- ONE HAS TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ. POLAND WAS PREPARED TO PAY, AND RUSSIA REFUSED. RUSSIA'S PRINCIPLED ANTI-WAR STANCE NARROWED ITS INFLUENCE WITH POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION. HAD RUSSIA JOINED THE COALITION EARLIER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE INFLUENTIAL AND HAD ITS INTERESTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO A GREATER DEGREE.

Question: There is the myth that presidents Putin and Bush used to be friends but their friendship was marred by the Iraqi campaign. Is their meeting in St. Petersburg supposed to restore mutual trust?

Dmitry Simes: I would not call friendship between Putin and Bush a myth. They are different people of course, but I think that their mutual liking is sincere, to the extent this is possible between leaders of sovereign states. I'm convinced that at least the American leader's liking for Putin is not a myth. Even close relatives managing major companies are mostly guided by interests of their businesses, not by personal likes or dislikes.

Friendship is important when the matter concerns serious interests of important countries. Friendship may smooth out some things and help to better understand others. On the other hand, no friendship can do away with actual differences in points of view based on substantial information and substantial interests.

Question: But Rice and Powell came to Moscow first and visited other countries objecting to the war on Iraq only afterwards. Moscow sees it as appreciation of its importance for the United States. Bush is also meeting with Putin first and with Europeans next. Is there a logical explanation for that?

Dmitry Simes: The quarrel with Russia was not as serious as the one with France. After all, France is our NATO ally, and we expected it to do better than that. When an ally takes such a stand on a matter, when it actually tries to form an alliance against its NATO partner, it is something that we can understand less than, say, discord with Russia as a recent antagonist. The situation with Germany is different. Chancellor Schroeder and some members of his Cabinet took matters to the personal level, clearly trying to retain their positions on a wave of anti-Americanism. Needless to say, Washington was not particularly happy. As for the discord with Russia, both countries believe that the other side might have found a better solution - but that is not something that generates irritation and indignation over the behavior of the other side.

Question: Russia's pride is hurt, since "even Poland" is involved in Iraq's post-war affairs. When is Russia to be told in no uncertain terms that it will not be involved in Iraq, that the new regime will not honor its debts, and that the so-called interests of Russian companies in this country are history?

Dmitry Simes: I would not put it that way - "even Poland". Poland joined the anti-Iraq coalition almost from the very start, and therefore wields certain powers as a participant in reconstruction. One has to pay for the privilege of participating in the future of Iraq. Poland was prepared to pay, and Russia refused. I do not criticize Russia - it had its own considerations. On the other hand, Russia's principled anti-war stance narrowed its influence with post- war reconstruction. This doesn't mean that Russia will play no role at all, or that its interests will be absolutely disregarded. Had Russia joined the coalition earlier, it would have been more influential and had its interests taken into account to a greater degree. Negotiations over Russia's participation must be held with the coalition of winners, the very same coalition Russia itself refused to join.

Question: President Putin's opponents - and some supporters too - attribute Moscow's position in the matter of Iraq to its fears that Russia itself is on the list, the list beginning with Yugoslavia, Iraq, and so on. After all, Russia was on the list of enemies less than two years ago.

Dmitry Simes: Even if Putin did have these fears, he did not share them with me. What I know about him, however, persuades me that this is not his point of view. In military terms, Russia is no Iraq. Even had anyone in the United States entertained the idea of attacking Russia, I can assure you that this is not something anyone in the US Administration has ever considered.

Question: Repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment was on the agenda before the summit a year ago. It has never been abolished.

Dmitry Simes: No, it has not and I think it a mistake. The problem is that America is a democracy where the Congress plays a very important role. It includes 575 state secretaries (that's how they see themselves) who promote interests of their own states, constituencies, and pressure groups. As for the US Administration, I believe that it could have done more at its own level to do away with the amendment, which has long since become pointless. On the other hand, the amendment itself has a purely symbolic meaning nowadays.

Question: What does the amendment really prevent?

Dmitry Simes: Nothing. It merely grates on Russia's pride. Besides, it does not reflect the true nature of US-Russian relations now or the fact that Russia is a free market country. Had the amendment been a true obstacle, the president would have made it his priority and would have done everything necessary to persuade the Congress to repeal it.

Question: St. Petersburg lawmakers objected to Bush being invited to their city. Will this have any effect on the prospects of the summit? What does Washington think?

Dmitry Simes: There are some cities and districts in America that do not want Bush to visit them either. They even pass resolutions to that effect, but all these resolutions do not really matter because American cities cannot restrict the freedom of movement of either Americans or foreigners. When it happens in America, the media regards it with skepticism. Same thing here.

Question: What does the United States think about George Soros's decision to convert his fortune into euros?

Dmitry Simes: George Soros is a wealthy man, and the rich always interest the public, like opera singers or famous soccer players. It does not mean, however, that a wealthy person's every move or decision is the height of wisdom. Soros is a financial profiteer, that's how he made his fortune in the first place. He believes that this conversion is needed now. Well, he has launched a lot of unsuccessful campaigns over the last few years. His trusts have lost a great deal of money... His opinion is nothing extraordinary as far as America is concerned. Soros is a major financier, one of many. He is successful, but not the most successful of all.

CDI Russia Weekly #259 ~ Contents  •  Next