Rasmussen: Russia and NATO could integrate their missile-defense systems
Published: 18 September, 2009, 20:49
TAGS: Arms, Military, NATO, Interview, Politics, Terrorism
NATO is calling for a joint missile defense project with Moscow. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s new Secretary General, discussed the initiative in Brussels during an exclusive interview with RT.
Hot on the heels of the United States mothballing the anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe, the Alliance says Russia's proposals for a new European security pact are also up for discussion.
RT: As the Secretary General of NATO, how do you evaluate America’s decision to shelve the plans for a missile-defense shield in Eastern Europe?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: These new plans will make it possible to develop a missile-defense system in Europe, which includes all allies and protects all NATO allies. And NATO will play a greater role. So I think it’s a positive step.
RT: And how will that help to improve relations between Russia and NATO?
Rasmussen: I think this decision has also made it clear that our missile defense plans are not directed against Russia. On the contrary, it is really my ambition that once in the future, and at an appropriate time, we could integrate Russian missile-defense systems and our missile-defense systems, because we all face the same threats and, therefore, we should also co-operate to counter these threats.
RT: What about this decision to shelve the plans on the part of the US and NATO?
Rasmussen: It’s an American decision to change the missile-defense plans, and I understand that the Americans have changed their plans because of new developments in technology and new intelligence assessments of the threats from short- and medium-range missiles.
RT: You seem to imply in your speech that NATO will continue with expansion plans in Georgia and in Ukraine. How does that fit in with your goal to improve the relationship that NATO has with Russia.
Rasmussen: I would like to stress that our “open door” policy is not directed [against] Russia. NATO is not an enemy of Russia. On the contrary, I think it’s also in Russia’s interests that we do our utmost to stabilize the situation all over Europe. And we know from experience that the enlargement of NATO and the enlargement of the European Union have contributed to stability, security and also economic and social development in Central and Eastern Europe. And that’s also in Russia’s interest, in my opinion.
RT: But we also know, don’t we, that the proposed expansion into Ukraine and Georgia angers Russia.
Rasmussen: Well, I would like to stress that our “open door” policy is based upon the principle that each sovereign state has a right to decide its own security policy and also alliance affiliation by itself. This is the reason why our treaty clearly states that NATO may invite any European country which is in the position to further the principles of our treaty to accede to the Alliance. And again, this “open door” policy is not in any way directed against Russia. On the contrary, I would very much like to develop a strategic partnership with Russia.
RT: Russia and NATO have been trying to co-operate for a long time. But, what has always gotten in the way seems to be the lack of trust from both sides. Has anything really changed?
Rasmussen: Well, I will do my best to convince the Russian political leadership and the Russian people that NATO is not an enemy of Russia. On the contrary, we would very much like friendly relations between Russia and NATO. And I think there is a growing awareness on both sides that we need each other. We are confronted with the same threats from terrorism, from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from piracy. I also think Afghanistan constitutes a common threat. If we allow Afghanistan, once again, to become a safe heaven for terrorists, then terrorism could easily spread from Central Asia to Russia. So, it’s also in Russia’s interests that we succeed in this area. In all these areas there is a scope for practical co-operation between NATO and Russia.
RT: One of the few issues, in which NATO and Russia do see eye-to-eye at the moment is Afghanistan. In fact, Russia’s experience and help is proving very useful there. Do you think that NATO needs Russia more than Russia needs NATO?
Rasmussen: I think we need each other. And I appreciate very much that Russia has provided transit transport, which facilitate our operation in Afghanistan. And I would very much like to look closer into how we could further Russian engagement in our operation in Afghanistan.
RT: Russia-NATO relations have focused on the negative in recent times, and now you seem to be saying that you want NATO to focus on the positive. Isn’t that just sweeping fundamental issues under the carpet?
Rasmussen: No, on the contrary, it’s a very important part of my philosophy and my strategy, that we should be quite open about disagreements. We should realize that in certain areas we do have real disagreements. And let’s discuss it. But, my point is that we have a number of areas, in which we are faced with the same security threats. So, instead of always focusing on what divides us, we should focus on what unites us in our common interest, to fight against terrorism, proliferation of dangerous weapons and against piracy, just to mention some examples.
RT: Mr. Rasmussen, thank you very much for talking to RT today.
Rasmussen: You are welcome.
US shield: mixed reactionsThe leaders of the largest European countries have hailed the decision made by the Obama administration. However, reactions in Eastern Europe were mixed. |
18.09.2009, 21:36
4 comments
Study: War on terror weakened Obama's supportA study in the U.S. has shown Barack Obama's media image is on the decline. According to research by two American universities, the President's standing has seen a 16 percent decline. |
In the current framework, NATO is not in a position to be a partner. These may be good intentions, and may be what European populace would like to hear. This is about coming out with positives, what could otherwise be seen as a negative. Or, this can be a way of paving a road for the long-term restructuring of European, and global security. Because, we the public, will never know what is usually being kept rather far from public view, we can only guess. But, since public opinion has a great deal of influence on how much latitude politicians have, it is important that the citizens sort this out, and have a view as well. Since all the history proves that West has often viewed Russia as a space to be taken, and Russians and Slavs as a lesser race, a good deal of good judgement is required. Positive outlook, and positive attitude about the event, is the call of the day. After all, US made that decision, not NATO. And as most of the Eurpean population wants to see the change, Russian people want it too. As the time goes on, confidence measures will have to be put in place, step by step, to insure that the security is indivisible, and that old, agressive Europe, looking for its lebensraum at the expense of the lesser races, is definitely a thing of the past. For that, time, and a great deal of mutually beneficial ties will insure that each step is carefully felt, before another is taken.
Zak - You are spot on with regard to Georgia and also plan B. I am happy to talk to anyone who tries to offer friendship. However, we need be realistic. Nato does need reform. Maybe that reform is disolussion or maybe it is old europe taking control and stabilising it. I think France rejoining Nato was more to do this, than anything else. Otherwise it may be better to start talking direct to Germany, France Italy and Spain about building european defence, both in terms of missiles and an overall architecture.












Some level of cooperation with individual NATO-member states exists already but NATO as an organisation is a criminal organisation and should be dissolved. No business should be done with it until they apologize for all acts of aggression in the past including paying reparations for the catastrophic damage done to Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, South Ossetians, Afghans and especially Iraqis. As Zak says, they tried to bully Russia thinking it is a banana state. When that failed miserably in Gruzia, they now want to be friends. Do they think people are stupid? And what sort of reciprocal measure are they talking about? Didn't they already get a permission to fly over on they way to Afghanistan? Wasn't that one of many favours done by Russia? The Hegemon is going through a rough period. It should be helped to get to lower levels of orbit and helped to stay there, helped to become a normal country devoid of the self-given right to spread "democracy" by torture, rape, murder and plunder.