#8
Izvestia
February 27, 2003
ARON: AMERICA WILL ACT AS IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY
Leon Aron on the conflict over Iraq
Author: Yevgeny Bai
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

IN THEIR CLASH OVER IRAQ, THE US AND EUROPE ARE MORE DIVIDED THAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN SINCE THE COLD WAR. RUSSIA IS MOST LIKELY TO HAVE TO AVOID TAKING SIDES. HOWEVER, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY LEFT FOR RUSSIA TO REMAIN A GREAT POWER: COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES.

The noose of the Iraq crisis is tightening. Disputes between the US and its Western European allies, Germany and France, are at a peak. At the same time, US leaders are waiting for "positive signals" from Russia; Washington believes this might help to unblock the situation in the UN Security Council during the discussion of the Iraq issue. As we reported earlier, Alexander Voloshin, head of the presidential administration, is in Washington now. He held a meeting at the American Enterprise Institute, an influential think-tank representing political circles close to the White House. One of the participants in that meeting was Leon Aron, Russian studies director at the institute.

Question: How does Washington view Alexander Voloshin's visit?

Leon Aron: This visit is evidence of the fairly complex game Russia is playing, concerning Iraq, with both Americans and Europeans. So this game required some intervention from the top. But any visit by a president usually generates some expectations that may not be justified either. So, in my view, it was absolutely the right decision to send Putin's head of administration to Washington. Alexander Voloshin's visit is unofficial, but only a visit by Putin himself could have brought contacts to a higher level.

Question: What position does Washington expect from Russia during the discussion of the new resolution on Iraq in the UN Security Council?

Leon Aron: I see Russia's position specified enough. I expect that Russia will not veto the resolution submitted by Britain, the US, and Spain; it will abstain from voting. Thus Russia will reserve a sufficiently advantageous position for itself. Both sides will perceive the actions of Russia as a concession to them. According to the English proverb, half a loaf is better than none. Of course, the United States would be more pleased if Russia acted absolutely in the spirit of partnership that arose after September 11, 2001. At that time, the serious connection between the two countries was determined by the fact that they both were burnt with terrorism, whereas Europe kept aside from that misfortune. But we naturally understand that for inner-political considerations Moscow decided to conduct a more flexible policy, if you like.

Question: Inner-political considerations determine the position of the American administration as well. But there springs up a feeling that the sufficiently numerous choir of critics of war on Iraq is currently persistently hushed up. Is that so?

Leon Aron: Under the numerous amendments to the Constitution, freedom of speech, and vast diversity of local attitudes in the US, the concern that the administration had gone too far in its militarism can be understood, but it is not justified. The Patriot Act passed in America, that gives special agencies additional opportunities to monitor people suspected of relations with terrorists, was rejected in 30-40 counties in the US. Those who protest against the war do have access to the media to state their views.

I will try to define the views in America. It is simple enough. The US believes that humanity is confronting the question: does the world need a kind of policeman that would be able to prevent a threat to the very existence of the world? This threat can be presented, for example, by unstable regimes possessing nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction. This dilemma is absolutely new, it appeared as recently as fifteen years ago with the end of the Cold War. And the second question: if a world policeman is needed, who will perform this role? The US gave a positive answer to the first part of the question, and it believes that only it can handle this role. This is not the position of the present administration alone. It reflects the moods in the camps of the Democrats and the Republicans, America's political elite and the public. As for Europe, it gave negative answers to both these questions: the world does not need any policeman, the world can reach a voluntary settlement on everything. And if anything goes wrong, the policeman should not be one country, but a conglomerate of countries acting by UN decision.

Question: So - what next?

Leon Aron: America will act as it considers necessary. So will Europe. And there is no bridge between the positions. We have reached a strategic cross-roads. Both the US and Europe will take their policies through to the end. This is the most serious breach in relations between the two continents since the Cold War.

Question: However, if the conflict in Iraq is now resolved according to the American scenario, this might have disastrous consequences for both the US and Europe - that will no longer be able to fight Islamic extremists on their own.

Leon Aron: But other options are also possible. First, in its entire history the Arab world has had respect for the winner, and there is no doubt that the US will be the winner in the war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime is unpopular with most Iraqis, and it is certainly unpopular with his neighbors. I foresee no common wall of Arab countries against America's military campaign; many will only give a sigh of relief when Hussein's regime is overthrown.

Question: Coming back to the main topic of this conversation: do you think that strategic cooperation between the US and Russia will continue despite the war on Iraq?

Leon Aron: I believe so, yes. Perhaps there will be some halts. But I believe that the strategic goals of the two countries coincide. Not on all issues, to be sure, but for the most important positions of national security. The matter is primarily about countering Islamic extremism. Russia tried other methods. It has tried to create a Eurasian bloc, tried to strengthen relations with China, tried to build a multi-polar world. But none of that was a success. The only way for Russia to maintain the place of at least a great power, if not a superpower, in the modern world is by cooperating with America.

(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)

BACK TO THE TOP    #246 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE