TMCnet News
INTERVIEW ON RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS WITH SERGEI KARAGANOV, HEAD OF THE FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY COUNCIL NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA DAILY, P. 11, 12, JUNE 27, 2006(Federal News Service (Russia) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) THE SHARP CORNERS OF COOPERATION One may have different opinions about the importance of various countries and regions for Russia's foreign policy. But if one does not stand musing in front of a globe but asks one sharp question, "is a new cold war possible?", one will inevitably focus on Russian- American relations. We discussed them with Sergei Alexandrovich Karaganov, Deputy Director of the Europe Studies Institute. Q: What are the possible scenarios of our relations with the US? Semi-friendship and semi-cooperation similar to detente? Full- fledged cooperation on concrete issues in third countries? Just ignoring each other? Or open confrontation? A: It is becoming ever difficult to predict the development of Russian-American relations or any other contemporary political problems. Too many new factors are emerging to which no one has the answer, not even the political and academic community of the United States. In the foreseeable future the US is, undoubtedly, the most powerful country in the world. The numerous prophesies of the collapse of the American economy and the bursting of all the "bubbles" are unlikely to come true. I proceed not only from the analysis of the current state of the American economy and society, but from simple extrapolation of previous forecasts. Some thirty years ago, or indeed 20, 10 and 5 years ago, a lot of authors the world over predicted the collapse of America. But while many countries have fallen apart or slowed down, the US, having created an effective political and economic system and following its rules, is developing very dynamically. They proclaim certain principles and believe in them, but when necessary they cleverly depart from them adapting themselves to reality. For instance, everybody knows that America is the standard-bearer of liberal ideas in the economy. At the same time the state is smuggling in through the back door a successful Keynesian model of development by funneling huge amounts of money into the economy through the mechanism of state debt, money that ensures, among other factors, sustained and powerful growth. Now as regards Russian-American relations. I think that in the medium term they will be fairly constructive because of the following circumstances. First, as a result of a monstrous mistake committed by America's leadership due to a mixture of religious and personal feelings and strategic miscalculations, America has become bogged down in Iraq. The moral and political "soft" American power has been undermined, and at present its military might and economy are being undermined. America has already paid a staggering 500-600 billion dollars for the war in Iraq -- admittedly not a very big sum for it -- and it will pay . It has tied up its armed forces and finds itself helpless. So, it needs partners than ever before. This need is important than any ideological incantations. And America has practically no powerful partners in the world. The classical old partner, Western Europe, is withdrawing into itself and is no longer playing a substantial foreign policy role. Western Europe hardly has a foreign policy now, Europe is concentrated on its own expansion. Second. There is growing instability in a whole number of regions in the world. Nuclear weapons are spreading. The broader Middle East is in a difficult position. Conflicts, both internal and external, are likely to grow there. It is important for America to turn Russia into an ally if only to prevent it falling under China's influence: a union between Russia and China would put paid to American hopes to be the world leader. Q: Does the US count on Russia becoming an opponent of its neighbor, China, for the sake of an alliance with the US? A: At present obviously, Russia is not going to quarrel with China, but nor is it going to fall under its influence. To feel confident under the current circumstances, it would do well to rely on the US, for example. Our interests coincide in this area. And finally, there is the energy factor. Of course, there are no energy superpowers in nature, but we can play a substantial role in maintaining the energy balance in the foreseeable future. And it is better for America to have us on its side. Paradoxically, there are forces in this country than in America that would like to see Russia and the US quarrel. This wish springs partly from the traditional prejudices lingering on after the Cold War, and partly from a failure to understand that we should have good relations with the world's most powerful country, while bad relations weaken Russia's position in its dealings with other power centers. Q: But there are many people in Russia who sympathize with America. people than Americans who sympathize with Russia. A: No, there aren't many. America's moral authority has plunged in recent years, as we have mentioned. But relations and development models are not based on sympathies. We stand to gain a lot from being friends or from being seen to be friends with the US. So, for all the difference of interests, we have many interests in common: non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, stability in Asia, friendly integration of China. These relations may be derailed from their trajectory of constructive interaction with elements of rivalry on a number of issues, for example, if the US makes another strategic mistake and expands NATO to Ukraine. It will provoke a sharp reaction from most of the Russian elite and the search for allies in the anti-American environment. It may even lead to a soft version of the Yugoslav scenario: obviously, we will be in conflict with Ukraine over the border issues. A movement of millions of people would create a divided-nation syndrome, something we have happily avoided so far. Q: But if the US takes this step with regard to Ukraine, then it is not interested in relations with Russia. A: Well, not quite. The small part of the American elite which is at all interested in Ukraine and Russia believes that NATO will expand automatically. Russia took it calmly