(excerpt)

From the interview with Nikolai Zlobin, Director of Russian and Asian Programs at the Center for Defense Information (CDI)

- So, Bush travels to St. Petersburg to make up with Putin. In the meanwhile, the American Embassy rejects the visa applications of 50 Russian businessmen and scientists, who were invited to Washington to participate in a Russian-American forum ...

- I think that, in general, our bilateral relations are noticeably degrading, and we need to speak about this candidly. The war in Iraq showed how serious our disagreements are. Nothing good will come from attempts to smooth them over. I am against the improvement of Russian-American relations. This system was constructed for the solution of very different problems -- problems from a different historical era, the Cold War. They cannot be improved. They have to be ended, cut short and forgotten. Then, we must create a new concept, a new philosophy for these relations. Over the last several years we have been trying to improve something that cannot be improved.

No one understands what -- in the grand scheme of things -- to do with each other, or why we need each other. Without a concept, we busy ourselves with tactical steps. And we evaluate the success or failure of Russian-American relations based on these tactical steps. America has no policy on Russia. America has a policy on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, and Russia has a little spot in the corner of that policy. America has a policy on the fight against terrorism, and Russia plays a certain role there. America has a policy on the Middle East, and it takes Russia into consideration. But no, America has no conceptual policy on Russia.

- Nor does Russia have one...

- And that’s why all we do is react to each other, to every separate action.

- And Russia reacts more, while America acts. And the fact that it acts without a concept may be worse than inaction or simple reaction to the opponent’s moves.

- Yes. And I can see several fundamental issues, which are not being solved. Apparently, we are approaching a situation in which unions -- whether alliances or partnerships -- cease playing any sort of role in international relations. We are still affected by the ideology of the Cold War, and we think we need to have unions; we think that, the more unions, alliances, signed agreements, etc. we have, the more influential, reliable and protected we are. But I think this situation no longer exists. And that’s why I find it strange that Russia is demanding the formation of unions, the signing of agreements and the construction of blocs. Life has changed, dynamics have changed, interests have changed, and a state is unlikely to find “friends” who will stick through to the next crisis.

Geography no longer plays the primary role in a globalized world. Mosaic-like alliances appear instead of unitary large blocks. This allows for principally new combinations. As Rumsfeld once said: "The mission determines the coalition. The coalition must not determine the mission."

- So, while we used to have a permanent theater of directors in geopolitics, now each play is produced by a different independent theater company? One independent theater company for Afghanistan, another for Iraq, and a third one for, perhaps, Iran?

- Yes, exactly. And all of Russia’s foreign policy attempts to create some sort of union in Central Asia, or something with the United States, Europe or Germany, are vestiges of the Cold War Era, when it seemed that this was how foreign policy had to be developed. Now is the time of egoism in foreign policy. There was a problem in Iraq, and the Americans gathered a coalition, or an independent theater company, as you say. It already fell apart, because it is no longer needed. The problem has been solved.

- Does that mean we no longer need the United Nations (UN) or other international organizations? Is the time of egoism a time for one against all?

- We must make sense of the new situation. We need philosophers, not diplomats. No one was ready for everything to fall apart so soon. September 11th triggered a general collapse. It became necessary to question the structure of new international relations and international organizations. Everything we have today is a result of World War II, and it no longer works. Everyone understands this. It no longer works because it was created under different conditions and with different objectives and functions from those of today. With all my respect for the UN Security Council, it does not adequately reflect today’s state of affairs. Japan, Germany, India, Brazil and other major players are not permanent members. I can understand the interests of Russia and France, because both nations play a major role in existing structures. But they are unlikely to play such a role in new structures. The entire system required gradual evolution, which we did not think much about, but now everything began to fall apart much faster than could be expected.

While the last world system was based on the results of the war against Fascism, the new system will have to be created in the process of the war against terrorism. And Russia must think about what role it will play and what part it will get.

Furthermore, today’s international structures were created for interaction between states. What do we do today? Al-Qaeda, for example, is not a state. It cannot be summoned by the UN Security Council. It has no army to be vanquished. It has no economy, to which sanctions can be applied. And there is no one to sign a capitulation agreement with, as with Germany. There are also transnational corporations, which have more influence than many states. These also cannot be restricted or controlled through international organizations. Globalization is a process that parallels the UN, but their paths do not intersect.

In the meanwhile, today we have a choice between anarchy, disorder and instability on one side, and injustice on the other. Either injustice or disorder. America’s rules of the game today are unjust.

- This is an unfortunate and very familiar choice. Mussolini spoke of the ordine nuovo and Hitler of the neue ordnung -- the new world order, and simply, order. Now we are also speaking about a new world order and order. Could we not solve the issue of Iraq within the framework of the old system? It posed no danger and was completely smothered with sanctions and inspections.

- A different kind of logic was used here. Forget about weapons of mass destructions. It does not matter whether they were found or not. This is not a court, and no proof is necessary. It is simply that the entire region, the entire Arab East is an enemy from the point of view of the U.S., something akin to Fascist Germany. It must be vanquished and broken; the model of government must be changed to one that will not be antagonistic and share American values.

- As with Japan...

- Yes. Back then, also, no one believed that democracy could be created in Japan. People spoke of thousand-year-old traditions of monarchy, clans, secrecy, etc. But the Americans succeeded, and the entire configuration of the Far East was changed, with new processes being launched. Taiwan and Singapore appeared, because there was a model for them.

- One can argue about the nature of democracy in these countries.