#9
Izvestia
May 26, 2002
NIKOLAI ZLOBIN: “A TREMENDOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL TRIAL IS IN STORE FOR RUSSIA”

The results of the Russian-American summit are being discussed from all angles -- military, geopolitical, economic, humanitarian. Izvestia’s Georgiy Bovt decided to talk about the philosophical aspects of the results of the presidential summit with Nikolai Zlobin, the director of the Russian and Asian programs at the influential, Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

GB: There are certain stereotypes concerning the image of the US in “Russia.” Here we have President Bush coming for a visit, and, in the meanwhile, the Senate does something low: instead of canceling the Jackson-Vanik Agreement, it is tying it to the export of chicken thighs from the US to Russia. Well -- the American Congress is independent. But the stereotype remains: the Americans don’t like us. They couldn’t even bring us a little present.

NZ: Yes, the Senate really doesn’t make any presents; it’s guided by the interests of its electorate regardless of the effect that has on foreign policy. Plus, no one has worked with the US Senate. Not the Duma, not the Russian politicians. One sees the absence of a Russian lobby in America, unlike the colossal Chinese lobby that works in Washington. Russia doesn’t understand that American policy is shaped not by the president, and not even by the congress, but by a compromise or consensus of various groups -- lobbyists, politicians, experts, the media. Russia has yet to gain influence over this totality of factors that determine American policy. In Russia, if someone gets to Putin, the question is solved. That’s not the way the system works there.

GB: I will agree about the importance of parliamentary ties. But it seems to me that this moment was lost back in the early 90s, when it became fashionable to travel at the expense of the host -- and when the host stops paying for your visit to Washington, the appeal is lost. I noticed one such delegation in action -- the Supreme Council. It was a complete nightmare. No one knows what would have happened if our parliamentarians had begun actively traveling to the Senate. Maybe they would have scared everyone in Washington. Maybe, to paraphrase Churchill, (“one shouldn’t show a Russian soldier to Europe”) one shouldn’t show a Russian parliamentarian to America?

NZ: Russians and Americans have good relations with each other specifically because they don’t know each other well. When people who know and love each other begin to live together, they find out how differently they think, get into conflicts, get in each other’s way, annoy each other. The better we get to know each other, the more the incompatibility of out mentalities, psychologies, habits, lifestyles and value systems will clinch in. A tremendous psychological trial is in store for Russia along the path of integration with the West. Right now, no one can appreciate the price Russia will pay for this integration -- not from the military, economic, or political point of view, but from the point of view of adapting its culture, its mentality. As for the Russian deputies, the politicians who travel to America -- every day I witness the extent to which they have no idea how to behave themselves. Not just in America. They make such mistakes that they even lose the sympathy of people who were originally very well disposed towards them.

GB: Who is worse or better -- the businessmen or the politicians?

NZ: The businessmen are better. Lately, young, aggressive, serious businessmen are coming; they speak like professionals. Friedman, Khodorovsky, Chubais, for example, are very free, very relaxed, they behave themselves right.

GB: Maybe the businessmen should communicate more? But here’s the standard complaint of the Russian businessmen: they were traveling to some Russian-American forum, but a few of them didn’t get visas. Or another example: On the eve of the summit, where the question of oil deliveries to the US was discussed, an article appears in the New York Times railing out Alekperov and LUKOIL -- an obviously ordered piece that encourages the odious behavior of Russian businessmen.

NZ: In part, this should be taken as a compliment. When you make it big -- people take hits at you. One has to get used to that. Plus, American oil companies and many others feel that if Russian companies want to go to the West, they should open themselves up more to Western companies, including oil companies.

GB: What should we do? Create a council to be chaired by Pepsi-Cola or Occidental Petroleum, like under Brezhnev? The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission II? That’s not likely to work.

NZ: It would be much more important to solidify the connections among the small and medium-sized businesses of the two countries. Here we need political will, a field of operation, certain state guarantees. Right now, only the big companies communicate. That’s good, but it won’t change Russia’s image in the eyes of the average American, who doesn’t believe his own big companies, especially not after the Enron scandal. A huge number of Americans work in small and medium-sized business. It’s at that level that the opinion of the business elite is formed. There are no such ties with Russia. Communication between the two societies is highly important -- no just communication between the presidents, between the Congress and the Duma, or between a dozen of major companies. Such communication is completely absent. And here, once again, everything rests on visas. The situation with visas is completely insulting to Russia, but I hope that this will change now.

GB: Are there signals for that?

NZ: Some political pressure on the government has begun to form because business, political, scientific, and cultural exchanges are suffering more and more from this. There is a drive to give Russians the same rights as the citizens of Eastern Europe; the same standard set of documents and requirements.