before, and it will take it calmly now. They don't see any difference between the Czech Republic and Ukraine. Secondly, Ukraine is a very unstable state. Obviously, some people in the US want to shore up Ukraine to prevent it from falling apart or coming under Russia's geopolitical influence. The instrument for that is NATO. Finally, there are domestic policy considerations which are very important in America: ten million votes of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe and Ukraine. I do not rule out that these internal political considerations may cause Washington to make a tragic mistake. In that case Russia may cease to be interested in being a status quo power. The issue of NATO expansion may push global strategic interests into the background. As far as I know, the American ruling elite has already taken a tacit decision on early expansion of NATO to Ukraine. It is another matter that this plan may not succeed, as events in Feodosia have shown. Q: But the Europeans also have a voice within NATO, even if it is only formal. A: First, Europe, I repeat, is not playing an important international role. Second, Ukraine is anxious to join the European Union which doesn't want to see it as a member now or in the foreseeable future. Granting Ukraine NATO membership looks an attractive alternative to part of European elites. In this situation NATO will be not a pathway to the European Union, but a replacement for it. Q: That is the first "roadfork", and what are the others? A: There are a lot of smaller roadforks. There are some alarming trends in the world. Growing protectionism, even within the European Union, inevitably increases political divergences. Further on, many countries and regions are becoming susceptible to populist trends. There is growing nationalism in fast-developing Asia. And there is radicalization of Islam in several regions, which may lead to very serious consequences. These factors combine to create prerequisites for the sharp deterioration of the international political situation. Under these circumstances Russia and the US are of course in the same boat, but on the other hand, being in different regions, they may find themselves on opposite sides of the barricades. If only because Russia is not interested in the war against radical Islam being waged on its territory. Another potential source of conflict in our relations is degradation of Russia if it does not follow the intensive development road and fails to channel money into an economy of knowledge and technologies preferring to develop by inertia, putting a premium on stability and being over-centralized. If Russia becomes a less effective state, it will again become a bone of contention. Then we will become objects rather than subjects of legal relations. That factor depends on the behavior of our ruling class. But Russian-American relations will also become complicated if the Americans again try to influence us actively. Q: The media have suggested that the US wants to build a barrier between old Europe and Russia on the basis of the East European countries. A: What sort of a barrier are the Czech Republic or Hungary? The only country that is trying to play the role of a barrier and simultaneously restore its hegemony positions lost three centuries ago in Ukraine is Poland. But Poland has no allies in Europe, it is in isolation because of its misguided policy. It is another question that neither the Europeans nor the Americans want us to dominate the political market. In this connection there is an ongoing geopolitical game. There is a tendency to use new Europe against old Europe. Europe has increased and has become competitive. The American political elite has turned from unqualified support of European integration toward a course of limiting it. Besides, the Soviet Union has disappeared. The integration problems that the US thought had to be addressed have been solved. Now the Americans seek to weaken the process of European integration, especially in the military-political sphere. They don't want Europe to become a world- class player. Having said that, they don't want Europe to disintegrate because Europe is a very stable ally with which the Americans have a common history and common values. Q: Are there any opportunities for Russia in this field? A: They are fairly limited. They are limited above all by our domestic policies: we are in a period of another redistribution of property and conservative consolidation. While previously we were pursuing a catch-up policy, now we have diverged a little. It is probably a necessary zigzag. But the result is that we have drifted apart from Europe politically in recent years. And secondly, Europe itself cannot play the role of an effective partner. Q: You are referring to left-wing Europe. A: There is no other Europe today. Present-day Europe differs from that with which progressive Russians in the century before last and progressive Soviets in the last century sought a rapprochement. It is a Europe of collectivism, socialism, and to some extent it is against the nation state. It is hard for us to integrate into such Europe. And Europe is unable to take strategic decisions itself. And yet it is obvious that it won't be able to become a top-league player in the world unless it enters into a strategic alliance with Russia. Q: What about a positive scenario of relations with America? A: If we become effective, a attractive society, demonstrate qualitative and not quantitative economic growth, then in 10 years' time we will become a country everybody will seek to befriend. It is another question that factors of instability will remain and new conflicts will appear. In a number of regions the fight for water will unfold in 5-7 years' time. And what will happen in 10-15 years when the results of the gender revolution kick in? In India, China and other Asian countries 20 percent males than females are born because it is possible to determine a child's gender at an early stage. This is fraught with huge internal social tension. We don't know what it will lead to. What is needed is an alliance of enlightened powerful countries to protect the international system from overstrain. I don't think that confrontation is inevitable. Most probably cooperation is inevitable. Copyright 2006 Federal News Service, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |