Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kuchis: America wants to see a strong & democratic Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kuchis: America wants to see a strong & democratic Russia

    Agency WPS
    What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
    February 14, 2005, Monday

    ANDREW KUCHINS: AMERICA WANTS TO SEE A STRONG AND DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA

    SOURCE: Rossiiskie Vesti, No. 5, February 10, 2005, p. 4

    by Stanislav Tarasov


    The world of American political science is extremely diverse, not
    only in its political views, but also in its attitudes to Russia.
    Some continue to view our country as the Cold War enemy; others
    approach the new Russia with goodwill, understanding the difficulties
    it encounters along the path to establishing itself as a great power
    of a different kind. Andrew Kuchins, director of the Carnegie Moscow
    Center, is among the latter; so his thoughts about the development
    and prospects of relations between Russia and the United States are
    always relevant and interesting.

    Question: Preparations are under way on both sides for the
    forthcoming Putin-Bush summit in Bratislava. In your view, what will
    the agenda for that meeting look like?

    Andrew Kuchins: From the formal standpoint, the summit agenda may
    look as follows: WMD non-proliferation, the "war on protectionism,"
    cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the situation in the Middle
    East, taking account of the changes in Palestine since the death of
    Yasser Arafat. My impression is that the American side will also
    mention some domestic policy issues in Russia: democracy, the YUKOS
    affair. Energy cooperation will also be discussed.

    In my view, Washington is disappointed by some aspects of Russia's
    domestic and foreign policy. A special point is the situation taking
    shape in the "frozen conflict" zones: Nagorno-Karabakh, South
    Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Perhaps the Trans-Dniester region as well. On
    the whole, however, the relationship between the presidents of Russia
    and the United States is open enough for any issue to be raised at
    the summit, in principle.

    Question: In shaping their policy on post-Soviet territory, are the
    United States and Russia acting as partners or opponents?

    Andrew Kuchins: My impression is that we are currently acting more
    like opponents. The problem of the "frozen conflicts" within
    post-Soviet territory - that is one of the most disputed points in
    our relations. Besides, there is the "challenge of Europe."
    Develoments in Ukraine have also left a certain aftertaste. In the
    United States, attitudes to Russia have grown noticeably cooler among
    the political and financial establishment. So the two presidents need
    to give the summit some sort of concrete content, in order to damp
    down emotions in the United States, and in Russia as well.

    Question: The United States has obviously intensified its attacks on
    Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear energy.
    What does this mean? Could it be that Iran's turn is approaching,
    after Iraq?

    Andrew Kuchins: This is an old problem. The United States is
    concerned about Russia's assistance in building the Bushehr nuclear
    power plant. The United States suspects Iran of developing technology
    capable of creating nuclear weapons. On the whole, my own view is
    that the United Staes will end up agreeing to the Bushehr nuclear
    power plant being built, on the condition that Iran would not be able
    to use enriched uranium.

    Question: In the second administration of George W. Bush, the State
    Department is headed by Condoleezza Rice, a well-known American
    expert on Russia. Is this good for Russia or not?

    Andrew Kuchins: I believe the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as
    Secretary of State is not a negative factor for Russia. I cannot
    agree with the arguments of some Russian experts who describe Rice as
    "worse than Zbigniew Brzezinski." Firstly, she is not from the ranks
    of American neo-conservatives. She is capable of competently
    assessing all aspects of relations between the United States and
    Russia. Think of her famous words after the Iraq situation: "Punish
    France and Germany, forgive Russia." That is her visiting card. I can
    personally attest, based on my contactsin Washington, that
    Condoleezza Rice will aim to develop and expand cooperation with
    Russia; she will seek and work on a broad range of options for
    achieving that goal. In her previous position at the Security
    Council, she did a great deal to establish personal contact between
    George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. I suspect that some similar work
    is now under way as the Bratislava summit approaches. Let me expand
    on that. There was an informal "communications channel" between the
    Security Councils of the United States and Russia. Moreover, when the
    US policy rhetoric regarding Russia started changing late last year,
    and Colin Powell made some strong anti-Moscow statements, it was Rice
    who neutralized them. I'm told she was the last bastion that stopped
    the neo-conservative backlash against Russia's policies.

    Question: Nevertheless, in the lead-up to the Bratislava summit Time
    magazine has suddenly published an article entitled "The Russians are
    Coming: FBI concerned about the expanding scale of Russian espionage
    in the United States." The authors are Timothy Berger and Brian
    Bennet. Who is behind this attempt to create an unfavorable media
    background for the summit?

    Andrew Kuchins: I have, of course, read reports that the number of
    Russian spies in the United States has increased noticeably. The
    thing is that a process of shifting emphasis is under way in American
    politics, in which the positions of the neo-conservatives are
    starting to coincide with those of left-wing Democrats. The essence
    of this alliance is that democracy issues should be the key point in
    US foreign policy. In other words, a barometer is being established,
    which is intended to measure the level of democracy in any particular
    country, and Washington's foreign policy would be structured on that
    basis. This position is clearly discernible in the president's recent
    address to the nation. So we might say that the understanding of
    democracy and freedom issues is being restructured. I repeat, this
    has happened because the positions of Republicans and left-wing
    Democrats are merging. Some individuals, such as Richard Perle or
    James Woolsey, suspect Russia of cultivating undemocratic trends.

    Then again, there are also the moderate Democrats and moderate
    Republican pragmatists - they're in the center of the American
    political spectrum - who take quite a different view of Russia. And
    this is the field on which Condoleezza Rice is playing. She recently
    stated that democracy in Russia is developing unevenly, and has not
    yet become an irreversible process. All the same, recent history has
    shown that the United States and Russia are capable of effective
    cooperation in pursuing common objectives and meeting the challenges
    of common threats. Actually, Rice also outlined future prospects: she
    made it clear that a breakthrough in relations between our countries
    is only possible if Russia is democratic. At the same time, as a
    Russia specialist, she takes account of the fact that this involves a
    historical long-term process. Therefore, she is focusing everyone on
    concrete work, concrete action. I would add that we need to seek
    opportunities to cooperate, despite temporary failures. Remember how
    the left-wing Democrat Roosevelt and Stalin cooperated for the sake
    of victory over a common enemy.

    Question: Would strategic cooperation ever be possible between the
    United States and Russia?

    Andrew Kuchins: Anything can happen. If the United States is
    thoroughly convinced that Russia is developing in the direction of
    democracy, an intensive search will begin for as many points of
    contiguity as possible, and an understanding will emerge of Russia's
    interests on post-Soviet territory and worldwide. At present,
    however, it's true to say that the majority in Washington still
    suspect that Russia is moving towards establishing an authoritarian
    regime.

    I am convinced of this: the United States and Russia are simply bound
    to seek ways and means of working together, since a confrontation
    between us as rivals would have an impact on the whole world.
    Everyone would be worse off. Once again, I would like to emphasize
    that there are some people in the United States, some politicians,
    who want to weaken Russia and cast it out onto some sort of
    geopolitical periphery. But they are in the minority. A weak Russia,
    a weak Russian state, would never be of interest to the United
    States. In my country we understand that security throughout Eurasia
    ultimately depends on a strong Russia.

    Of course, there are certain twists connected with the role Americans
    played in Russia in the early 1990s. Back then, it was said that
    Russia had a "high level of democracy" - but now that level is
    allegedly gone, so we need to change our policy regarding Moscow. But
    it isn't that simple. And now we say we are interested in seeing a
    strong, democratic Russia, if only because we are coming to
    understand the need to cooperate on many aspects of world affairs,
    and to expand that cooperation. As you know, working with a weak
    partner is easier, but addressing substantial tasks is more
    difficult. Yet such tasks are accumulating with every passing day.
    That's why I am an optimist and believe that Bush and Putin will
    reach agreement on everything.

    Translated by Pavel Pushkin
Working...