Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
February 14, 2005, Monday

ANDREW KUCHINS: AMERICA WANTS TO SEE A STRONG AND DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA

SOURCE: Rossiiskie Vesti, No. 5, February 10, 2005, p. 4

by Stanislav Tarasov

The world of American political science is extremely diverse, not
only in its political views, but also in its attitudes to Russia.
Some continue to view our country as the Cold War enemy; others
approach the new Russia with goodwill, understanding the difficulties
it encounters along the path to establishing itself as a great power
of a different kind. Andrew Kuchins, director of the Carnegie Moscow
Center, is among the latter; so his thoughts about the development
and prospects of relations between Russia and the United States are
always relevant and interesting.

Question: Preparations are under way on both sides for the
forthcoming Putin-Bush summit in Bratislava. In your view, what will
the agenda for that meeting look like?

Andrew Kuchins: From the formal standpoint, the summit agenda may
look as follows: WMD non-proliferation, the “war on protectionism,”
cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the situation in the Middle
East, taking account of the changes in Palestine since the death of
Yasser Arafat. My impression is that the American side will also
mention some domestic policy issues in Russia: democracy, the YUKOS
affair. Energy cooperation will also be discussed.

In my view, Washington is disappointed by some aspects of Russia’s
domestic and foreign policy. A special point is the situation taking
shape in the “frozen conflict” zones: Nagorno-Karabakh, South
Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Perhaps the Trans-Dniester region as well. On
the whole, however, the relationship between the presidents of Russia
and the United States is open enough for any issue to be raised at
the summit, in principle.

Question: In shaping their policy on post-Soviet territory, are the
United States and Russia acting as partners or opponents?

Andrew Kuchins: My impression is that we are currently acting more
like opponents. The problem of the “frozen conflicts” within
post-Soviet territory – that is one of the most disputed points in
our relations. Besides, there is the “challenge of Europe.”
Develoments in Ukraine have also left a certain aftertaste. In the
United States, attitudes to Russia have grown noticeably cooler among
the political and financial establishment. So the two presidents need
to give the summit some sort of concrete content, in order to damp
down emotions in the United States, and in Russia as well.

Question: The United States has obviously intensified its attacks on
Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear energy.
What does this mean? Could it be that Iran’s turn is approaching,
after Iraq?

Andrew Kuchins: This is an old problem. The United States is
concerned about Russia’s assistance in building the Bushehr nuclear
power plant. The United States suspects Iran of developing technology
capable of creating nuclear weapons. On the whole, my own view is
that the United Staes will end up agreeing to the Bushehr nuclear
power plant being built, on the condition that Iran would not be able
to use enriched uranium.

Question: In the second administration of George W. Bush, the State
Department is headed by Condoleezza Rice, a well-known American
expert on Russia. Is this good for Russia or not?

Andrew Kuchins: I believe the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as
Secretary of State is not a negative factor for Russia. I cannot
agree with the arguments of some Russian experts who describe Rice as
“worse than Zbigniew Brzezinski.” Firstly, she is not from the ranks
of American neo-conservatives. She is capable of competently
assessing all aspects of relations between the United States and
Russia. Think of her famous words after the Iraq situation: “Punish
France and Germany, forgive Russia.” That is her visiting card. I can
personally attest, based on my contactsin Washington, that
Condoleezza Rice will aim to develop and expand cooperation with
Russia; she will seek and work on a broad range of options for
achieving that goal. In her previous position at the Security
Council, she did a great deal to establish personal contact between
George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. I suspect that some similar work
is now under way as the Bratislava summit approaches. Let me expand
on that. There was an informal “communications channel” between the
Security Councils of the United States and Russia. Moreover, when the
US policy rhetoric regarding Russia started changing late last year,
and Colin Powell made some strong anti-Moscow statements, it was Rice
who neutralized them. I’m told she was the last bastion that stopped
the neo-conservative backlash against Russia’s policies.

Question: Nevertheless, in the lead-up to the Bratislava summit Time
magazine has suddenly published an article entitled “The Russians are
Coming: FBI concerned about the expanding scale of Russian espionage
in the United States.” The authors are Timothy Berger and Brian
Bennet. Who is behind this attempt to create an unfavorable media
background for the summit?

Andrew Kuchins: I have, of course, read reports that the number of
Russian spies in the United States has increased noticeably. The
thing is that a process of shifting emphasis is under way in American
politics, in which the positions of the neo-conservatives are
starting to coincide with those of left-wing Democrats. The essence
of this alliance is that democracy issues should be the key point in
US foreign policy. In other words, a barometer is being established,
which is intended to measure the level of democracy in any particular
country, and Washington’s foreign policy would be structured on that
basis. This position is clearly discernible in the president’s recent
address to the nation. So we might say that the understanding of
democracy and freedom issues is being restructured. I repeat, this
has happened because the positions of Republicans and left-wing
Democrats are merging. Some individuals, such as Richard Perle or
James Woolsey, suspect Russia of cultivating undemocratic trends.

Then again, there are also the moderate Democrats and moderate
Republican pragmatists – they’re in the center of the American
political spectrum – who take quite a different view of Russia. And
this is the field on which Condoleezza Rice is playing. She recently
stated that democracy in Russia is developing unevenly, and has not
yet become an irreversible process. All the same, recent history has
shown that the United States and Russia are capable of effective
cooperation in pursuing common objectives and meeting the challenges
of common threats. Actually, Rice also outlined future prospects: she
made it clear that a breakthrough in relations between our countries
is only possible if Russia is democratic. At the same time, as a
Russia specialist, she takes account of the fact that this involves a
historical long-term process. Therefore, she is focusing everyone on
concrete work, concrete action. I would add that we need to seek
opportunities to cooperate, despite temporary failures. Remember how
the left-wing Democrat Roosevelt and Stalin cooperated for the sake
of victory over a common enemy.

Question: Would strategic cooperation ever be possible between the
United States and Russia?

Andrew Kuchins: Anything can happen. If the United States is
thoroughly convinced that Russia is developing in the direction of
democracy, an intensive search will begin for as many points of
contiguity as possible, and an understanding will emerge of Russia’s
interests on post-Soviet territory and worldwide. At present,
however, it’s true to say that the majority in Washington still
suspect that Russia is moving towards establishing an authoritarian
regime.

I am convinced of this: the United States and Russia are simply bound
to seek ways and means of working together, since a confrontation
between us as rivals would have an impact on the whole world.
Everyone would be worse off. Once again, I would like to emphasize
that there are some people in the United States, some politicians,
who want to weaken Russia and cast it out onto some sort of
geopolitical periphery. But they are in the minority. A weak Russia,
a weak Russian state, would never be of interest to the United
States. In my country we understand that security throughout Eurasia
ultimately depends on a strong Russia.

Of course, there are certain twists connected with the role Americans
played in Russia in the early 1990s. Back then, it was said that
Russia had a “high level of democracy” – but now that level is
allegedly gone, so we need to change our policy regarding Moscow. But
it isn’t that simple. And now we say we are interested in seeing a
strong, democratic Russia, if only because we are coming to
understand the need to cooperate on many aspects of world affairs,
and to expand that cooperation. As you know, working with a weak
partner is easier, but addressing substantial tasks is more
difficult. Yet such tasks are accumulating with every passing day.
That’s why I am an optimist and believe that Bush and Putin will
reach agreement on everything.

Translated by Pavel Pushkin