#5569 #5570
[Second Issue of the Day]
#1
U.S., Russia still need real alliance
By VLADIMIR PANTIN
(Vladimir Pantin is a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International
Relations of the Russian Foreign Ministry (MGIMO) and is a senior researcher at
the Institute of Sociological Analysis in Moscow.)
MOSCOW, Nov. 27 (UPI) -- Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the American response, the world has changed drastically. Daily events put people, in Russia as in America, on a roller coaster of hopes and fears.
Somehow in the face of these fears we have to discuss calmly the development of Russia-West relations, which are improving rapidly in their atmospherics, but whose foundations have still to be improved if the improvements are to last and our two countries are to realize enduring benefits.
It is not the military war but the "information war" that may be the most difficult part of this ongoing conflict with international terrorism. In many countries we find powerful political forces both supporting and opposing the American measures.
There are uniquely favorable conditions at this time for Russian-American cooperation, but they do not seem to be firm, constant, or consolidated in any sustainable organizational form.
The majority of Russians by now have the same horror of an unsuccessful outcome to this war as do Americans. They want close cooperation with America and Europe in order to give the struggle against terrorism a better chance of success.
A poll in October 2001 by the Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion, also known as VTsIOM) - the most authoritative Russian polling agency -- showed that 75 percent of Moscow residents think that Russia must take part in some of the measures of the international antiterrorist coalition while only 22 percent oppose Russia's participation.
At the same time, however, this poll shows a split in Russian opinion on the current bombing of Afghanistan: 41 percent supports it, 57 percent is against it. It is probably not anti-Americanism that explains the last number as fear of another unsuccessful war in Afghanistan.
There is in this terrible situation an opportunity for the United States that should not be overlooked. Only close cooperation between America, Europe and Russia can succeed in isolating the forces of international terrorism, and isolated they must be if this war is to succeed.
Russian experts on the Islamic world think the United States could make use of Russian contacts with Iran and several other Islamic countries in order to strengthen the joint effort against terrorism. This is important for avoiding a degeneration of the struggle into a conflict of civilizations, such as that predicted by Prof. Samuel Huntingdon.
Already, the United States has made use of Russian intelligence, connections with the Northern Alliance, and experience in Afghanistan. This has been an impressive beginning, and there is no reason for it to be left at that.
For the first time, favorable conditions are emerging for close cooperation not only between Russia and the United States but between Russia and NATO. A poll in October 2001 by the Public Opinion Foundation -- also a highly respected polling agency -- showed that 58 percent of Russians supported strengthening Russia's cooperation with NATO; only 18 percent were opposed, while 24 percent were unsure.
For the first time ever, Russian public opinion is abandoning its perception of NATO as an enemy, not just in a negative sense of no longer viewing it as a probable threat to Russian security, but in a positive sense of seeing it as a possible ally of Russian security. This is historic turnaround. It could lead to Russia's jointing the alliance.
This would answer many of the objections that are made by opposition politicians to Putin's policy of cooperating with NATO. They accuse him of not getting anything in return, not even pledges of Western support for Russia's security when Russia needs help. Pro-Western political figures like Alexander Shokhin have argued that membership in NATO would solve that problem.
Now the two sides have a common enemy. They did not go out looking for an enemy; the common enemy found them. With such a terrible enemy confronting both of them, the two former opponents can focus their minds on the urgent necessities of cooperation and transform their relationship.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to make practical allowance for the fact that the Russian public and political elite are not ready to give unconditional support to unilateral U.S. actions.
People ask, not only what will the United States do to punish the criminals, but what will be the consequences. They fear destabilization and worse terrorist attacks, just as Americans do. Nearly every day there are doctors on TV talking about chemical and biological warfare. And since Russians do not participate in deciding on U.S. actions, they can only fret nervously about whether the United States might make the wrong move.
In these conditions, there are risks. If U.S. actions lead to massive civilian casualties, while giving an impression of not having consulted seriously with Russia, public opinion could change drastically for the worse in Russia -- and in many other parts of the world.
Bombings against Iraq or other Arab countries also risk arousing negative reactions; here it would be important to have consultations and to give a persuasive presentation of evidence of guilt. The above-cited VTsIOM poll shows that 72 percent of Moscow residents would be against the United States bombing Iraq, Iran and Libya.
On the other hand, Russians would become fearful of destabilization of their own country if the United States ends up in an inconclusive war against international terrorism and its state sponsors and, tiring of it, pulls out -- leaving the Central Asian states holding the bag when the Taliban could regroup and retaliate. This would destabilize Russia's immediate neighbors.
Anti-Western politicians could then to power in Moscow. It would be a new regime pursuing a new foreign policy, contrasting sharply to current President Vladimir Putin, a moderate Westernizer.
In the worst case scenario, a new regime in Russia could place itself at the head of the terrorist forces and rogue states in their struggle against the West, providing them with all kinds of arms and equipment.
Despite its seeming absurdity, such a scenario already happened once as a result of Russia's entry into World War I on the side of the Western democracies; the Russian state collapsed and a Bolshevik regime emerged that proceeded to encourage almost any attacks anywhere against the West.
Neo-Bolsheviks of this kind have been present in Russian political life ever since 1991, waiting for their hour.
It is very much in the interests of both Russia and the West for the option of cooperation to be realized at this time. Declarations of cooperation are not enough. The need is for skillful calculation of the situation, taking into account the terrorist danger not only in the United States but also in Europe, in Central Asia and Russia; for joint strategizing as far as possible, so both sides feel they have a share of ownership and responsibility for the effort; and for joint organizing, so there can be greater confidence in mutual reliability for the long term.
If we work together effectively, we can probably get terrorism under control. If we do not, the course of events could well spin out of control.
Back to the Top Next Article
November 28, 2001:
#5568 #5569 #5570
- Back to the Top -