#10
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
No. 55
2002
WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF RUSSIAN AND US FOREIGN POLICY
Russia Should not Assume the Position of a Humiliated Power
By Major-General (Rtd) Pavel ZOLOTAREV, president of the
Interregional Public Foundation in Support of Military Reform
Joint efforts within the anti-terror coalition following the tragic events of September 2001 have aroused a wave of euphoric expectations in Russia's political circles. There was a talk about a possible U-turn in relations between Russia and the United States, and in its relations with the West as a whole. However, there has never been and cannot be any real ground for such euphoria.
Deceptive Idealism
Euphoria is bred by non-grounded expectations of Russian politicians counting on an honest, sensible and far-sighted policy of the United States and the West, as they see it. However, it is not that these views are wrong. Russians simply proceed from their inner commitment to justice, honesty, and peace. Such is the innate idealism of the Russian people.
The West, and the more so the United States, base their moves on somewhat different culture and values.
The United States has always acted and will continue to act as the only strong and unrestricted international leader entitled to make the decisions it deems proper. The United States will always try to make the best of any situation to its own benefit. Co-operation, alliances, coalitions with any nation are only possible if they meet the US national interests and goals. Sincere care for a man, concern over his life can be displayed only if this man is a US citizen.
At the present time, the entire foreign policy of the United States is subjected to the task it has set for itself -- to consolidate its positions of the only world leader. The United States will follow this line toughly, without any sentiments or consideration for others' opinion.
Reasons for Concern
The US President has clearly outlined his vision of the new strategic relations with Russia. To take a closer look at it, Russia will inevitably cut its strategic nuclear weapons, whereas the United States will dismantle excess warheads to be kept in storage, ready to be promptly returned on carriers if necessary. The United States has no intention to assume obligations on limiting the NMD military potential, as it has recently mentioned. Neither does it show any willingness to assume any contractual obligations.
Perhaps, we need not worry, and should accept the Americans' initiative? For we are not enemies.
However, if our countries refuse to rely upon the contractual base, how will this affect non-proliferation of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction? Negatively, of course. The control over the non-proliferation regime is already going through a crisis. And the United States seems to realise this only too well. Regretfully, this realisation only prompts it to justify its next step -- the right to use force against the violators of this regime. Moreover, the United States reserves the right for itself to identify the violators and mete out punishment.
As for the fight against international terrorism, it boils down to military action with as much showing off as possible. The victory has been demonstrated, but it is still far off in reality. Others will have to deal with the consequences of this victory. The United States has also demonstrated readiness to deliver a strike on other nations of the 'axis of evil'. Nevertheless, these moves do not eradicate, and are not even meant to eradicate, the reasons behind international terrorism. Besides, there is no mentioning of the countries, heavily contributing to the development of international terrorist structures, providing them with funds, and, more important, with ideological backing. Thus, the system of double standards remains an integral part of the American policy.
The past decade saw the creation of foreign policy instruments, which can allow legitimate or semi-legitimate use of force. First, peacemaking efforts were used as such an instrument, now it is the fight against international terrorism. Then, it may be a campaign against those violating the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Debate without Confrontation
The United States has already made it quite clear that NATO will further expand and the Baltic countries will be admitted to the Alliance. NATO's new members have to meet an entire set of requirements as regards collective defence and adopt a corresponding approach to the development and use of military infrastructure. But what's most impressive is the essence and vector of NATO's operative training and military exercises.
So what is to be done?
First of all, we should realise that the US actions are not aimed against Russia. They are targeted against the entire world, seeking to establish US sole leadership and the right to make all decisions at its own discretion. At the present stage, the USA's unrivalled leadership meets the interests of global and regional stability. Both uni-polar and multi-polar world order, which is so popular among our politicians, are temporary and can hardly last long. A self-developing system can maintain a balance only if it relies on two poles. However, a uni-polar world order is better than multi-polar chaos. The United States is powerful enough to ensure stability worldwide, provided it does not act according to the 'might is right' principle. This condition can be realised only through the efforts of other nations, above all the US partners. And Russia's role is particularly significant here.
Russia remains a great power despite its misfortunes, but its strength lies in its spiritual, intellectual and moral potential. Only Russia can counter the Americans' cowboy-style manners, proceeding from high moral principles of its foreign policy. However, this should be done through debating rather than confrontation. Other European countries can become our natural allies in pursuing such a policy line. This does not at all mean that we should make an attempt to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States, which is harmful and counterproductive. We should act as a united system safeguarding the interests of the Western civilisation.
In pursuing a policy of morality and ethics, Russia may win the support of the poorest countries and prevent the formation of a bipolar world order based on confrontation. As history has it, Russia has been for centuries the area of mutual enrichment and interaction of various cultures. Thus, Russia is most capable of influencing their further interaction as part of the current globalisation. This is where its Eurasian background can come in handy. To this end, Russia should establish and maintain all-embracing co-operation with all nations and not restrict it to superpowers.
So what exactly can be done now as regards strategic arms and the policy toward NATO?
As to strategic weapons, Russia needs a treaty with the United States. The latter should provide a ceiling for strategic offensive weapons, set limits to the missile defence system and a ban on the deployment of the ABM systems in space, preserve and streamline measures of control and transparency, and draw up measures to reduce the risks brought about by the state of mutual nuclear deterrence. The latter is particularly important what with the present-day activities of international terrorist organisations.
As regards NATO, Russia should be more enterprising and insistent, and not solely remain respondent to the proposals of the West. The '20' format of co-operation can and should become more effective.
The Permanent Joint Council should continue working, at least until the interaction of '20' is streamlined. Joint consultations on the most controversial issues will help find compromise solutions before they are discussed within the format of '20'.
Back to the Top
Next Article
April 1, 2002:
#6165
- Back to the Top -