ACCESSION NUMBER:321205
FILE ID:POL504
DATE:01/14/94
TITLE:MISSILE DE-TARGET PACT IS SIGNIFICANT, FORMER ENVOY SAYS (01/14/94)
TEXT:*94011404.POL
MISSILE DE-TARGET PACT IS SIGNIFICANT, FORMER ENVOY SAYS
(Matlock discusses Presidential visit) (800)
By Judy Aita
USIA United Nations Correspondent
New York -- The new agreement between the United States and Russia on
changing the targeting of strategic nuclear missiles is "psychologically
and politically significant," says former U.S. envoy to Moscow Jack
Matlock.
Discussing President Clinton's trip to Russia with a group of journalists on
January 13, Ambassador Matlock said the pact to de-target missiles is
"practically important as well, because it virtually eliminates the
possibility of accidental launch....one of the things we used to worry
about."
Matlock, who was the last U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, retired after
35 years in the U.S. Foreign Service in 1991. He is currently a professor
of the practice of international diplomacy at Columbia University and is
completing a book on the collapse of the Soviet empire.
The former diplomat said he considers the "current visit to Russia a very
important one."
"I know from experience these meetings are always important because of the
discussions they involve and the impetus they give to settling questions
that may be outstanding," he said. "The agreements are important and
another concrete sign that these meetings do give impetus to settling
issues."
The most important thing that occurs at a summit, he said "is almost always
the communication between the leaders, because even though problems aren't
solved...the leaders come out with a better understanding" and then set
priorities for their staffs.
1
Another important result of the president's visit was the settlement of the
nuclear issue between Russia and Ukraine, which, Matlock said, "was clearly
connected with the President's visit and with concessions that the Russian
Government made." It seems to be "a reasonable compromise on all sides."
Matlock said he thought the private discussions between Clinton and Russian
President Boris Yeltsin probably focused on such issues as "how do you draw
the line between legitimate Russian interest in countries close by but
avoid imperialism" and future plans for reform in Russia.
"I would hope, as a citizen, that President Clinton would urge President
Yeltsin in his own interest to move reform forward," Matlock said. "The
calls to slow it down are calls for an unwise policy which would simply
prolong the agony for the Russian people."
"Though I have no brief with the current administration since I'm no longer
on official duty," Matlock said, "I find that I am in agreement largely
with the Clinton administration on the way they have been handling
relations with Russia and the other successor states of the former Soviet
Union."
Asked about some criticism of the U.S. attitude in dealing with militant
nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Matlock replied "I frankly don't
understand the criticism."
"If one doesn't deal with the elected president of the country, with whom
does one deal?" he asked. "Are people suggesting there is some rival
government we should recognize?"
Clinton's decision not to meet with Zhirinovsky "is absolutely correct,"
Matlock said. "Giving attention to and dealing with individuals who are
irresponsible simply builds up their stature."
The United States has supported continuation of reform, institution
building, and Russia's entering the world economy, Matlock said, and
Yeltsin "is not only the elected leader of Russia -- therefore the only
legitimate person to do official business with -- but also the person most
likely right now to have the capability and the desire to continue those
policies."
Stressing that he was speaking as a private citizen, Matlock said that he
did not see the current Russian government attempting to reestablish the
Russian empire, but he indicated that it is an important issue that must be
watched.
"I think the current leaders in Russia understand very well that Russia's
interests are to develop its political system and its economy within its
present borders," he said. With very serious problems in the region, "it
would be incorrect to look at every effort by the Russian government to
influence a situation or relations with its neighbors as an attempt to
reestablish the empire."
"Basically many of the things we have seen on the part of the current
Russian government have not been attempts to re-establish the empire but
attempts to deal with situations on their border to keep the problems from
getting worse," Matlock said.
He said there is need for international guidelines on such security issues
as when and how outside intervention would be used to stop a local conflict
or keep one from breaking out. If there were, he said, Russian troops
participating in peacekeeping in the region, operating under international
sanction, could be "a great service to the world community" and would not
necessarily be viewed as representing a "dangerous claim to a unilateral
right to intervene."
1NNN
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
