Not only combating terrorism” “

28 May 2002: signing of the accord of association of Russia with NATO, which puts and end to the historic opposition between the Atlantic Alliance and what was the superpower leader of the Warsaw Pact. But what is the real value of the new alliance? We put the question to Alvaro de Vasconcelos , director of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Lisbon and member of the Board of “Tepsa”, the Trans-European Association of Political Studies. What is the significance of the accord of association between NATO and Russia in the current scenario of international relations? “I believe that the accord can be regarded as the completion of a transformation that took place in Europe after the collapse of the Berlin wall. The significance of the accord is many-sided: but principally it is a sign that NATO is changing its nature and becoming an organization for collective security, given that there is no longer any clearly perceived enemy and Russia can in any case no longer be considered such”. What future will NATO have and what will be the consequence of this alliance between the USA and Russia? “The USA, Russia and the European Union must tackle the common threat of terrorism. Russia shares with the other powers the general preoccupation about the international terrorism that extends all the way from Chechenia to the Twin Towers. In this framework, I believe that NATO ought not to become the cornerstone of global security. It is called to guarantee European security, but ought never to become the armed wing of the United Nations”. Can the problem of international security ever be limited to combating terrorism? “Combating terrorism is on the common agenda of Russia and the West. But the world’s problems don’t end there: they range from the crisis in the Middle East, to the tragedies of Africa, and the explosive situation of social conditions in Latin America. If we were to concentrate solely on the fight against terrorism, we would take a step backwards in the process of reinforcing democracy and respect for human rights. In short: this accord presents a positive significance, which consists in the fact that the West no longer considers Russia as an enemy and that Russia itself is becoming integrated in the European process. But we need to avoid the risk of the international agenda being limited to the fight against terrorism”. What, in your view, are the differences that remain between Russia and the “Western world”? “First of all, it’s still not clear whether Russia has yet perceived and accepts the fact that she is no longer a superpower. Undoubtedly Moscow has difficulties in grasping this fact and the troubled question of her membership of the World Trade Organization demonstrates it. For this reason too, particular emphasis is placed on relations between the USA and Russia rather than on those between the EU and Russia. The second difficulty consists of the fact that even if there is undoubtedly convergence between the agendas of Bush and Putin as regards the fight against terrorism, in actual fact the USA and the EU still have more than one reason for being dissatisfied with Moscow. For example, with regard to the military action in Chechenia, the question of press freedom, human rights and democracy. If there was less convergence of values between the allies in the course of the cold war – Portugal was simultaneously a dictatorship and a member of NATO – the factor of political convergence is far more important after the fall of the Berlin wall. And so the process of continental integration will, perhaps, prove more complicated than it may seem”. Gian Andrea Garancini – Brussels