Primakov Watch: Destroying NATO From Within

(Washington, D.C.): With the crisis arising from Saddam Hussein’s systematic violation of
the
Gulf War cease-fire headed for another crescendo, it is predictable that Russian Foreign Minister
Yevgeny Primakov will shortly be in the news again. Expect to see this erstwhile KGB agent
once again using every available vehicle to denounce the use of force against his client, Saddam —
and to impede the Clinton Administration from engaging in such use.

Unfortunately, in the interval since he last ran interference for the Iraqi despot, this inveterate
opponent of American influence and interests has been busily undermining both in
other, no less
important quarters. Of particular concern is the damage he and his minions (notably, fellow
Soviet apparatchik Vitaly Churkin, now Russia’s Ambassador to NATO) are doing to the United
States’ most important alliance — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Primakov’s Tool — the Permanent Joint Council

According to an analysis published on the front-page of this week’s Defense News
(see the
attached
), the Russians are successfully sabotaging priority alliance agenda items
through
their membership in a new institution created by the so-called “Founding Act
on Mutual
Relations, Cooperation and Security Between NATO and the Russian Federation” — the
NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC):

    “What prevents the PJC from working as a tool to bring the two sides closer together
    is that NATO and Russia have different, and sometimes opposing, strategic goals
    for the body.
    So instead of promoting new cooperative efforts, the PJC has been
    bogged down since its inception in power struggles over procedure, agenda items and
    other minutiae, NATO and Russian sources admitted last week.”

Defense News quotes Klaus-Peter Klaiber, NATO’s Assistant Secretary
General for
Political Affairs, as saying: “There is a clash of cultures at every level of participation
between Russia and NATO.”
The analysis offers a case in point:

    “For example, NATO nations have agreed, at strong U.S. insistence, to put a high
    priority on bolstering national and collective efforts to combat the spread of weapons
    of mass destruction, and devising methods to counter the use of nuclear, chemical and
    biological arms.

    “Russia’s participation in this effort is critical, as Moscow has been accused of
    aiding suspected proliferators, such as Iran, in obtaining weapons of mass
    destruction.
    So far, however, there has been little more than polite and general
    discussion of the issue between NATO and Russian leaders and no movement on
    the issue within the PJC. At the same time, Moscow’s preoccupation lies
    elsewhere: in minimizing the scope of any subsequent NATO enlargement; finding
    outlets in Central and Eastern Europe for its defense products; and stepping up
    industrial cooperation between its defense research and production facilities and
    those of NATO nations.”

Not-So-Hidden Agenda

Unsaid, but increasingly evident is a larger, and more insidious, Russian
“preoccupation” —
namely, undermining the NATO alliance itself.
As the Center for Security Policy
warned at
the time the “Founding Act” was unveiled,(1) the PJC (and
the Russian participation in other
NATO forums for which it serves as the model) gives Primakov & Company a chance to
have
both “a voice” and “a [de facto] veto” in alliance councils:

  • “As Richard Perle…noted at a splendid Congress of the New Atlantic Initiative held [in
    Phoenix last May], the [‘Founding Act’] reads like a Soviet document. This is, as the
    communists loved to say, ‘No accident, comrade.’ After all, the principal author for the
    Russian side was an unreconstructed apparatchik and long-time KGB operative from
    the old Soviet Union, Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov.
  • “Mr. Primakov’s fine hand is evident in the mutation of NATO
    contemplated by this
    document — from a free-standing military alliance of democratic states to a ‘Euro-Atlantic’
    community with which Russia becomes an ‘equal partner’ in political as well as
    security
    matters. The tone is set with the pledge by the two parties to pursue ‘to the maximum extent
    possible, where appropriate…joint decisions and joint action with respect to security issues of
    common concern.’
  • “Moscow will be in a good position to try to enforce this commitment as it will
    always
    co-chair the new ‘Permanent Joint Council’ created by this accord.
    The United States,
    by
    contrast, will only serve as a co-chair on a rotating basis, taking turns with the other
    fifteen-plus NATO member states. Since NATO operates by consensus, chances are good that
    this arrangement will make alliance decision-making more ponderous and problematic than
    ever.
  • “In addition, the ‘Founding Act’ explicitly and repeatedly affirms the primacy of
    multilateral organizations in which Moscow enjoys a de jure or de facto
    veto
    , notably the
    United Nations Security Council and the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe
    (OSCE). For instance, it declares that ‘any actions undertaken by the Russian Federation or
    NATO, together or separately, must be consistent with the UN Charter and the OSCE’s
    governing principles.’ While Russia was not much concerned with such principles in its war
    with Chechnya, it is predictable that it will find grounds in this language to oppose or
    otherwise constrain NATO’s planning and freedom of action.
  • “Concerns on this score are further exacerbated by the myriad institutional
    arrangements promised by the ‘Founding Act’ agreement.
    In addition to the Permanent
    Joint Council which will be ‘the principal venue of consultation between NATO and Russia in
    times of crisis or for any other situation affecting peace and stability,’ meetings of foreign
    ministers and of defense ministers will occur twice per year. As a practical matter, this will
    likely translate into including the Russians in at least parts of the currently scheduled
    semi-annual ministerial meetings of the North Atlantic Council and Defense Planning
    Committees. Inexorably, Russia can be expected to insinuate itself more and more into these
    important events, in much the same way as it has functionally transformed the G-7 into the
    G-8.

    “In addition, Moscow will get to participate in regular joint meetings of senior
    military officers, and various committees and working groups.
    Clearly, if the spirit
    of this ‘Founding Act’ is faithfully honored by NATO, the Russians will have ample
    opportunity to shape alliance decisions and prevent those they cannot influence. These
    bureaucratic realities are, after all, more likely to govern than will the blithe assertion
    that neither NATO nor Russia have ‘a right of veto over the actions of the other.'”

The Bottom Line

The United States Senate will shortly be taking up the NATO enlargement accord. Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC), among others, has properly expressed grave
concern about the undue influence Russia is now exercising in the Atlantic Alliance — and the
opportunity afforded by the “Founding Act” for subverting, if not destroying, it.

Before the Senate is asked to consent to this treaty, it must give its advice. That should
include,
among other improvements to the existing arrangements, a requirement that the
NATO-Russian Permanent Joint Council be shut down
, thereby minimizing the
opportunity this
device offers Yevgeny Primakov to realize one of his “longest sought and hardest fought” goals —
the ruination of the West’s successful counterweight to Moscow’s influence in Europe, the
Atlantic Alliance.

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
‘Founding Act’ Or ‘Final Act’ For NATO? ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_69″>No. 97-D 69, 19 May 1997).

Center for Security Policy

Please Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *