#11
Izvestia
April 18, 2003
DICK MORRIS, PRESIDENT-MAKER: WE NEED A BUSH-BLAIR-PUTIN COALITION
An interview with American political consultant Dick Morris
Author: Georgy Bovt, Vartan Tonoian
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

DICK MORRIS IS ONE OF AMERICA'S MOST INFLUENTIAL AND SUCCESSFUL POLITICAL CONSULTANTS. HERE HE DISCUSSES THE WAR IN IRAQ, THE CHANGING ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, THE TERRORIST THREAT, AND RUSSIA'S RESPONSE. HE ALSO COMMENTS ON RUSSIAN ELECTIONS AND PRESIDENT PUTIN'S IMAGE.

Dick Morris is one of America's most influential and successful political consultants. Some even call him the most influential private citizen in America. He has worked with many, managing 30 election campaigns for Congress alone. But his major client was Bill Clinton. When we asked him in this interview whether he might consider getting involved in Russia's elections, Morris joked: "Only if those guys hire me."

Question: At the start of the war, public opinion worldwide was against the United States. But now there are far fewer protests; and now that scenes of widespread looting have been broadcast around the world, public opinion may change to some extent. By the way, were those scenes given so much publicity deliberately at all?

Dick Morris: The looting isn't that important. These people have lived in poverty for a long time. But it is important that the Iraqis really did want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They really did fear him, and now they feel free. This justifies Bush in many respects.

Question: But Bush didn't secure United Nations approval.

Dick Morris: When you say "United Nations", you mean that France did not agree. But why should the US ask France's permission?

Question: Actually, Russia and China didn't agree either.

Dick Morris: China is ruled by an unelected, authoritarian regime. So the Chinese government can't act as arbiter for what the US does. The US acted in self-defense; it was aware of the terrorist threat, just as you were when the Chechen terrorists seized the theater center. After September 11, Putin supported the US in the war in Afghanistan, he was a friend to the US. But then he made the mistake of following Chirac. But Russia's future lies with the US, not with Europe. Over the next 30 years, Europe will lose a quarter of its population; unemployment there is over 10%, and economic growth is low. But Russia and America are among the most dynamic states in the world.

Question: Most of the Russian elite considers that we should become integrated into Europe. And most of Russia's foreign trade is with Europe - around 60%. The proportion of trade with the United States is much lower.

Dick Morris: That's an outdated point of view. Even if most of Russia's trade is with Europe, in the long term Europe's global role will fade.

Question: What about Eastern Europe?

Dick Morris: Eastern Europe will experience enormous economic growth. But that is not part of Old Europe. And the United Nations, that artificially-created organization, has grown obsolete. Why should France have veto power, while Japan isn't a member of the Security Council? Why should China's unelected government have so much power in the UN? It would be more appropriate now to resolve global issues via contact between the world's leading states. During World War II, the most important decisions were made by Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. Now it's possible to create a coalition of Bush, Blair, and Putin. In the wake of the war in Iraq, the United Nations is dead. We might ask it to perform some insignificant service someplace like East Timor. But no one will turn to the UN Security Council with a serious problem again.

Question: Do you think Putin could have - or still can - change his position? For example, Russia used to speak of Iraq owing it $8 billion - but now Putin is saying this debt might be written off.

Dick Morris: This may be evidence that his position is changing. Global issues are now decided in the Oval Office of the White House, not in the UN. We are extending an invitation to Russia, just as we are to Tony Blair. Rather than fixating on Europe, take a broader view of the world. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is more of a threat to Russia than to the United States. After all, we don't have a border with Iraq or other nations where Islamic extremists may arise. But you do.

Question: But they're not out to destroy the Kremlin so far, whereas the World Trade Center in New York has already been destroyed.

Dick Morris: They wanted to destroy the theater center in Moscow. They killed 20,000 of your soldiers in Chechnya and 40,000 in Afghanistan. You have sustained damage no less than we have.

Question: Don't you think Bush's popularity may fall rapidly, as his father's did after the war in 1991?

Dick Morris: Perhaps, but for a different reason. Most Americans support everything Bush is doing with the war, but not in domestic politics. For example, I don't agree with any of his policies at home, but I agree with all of his foreign policy. It sometimes happens in politics that people lose due to their own success, not because they make mistakes. Gorbachev succeeded in reforming the Soviet system, but he was unable to reform the economy. Yeltsin tried to consolidate support for democracy, but he had to go because he allowed corruption to flourish.

Question: And Putin? Have you been following his image as it takes shape? Imagine he's your client...

Dick Morris: Putin understands that Russia's essence is power, strength. He understands that the Russian people want their leaders to be strong. But in breaking away from the United States, he missed the opportunity to return Russia to the world stage as one of the leading states.

Question: But public opinion in Russia has been against the United States in this war. Most likely, only around 5% of Russian citizens wanted the Americans to win.

Dick Morris: A real politician ought to lead public opinion. He should defend his course before society. The British public was also opposed to the war, but Blair overcome that. Putin lost an opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership. He should have persuaded the Russian people of the terrorist threat to Russia, drawn clear parallels between Chechnya and Iraq, and explained that all terrorists are made of the same clay. Perhaps some people would have greatly disliked this. But if I were Putin, I would have risked it, sacrificing some support in the short run for the sake of gaining much greater support in the long run.

Question: Are you following Russia's political campaigns?

Dick Morris: They are very complicated. Your voters are aware of the choices they are being offered. They seem to have a kind of genius gene, an almost mystical thing based on life experience. Russian voters show a staggering ability to make the right choice. They did it in 1996 when they re-elected Yeltsin, with all his problems, and again when they elected Putin.

Question: Are there any universally-applicable methods of running election campaigns, used in both Russia and America?

Dick Morris: Yes. Most of the techniques are similar. A politician should take a clear stand on all key issues. That's the only way to win votes. In opposing corruption and bureaucracy, Putin has positioned himself very well.

Question: Is his positioning good on specific issues, or in terms of his image? In your book, you say that issues are more important than image.

Dick Morris: Issues shape the image, so to speak. Image is reputation. Reputation depends on conduct. Conduct depends on repetition. You do something once, then do it over and over again. It becomes part of your reputation, and then part of your image.

Question: You don't see any gap between Putin's actions, his image, and repetition?

Dick Morris: In Putin's case, the ability to reconcile democracy with strong leadership is very important. He is making effective use of the experience of both tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia, while grafting human rights and a democratic future onto that.

(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)

BACK TO THE TOP    #253 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE