19 August 2003 16:21
The New "Big Fight"
Expert had a chance to talk with Strobe Talbott, current President of the Brookings Institution, a major US think tank, former Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, and long-time chief advisor on policy toward post-Soviet Russia.
-  What is your opinion on the current state of relations between Russia and the US after the Iraqi crisis earlier this year?
- They are very solid on several levels, especially in terms of the relationship between our two presidents and between our two governments. I would say that the difference over Iraq brought about a small step backwards compared to the state of matters about a year ago. But both presidents made it very clear that they would try to improve relations and return to the partnership that President Putin has been building between Russia and the US since his election and especially since September 11.
- In the last few months, a lot has been said about the “transatlantic rift” between Europe and the US. In your view, should Russia join one of the “camps” or should it maneuver between Washington and the various European capitals?
- Maneuvering is dangerous, because it can lead to manipulating. Maneuvering can lead to a foreign policy based on short-term tactics rather than a strategic approach. One of many reasons for hope that relations between the US and Europe will improve is that this will integrate Russia into the West more quickly and more thoroughly. If the discord between Europe and the US continues, it will only create problems in their relations with virtually all other countries, specifically, Russia and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe if they are forced to choose between Europe and America, between the “new” Europe and the “old.” Is this really good for them or for Russia? Russia is not a part of the “old” or “new” Europe. It’s a unique space covering a vast territory that has existed for centuries and created adherents to a Eurasian idea. And now, when Russia declares its willingness to join the ideological “West,” if we make it choose which part of the West to join, we will do nothing but confuse matters.
- You mentioned in your speech that after September 2001, the US began to rely more on military force than international institutions and alliances. Do you think it will be easy for Russia to make peace with this change?
- No, and I don’t think it should. It’s difficult for me to get used to, even though I’m an American and should support an increase in American might. I think that this model won’t work in the long term. Although the US possesses considerable strength in all areas – military, political, economic, financial, and cultural – I don’t think that the US should turn this strength into a power other countries of the world are forced to obey. You know, forced as opposed to voluntary coalitions emerge under such a model, and no one likes to do what they don’t want to, but have to. The US should build coalitions that allow countries to participate in the decision-making process based on consensus rather than force. If we want Russia to find a place in international organizations, the West must make the effort to ensure that these organizations are strong.
- Where do you see possibilities for cooperation between current world powers such as the US, Europe, China, and Russia, to enhance international security and fight terrorism?
- The question at hand is what the new “big fight” is, compared to the “big fight” that dominated the second half of the 20th century. From my point of view, the West – the US and Western Europe – was not the only winner in this fight. The common people in the former USSR and Eastern Europe, who supported democratic reforms, also won. Most people in the former USSR understand that they won the Cold War because they helped to cast off the “-ism” that governed their lives for decades, sometimes brutally. Should this analysis be carried over to the new “big fight,” the key word is without a doubt globalization. Although this word is not as fashionable in the West as it was two years ago, it is still an important word. Today, the world is split into two groups: those who feel like participants in globalization and those feel like its victims. The gap between globalization winners and losers is growing, and the ratio of winners to losers is shifting because of the increasing population in the regions where people consider themselves losers. Terrorism as a political tool comes from feelings of hostility and loss among those who consider themselves losers in globalization. It is not by chance that we see many forms of terrorism in the Muslim world. In the Arab world many people believe that they have lost and that they have no future. Terrorism is a part of globalization – its dark side.
This is why there is a common interest in the fight against terrorism on the part of US and Russia. Russians helped win the victory over one “-ism”, and today, they could help Americans reduce the global gap and make more people in the world (including Russians) feel like the beneficiaries of globalization. My friends in Russia say they would like their country to become a normal state with political and economic freedoms that lives in harmony with its neighbors and is part of the international community. The development of Russia along the lines of these freedoms creates more opportunities for cooperation between our countries.
More in Russian >> www.expert.ru
[Expert] |
RUSSIA IN FACTS
