
Vershbow made his remarks at the Institute of Scientific Information
on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN).
He noted that in Iraq, "we and our coalition partners had to use force
to topple a regime that refused to give up its WMD peacefully....
While we consider the use of force in Iraq to be fully legitimate, we
share the disappointment that a peaceful solution could not be found.
The lesson is that we need to develop better tools to deal with the
next proliferation challenges - Iran and North Korea - if we want to
avoid the need to use force in the future."
On the overall theme of his remarks, titled "Russia, NATO, and
International Organizations," Vershbow said "it is essential for
global stability that Russia be more deeply integrated into the
structures and institutions that will deal with the political,
economic and security challenges of the 21st century."
He cited the NATO-Russia Council as "one of the good examples of how
Russia and other democracies can cooperate." And in other ways, he
said, "Russia is playing an important role in many other key areas of
importance to world peace and security."
"Our joint efforts to fight terrorism and WMD proliferation are not
the only areas where Russia's contribution is needed. The most
immediate topic on the agenda, of course, is post-war Iraq," Vershbow
said.
"We are glad we have found common ground on the essential first step,
passage of a new UN Security Council resolution to lift the sanctions.
That agreement will help the people of Iraq, and will help restore
confidence in the UN Security Council itself as we turn our attention
to Iran, North Korea and other future challenges."
Regarding the Middle East peace process, Vershbow said the United
States hopes Russia "will use its influence with the new Palestinian
leadership, and with the Government of Syria, to halt the terrorist
activities of radical groups - Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, and many others - that threaten the chances for peace."
He noted that Russia has "a larger stake than most countries in
helping to ensure global security, if only because geography puts it
on the front lines in dealing with the dangers posed by North Korea,
Iran, and by terrorism and instability in the Middle East and South
Asia."
Following are Vershbow's remarks as prepared for delivery:
(begin text)
Moscow 
May 26, 2003
RUSSIA, NATO, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Remarks by Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation 
Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences, Russian
Academy of Sciences (INION RAN)
It's a busy time in Moscow, as hardly a day goes by without a
distinguished international visitor coming to town. I'm not just
thinking about Paul McCartney, although I don't underestimate the
significance of Saturday's concert as a landmark event in Russia's
integration into the global music community. But that's a subject for
a different seminar, which I am sure Tatiana Parkhalina could organize
with her usual skill and expertise. In any case, I should tell you
that when I refer to "the Quartet" later today, I'm not talking about
the Beatles.
Although perhaps less famous than Paul McCartney, Moscow's other
recent visitors have included Prime Minister Tony Blair, former German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and my boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell,
as well as my former leader, [NATO Secretary General] Lord Robertson,
and the NATO Ambassadors who attended the first-ever Moscow meeting of
the NATO-Russia Council two weeks ago. And, of course, this coming
weekend 43 leaders from all over the world, including President Bush,
will gather in St. Petersburg to pay tribute to that city's 300th
anniversary.
The St. Petersburg events - as well as President Bush's two previous
visits to Russia in the past twelve months - also reflect the
importance of Russia in the 21st-century geopolitical environment, a
world very different from the one that existed for most of the second
half of the 20th century. We no longer live in a Cold War world
divided by East-West conflict and ideological disputes about communism
and capitalism. Instead, we face new threats such as global terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction, threats that must be dealt with more
effectively by the community of civilized nations.
From the point of view of the United States, it is essential for
global stability that Russia be more deeply integrated into the
structures and institutions that will deal with the political,
economic and security challenges of the 21st century.
* Russia's cooperation with NATO and the European Union, and its
direct participation in the Council of Europe and the OSCE, are the
means by which we hope to see Russia play a central role in shaping a
more peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe and a more solid
Euro-Atlantic partnership.
* Globally, Russia's status as a permanent member of the UN Security
Council and participant in non-proliferation regimes, as well as its
future full membership in the G-8 and World Trade Organization, give
Russia additional means to contribute to meeting today's challenges
and to advance Russia's own interests.
Indeed, with Russia's transformation into a country that shares the
same values as Western democracies (individual freedom, democracy,
economic liberty, the rule of law), there shouldn't be any limit to
Russia's integration.
NATO is one mechanism that helps us deal with the post-September 11
security environment. The United States believes that a larger NATO
and a strong NATO-Russia partnership, uniting like-minded states, will
enable us to confront new security challenges that emanate from
outside Europe. NATO itself is now undergoing a dramatic
transformation to equip itself to deal with 21st-century risks, in
particular terrorist attacks together with nuclear, biological and
chemical threats. NATO had its difficulties during the Iraq crisis;
but the fact that NATO forces will be running the international
peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, and that NATO will be supporting
Polish and other coalition forces in post-war Iraq, suggests that the
Alliance's future remains bright.
The United States was a strong advocate of the increased NATO-Russia
partnership that we are now witnessing with the NATO-Russia Council
formed exactly one year ago. The NRC is a notable advance over
previous efforts at cooperation in the Permanent Joint Council. I am
greatly encouraged to see that work in the NRC reflects a new spirit
of flexibility and compromise. The new Council relies on the same
principles of consensus, consultation and cooperation that have guided
the work of the NATO Allies over the past five decades. Russia's voice
is being heard in deliberations as an equal member when the Council
examines and debates critical issues. But the Council is not a debate
club - its success will be determined by its activities and actions.
Judged by this standard, the Council is off to an impressive start.
As I mentioned, the NRC met here in two weeks ago to celebrate its
first anniversary, and the Ambassadors of the "20" agreed that the
Council is evolving into an effective mechanism for consultation,
cooperation, joint decision-making and - most importantly - joint
action. Formation of the NRC has resulted in intensified cooperation
in the war against terrorism, crisis management, defense reform and
military-to-military cooperation:
* For example, last September Russia hosted a joint civil emergency
exercise in Noginsk, where 30 countries cooperated in responding to a
mock terrorist attack using chemical weapons - unfortunately, an
all-too-real threat in today's world. This exercise yielded valuable
lessons on how we can help save innocent lives through unprecedented
cooperation by first responders from all over Europe.
* In February NATO and Russia signed a landmark agreement on
cooperation in the area of submarine search and rescue. The agreement
specifies that NATO and Russia will work together to standardize
procedures and collaborate in developing the necessary equipment, and
conduct joint exercises.
* Military authorities have additionally completed joint assessments
of the threat posed by al Qaeda to peacekeeping forces in the Balkans
and to civil aviation. The NRC has made considerable progress in
carrying out a thorough evaluation of the threat of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
* Perhaps most significantly, NATO and Russia have established a
mechanism for long-term cooperation in the area of European missile
defense. We hope this will lead to concrete forms of cooperation -
including among our defense industries - to defend NATO and Russian
forces and territories against the growing threats of ballistic
missile attack.
So the NATO-Russia Council is one of the good examples of how Russia
and other democracies can cooperate. Beyond the NRC, Russia is playing
an important role in many other key areas of importance to world peace
and security. One example in the headlines today is the search for
peace in the Middle East. The process has gained new impetus in the
aftermath of the Iraq war and, most recently, with the historic
decision yesterday by the Israeli cabinet to endorse the "Road Map"
for a comprehensive peace settlement based on two states. President
Bush is committed to seizing this new opportunity, and we appreciate
the key role Russia, alongside my country, the UN and the EU, is
playing in the Middle East Quartet. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has
demonstrated Russian leadership in the diplomatic efforts to reach a
consensus on the "Road Map." We hope that Russia will use its
influence with the new Palestinian leadership, and with the Government
of Syria, to halt the terrorist activities of radical groups-
Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and many others - that
threaten the chances for peace.
I have touched on just a few of the areas where cooperation with
Russia is going relatively well. Today, the world's great powers have
indeed recognized a common interest in confronting the threats that
face mankind: HIV/AIDS, drugs, poverty, trafficking in human beings,
and, of course, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism. Moreover, if the great powers see their interests
increasingly through the prism of common values, one would argue that
achieving unity should be easy when crises arise. Unfortunately, this
did not prove to be the case when united action was required to deal
with the threat posed by Iraq. We need to ask ourselves why.
The disagreement over Iraq and the deep split that emerged in the UN
Security Council have prompted many commentators to suggest that we
need to transform the institutions by which we manage crises in the
21st century. I would submit, however, that the institutions
themselves are not at fault. Rather, what is needed is fresh thinking
about the nature of the threats we face to international peace and
security and the new tools that the international community needs to
counter those threats more effectively. If we can come to agreement on
how to deal with new and emerging threats, when the next crisis
occurs, it should be much easier to achieve the essential unity and
political will that were missing in the UN Security Council in the
weeks leading up to the Iraq war.
With this in mind, it is useful to compare how the International
Community is dealing with the two most serious threats to the global
security today, international terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Since 9/11, we have made considerable progress in strengthening
international efforts to defend our societies against the threat of
international terrorism. We have not only dealt the Taliban and Al
Qaeda a major blow in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world.
With UN Security Council resolution 1373, we have established a broad
set of obligations binding on all nations to block terrorist financing
and denying safe haven to terrorist groups. We have strengthened
coordination among law enforcement agencies and, in the U.S.-Russian
context, engaged in unprecedented forms of intelligence sharing that
have helped prevent attacks and shut down terrorist groups.
In saying this, I am not suggesting that the anti-terror struggle is
nearly over. Far from it. We have seen new, coordinated acts of terror
in recent weeks, and Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures are
still at large plotting new attacks. Yet, even though there is much
unfinished business, the international norms and the tools for dealing
with terrorism are well understood, and they are beginning to work
reasonably well.
The same cannot be said, however, with respect to our means for
countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the case of
Iraq, we and our coalition partners had to use force to topple a
regime that refused to give up its WMD peacefully (which was the
condition for the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War in 1991).
Diplomacy failed because the UN Security Council did not have the
unity of purpose to insist that Saddam comply with its demands, or the
means to make him comply short of war. While we consider the use of
force in Iraq to be fully legitimate, we share the disappointment that
a peaceful solution could not be found. The lesson is that we need to
develop better tools to deal with the next proliferation challenges -
Iran and North Korea - if we want to avoid the need to use force in
the future.
The cases of Iran and North Korea demonstrate that the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime is not working as intended. That
regime is based on a simple bargain: if a state renounces nuclear
weapons, it can gain access to assistance and technology for
developing peaceful uses of atomic energy. Although a state must
accept some safeguards and verification measures, the regime is based
heavily on trust. What has happened? North Korea has cheated on the
1994 agreement under which it supposedly gave up its nuclear weapons
by starting a covert program for uranium enrichment - and they did
this many years before the Bush Administration came into office. Now
Pyongyang has renounced the NPT and the North-South denuclearization
agreement, restarted its plutonium reactor, and even claims it already
has a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, there is new evidence that Iran is seeking to obtain
nuclear weapons. Previously our concerns centered on the nuclear power
station at Bushehr that Iran has been building with Russia's
assistance for some years. The risks from that project were supposed
to be reduced by Iran's reliance on Russia for supplies of nuclear
fuel and a commitment to return all spent fuel to Russia. Yet we have
now learned that Iran has secretly been developing its own uranium
enrichment capability - with technology from sources other than Russia
- which would circumvent the safeguards Russia has been trying to put
into place. Secretary Powell's talks here ten days ago suggest Russia
is coming to share this concern.
So we need to consider what new tools, what new forms of leverage, we
can bring to bear to stop these two countries from acquiring nuclear
weapons, and to strengthen all the non-proliferation regimes. Do we
need to impose stricter forms of inspections? Do we need to impose
sanctions or other punitive measures if diplomatic suasion doesn't
work? Should we accelerate our cooperation on anti-missile defense in
order protect our countries against nuclear blackmail in the event we
are unable to prevent proliferation? Do we need new strategies for our
militaries, or for the new NATO-Russia Council, to prevent or counter
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Russia has a major
role to play in finding the answers to these questions
Our joint efforts to fight terrorism and WMD proliferation are not the
only areas where Russia's contribution is needed. The most immediate
topic on the agenda, of course, is post-war Iraq. Success there - that
is, establishment of a stable government that represents the true
interests of all the Iraqi people, that does not threaten its
neighbors, that is free of WMD - could mark the beginning of a new era
of peace and progress in the Middle East as a whole. We are glad we
have found common ground on the essential first step, passage of a new
UN Security Council resolution to lift the sanctions. That agreement
will help the people of Iraq, and will help restore confidence in the
UN Security Council itself as we turn our attention to Iran, North
Korea and other future challenges.
I'm reminded of the Greek proverb that the measure of a man is what he
does with power. The same goes for nations, too, and the measure of
the greatness of Russia will be in how it wields its power in facing
the challenges that currently stand before us, and how well it
cooperates through the many international mechanisms that exist.
Russia has a larger stake than most countries in helping to ensure
global security, if only because geography puts it on the front lines
in dealing with the dangers posed by North Korea, Iran, and by
terrorism and instability in the Middle East and South Asia. In
addressing these many problems, it is our hope that we can replicate
elsewhere the cooperative spirit and new thinking that we have seen in
the new NATO-Russia Council.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)