GB: Another sore point -- Iran. I remember Clinton once said: “We know about your ties with Iran.” And gave specific examples. Bush says: “We know about your ties with Iran, but we won’t tell you what we know.” Does that mean that Bush will put more pressure on the Russian-Iranian partnership while the Americans themselves are looking for ways to make some confidential contacts with the regime?

NZ: For the older generation of American politicians, Iran is a nightmare, a failure, a misfortune. With new people come new attitudes. But the Americans genuinely believe that Russian cooperation with Iran speeds up Iranian nuclear military development. They think that Russia is digging its own grave. The Americans would certainly like to eventually establish normal relations with Iran. Here, Russia could be a key element. I think that the US would be grateful for its help. In any case, when Americans offer relations based on a common understanding of values rather than on an agreement, Russia could develop a very strong position in its relations with America.

GB: But right now we are working from a position of weakness...

NZ: From a global point of view, everyone’s relationship with America is from a position of weakness. But the Americans say that our opposition was generally based on the opposition of ideologies. But now that this isn’t the case, let’s create the kind of union America has with Western Europe. It is based on a unity of world views.

GB: Russia and America do not have a unity of world views.

NZ: It needs to be formed.

GB: I’m afraid that Russia and America still have opposing ideologies; except Russia’s ideology is not complete. It generally consists of the concept that we are “against.” In part, against America. What’s good for America is bad for Russia, and vice versa. Anti-American sentiments in Russia are fairly strong. An orthodox clericalism is becoming fashionable. It also includes this sentiment. Sooner or later, Putin will have to show something to these skeptics (in reality, these aren’t skeptics, but “soft,” or maybe not even “soft,” chauvinists). He needs to say: Look, life is changing for the better because of the course we are taking. Considering the fact that our Duma is filled with people who aren’t exactly intellectually prepared for developing such arguments. Considering the fact that the Foreign Ministry is overloaded with day-to-day work, and isn’t prepared for making such arguments, which are adapted for society. Considering the fact that, within the presidential administration, there is only one foreign policy advisor who is not very involved in public policy or in the development of a new strategic thinking.

NZ: President Putin’s move in this direction was an act of political heroism. Bush now has to follow. Everything he did, including this three-day journey to Moscow despite his busy schedule, has been an attempt to reach Putin in Russian-American relations. But the problem of the summit is the fact that the elites of the two countries aren’t prepared to do what the presidents are prepared to do. The American elite was in the wrong because, until recently, it has been underestimating Russia. But many Americans feel that, in 10-15 years, the US will ask for Russia’s help in dealing with a number of global issues. As for the Russian elite, there are several factors that prevent the elite from becoming engaged in the process.

These include egocentrism , isolation, wasting energy on minor questions, on survival, on petty ambitions. In Russia, one can still make money proving that America is the enemy. There are many organizations in Russia that base their existence on the idea of being “against.” Another factor is jealousy. Not materialistic jealousy -- some members of the Russian elite are way ahead of any American millionaire, but jealousy of political capabilities. And, I think, the Russian elite does not comprehend that, in today’s world, no one can be strong and influential acting against America. But one can become strong and influential acting with America. What happened to that same Putin? He was changed from a president of an economically decaying country to a man with whom Bush spent three days and signed an agreement, a man whom Bush described to the whole world as his friend. And the signed agreement on the reduction of nuclear potential -- that was an agreement with the whole world, not just with America.

GB: How does one “sell” this agreement to the Russian society? We’re reducing and they are storing the warheads.

NZ: Russia is currently storing warheads and no one is preventing it from doing that in the future. No one even knows how many thousands of warheads Russia has; this is still a secret. There are also technical aspects. The Americans think that Russian warhead production capabilities are immeasurably higher than their own. Russia has a different technology and a different philosophy regarding changing the warheads. I feel that the question of warheads was played up by the Russian side to be used as a bargaining chip. As a result, Russia got an official government document, not just an agreement between the presidents. But there is no real significance to the issue of destroying the warheads.

What we need to formulate first of all is a foundation of common values. This is a painful, lengthy and difficult process; there is still a high level of distrust. The Americans have abandoned Russia many times, Russia has abandoned America. But I don’t believe that Russian people are anti-American. The elite -- yes, including the media. Today we need to openly admit that the improvement of Russian-American relations depends on domestic changes in Russia. New Russian priorities will not be based on the number of rockets owned. US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice compares today’s situation with the period of 1945-1947. There is a chance to form something new. The only thing that worries the Americans is the fact that they don’t want another Peter The Great in Russia -- someone who would cut a window to Europe, and come back to hang his men. Such things no longer work.

(translated by Luba Schwartzman)

BACK TO THE TOP    #211 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION