6327
#11
Expert
# 24
June 24, 2002
NIKOLAI ZLOBIN
PARITY EXCHANGE
--- The US needs Russia where it can’t manage on its own, but Moscow’s “representation”
must be compensated ---
The office of the Center for Defense Information, where Nikolai Zlobin works, is located on Washington’s Massachusetts Avenue, in the same building as the Carnegie Foundation [Endowment] and a number of other leading American think tanks.
Some think that Zlobin is a fifth-column type. For example, many in Russia are surprised: What’s a Russian -- not even a Russian immigrant -- doing directing the Russian and Asian programs at such a respected research organization? Zlobin himself, the author of eleven books (just for pleasure, for the soul) and many papers and reports for clients including the US administration, thinks that his situation is a winning one, since he can explain the situation to both sides equally intelligibly. He tells the Russian side what the Americans mean, and explains to the American side what’s going on in Russia.
Recently, the scholar visited Moscow and gave an interview to Expert.
Expert: About how many people make up the backbone of the expert “scene” focusing on the area of the former Soviet Union?
Zlobin: Not that many -- perhaps twenty people or so.
Expert: Do they focus on a specific set of issues?
Zlobin: No -- the former Soviet Union in general. It’s not a secret that there are almost no American experts on the Caucasus. The Central Asia experts can be counted on one hand. The intellectual resource in the field isn’t that big.
The most pro-Russian president
Expert: On the whole, what do you think of the intellectual resource of President Bush’s team?
Zlobin: You know -- there’s a joke in Washington: “Clinton knew a lot. Bush knows enough.” Clinton was the superstar in his administration; this was one of the main characteristics of his administration: His vision of a problem was the main one. Bush, on the other hand, knows that he’s not the smartest person in the room; he has a very realistic understanding of himself and his abilities. That why -- just like he did back in Texas -- he gets people with more knowledge and a better ability to accumulate ideas to be on his team.
Expert: Where does this show up in regard to Russia?
Zlobin: When Clinton came to power in 1992, he had a set of interrelated ideas. For him, Russia was something of a futurist democracy-building experiment. It was difficult to work with his administration, since such a vision is often oppressive.
Bush, on the other hand, arrived with a blank page. He didn’t have his own ideas about foreign policy, since he didn’t have much of a political tenure. He wasn’t a politician during the Cold War, so he doesn’t have the usual stereotypes. As a result, the influence of experts and advisors on the president rose sharply. Bush is more flexible, he listens, he learns, he can change his opinion.
As a result, Bush has changed his policy towards Russia three times in the past year and a half. And I feel that Bush deserves the credit for the whole shift towards Russia. For some reason -- even he might not understand why -- he is really partial to Russia, and to Vladimir Putin to particular. All in all, Bush is probably the most pro-Russian president the US has had in a 100 years. Russia should take advantage of that.
Expert: Here at Expert, we are happy that Russia gets more attention, that it holds a higher position in the world arena than it did a year ago. Today, Russia is described as a key player, almost a second-level superpower.
Zlobin: Well, that’s what they say here in Moscow. You know there are two aspects to this -- tactical and strategic. As far solutions for the immediate problems facing the US are concerned, America doesn’t really need Russia; it can solve these problems on its own. But after September 11th, the American political elite is increasingly aware of the fact that Russia could potentially be a very valuable ally and a big help to the US. Furthermore, some American politicians think that in 10-15 years America will be asking Russia to be its ally.
Actually, the choice is pretty clear. If you ignore those people who are generally opposed to closer relations between Russia and the US or the West (and there are more of those here than in the US), everyone else can be divided into two categories. One category includes the people who think: Yes, we need to improve bilateral relations, work on this, sign new agreements, declarations, conduct new talks, and the like. They think that -- in this stage-by-stage manner -- we need to bring relations to a stage of strategic partnership.
The other category, the minority -- in America it happens to include President Bush -- has something else in mind. It seeks to transfer relations to a qualitatively new level, to create new political foundation for these relations -- a foundation akin to that for relations between the US and Western Europe, where the driving force is not agreements and declarations, but the existence of a single world view and a philosophy of political relations. Russia and the US are no longer divided the way they were. The war of two worlds is no more. The ideological contest is over, and practically all of the military ambitions concerning the rival have disappeared as well. The administration feels that, under these unique conditions, Russia could join the family of countries that base their relations on a common worldview. Why didn’t they want to conclude this agreement at first? Because it doesn’t really matter to them; because Bush is placing his wager elsewhere.
Expert: Are you talking about the Agreement on the Reduction of Nuclear Offensive Weapons?
Zlobin: Yes. Basically, here’s how it works: my missiles -- your missiles and vice versa. But we have common goals, so why count and tally. America and Great Britain, or the NATO countries, don’t draw up agreements about how many rockets each country has. They know that they are allies, even if they do occasionally disagree.
Expert: Russia is pretty far from such relations with America...
Zlobin: Well, this is the key thing about this moment. Once relations no longer fit Soviet-American categories, a huge vacuum appeared. Should we keep counting missiles like we did before? Well, we could. Then we could start counting chemical weapons, biological weapons, holding talks on every single issue. And this is the way proposed by the majority of the Russian elite. Bush’s administration, however, has a different idea: Let’s leave that in the background; let’s think about switching to a new kind of relations, building a new foundation -- a foundation of common worldviews, common goals, systems and priorities.
Junior World Policeman
Expert: This isn’t showing up in American political doctrine.
Zlobin: Well, the new doctrine hasn’t been developed yet. The US is currently working on this rather specific problem. It was attacked, which means that the problem is almost entirely a military one. From this point of view, Russia would be a weak ally -- there are many reasons for that. American military power is so incredible that no army comes close. As the German Defense Minister said recently: “We can’t even establish communications with the American army, since we are on such different technological levels.”
How much time will a military solution of the problem take? Yes, it will take some time. But then, it will be the strategic and political issues that will be at the foreground in Central Asia, in Transcaucasia, in Asia as a whole. It will be necessary to use different methods (economic, ideological, political, informational). Here a problem arises: The Americans won’t be able to solve many aspects of these problems on their own.
Expert: Let’s talk about Central Asia.
Zlobin: The Americans are there by chance. If the attack had come from Africa, they would have gone to Africa. But it came from Asia, and that’s why the Americans are sitting there, deciding what to do. While military problems exist, it’s all clear -- they are solving them, paying for air bases, etc. But this won’t last long. So, the natural question is: What’s next?
Long before September 11th Central Asia began to part ways with Russia; envisioning itself as Asia, rather than as Eurasia. And Russia was gradually losing control. The Americans have no interest in this whatsoever. Some people here think that the Americans are trying to push Russia out of Central Asia -- that’s just another myth.
Expert: We’ve all read Brzezinski...
Zlobin: Well, Brzezinski hasn’t been involved in actual policy-making for years. Yes, of course, he is an important man. But why do people here like reading him? Because his writing is very Slavic; everything is simple, there are beautiful formulas all over the place; and people think that Brzezinski understands everything.
Well -- regarding Central Asia. The Americans are interested in keeping this region -- and the Eurasian space as a whole -- out of the hands of Islamic fundamentalists; away from Islamic extremism and its influence. Therefore, it’s necessary to come up with an alternative.
Expert: You mean a reliable ally who could play a civilizing role and the role of a buffer against Islamic extremism?
Zlobin: Absolutely. They would need centuries to develop the relationship Russia has with Asia. It would be natural for Russia to play as the Western -- or at least semi-Western -- political and ideological influence in these regions. This is the first thing. Secondly, history shows: Wherever Americans establish their bases, sooner or later conflicts with the local authoritarian regimes arise, no matter how much they love each other and benefit from each other in the beginning. Americans know that they will inevitably have to deal with the political regimes in these republics. While there is a military goal, its no problem, but once the goal begins to lose importance, the US will begin coming under severe criticism from its own population and from Europe for cooperating with these regimes.
You know, Americans are missionaries of sorts. They always want to support democracy and human rights, and this runs the danger of creating conflicts. Clearly, they are not interested in confronting these conflicts face to face. They would prefer to have an influential “traditional” force there. That’s Russia. This question might arise not today, but five or ten years from now. The same goes for Transcaucasia.
Expert: Well, it seems that this potential cooperation presupposes the global domination of the US and a subordinate role for Russia.
Zlobin: Of course by practically all criteria, there is major asymmetry between Russia and America. There is major asymmetry in how much the countries need each other. Today, Russia needs America a lot more than America needs Russia. But it’s already clear that -- if certain problems arise on the world arena -- Russia would be able to deal with them faster and more effectively than the US could directly.
Expert: Then, what we have is Russia as a “junior world policeman” serving America. And what do we get in return?
Zlobin: Well, from one side, Russia would begin to play the role of a junior partner to the US. But there are issues and areas where Russia could be an equal, or even a senior, partner. But this is possible only on one condition -- if we develop a new kind of relationship with the Americans, if we act as “one team.” And Russia won’t just win the role of a world power. Moscow could ask for something in return: Since we are representing your, or -- more precisely -- our, common interests here, then why don’t you represent our interests in places where Russian positions are weak, where there is a disparity of capabilities, and where America plays the role of the senior partner. There are lots of places like that. Take Europe, for instance. The Russian position there is really weak. Europe drives Russia away, drives it away in the lowest of ways, whenever integration is discussed. There, America could play a really effective role.
Expert: So, Washington and Moscow already need to start working on a strategy for the future?
Zlobin: I think that the Kremlin can ask Washington for the development of special treaties and agreements -- secret or open -- on cooperation in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. These should clearly delimit what each country wants, and how the two states will cooperate, working together on basically the same tasks, but sometimes using a Russian lineup, and at other times, an American one, depending on who is better suited for the military, political, or economic, aspect of the problem.
Expert: You mentioned American foreign policy doctrine. When will it be ready, and what else will it include?
Zlobin: The doctrine should be worked out sometime in the middle of the summer. It will probably include a concept formulated in the following way by Andy Kuchins of the Carnegie: a peaceful solution to potential problems arising in connection with China. It’s difficult to imagine how they could solve this problem without Russia.
I think that Russia and China have begun to compete on the Eurasian scene in economics and politics, especially since Japan is going through economic problems. They will compete more and more, but -- for now -- China lags behind Russia in economics. There is no question here. Eighty percent of the Chinese population lives below subsistence level.
Expert: Additionally, certain Russian experts are positive that growth in China won’t last.
Zlobin: That’s probably true. Americans also feel that -- over the next 20-25 years -- China will face major domestic problems that are currently mounting. And next year, there will be a change of government in Beijing; the people who will come to power won’t be nostalgic for the Soviet Union, for Russia. They didn’t study here, they don’t speak Russian -- this will be a new generation.
In any case, China is a new rival for Russia. And America will probably try to take advantage of this rivalry. But, in the contest, it is in America’s interest to be on Russia’s side. Besides bilateral disagreements between Washington and Beijing, there is another factor: China can be of little help to America in the transformation of the world energy market.
On the whole, the “Chinese question” is not at the top of the agenda. But in 10-15 years, it will become more important as the necessity of regulating the whole set of problems concerning China grows.
Should we become a “fueling station” for the West?
Expert: The China issue makes sense. Plus, China is seen as America’s main potential rival. What if we consider another motive for closer relations -- oil? Does that mean that Russia and America are basically the main partners in the global energy strategy?
Zlobin: In the long term -- yes. Considering the general instability in the Middle East, Russia could potentially be one of the second-tier players in the energy market -- which would probably be somewhat interesting for America. Saudi Arabia is a big headache for the US right now. More and more Americans think that, instead of helping Saudi Arabia develop and become more democratic, the US is strengthening the totalitarian and totally anti-people regime in the country.
Expert: Yes, there is much talk right now about oil-producing monarchies, about the complex relations between the elite and the people. The consequences could be highly undesirable for the West: overturned regimes, chaos, and etc.
Zlobin: It’s important to note the following: However much the nature of these regimes changes, no matter what happens in these countries, one thing will remain the same -- they will need to sell their oil. Regardless of who is in power, they will sell oil to anyone who wants to buy it.
What the Americans want to do, is change the market so that oil consumers control the dynamics of the world oil market, and not oil producers.
This situation presupposes the appearance of many alternative oil producers who aren’t able to store their oil. At some point, the US will, without a doubt, achieve these conditions. They could drill all over Alaska. Venezuela, Mexico and Norway could start producing more oil. Africa hasn’t been touched yet, and Americans are starting to invest a lot of money there. So Russia isn’t the only option for them.
And here, we should think about Russia’s role -- should we become a “fueling station” for the West? We don’t necessarily have to leap into this situation with eyes closed.
No plan or perception
Expert: Are you saying that the energy aspect is not a decisive one for closer relations between Russia and the US?
Zlobin: Let me repeat -- the US and Western Europe are interested in Russia as another ally, an ally that can increase the sphere of influence of the Western states. Russia is valuable to them as a player that would solve problems where they can’t, or where it’s very costly for them to -- in Asia, or in Eurasia as a whole.
We must note here that many problems -- the Middle East, the India-Pakistan conflict, etc. -- are basically the aftermath of the Cold War. America used to back one country, and the Soviet Union -- the other. Now, the opposing sides aren’t backed by the superpowers and the mechanism for controlling these processes is lost. In addition, the American political elite, the Bush administration, isn’t ready for what’s going on in the world today. No one is ready - no elite in the world. But right now, the US is the only superpower -- it faces higher expectations, and, correspondingly, its mistakes are very costly.
The Americans aren’t ready for the role of the world’s sole superpower. They don’t have a plan for this. It was only after September 11th that they began to think: What are American national interests? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they had no ideas for this, and now? Well, in Washington -- just like in many world capitals -- people are sitting, scratching their heads, and thinking: How do we regulate this or that problem?
Expert: You’re saying that America isn’t ready for the role of the sole superpower. But America won the Cold War, just like it wanted to. And it was preparing to dominate the world. Wasn’t that the mindset?
Zlobin: I think that the Americans were fighting communism, not fighting for the right to be the only superpower. The entire Realist school in American foreign policy was based on the concept that if there is one superpower, there will definitely be another superpower, or a group of countries, that will challenge the first one and establish parity. The entire twentieth century was basically built on this parity. And today we find out that it’s not necessary, and the whole theory, the whole school, goes into the wastebasket. No one knows what we’ll see instead. Basically, by defeating communism, they destroyed the existing system. It turned out that the Americans weren’t totally ready to create a positive program, which is always necessary after a victory.
But, keep in mind, neither did they harass the loser. In the early 90s, Russia was so weak that they could have done pretty much anything to it. But they didn’t. And now the Americans have so much control over the world that they could do to it what Yeltsin used to do to the Council of Ministers every time it was in Moscow. But they don’t. Even though they do constantly make mistakes.
Expert: Not too many mistakes for a sole superpower?
Zlobin: I’ll name the biggest cause of American mistakes. They have a very poor political culture, a very poor political history, a very poor historical experience. They’ve never had anything other than democracy and private property; other than freedom of the press and religious pluralism. So it’s difficult for the Americans to understand the logic of -- for instance -- Islamic extremism. They just don’t see the motives. They don’t understand what it’s like to build a democracy after communism. It’s not a part of their historical experience. They don’t know the way a monarchy functions, the way a totalitarian system functions. They can understand this conceptually, but they haven’t been in our shoes, it’s not in their historical memory, so it seems easier to them. They had built a superpower out of a big village, out of a big farm, so to say, in seventy or eighty years.
In the same room as everyone else
Expert: At the same time, power is enticing. There’s a powerful economy, a population wanting a better life -- there’s a temptation to use power. And business puts pressure on politics. Many in Russia think that America’s specific moves are aimed at earning some new riches, earning more influence. The Caspian, for instance, or transit routes for oil. So not everything in American policy is based on humanitarianism, goodness and justice.
Zlobin: No, of course not. But, don’t forget -- they talked about “humanitarianism, goodness and justice” during the fight against communism. After the collapse of communism, Russia entered the world of competition -- competition for profit, for markets. No longer a communist state, Russia is now one of the players in this competition. It should get used to that. It’s not a question of harassment by Americans. The Japanese, the Germans, any other country is the same. We have, so to speak, entered a room where everything functions according to the laws of competition, business, market acquisition. We couldn’t have entered this room as a communist country. Now Russia is like everyone else. Whether we like this system or not, that’s the system we’re in.
Expert: Ok. But there’s another point of view there -- that once they defeated communism, once they installed -- or were forced into -- this world domination, America paved the way for the so-called neo-liberal capitalism, which many find insane, a race with overblown interest rates and this whole global landslide. Whether the Soviet Union was good or bad, it did keep this expansion under control. Somehow, those who wanted to live life in their own way could hide behind it, camouflage themselves with its facade. Now, this single unavoidable model of capitalism is taking over the planet. And there is no pluralism here. Isn’t that dangerous within itself?
Zlobin: I absolutely agree. This is a very serious problem. And part of the American political elite understands that America’s problem is that there is no one to oppose it, there are no limitations. With many difficulties and little enthusiasm, the Americans are trying to comprehend the extent of their power, like a teenager who is growing and getting stronger, but isn’t sure how to use his strength. I think this really is a very serious problem, one that only part of the American political elite understands. Being so strong -- economically and politically -- they can do something that will come back to haunt them.
The current situation is reminiscent of the situation in 1945-1947, when the old system collapsed, and a new one had not been created: in these conditions every nation of the world tried to get the maximum advantage from the situation. American foreign policy is maximally egotistic. Every state dreams of being able to carry out self-serving foreign policy -- the US can. It’s all very pragmatic. America is carrying out this policy while trying to secure maximal long-term advantages out of the current situation. Why do I think that Russia should join the same ranks as quickly as possible? Look what Stalin did after the Second World -- whatever you think of him, he did obtain strategic advantages for the Soviet Union.
Expert: Well, he had a lot more resources.
Zlobin: Perhaps. But no one is talking about occupying Eastern Europe or China. And on the whole, I think we need to be more egotistic nowadays. You see, the only problem with Russia -- as you know better than I do -- is that foreign policy is not a continuation of domestic policy.
Expert: It does seem to aim for that.
Zlobin: It’s probably domestic policy that’s partly aiming to become a continuation of foreign policy.
Expert: Let’s return to globalization. It seems that, now, the dams that stood in the way of the expansion of neo-liberal economy have been removed, although there are islands of protest throughout the world, as well as within Western society (the antiglobalist movement). But many have doubts about the superiority of this form of economy -- after all, it can lead to major worldwide crises.
Zlobin: That’s a very important issue. First of all, globalism is a two-way street. While the world is becoming more Americanized, the rest of the world -- a totally different lifestyle and business format -- is penetrating the US. As a result, the American society is changing. Secondly, the role of the government in the regulating economics, information and financial flows is rapidly falling. That means that someone else is gaining control of these functions. It’s still unclear who that is. For example -- who controls information? Since the appearance of the Internet and satellite television, it became clear that no government does. There is European and Japanese capital in many American entertainment and information companies. Whose value system and ideology, whose messages and psychology are spreading, and in whose interest? Or, let’s consider the security sphere. Look at the European countries -- they aren’t able to protect themselves.
Expert: It seems that they are relinquishing sovereignty.
Zlobin: I wouldn’t say “sovereignty,” but rather the functions that -- for years -- governments used to consider imperative. Someone else is undertaking these functions, someone who isn’t controlled by the public. After all -- we don’t elect CEOs, we don’t control their behavior.
But it’s clear that certain traditional governmental functions are being restored after September 11th: control over borders, finances, and etc. The fight against terrorism has slowed the process of degovernmentalization.
Expert: So, if these were the enemies of global capitalism, they achieved some of their goals and restrained the process a little bit.
Zlobin: I agree, they did somewhat change the nature of American society. As a result -- the next generation of Americans will be much less lenient, more aggressive. And this will change the nature of the world. In that aspect, the events of September 11th had a colossal effect -- and it will manifest itself again.
Expert: Do you mean that it will have an impact on democratic institutions?
Zlobin: Apparently, yes -- and not only in the West. Let’s be straightforward: How great is the influence of Russian oil companies over government policy? Colossal. And that’s just the beginning. Imagine what’s going to happen once they become real transnational corporations and begin -- as they do in other countries -- to basically replace the government. When the government will be guided not by the results of elections and the decisions of the executive branch, but, to a great extent, by the interests of these companies. They won’t even need to represent the national capital...
Not that kind of country Expert: Let’s return to the topic of closer relations between Russia and America and the West. You were fairly convincing in describing the motivations of America’s need for Russia. But right now, they aren’t giving us a lot in return, even though they are asking us to give up a number of directions where Russia earns money. Specifically -- Iraq and Iran, where we are counting on earning billions of dollars. For the Russia side, it’s a highly pragmatic policy. Isn’t that true?
Zlobin: I’ll give you my opinion: Moscow needs to be straightforward about its intentions in these regions -- for example, in Iran. Money? Influence? What, precisely? And then Moscow can say that it will not transfer anything to Iran that could potentially facilitate the development of the Iranian nuclear arms program. Then, there won’t be a problem. But when Russia denies that a problem exists, then the US gets on guard, and that leaves a mark on all bilateral relations.
Expert: But we have certain machine-building enterprises that are directly involved in the Iranian nuclear industry. For them it’s a matter of life and death. If not that, then what?
Zlobin: If there is a specific profit Russia expects from the programs in Iran which the US doesn’t like, Russia should name a figure -- so many billion. And then, the conditions for compensation should be formulated. Last year, I wrote a proposal for writing off some of the Soviet debts to the Paris Club in exchange for this. I formulated my idea in the following way: Of the $30 billion Russia owes, $10 would simply be written off as compensation for abandoning nuclear programs in Iran, $10 billion would be invested (by a “conversion” of the debts) into technology projects in Russia, and the last $10 billion would be directed into the development of the social sphere and democratic institutions.
Expert: What was the reaction?
Zlobin: Washington was interested in the idea, but Moscow was fairly quiet and apathetic. Now I have a different suggestion. I think the West should simply forgive these $30 billion. My logic is that you can’t punish a country that is trying to build a democracy by demanding that it give back the money it had borrowed to build communism. After all, it’s not an extraordinary amount of money. In the grand scheme of things, morally, the West can’t demand anything from Russia, since it’s a different country now. It’s not the country that borrowed the money.
Interview conducted by Yevgeny Verlin and Iskander Khisamov
Back to the Top Next Issue
- Back to the Top -