#2
Smysl
No. 3
March 2003
[translatoin from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
WHAT CAUSED THE CHANGE IN RUSSIA'S FOREIGN POLICY,
PRAGMATISM OR IDEALISM?
By Lidia ANDRUSENKO
It seemed only recently that nobody would resist the US military plans in
Iraq. The Americans claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein produced mass
destruction weapons and was connected with al-Qaeda (the latter is the gravest
sin now). It was the only thing that encouraged the consolidation of all
civilised countries, which call themselves the counter-terrorist coalition.
The coalition is the life jacket for Russia, whose active work there allowed
it to regain the status of an influential power. The dividends it gained from
this, just as the role of the USA in involving Russia in the Euro-Atlantic
alliance, cannot be overestimated. Though this does not bind Russia in any way,
we know that it will have to pay. Fulfilling the main obligation to George Bush,
Vladimir Putin led Russia in the wake of the US policy and many other countries
did the same. But the superpower ambitions of the Russian elite have not
disappeared. Besides, as the saying goes, a good solider must strive to become a
general.
Some media claim that until recently Moscow and Washington had been
discussing intensively what Russia would gain from the fall of Saddam's regime.
This means that Bush was assured of Putin's support on the Iraqi issue. Judging
by what Vladimir Putin said in Kiev, he planned to remain a loyal partner of the
USA. It is not clear what changed his mood. Maybe his advisers reminded him
about Kosovo, where Russia had been promised a lot but got nothing.
The Russian president's love for Germany and his special feelings for France
cannot explain the signing of the tripartite declaration on Iraq in Paris. And
the forthcoming presidential elections have nothing to do with this either, the
more so that Russia has never been strongly pro-Iraqi. Rather, we can assume the
existence of short-term considerations (the longer the struggle for peace lasts,
the more the Russian budget, which directly depends on oil prices, will gain)
and the undying Russian idealism. The latter is connected with the influence of
Yevgeny Primakov and his team in the Foreign Ministry. It was Primakov's idea of
the multipolar world that Vladimir Putin put forth in the interview with the
French TF1 television channel.
However, it would be unwise to give up partnership with the USA in favour of
regional leaders of the Old World. For the unipolar world has not ceded its
positions yet and will not do so, if at all, as soon as we would like it to. The
split of the European Union and the fissure in NATO do not mean that these
Western systems failed the test by Iraq and are disintegrating. The only thing
that can disintegrate in the current situation is the counter-terrorist
coalition.
Russia badly wants to become integrated, on an equitable and mutually
beneficial basis, in the global and above all European structures. And Europe,
if it really wants to become an independent centre of influence, should closely
collaborate with Russia. But Russia's role in the international community
directly depends on collaboration with the USA. So, we should not change our
strategic bearings even despite the growing anti-American sentiments. Besides,
each country pursues its own interests in the Iraqi crisis.
Vladimir Putin is facing an impossible task of preserving the role of an
influential player without quarrelling with the USA. The president will succeed
only if he helps Bush to save his face - because Putin's own face depends on
this. Vladimir Putin plans to make an official visit to the USA in late March
(unless the war breaks out). Will it be a meeting of friends and partners in the
counter-terrorist coalition or a protocol visit of courtesy?
BACK TO THE TOP  #247 CONTENTS NEXT ARTICLE
|
