#3
SERGEI ROGOV, DIRECTOR OF THE USA AND CANADA INSTITUTE, RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, TALKS TO RIA NOVOSTI ANALYST MARIANNA BELENKAYA
RIA Novosti
November 21, 2002

QUESTION: US and Russian presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin are meeting on Friday. What "sharp angles", if any, now exist in relations between the two countries?

ANSWER: Russia and the US have some issues over which they disagree. We and the Americans do not exactly see eye to eye on the Iraqi issue, and on a number of other problems. Far from all in Russia rejoice at NATO's expansion, and problems also exist in the military and political field. But their existence does not alter the central feature -- that today we are witnessing the consolidation of a new model of Russian-American relations, a partner-like model, one that emerged following September 11, with Russia and the US recognising a common enemy -- international terrorism -- and acknowledging common interests in other fields as well.

Many believed that this is a passing phenomenon, that it is only a tactical coincidence, and in a few months' time, with the Taliban regime and Al-Qaeda network crushed, Russian-American relations would return to their former state, dominated by differences rather than coincidence of interests. But this did not happen. Today our relations are dominated by common interests.

At their meeting Bush and Putin will naturally discuss not only the issues on which the sides see partly eye to eye, but also unsolved problems, in particular in the economy, still plagued by the Jackson-Vanik amendment, still seeing no trade or investment growth, despite very enthusiastic statements. Here, however, I must make a correction.

This year Russia invested eight billion dollars in the US, and the US to Russia only 800 million. That is, we are now supplying capital to America. But all these questions can be described as normal problems which always exist between partners and are solved without crises or conflicts -- through routine business negotiations.

QUESTION: Can we say that Russia and US relations are much closer than those between NATO allies?

ANSWER: Indeed, the Europeans and the Americans have very serious disagreements, not only in the economy, where the European Union and the United States have always been main rivals, but also in the political area. And here I can state that on some issues Russia and the US are closer to each other. This concerns many aspects of the struggle against international terrorism and some other issues of global security, where the Europeans hold a position different from the US, or do not show a particular interest in these problems at all.

But on other major problems, such as the role of the UN, or the UN Security Council in the modern world, and the Iraqi issue, Russia and Europe are closer than the US and Europe or the US and Russia. We now have a kind of triangle -- Russia, the United States and Europe -- where on most issues the sides are agreed and understand each other, but on some there are discrepancies. A distinctive feature of the present-day situation is that our disagreements with America and the European Union are not greater than those between the US and the EU, and in some instances the differences among western allies are much more serious.

QUESTION: What option in Iraq will suit the US -- an obedient Baghdad or one resisting inspections? What is actually wanted by the US from Iraq?

ANSWER: So far we are seeing signs that the US is preparing to use military force to solve the problem. It is building up its military grouping in the region. Today the Americans do not have enough strength and weapons to pursue a major campaign. In a few months time such a grouping will be created, by the deadline set for inspections. A variety of options are possible. If the inspections reveal that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction /WMD/ and Iraq discontinued their development programmes, this will dispense with the excuse for a military action. In the US there are people who are for toppling Saddam Hussein whatever the outcome, but I think they will find it difficult to gain the upper hand in debates inside Washington and launch a war if it were proved that Iraq has no WMD.

QUESTION: You mean to say, Washington does not need a military solution to the Iraqi problem?

ANSWER: Different groups in Washington give different assessments of the situation. And if the inspections show that Iraq does have WMD then the use of force will become very likely. If the inspections present convincing evidence that Iraq is violating the UN resolutions, then, as 10 years ago, the UN Security Council may mandate the use of force against Baghdad. But if the outcome of inspections is inarticulate and unpersuasive, then the Europeans, the Chinese and many others would not think that Iraq breached its commitments. And this is a case where the Americans may resort to unilateral action. That is, the party of war in Washington in the case of unclear reports from international inspectors would undertake an international forceful action without a new UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: Last week US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the ultimate goal of US policy in Iraq continues to be a replacement of the regime. Is that really so?

ANSWER: American leaders make all sorts of statements. Looking at what is said by Bush and for that matter by Powell, the problem they put forward, at least in words, is WMD. The Pentagon and some high-ranking members of the administration, for example Vice-President Cheney, keep on saying that the Saddam Hussein regime should be overthrown whether or not it has WMD. Washington lacks a uniform position today, with infighting going on within the administration on this and other issues. And depending on the situation, now one line and now another gets the upper hand.

A few months ago, say, in August-September it seemed the party of war was gaining, but the administration's policy, under pressure from the State Department, under pressure from Powell, was adjusted, and the United States agreed to the UN Security Council adopting a compromise resolution. But the situation may in a few months' time undergo some drastic change.

QUESTION: This situation is changing because of domestic political problems in the US?

ANSWER: A dynamic behind American policy is a US desire to assert its role in the world arena as the sole superpower. This is the official doctrine of the Bush administration. Some members of the administration put their emphasis on military instruments. More moderate quarters propose using diplomatic, economic and military levers. It is within these boundaries that we see fluctuations.

Bush does not need war to win the 2004 presidential elections. It may be recalled that his father -- George Bush Sr -- lost the 1992 president election, although he won the Cold War and the Persian Gulf war. Outcome of elections in the US is practically never decided by foreign policy issues.

QUESTION: Won't Bush's foreign policy doctrine clash in time with the Russian foreign policy line?

ANSWER: Bush's foreign policy doctrine, proclaiming the role of the US as the only superpower, is in contradiction with the positions taken by all other countries. No one wishes to concede as a norm the situation when one state decides for all. Neither we, nor the Europeans, nor the Chinese agree with that. Hence inevitable friction, inevitable differences in the positions of the sides. But any doctrine, I want to remind you, is a declarative document. Real politics never matches the doctrine, it is connected with circumstances or some or other factors associated both with domestic political issues and with an alignment of forces on the world stage.

BACK TO THE TOP    #232 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE