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).