#1
Trud
No. 16
January 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
NEW CHALLENGES FOR RUSSIA IN 2003
Fyodor LUKYANOV, Editor-in-Chief, Russia In A Global World magazine

The year 2003 will seriously test the Russian foreign policy, to be more precise, it's course on improving relations with the West. The world arena is being prepared for a rerun of the "performance" that premiered 12 years ago. In January 1991, the international coalition lead by Washington punished Baghdad with the "Desert Storm" for its impudent occupation of Kuwait and blatant disrespect for the will of the world community. The current actors on the stage are the same - the United States, Saddam Hussein and the international coalition.

The American part of the troupe has all familiar faces - Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, even George Bush, although Junior, this time. The plot, in general, is also the same - the protection of the world from a dictator, who is wielding the weapons of mass destruction. But the similarity appears only on the surface. A closer look reveals that if the first battle in the Persian Gulf united the world (for the first time in half a century Moscow and Washington stayed on the same side of the barricades), then the second one might actually destroy the seemingly established alliance against global threats.

If the United States decides to go all the way in its attempt to topple Saddam's regime, it won't wait for the UN Security Council sanctions and the "guilty" verdict from the UN inspectors. The USA is convinced that Saddam Hussein is a cunning villain, and presumption of innocence does not apply to him. Neither the UN, nor Europe, indignant at warmongering intentions of the White House, and even less so Russia, could stop Washington from waging a war against Iraq. However, we have to admit that normal relations with the only existing superpower are more important for Russia at present than the fate of an old friend of the former Soviet Union - Saddam Hussein.

Maybe it sounds rather cynical, but there is no point in wasting too much effort trying to prevent the war. The hopes to receive some guarantees that the United States would respect Russia's economic interests in post-Saddam's Iraq (for example, acknowledge business contracts of Russian companies) are quite naive, as well. Not for nothing did the American oil industry giants support Bush from the very start of his election campaign, as they had no intention of sharing the spoils of his presidency with somebody else.

Could we convert our "passive" stand on Iraqi issue into some "dividends" in other spheres? We are sort of promised to meet more understanding on the issue of the fight against terrorism in the Northern Caucasus - the US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage hinted on that possibility, having acknowledged Russia's right for preventive defense (two months ago, Moscow considered the scenario where it would let the Americans strike against Iraq, if the USA would "give Russia a green light" for a military operation in Pankisi gorge)...In any case, we shouldn't delude ourselves. If once in a while Washington puts human rights issue in the second place to attain pressing goals, it has a tendency to quickly put it in front of everything else again, because, after all, this issue is the cornerstone of Western democracy.

In general, the problems facing Russia are quite far from "hot spots" concerning the United States - Iraq and North Korea, which blatantly challenges the world with its nuclear program. Apart from Chechnya that, unfortunately, still remains not only an internal, but also an international factor, the major problems for Russia are the relations with key CIS partners, primarily with Ukraine, and the perspectives of cooperation with the European Union.

2003 has been named the Year of Russia in Ukraine, but in reality this year promises to bring a decisive fight for power, because the confrontation between influential groups will reach it apogee on the eve of the 2004 presidential elections. Moscow has too many interests in the neighboring country to watch apathetically the raging political battle there. The West, and primarily the EU, which, having swallowed the major part of Central Europe, starts casting "hungry" glances further east, is also concerned about the outcome of this battle.

Moreover, the compromise on the Kaliningrad issue, which has been nominally achieved between Moscow and Brussels, in reality, has just temporarily camouflaged the potential conflict. The European Union continues to spread at a steady pace. We are witnessing close to our border the birth of a giant community with the population of half a billion people that will live according to unified laws and rules. And Russia will have to adjust to coexistence with this colossus, because it's basically pointless to bargain with Brussels. The European Union is basically not capable of correcting the decisions taken as a result of a painful bureaucratic process of endless consultations involving 15 countries at present and 25 countries in the near future. After they have formulated the final position, it's basically unrealistic to try and influence it from the outside.

It's hard to find a common language in the dialogue with the EU; sometimes it's rather unpleasant. But Russia has to do just that, because Europe is our biggest trade partner and our interests will inevitably either collide or coincide in the future. Whenever we learn to cooperate with the EU and to defend our interests in the context of the legal rules existing in Europe (the ones that transformed the Old World into a prosperous and democratic continent), we would secure a reliable base for our future progress.

BACK TO THE TOP    #242 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE