tv [untitled] February 19, 2011 7:30am-8:00am EST
for nato forces in afghanistan while georgia could be a base for part of the american anti-missile shield but is russia's position on this considered in washington and brussels here is later as deputy assistant secretary general popular first and security policy after. major sand security and transparency would underpin any joint russia u.s. nato shield in europe but creating this is no easy task some republican senators in the u.s. have proposed the pentagon deploying an anti-missile radar in georgia russia's neighbor moscow is opposed to sites for sale it is close to its borders saying they threaten the country's security some experts down long term american military presence in georgia is possible but many agree and new u.s. base in central asia will most likely appear before too long.
and welcome to the show thank you thank you very much for being with us and says it's a privilege having you so well first of all let's start let's start with the news from washington where four republican senators are calling on the administration to place a part of the missile defense radar in georgia rather than putting it in turkey well is this proposal acceptable because georgia is not a nato country well for the moment we're not close within nato to deciding where we're going to put radars were at the very very beginning of the process of determining what this missile defense program will look like and part of determining what it will look like is determining what we will do in cooperation between our system and a russian system. one of the best i would say russian military analysts i'm among journalists among my colleagues and a good friend of mine alexander golts he wrote i quote the biggest problem with
this sexual idea is that nato has little faith in the ability of russia's military defense system and put is this the reason why nato has rejected the so-called sectoral missile defense proposed by moscow needles approach to missile defense and i hope it is clear to our russian interlocutors is not based on any different platform than the same platform that is sustained the alliance since it was founded in one thousand nine hundred ninety nato is job is to defend nato as territory and that's what we do and when it comes to missile defense that's what we will do i have seen quotes from foreign minister lavrov just in the last few days saying that of course russia would defend russian territory that's what russia does like any nation like my own country canada so nato will defend nato russia will defend russia our challenge is to be interoperable. to cooperate and to become more
than the sum of our parts when it comes to defending europe but here's another quote comes from hillary clinton she told participants of the munich security conference in germany where she said we seek a genuinely copulative approach in a year of the a.b.m. one that strengthens corporation with russia and increases our common security while maintaining strategic stability but how can this be this kind of of a genuine car peroration between two systems which are absolutely independent of each other i mean which are not interacting but there's a difference between independent and interacting they will be too independent systems that's quite clear but they will also interact according to our vision of this we have to first make them interoperable second connect the third cooperate and to put it very simply i thought envision a situation in which
a missile was coming towards europe which might fly through russian space towards a strike in nato territory maybe the two systems could communicate and russia could have a first shot at it before nato had a shot at it so we'd have more chance of taking it down or the same situation going in the other direction. the fourth thing and that we have to do from the beginning is ensure transparency and assurance so that everybody is confident that this enhanced is their security and nato is determined to provide that from now well when that you said like russia having a first shot this still sounds like not being really happy by the state of the russian and missile defense is it true what referring once again to what mr gullets wrote that that the europeans and the americans are not really happy about the condition in which russians. defenses they they don't think it's really
it's really at the. at the state which is required by europeans or americans when we speak for nato we don't have a missile defense system ourselves we haven't yet determined the aims we haven't yet determined the scope we haven't yet determined the technical parameters so we're at the first stage. i personally don't know the level of technology of the russian system but i must say from a nato point of view we're only just starting as well but we want to start with russia we want to cooperate with russia and define in the next few months precisely the aim and the scope of what we're going to do together you know i'm really surprised that when we started talking about american approach what they want to do with military nato but you didn't start by saying no to nato is in washington and we're not responsible for what washington says this is usually what people need to
say as well when i quote washington say well this is washington ask mr obama we're nato we're different is it really is it really so is is it really the case that whatever people say in washington doesn't really matter and brussels until it becomes a nato decision or it's more complicated a nato decision takes all member states. all twenty eight so what washington wants has a very important influence there's no doubt but of course what the other allies want also has an important influence i don't want to underestimate the influence that washington has within the alliance it isn't critical member it's a very important member and honestly speaking of the military capability and political leadership of the united states in nato is absolutely essential and everybody wants it but it can influence but it can't decide so when i say on missile defense. the u.s. has viewed the u.s.
view on missile defense is very important they have the technology ninety percent of which would make up a nato system but no nato decision is taken until all twenty eight from the big united states to little luxembourg decide well you see everybody wants to feel safe every government to once their people to feel safe and of course missile defense makes americans feel safer it makes you feel safer russia is disappointed with these missile defense plans as you know because russia thinks considers that it may be aimed against russia so america washington doesn't care obviously it doesn't care europe does is it is the problem in relations between the european partners and the united states. first i would disagree with your premise washington does care they are determined to move forward on missile defense in a way that not only enhanced is european security and hopefully russian security
but also is seen to enhance russian security and reassures moscow we feel that the a growing threat and probably when it comes to missiles the threat to russia to europe the rest of europe and to the united states and canada is the fact that thirty and more than thirty countries. have or are getting ballistic missiles and those could strike us so that's the real problem and russia faces that threat as much as we do so our challenge is to build a system in nato and cooperate with a system in russia that enhanced us and he seemed to enhance security here in russia as well but he you know you're not very optimistic yourself are you because for example i have a quote from one of your interviews where you said we should continue to cooperate in other areas even if the issue of european on to missile defense remains unresolved so what are the areas except afghanistan and and had to missile defense
well you mentioned two big ones and i think it's important for people to remember that instead of arguing about issues of principle we're now talking about how to cooperate nato and russia together to defend european territory this is an historic change we're also cooperating most closely on stabilizing afghanistan who would have thought that fifteen years ago so those are two important pillars. and we're going to do more on afghanistan as well but i could add operational cooperation fighting piracy at a certain stage we may wish to discuss defending against cyber attacks or protecting critical infrastructure that provides our energy supplies so there's a lot of growth potential in our relationship. as you remember. president medvedev one of his first proposals when he became president was to start construction and start talking about building a new system of security in europe well and this this joint invented missile
defense came later as probably part of it is is nato is brussels ready to discuss this new new architecture new security architecture in europe because because it doesn't seem to have room to be ringing any bells in european capitals well i'd say three things one is. we share the view president made bed you have that security is in divisible and that phrase that he has used is also very much in the nato documents that were proved just two months ago in lisbon including the strategic concept and that's a fundamental agreement on the use second president made videos proposal doesn't just include nato and russia it includes all of europe so the right place to have that discussion is in vienna at the organization for security and cooperation in europe that brings together everybody who is interested and we're not opposed to that discussion but the secretary general has said that he doesn't believe we need
they are the key to our problem. the british. economy. welcome back to the spotlight i'll bring all of in just a reminder that my guest in the studio is james path or i nato's deputy assistant secretary general for political affairs and security policy mr potter i will i have another quote here well maybe it will be the last word for today but i'm going lots of quotes something john mccain said
a couple of days ago for two years mostly out of deference to russia defensive arms sales have not been authorized for georgia this has to change says mccain at a minimum we should provide georgia with early warning radars and other basic capabilities to strengthen its defenses what school active nato has approach to possible re arming of georgia well of course i don't speak with the us government. but more seriously nato doesn't sell weapons we don't sell weapons to anybody individual nations to do that and it's a national decisions to take as far as i'm aware georgia there's no arms embargo on georgia but the united states makes its own decisions all allies make their own decisions. and they have to do this but from an organizational point of view we
have no view on this issue. and you don't influence for example if one of the nato candidates an interesting. maybe i don't know the nato charter but if one of the nato members wants to sell arms to a country that's hostile to nato or to one to other member could nato somehow influence this situation formally no or it's just business i mean whatever it's a national decision it's business that being said. these are allies and they care about each other and they care about each other security so we consult extensively they try to make sure that the security of a. another ally is never undermined by the actions of one. it would have been a strange situation if some if some business well learned by muslims in turkey would have been selling arms to afghan. well i mean actually we're all trying to provide want to afghan rebels nobody should be providing weapons to afghan rebels
as far as we're concerned and actually we're working quite hard with the russian federation to provide equipment particularly helicopters now to the afghan army so this is another area where in fact we're doing much more together than we did we does nato want to see more russian involvement in afghanistan maybe even selling the seven players now that well what we would like to see is and we are seeing is more russian cooperation with us in supporting afghanistan stability we're stepping up our training of counter drug narcotics officials there's a center just outside of moscow where russia does that also now outside of st petersburg and one in turkey we've trained about one thousand three hundred counter-narcotics officials already as i mentioned we're going to help provide helicopters but in particular training in spare parts and russia provides transit for us so that we can bring our equipment in and out of afghanistan we're very grateful for that will nato do you think nato may play
a role in defending in securing the transom against the pipeline which is see it to be built well yes aids yet to be built but more to the point i don't see an immediate role for nato and i don't think any discussion is taking place in nato on protecting pipelines outside of nato territory that being said there is a broad discussion about energy security in nato. and of course nato doesn't do diversity of supply that's not our business but one could envision a possible role in protecting nuclear power plants or critical choke points like the straits of hormuz in an extreme situation or under to. terrorist attack. in the other. stumbling block i would say in relations between moscow and nato. and there's one even in the ghana stan is the is the drugs traffic from gas and moscow is pretty concerned about the drug traffic from got to stand and moscow has said. the russian press i would say has quoted more than once sources inside
nature saying that if we stop drug production in afghanistan this will put people out of out of work and leave people that money and this will and this will drive more people into rebel movement so so for one there there has been unsatisfaction from the russian side by the disability of nato to stop providing those chemicals to afghanistan that are needed to produce areas and they're still imported into our guidance and so what's your position on that the do you think that there could be a common stance of nato and russia found. in this in their position towards drug production let me say we share and understand the russian frustration russians are dying from heroin addiction so for the rest of europe really through russia today we're going to russia so this is a common problem second we do
a lot to support the anti drug effort and sometimes it doesn't appear in the russian media we provide to afghan counter drug officials intelligence training transport emergency support and we our forces attacked drug labs and drug lords and drug transit and the precursor chemicals and in fact thousands of tons of these have been stopped in the last year or two. is there progress yes in two thousand and six only four of afghanistan's six of afghanistan thirty four provinces were poppy free now it's twenty in four years from six provinces to twenty provinces are poppy free so there is progress but the final point is we need to do more and training of afghan and central asian counter-narcotics officials with russia is part of what you said you said the number of provinces poppy fields provinces is increasing but as i've read the export of drugs for
afghans that is increasing to what they say in the last year it's gone down though for a variety of reasons but the bottom line is while more and more provinces are becoming poppy free in certain areas and these are the areas where the taliban is most concentrated it's getting worse why because the taliban is now like any mafia. controlling the trade encouraging farmers to grow poppy taking money from the transit taking money from the sale and using it to fund the insurgency which means the best way to tackle the drug problem is to do what we're doing and tackle the taliban ok in another subject is the collective security treaty organization as far as i understand nato hasn't been very enthusiastic so far incorporation with this is it is it true. while there is no consensus i mentioned that nato operates by consensus there's no consensus to have formal relations at this point between the two organizations but we have good relations with all the member states
a number of nato countries i think thirteen have observed the c.s.u. come now operation which is an anti drug operation which has been effective so it's not like a total embargo but we don't yet have and there is no consensus to have it present organization to organization relations. they took hold of the central asia and the caucasus and strategically important regions what does that mean does it mean all rich and that's it well both regions have strategic importance and i think one look at central asia in a wider map will show anybody why of course energy there's no doubt about that but as i mentioned nato is not an energy organization but a number of security challenges that we face here at least run through that region . drugs terrorism extremism. all of those
challenges can be best faced in partnership with their central asian countries and we try to help support them in their fight against these problems the caucasus of course again a very significant area when it comes to energy but also we have a major partner in georgia. what happens between as a version in our media has a direct influence on an ally turkey and a partner georgia so for anybody in europe including russia what happens in the caucasus has significant effects for all of us. well nato usually calls itself and the alliance of democracies and we've heard it in lisbon more than once well how do you think he'll when dealing with regimes like in his back is that then too many. we. when we enter into relations with these countries we ask them to sign up to the principles of our partnership partnership for peace which include
a commitment on their part to work towards improving democratic principles and reform within their country and we offer support for when they do it now does it always meet our greatest aspirations it doesn't but we continue to push the secretary general when he meets with leaders from those countries specifically in his bilateral meetings reminds them of the principles to which we've all signed up and offers our support in trying to meet them so it's very important that we have those we haven't given up on our principles we just have to keep slowly working towards well slowly walking toward the one of the steps was the recent visit of the pair their president i was back to stan to brussels and according to the opposition nato you would have been following it closely so what would the results what would you say that that this is what they had a very good exchange what i mentioned before the secretary general did not shy away from mentioning the principles of the partnership for peace and offered nato
support to help meet them the president president karimov of course heard him what they discussed principally was surprisingly the security situation in the region neighboring kyrgyzstan which is going through some complications the security situation in afghanistan and of course. transit because we have a transit agreement with russia but there's more links in the chain and we also have an agreement to bring equipment into afghanistan with his back just. last very short when the transition period so-called transition period of ghana's that ends up in two thousand and fifteen will then they troops remain them remain in afghanistan much longer after this after this time period what you used exactly the right word transition we will move into a supporting role we aim for two thousand and fourteen throughout the country but we'll still have forces throughout the country but instead of being in a lead combat role they're in a supporting role so it's impossible to say how long this will take but we will be
there for the long term thank you thank you very much for being with us and just to remind you that my guest today was james path of nato as deputy assistant secretary general for political affairs and security policy and they said for now from all of us here we'll be back with more than a common sight of what's going on in ten pounds russia until then stay in our city and take thank you.
see across the middle east that new government is selling to repressive regimes all over as anti-government protests ways across the middle east britain deaths wound for supplying weapons which are being used to kill and injure demonstrators. and imprison nation the us has more people in jail than any other country and some acts comics say that's because big business has turned prison into profit. and russia's witnessing a crackdown on organized crime a police cover up has been revealed behind brutal murders but some fear the corruption of the corrupt officials might still get away. plus harry potter is dead and though it's not the wizard boy from one of the world's best selling books his unlikely birth burial site in israel attracts crowds of founds from the moon up
. to you live from our studios in central moscow this is our t.v. let's get straight to our stop story this saturday a public resentment against the ruling classes is growing in the wider middle east amid bloody attack. on demonstrators as the region plunges into chaos the group human rights watch says at least eighty four people have been killed in violence related to anti-government activist in libya one protester was shot dead in yemen's capital sanaa when police opened fire on a march of thousands of demonstrators saturday marks the ninth consecutive day of protests in yemen and bahrain king has asked his eldest son to start an announcement dialogue to resolve the political crisis in the country however the.
Uploaded by TV Archive on