#12
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 71
April 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
MODERATE CONSTRUCTIVE ISOLATIONISM FOR RUSSIA
Academician Nikolai SHMELEV, director of the Institute of Europe (Russian Academy of Sciences), talks with Yevgeny VERLIN about the new world order and the risks of the US project of "reforming" the Islamic world.

Question: What do you think about the Iraqi war?

Answer: I don't think the USA and its allies are guided by oil interests alone. They have something more in mind. Regrettably, I don't see a complicated design in their actions; I see only a desire to show who is the boss in the world and who will determine (by using above all military force) the future world order. It is nothing more than the arrogance of power.

It is an attempt to create a future world by the Pax Americana formula. But I am convinced that even such a powerful state as the USA does not have enough strength to attain hegemony on the global scale or even in Europe, Asia or the Middle and Near East.

Question: It appears, though, that nobody can keep back US domination. The world is speaking about the future US "targets" - Syria, North Korea and Iran.

Answer: It is possible that after defeating Iraq the USA, intoxicated with its success, would strive for other goals. But this will not happen quickly.

The multipolar world is developing in a natural way and the Americans can hardly do something about it. First, China is not dependent on or controlled by the USA and India is one more rising centre of power. And Europe, which is creating a kind of "United States of Europe," cannot be discarded either. And lastly, Russia, though it is a weak centre now, can join the "club" if it makes the effort.

Question: The Americans do not seem to be planning to quarrel with any of these centres. On the contrary, they say they are dealing with "the arch of instability" in the interests of all global players.

Answer: It is true that a vast region of instability and tensions has developed in the world. It includes the Middle and Near East, including such countries as Iran, as well as several Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. But I am sure that the USA and Britain do not know what constructive structure they can create there.

This certainly affects Russia and creates threats to it, but I would not dramatise them. For one, I believe that the Americans are smart enough not to interfere in the Caucasian conflict. If they decide to assume control of Central Asia, they will most probably bypass Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. As for the other Central Asian republics, they are not vital for the survival of Russia.

One way or another, it is clear that the main US forces will be concentrated in this direction for a long time to come.

Question: How should Russia act in this situation?

Answer: Extremely cautiously and carefully. The Americans sat "behind the fence" for 150 years, pursuing a strictly isolationist policy. Regrettably, Russia frequently interfered in things though it did not have the strength for this. We may come to accept, in the historical perspective, the mistake of excessive involvement in world affairs. We will eventually admit that we are facing challenging tasks of internal development (i.e. to create a normal federal state and a normal socially directed market economy and lead the public out of the quagmire of poverty and semi-poverty) and so have no time to squander on external problems.

The policy of moderate constructive isolationism would be the best choice for Russia in the short-term historic perspective. This does not mean that we should become self- centred. On the contrary, we should develop active cultural and economic relations with the external world. At the same time, we should pursue a policy of predominant non-interference in those developments beyond the national borders that are not directly connected with us or the spheres of our traditional influence (the CIS).

Question: With whom should we make friends, and against whom? We have not found the answer despite a serious consideration of this question.

Answer: The policy of moderate isolationism presupposes one more principle: make as many friends as possible. Partnership with the USA in all areas is still on the agenda, above all in the struggle against international terrorism. It is a common problem, and Russia and the USA are allies in resolving it, just as in the area of strategic stability and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We also have common interests in the economy and research-technical cooperation.

Question: Much is being said now about the nascent Russo-Franco-German alliance. Can this lead to the evolution of a Greater Europe as a counterbalance to America?

Answer: European integration in all areas is certainly a positive thing. But it would be opportunistic to hope for a split of the Western world. This will never happen. They will quarrel - and make peace, trying to determine all the while who is more and who is less pro-American. But they are an integral civilisation and nothing will change in the lifetime of two or three generations.

As for Russia and the EU, they need to cooperate with each other very much. But a common economic space is a goal for distant future. It is true that we have started talking about this, but we - meaning Russia - are not ready to spread the four basic freedoms - the freedom of the movement of commodities, services, people and capital - to this common space.

Question: Do you think that Europe will try to find a niche in the US-created unipolar world? The main "opponents" of the idea seem to be ceding their positions.

Answer: The erosion and weakening of NATO are apparent. But I don't think everyone in Europe would toe the line under the US banner. The creation of the United States of Europe will continue; US troops will eventually leave Europe and the USA and Europe will start talking as equals.

On the other hand, the division of Europe into "old" and "new" is apparent. The double impetus for the Central and East European countries is the historical fear of Russia and a desire to get something from the rich "uncle." Europe is trying to incorporate a host of "the ailing and poor," which want to get something from this.

Question: In other words, Europe is splitting?

Answer: There is a conflict between the new members of NATO and Europe but objective realities will eventually bring the "new" and the "old" parts of Europe together. The hope that the Americans will feed Eastern Europe and pay them handsomely for their current stand is an illusion. Practice shows that the Americans are not very generous.

So, I think that the main hopes of the new European countries are linked with Europe and not with the overseas "uncle," who would pull them out of the bog.

Question: Let's get back to the Iraqi war. How can it influence the global economy?

Answer: I would not panic. Our fears of plummeting oil prices are not justified. The Americans do not want oil to fall too low, for this would bury their own oil industry. I think the logical price would be 18-22 dollars per barrel.

But will the Americans protect themselves from the other consequences of the war? I doubt this. The operation in Afghanistan is not over yet, and the extremists and terrorists are very smart and nobody can vouch that they would not invent something more terrible than the September 11 terrorist attacks. Europe has become very vulnerable. If a war of civilisations breaks out, it will be difficult to say which side the large Moslem section of Western Europe would take.

Question: Maybe we should not wait for the terrorists to plan new attacks but do something to preclude them? The Americans say that Iraq is the pilot project of "reforming" the Arab world.

Answer: The trouble is that nobody can forecast the effects of this policy in the next 15-20 years. When such plans are made public, nobody thinks, for some reason, that the overwhelming majority of people in that region still linger way below the standards of the 21st century. They are a vast and poorly educated mass of peasants and urban plebes. They see no distinction between the 7th and the 21st century because very little has changed for them in between. And now they have been put in a situation where outsiders try to teach them democracy and management.

Question: So, you believe that the world is moving towards multipolarity despite the US "Iraqi project"?

Answer: Yes, but not because multipolarity is an "omnipotent and hence correct teaching." Simply, Pax Americana will not succeed. First, inevitable chaos in the Middle and Near East has been programmed for the next few years. And this will eventually bring the Americans to their senses. Second, China will never bow to the Americans. On the contrary, in 40-50 years the Americans may find themselves behind the Chinese. And Europeans will not move in the wake of the USA, a young and totalitarian democracy. It would be premature to "bury" the old civilisations of Europe and China.

Question: Yet the UN is dying, isn't it?

Answer: So it seems. The nascent dissolution of the UN is enough to justify Putin's description of the US attack on Iraq as "a gross mistake." The Americans will finish off the UN.

Question: And what will happen next?

Answer: When all come to their senses, they will create a new organisation to deal with security issues. But for some time - until the Americans get into trouble - quite possibly, there will not be any system-forming organisation in the sphere of international security.

Question: And when will the Americans get into trouble?

Answer: Maybe after Iran or Korea. Though China will do its best to ensure a peaceful settlement of the Korean conflict. Academician Nikita Moiseyev used to say that it is useless to try to see more than 15 years ahead, because something is bound to happen that will turn everything upside down.

BACK TO THE TOP    #253 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE