#5567
[Second Issue of the Day]
#13
Versty
No. 136
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIA IN THE CHANGED WORLD
The recent events revived the interest of Russian citizens for international affairs and the foreign policy aspect has turned into well nigh the main issue of the domestic policy. The Post Scriptum television show, working with the assistance of the Fatherland organisation, decided to hold a round table on this subject. The questions on the agenda were: Will Putin walk in Gorbachev's footsteps? And what will be long-term consequences of the Putin-Bush summit? We offer you excerpts from the speeches made by some participants.
Alexei PUSHKOV, creator and director of the Post Scriptum show:
Must the USA be the sole leader of the new globalising system? Of the world that is prepared to be modernised and globalised? So far, the USA is carrying on the old concept of creating an American world, the American Commonwealth.
What is the key issue here? The USA sees the current globalisation process largely from the viewpoint of the old balance of forces. The old policy from positions of strength is a great survivor. It is well seen in the Bush administration, which has a powerful neo-conservative branch that calls for the creation of a global American fortress, that is, the USA reinforced with its allies.
It has become apparent that Russia is joining the globalising world. It would be silly to remain outside a cause that seems good. The more so that the alternative is a group of the poorest countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. But the main question is: Are we joining the process as an addition to the American wagon or are we trying to bring along our own wagon? This is the essence of debates that are gathering momentum in Russia.
It has become fashionable to say that the Americans are elaborating a multifaceted foreign policy. Nuts. They are pursuing a lop-sided foreign policy which they say is multifaceted. They choose flexible forms of encouraging other countries to join a coalition - but only under their control.
As I see it, Putin has joined the game in order to add more facets to the US foreign policy. We cannot force the USA and NATO to understand our national interests. This is a major danger.
It is true that we are part of one world, but inside this world we will seriously uphold our views as to the direction in which the world should move. Otherwise we will become America's hostages. We should join the coalition with the USA without giving it the full freedom of action, without giving the green light to a world American style. Because we will remain on the outskirts in such unbalanced world.
Gleb PAVLOVSKY, director of the Effective Politics foundation:
The sides cannot handle the giant class of threats that appeared after September 11. I mean above all the USA and Russia. This is why they are waiting impatiently for the other members of the world community to see that they face the same threats. Threats are the same in Europe and America. But Europeans cannot accept this yet. Threats facing China are the same as the threats facing the USA and Russia. But China categorically rejects this truth.
The USA and Russia could have moved towards a global review of the world order and towards the use of force in an informal but perfectly apparent manner. There have always been shadow agreements, but now the sides have come to a kind of accord. Alas, they say, we have no time to come to an agreement; we must simply use force and backdate its use later.
But it is apparent what this could lead to - a global coalition of the opponents of such attitude.
This is why the sides feared going too far at the summit. They don't have the requisite amount of diplomatic, international-legal and power instruments for this. The power instruments of the strongest players are not fit for the current systematic strategic struggle against new threats.
The summit produced a delayed-action result for the USA and Russia. The sides saw what issues they wanted to discuss but feared discussing them.
The informal review of the world order is underway. And it will be irreversible. Sovereign nations are running to catch up with non-state, non-national and non-law subjects. Here is how I would formulate the task: Russia cannot allow America to catch up with the modern network terrorism without it. The first to catch up with terrorism will make short shrift of everyone else.
Alexander SHABANOV (Communist Party), deputy chairman of the State Duma committee on international affairs:
To answer this question, we must admit that the world is at the edge of a third world war. September 11 means that a new and so far undefined force has appeared on the world scene. The retaliation strike strategy was elaborated by the US administration, the Pentagon and the State Department. How will the situation develop? Do Russia and president Putin know about it?
I believe that the results of the operation in Afghanistan are nil. But the US leaders state that this is only the beginning of a powerful global strike back at this new force. Will the geography of hostilities expand? This is the key question. If Iraq is attacked - and it is named among the priority targets - it will provoke a tragedy. And my forecast of a third world war will come true.
Pakistan, which is located well nigh in the zero ground of hostilities, can be destabilised. How would we forecast the future of the Pakistan-India-China link? Did Putin and Bush discuss this? If they did and if they discussed the best way to act in this situation and the role of each side in it, one can say that we are witnessing the strategic rapprochement of Russia and the USA.
As for walking in Gorbachev's steps, I would phrase the question differently: Will Russia repeat the fate of the Soviet Union? If Putin is walking in Gorbachev's footsteps, it means that Russia will disintegrate as the Soviet Union did. Which did not engender any protest from the USA and the leading European powers. They admitted that the Belovezhskaya Pushcha agreement put an end to the Soviet Union and to the political career of Gorbachev. He was thrown to the wolves because he had played his part.
Alexander TSIPKO, political analyst of Literaturnaya Gazeta:
All our forecasts are methodologically imperfect because they disregard the main uncertainty: the subject of analysis, the American political elite, is not homogeneous. This explains what I see as a bad question about Putin walking in Gorbachev's footsteps. The wrong wording. The USA did not throw Gorbachev to the wolves. I had spent a long time in the USA in 1990 and at that time they had no intention of encouraging the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
There are enemies of communism and enemies of Russia in the American elite. The distinction is very important. If the transcendental enemies of Russia who see Russia as the surviving bearer of "great power chauvinism," as a threat to itself take the upper hand in the US elite, we must part ways with the USA.
If the Americans start bombing Iraq, Shabanov will be proved right. Many people in the USA demand that the counter-terrorist operation be turned into an all-out war against Islamic fundamentalism, which is seen as the fundamental enemy of freedom that must be destroyed once and for all. President Bush and State Secretary Powell are even accused of acting with regard to terrorists as Chamberlain acted with regard to Hitler in 1938. If this policy takes the upper hand, if a war is launched against Islamic fundamentalism as such, we must withdraw from the coalition, because the situation will enter a phase of extreme uncertainty with numerous unknown quantities. The more so that Russia is a Eurasian country where Moslems constitute 16-18% of the population.
Irina KHAKAMADA (SPS - Union of Right Forces), vice-speaker of the State Duma:
After September 11 the USA for the first time developed a national interest for having Russia as an ally. Of course, we must not miss this historical chance, we must use it but we must act professionally, taking wise steps to win an edge in this political game of chess. It is another matter that we must act so as not to lose in this game.
This raises a serious question of the professionalism of our political and economic diplomacy. We have become accustomed to blaming a shift for our mistakes on that somebody betrayed us again. But each historical stage calls for corresponding skills. Today we need the skills of a fundamentally new level.
This is a subjective factor and I think few people notice it. But if we want to join the globalising world and take a befitting place in it, the implementation of our strategy will depend on many subjective factors. Take the issue of WTO membership. If we join it, our national economic policy will need to be tuned very finely; we will need to learn to use all instruments of operation in conditions of open competition extremely professionally.
As for Putin walking in Gorbachev's footsteps, I think everything will depend on his personnel policy. If he knocks together a professional team that will be adequate to new challenges, he will win. If his team will be weak, he will lose and repeat the fate of Gorbachev.
Igor YURGENS, vice-president and executive secretary of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs:
While becoming closer with the USA, we should at the same time maintain a certain balance in relations with three poles of power - America, Europe and China. The strengthening of our positions in the world depends on this. When you are relatively weak, you should get a strong ally. And it would not be wise to search for such ally only in one place.
The long-term consequences of the summit will largely depend on us. If we carry out constitutional reforms, which are being discussed now, if the investment climate in Russia facilitates business, few people will be interested in the practical results of such summits. Today we are generating about 100 billion roubles in investments and can easily double or treble this sum in two or three years of skilful reforms.
A so-called Russo-American business dialogue was held within the framework of the Putin-Bush summit. We talked about steel, aviation, telephone communications, insurance and banking. These five sectors are highly sensitive spheres of the Russian economy and we will not surrender them while entering the WTO. In general, I am not for a quick entry to the WTO. I am for a wise entry. But Russian bureaucracy can play a highly negative role in this sphere, as well as in the issue of the creation of a common European economic space. The parliament should very closely monitor these vital issues.
As for Putin walking in Gorbachev's footsteps, they are two different people. Gorbachev was too provincial. Besides, Putin heads a fundamentally different country. Even if his professional skills fail him, we now have a class interest that we did not have in 1985. We have the interest of large owners, however small their group may seem. This class wants to become a part of the global civilisation. But the conditions of doing this are quite another matter. This class will fight to the last drop of blood for these conditions, unlike the disintegrating elite that had rallied around Gorbachev.
Alexander VLADISLAVLEV, secretary of the political council of the Fatherland movement:
To me, ABM was not the main thing that happened at the summit. Talking about Bush's homework (the reduction of nuclear missiles to a certain ceiling) was absurd in itself. The remaining arsenal will suffice to destroy the global civilisation many times over.
To me, the main thing was that we launched a dialogue on countering the global threats that are facing humankind now. This is not a military or a political problem. It is above all a major humanitarian problem. Russia could offer the world a certain humanitarian plan, which could become the core of what the Rome Club and the Institute of Life did 30-40 years ago.
Alexei MITROFANOV, State Duma deputy (Liberal Democratic Party):
September 11 marked the defeat of military might and the ideology of military preparations as such. It turned out that one can do without missile silos and mobile systems, but simply send letters with virus dust inside. And in this way reveal the weakness of the adversary despite its ABM systems.
There is no terrorism, of course. The West is facing resistance, above all the resistance of the Moslem world. This confrontation will not last a year or two. The conflict can grow in scale and acquire new forms.
The West will now need Russia for many years to come. This is the element that distinguishes the current situation from the situation of 10-12 years ago. Russia is acquiring a niche in the Western community. It is the role of "first lieutenant" of the USA on power problems. This is the role they may offer Putin.
If we work with Americans systematically, we will be able to claim a certain place in the world. This is an extremely dangerous but possible game. On one condition: if the Americans' problems will grow. There is a classical rule: Create problems for your neighbour and then help him resolve them. What Putin is doing is correct from the viewpoint of pragmatic logic. On the other hand, we must understand that if the US has no problems, the game will lose interest.
Academician Nikolai SHMELEV, director of the Institute of Europe (Russian Academy of Sciences):
The external factor is the improvement or worsening of relations with the West. What does it mean in view of the current economic situation in Russia? The bitter truth is that we received 1 dollar while 3 dollars left the country in the 1990s. Today there are 300 to 500 billion dollars of Russian money abroad; nobody knows for sure how much. This is the genuine problem.
The ultra-modern boys say: The less money in the country, the better. They are talking about full-scale currency liberalisation. To me, this sounds like the speech of madmen. According to official data, the price of the question amounts to 20-25 billion dollars a year, while the positive effect of joining the WTO will equal only 2.5 billion dollars. The correlation is 10:1.
The people have 40 to 100 billion dollars at home and nobody wants to deposit the money at Sberbank or commercial banks. The small man is our main investor. And the restoration of his trust for the state, its banking system and the rouble is much more important than relations with the USA.
Alexander SHOKHIN (People's Deputy group), chairman of the State Duma committee on credit organisations and stock markets:
The USA needs a strong Russia for several reasons. A disintegrating Russia would be a new threat, a new challenge that would further complicate the situation. The current situation differs fundamentally from the situation of 15 years ago, when the task was to weaken of the Soviet Union and facilitate its disintegration. Besides, the system of resisting new challenges and threats cannot be created without a stable and strong Russia.
Now for the results of the summit. Its economic results proceed from our past expectations. We seem to be the main US partner in the counter-terror coalition but we continue to ask for admission to the WTO on standard conditions with a transition period for the five economic sectors mentioned by Igor Yurgens. We would like to take up the problem of debt restructuring again in case of a bad economic situation. But this is more of a European problem. It seems that we don't know what to ask.
I believe that we should not advance any conditions for our joining the counter-terror coalition. We must not ask anything other than what we have determined as our trajectory of economic development. If we ask something over and above it, this should be certain non-standard technologies that would reinforce the irreversibility of our movement in the chosen direction.
We passed the point of no return on September 11. The first statements by high-ranking Russian officials (including brass hats) were made in the old spirit: Keep away from it. When Putin made his first statement on the new stand of Russia, he took a risk because his personal rating can differ from the rating of the ideas he advocates. If the elections were held next Sunday, what he did would have affected the rating of pro-presidential parties and the gap would have been made official. But there will hardly be early elections. Consequently, we have at least two years to try to gear public opinion and the stand of the elite to the stand of the president. The main idea for the elite should be that the new policy of Russia will allow it at least not to walk in Gorbachev's footsteps. That is, to preserve the integrity of Russia and ensure its smoother entry into the world community.
Back to the Top Next Issue
November 27, 2001:
#5566 #5567
- Back to the Top -