An Interview with Nikolai Zlobin, Director of Russian and Asian Programs at the Center for Defense Information in Washington DC

Q: What, in your opinion, are the reasons behind the actions of the American administration and their war against Iraq?

I think the rationale behind American policies is dictated by the necessity to reconsider the global system of security which, according to the White House view, cannot safeguard American safety and does not correspond to the country's national interests. Moreover, the issue of security has come to the forefront of not just politics, but the national consciousness as well, eclipsing the traditional American concern with the domestic economy. American politics were forced to undertake serious changes in their priorities, and that's why Bush's doctrine, along with the military-oriented faction of the administration, is now leading the way.

September 11 showed that there is no sure way to safeguard against terrorism. Not one traditional system of international security can guarantee that, and it is therefore necessary to reconsider the very fundamentals of these systems. This means reviewing international law and the structure of international organizations that were created after the second world war, and have served as the basis of the international security arrangement ever since. It's necessary for America to re-examine the methods of safeguarding national security. I think America attempted to use this approach with Iraq as its first step.

It's not a fact that the operation has been successful from that point of view, but sooner or later the international community will agree that the current security arrangement requires reform. No one is debating that - the discussion has focused on what reforms should be taken, and with what goals. Under these circumstances of having a fantastic advantage over the rest of the world, the US can proceed without consulting even its allies in NATO or Western Europe. The major strategic goal of the American military campaign in Iraq was to take the first step toward creating a new system of ensuring America's national security, which in the White House's eyes would become the new global security arrangement.

Q: How will the war in Iraq affect America's image in the world?

It appears that in the short term, this war will reflect quite negatively on America's image. When someone does something unprecedented, it always causes a negative reaction, and even if it turns out later that they were right, and that it should have been don, the first reaction will be negative. Any revolution, any dismantling of old laws will always cause a negative reaction. What the US is calling for is nothing less than a revolution in international relations and international law. I'm not saying this revolution is for better or worse, that's not the point. A revolution elicits a negative reaction from those who are used to living comfortably and safely under the conditions of an old security arrangement. For Western Europe, the second half of the 20th century was a golden age. And Russia had fairly many geopolitical opportunities to influence foreign affairs. Many countries found their place in the old arrangement, and knew the rules of the game. That's why any attempt to change the system or reform the UN is viewed as a negative development by those who stand to lose the most - France, for instance. So it's natural that the world's reaction to the war in Iraq should be extremely negative.

Q: What role would Europe, Russia, and the Near East play in this new geopolitical arrangement?

We are opening a new page in the history of international relations, when it's very difficult to formulate concepts such as "partners" and "allies". The principles upon which partnerships were based in the post-war period no longer apply. Moreover, it's hardly possible to create a bloc of countries in close proximity to each other, as was the case with Western and Eastern Europe, and then draw a geopolitical boundary.

The new arrangement will be formed on the basis of less formal blocs, the so-called flexible coalitions, which would be formed to deal with specific problems and disband afterwards. Such a possibility should not be ignored. Therefore, to say that Russia, Western Europe and the Near East will play a particular role in the new system of international relations is not entirely correct, because that role will shift depending on the particular problem of the moment.

We've already seen this - the anti-terrorist coalition is one thing, the Afghan coalition is another, and the anti-Iraq coalition is something else entirely. Countries don't necessarily belong to all three coalitions. Some countries have remained US allies, but did not participate in any of the coalitions. A time is coming when all the major players on the international arena, (not to mention countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan, which are playing an increasingly greater role in world politics and economics), will not be able to rely on formalized partnerships and a clear demarcation of roles. Most likely, politics will become more reactive, dealing with specific problems, which is actually a situation fraught with dangers, since today's partners may enter into a pitched argument tomorrow, and become opponents.

Q: Where do you see the future of the UN?

The UN in its present form, with the functions and duties that it was given at its creation after WWII, requires very serious reform. First, the ideology and structure of the UN's major organs should be changed. In part, the structure of the Security Council is extremely archaic, because the countries that compose it are there as a result of being victors in WWII. Although France is only technically a winner - it entered the Security Council thanks to a compromise, as a country that participated in the fight against fascism. At the same time, countries that are not permanent members of the Security Council include Germany, Japan (the world's second largest economy), India (with its nuclear weapons and billion-strong population), Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil and many other countries, which cannot understand why five countries who won the second world war sixty years ago continue to resolve global problems within their own narrow circle.

Moreover, the UN turned out to be poorly designed for dealing with international terrorism. Naturally, in 1945 no one posed such questions, and the UN was not as ready as we would have wished for problems of globalization, environmental protection, etc. Most importantly, the UN was not ready for dealing with problems that involved not sovereign states, but non-state organizations like Al-Qaeda, where you cannot sign agreements with them, or invite them to Security Council debates, or pass resolutions about them, since they have no formal state-like functions.

Until the mechanisms for dealing with such problems are developed, the UN cannot become an effective international organization. The UN's fate is partially in its own hands - it must reform not from the point of view of self-preservation, but as an answer to those threats that the world community faces today.

Q: Do you think the current situation with Iraq is comparable to the situation in the Balkans of 1999? How would you analyze the behavior of Russia and the EU in both cases?

I think that in both cases Russia and the EU took a "catch-up" position. The EU especially could have taken a more proactive, leading role in solving these problems, instead of waiting for the situation to become a case of US bombing. Russia and Europe could have stepped in a lot earlier. We saw this scenario in Iraq.

The difference between how America sees the situation and how Russia and the EU see the situation is that while everyone is interested in peace, each side is interested in a different kind of peace. For the EU in Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia the peace of the status quo was sufficient, but for the US, the quality of the peace was also very important - the country's political structure, transparency, and the behavior of its government should correspond to international norms, and cannot pose a threat either to their own people or to other governments. For the sake of such a peace, they were ready to use force, while Russia and Europe were not.

Q: What changes does the American military doctrine face in light of the new threats to the country's national interests?

The US military doctrine faces several serious changes. The first is the idea of a preventive strike, which is not an invention of the US - we might recall that the practice of using preventive strikes were part of Brezhnev's doctrine. The Soviet Union used it in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The elimination of a potential threat before it attacks a country is an idea that has long existed in world history, but today it is becoming one of the keystones of American military doctrine.

The second change is that American today feel less bound by international law, since their viewpoint is that old laws and norms have lost their meaning after the end of the cold war. A new era of struggle with international terrorism has begun, and existing international institutions demand, at the minimum, to be reformed if not replaced.

The third change is the shift in the stance toward allies. The idea of allied relations based primarily upon ideological principles is fading. In its wake comes the idea of temporary alliances and partnerships.

The changes will be numerous, and they will grow with the development of US military technology. An important change in US policies is the doctrine of limited sovereignty. Under the contemporary conditions of globalization, Americans think that all governments should have full sovereignty and independence with the exception of three cases: if they do not adhere to the rules of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, if they wage a war against their own people, and if they support international terrorism. In such cases other countries must intervene, regardless of the state's sovereignty, and take appropriate action. That's the situation we are seeing in Iraq.

Q: Could the US, which suffered heavy casualties in wars with third world countries while using only conventional weapons, use nuclear weapons?

It would be very difficult to imagine a situation where Americans would suffer unacceptable casualties as a result of traditional warfare. Today's US army is so far ahead of any potential military foe that this question takes on a purely hypothetical character. But it's worthwhile to consider the process of miniaturizing nuclear weapons, and the development of tactical nuclear weapons which could be used to almost the same effect as conventional weapons. There are big gaps in the international control over tactical nuclear weapons. In the military doctrine of many countries, this question is not discussed, and there is a possibility that such weapons may someday be used.

Q: Should we expect a new anti-terrorist campaign from the US and if so, against whom?

International terrorism is not represented by any government. It could be represented by structures like the al-Qaeda, and it could be strengthened if some government offers it a safe haven and opportunities, if it attempts to legitimize it or support it with money or armaments. In that case, such a government will become the next target of American policies, including military policies. I hope that after Iraq there will not be such a naïve political leadership that would agree to do that.

Q: Is Syria one of these governments in the eyes of the Americans?

For the American public opinion this is a completely new development. I don't see Syria as the next military target. There needs to be some proof that the Syrians are helping Saddam or the remnants of his regime. In any case, to start a way against another Muslim government is, from the point of view of securing America's national interests, not very pragmatic. Therefore Syria will be under a close watch, but at the moment there is a number of functioning mechanisms, including diplomatic and economic ones, for bringing this country in line.

Q: What can Iran expect, in light of current events?

With Iran, the issue is how much Iranian society is capable of modernizing, and to what extent any outside pressures will prevent the liberalization of Iranian society, which is latently underway. There is an opinion in Washington that any American attempts to pressure Iran will lead to a crackdown on any dissident movements and sentiments within Iran, and a greater centralization of power and further dogmatization of Iranian society.

Regarding the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iran, including nuclear weapons - this cannot be solved today without a corresponding from the Russian side. Here Russian politics are becoming more realistic, but Russia is still far from becoming an American ally on this issue. If Russia and America unite and attempt to prevent the development of military nuclear technology, it's unlikely that any military intervention will be required.