продолжение:
The President: Let me start by saying that I accept that there is now a new Russia that is not interested in taking over other countries. If you remember the last time we met, I told you that I was trying to create a new NATO that would not be a threat to Russia but that would permit the United States and Canada to stay in Europe and work with Russia and other countries to build an undivided, free Europe and to deal with other problems.
I've tried to reassure you, the Russian government and the Russian people that I'm trying to change NATO. The most important steps in that regard are, first, the language in the statement on nuclear weapons -- the three no's. Second, the language on conventional forces, which reflects a very carefully considered position that we've worked out in NATO. Third, the fact of the NATO-Russia charter itself -- which will redirect the mission of NATO. Fourth, the proposal by NATO on adapting the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe tabled in Vienna. It calls for reducing overall levels and freezing equipment levels in several key areas. All of these are designed to change the impression of NATO as something directed against Russia.
If Primakov and Solana can complete the text of a NATO-Russia charter, I'd like to see a signing, before Madrid, at a big ceremony, so we can say to the world that there is a new NATO and a new Russia and that's the right spirit.
President Yeltsin: I agree.
The President: If we were to agree that no members of the former Soviet Union could enter NATO, it would be a bad thing for our attempt to build a new NATO, but it would also be a bad thing for your attempt to build a new Russia. I am not naive. I understand you have an interest in who gets into NATO and when. We need to make sure that all these are subjects that we can consult about as we move forward — consult means talk about; it means making sure that we're aware of your concerns and that you understand our decisions and our positions and our thinking.
But consider what a terrible message it would be if we were to make the kind of supposedly secret deal you're suggesting. First of all, there are no secrets in this world. Second, the message would be, "we're still organized against Russia -- but there's a line across which we won't go." In other words, instead of creating a new NATO that helps move toward an integrated, undivided Europe, we'd have a larger NATO waiting for Russia to do something bad. Here's why it is bad for Russia, what you are proposing. Russia would be saying, "we have still got an empire, but it just can't reach as far West."
Second, it would create exactly the fear among the Baltics and others that you're trying to allay and that you're denying is justified. A third point: the deal you're suggesting would totally undermine the Partnership for Peace. It would terrify the smaller countries that are now working well with you and us in Bosnia and elsewhere. Consider our hosts herein Finland; President Ahtissari told me last night that we're doing the right thing in the attitude we're taking toward the future of enlargement. He said that Finland hadn't asked to be in NATO, and as long as no one tells Finland it can't join NATO, then Finland will be able to maintain the independence of its position and work with PFP and with the United States and with Russia.
I said a few days ago that I'd leave open the possibility of Russia in NATO and, in any event, of having a steadily improving partnership between NATO and Russia. I think we'll have to continue to work this issue, but we should concentrate on practical matters. However, under no circumstances should we send a signal out of this meeting that it's the same old European politics of the Cold War and the same old business, we're just moving the lines around a bit. Instead, the signal here should be to tell the world and tell Russia that it's a new NATO and a new Russia. There's evidence of that in the position that NATO has taken on nuclear weapons and on conventional weapons, which is reflected in the joint statement.
I see that "legally binding" means something different in our context. Opponents of the NATO-Russia deal in the Senate will tie it up for two years. So we really should go with the form that we've proposed in the joint statement.
President Yeltsin: I agree.
Что РБК не перевёл:
Но представь себе, каким ужасным посланием будет заключение тайного соглашения, которое ты предлагаешь. <...> Во-первых, в мире не бывает секретов. Во-вторых, смысл этого будет "мы всё ещё организованы против раши, но есть линия, через которую мы не пойдём". Т.е. вместо нового НАТО, будет НАТО, которое ждёт, что раша сделает что-то плохое. Поэтому это плохо для раши, понимаешь? Раша будет говорить: "мы всё ещё империя, но уже поменьше, не так далеко на запад, как было".
Во-вторых, это как раз и создаст тот страх у стран Балтии и других - а ты говоришь, у них нет оснований для страха. Потом это напугает и другие страны, Боснию и прочих. Взять хоть хозяина нашей встречи, Финляндию. Вот только на днях мне президент говорил, что Финляндия не просится в НАТО; и пока ей не сказали, что ей нельзя в НАТО, она будет нормально общаться со всеми.
Блаблабла, ни при каких обстоятельствах мы не должны слать сигнал, что эта встреча - всё так же о старой европейской политике, всё так же о холодной войне, и мы всего лишь чуток подвинули границы. Нет, надо всем рассказать, что у нас новое НАТО и новая раша.
