UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER: RUSSIA AND THE US NEED NORMAL RELATIONS

Kommersant, Russia
June 13 2006

Recent statements on Russian-American relations by both sides have
been a cause of concern for me. Our countries are alike in many ways.

Anyone who has lived in Russia and is not given to prejudice will
feel admiration for that great country and its people. Foreigners
have the same feeling when they come to the United States to see and
understand our country. Americans are certain that we as a country
have many of the characteristics that are ascribed to the Russians
as well. So why are relations between our countries becoming worse?

Normal Disagreements

Both sides need to be aware that it is impossible to agree on all
things – there will always be cause for disagreement. Where we cannot
come to an agreement, it is at least necessary to understand the
position of the other side and try to reduce the disagreement and
settle problems in all fields where there is disagreement as quickly
as possible.

Judging impartially, both sides have made many errors. We Americans
look negatively on state control of the media. There is a danger that
the press will lose its ability to tell the authorities the truth,
which is an important element in a democratic system. At the same
time, it is necessary to understand that several oligarchs could
have concentrated enormous political power in their hands when
they established monopolistic control over television in Russia in
the 1990s.

We Americans are concerned by the strengthening of control by the
federal center over the Russian regions. Such centralization could
pose a threat to democracy in Russia. But we are unaware of the fact
that regional leaders in Russia often established regimes of personal
tyranny. It should also not be forgotten that the central authority
has significant influence in the regions in many modern democratic
states, such as France, as well.

At the same time, Russians watch U.S. activities in the countries
that border on Russia with great suspicion. Russians think that
the U.S. is trying to turn the countries surrounding Russia into a
sanitary zone directed against it. At the same time, Washington is
denying that Moscow has the right to create "special relationships"
with its neighbors, similar to those between the U.S. itself and
countries like Mexico, Canada and even Cuba. The changes occurring
near its borders as a result of mass demonstrations and elections
also fill the Russians with suspicion. Moscow assumes that a similar
scenario could be played out in Russia has well.

There should be a simple rule here: preliminary consultations
should be held, attempts should be made to understand each other,
cooperation should be continued on positions that are agreed on,
and no steps should be taken that would be negatively perceived by
the other side without a real need.

Six Practical Steps

There is a rule that, when there is disagreement, work should be
done mainly in those fields where agreement has been reached or
may be reached soon. Based on that, I propose a program that could
be implemented at the upcoming summit in St. Petersburg, in which
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin will take part.

First, it is necessary to wrap up the years-long negotiations on
Russia’s admittance to the WTO before the summit begins or directly
at meetings there.

Second, The U.S. and Russia have all the prerequisites for successful
cooperation in developing safe nuclear energy, especially considering
the growing interest in it in the world community. The U.S. and Russia
are capable of becoming leaders in the development of new technologies
to satisfy the growing demand for energy in the 21st century.

Third, it is necessary to continue to fight against the proliferation
of nuclear weapons. That concerns the Iran problem in particular.

Continuing contacts between U.S. and Russian representatives can
become the basis for a real breakthrough in this issue. Both the U.S.

and Russia should be involved in negotiations with Iran to find a
diplomatic solution to the growing crisis.

Fourth, the U.S., as the world’s largest energy consumer, and Russia,
as one of the main suppliers of oil and natural gas, can do much
during the summit and after it to coordinate their positions and
actions in the field of energy.

Fifth, different approaches to relations with the countries of the
former USSR should be the topic of a closer and more constructive
dialog. In particular, strengthening our bilateral relations can
encourage more active joint efforts to normalize the situation in
Nagorny Karabakh and Transdniestria.

Finally, both sides should work to create institutions for interaction
and improving cooperative processes. A successful starting point may
be the approach today to when the sides work on a conciliated list of
problems and the presidents receive accounts of the course of their
solution. It is possible that more effective coordination at the
level of the presidents would lead to more conciliated activities
on both sides. Long-term movement forward could be helped by the
establishment of working groups to solve specific problems within an
agreed upon time and regular meetings at all levels.

The realization of this program and analogical measures would
allow success to be attained during the summit, which could proceed
from pent up negativity to a constructive dialog. We should build
effective interaction and not destroy its underpinnings. Finally, we
should not forget that progress in politics brings progress in trade
and business. That approach is in the interests of the U.S. and may
become the basis for cooperation between the two countries.

by Thomas R. Pickering, senior vice president of the Boeing
Company, U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation 1993-1996,
U.S. undersecretary of state 1997-200.