Archives

by Alexander Konovalov

The Putin-Bush summit offers Russia an opportunity to reorder its relations with the West.

The Russia-United States summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, (February 24) will not be a routine meeting between the two Presidents. The year 2004 was marked by significant changes in the approaches taken by the West, and the U.S. in particular, towards the political situation in Russia and Moscow's actions in the global arena. Therefore, the summit in Slovakia will certainly be a historical crossroads, and will determine future developments in many areas of international relations.

During Vladimir Putin's first presidential term, Russia managed to strengthen significantly its authority, role and weight in international affairs, which was a surprise for many experts. Importantly, these positive changes occurred against the backdrop of moderate economic success and progress in the reform of democratic institutions in the country.

The positive image of Russia on the global arena was shaped by a well-considered and appropriate foreign policy; primarily, due to the fact that the Russian leader was one of the first foreign leaders to support the U.S. counter-terrorist operation in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Russia-European Union relations seem to have been developing quite successfully. The sides have agreed to create "four common spaces." At the end of 2003, prior to Mr. Putin's visit to the U.S., a doctrine on shaping a strategic alliance between Russia and the U.S. was even prepared, which saw strategic cooperation between the two great powers as the most realistic option for Russia's national interests.

However, the present state of relations between Russia and the West leaves little room for optimism. On the one hand, personal relations between Mr. Putin and George W. Bush and between the Russian President and other European leaders appear to remain friendly. On the other hand, U.S. and European media are inundated with material containing sharp criticism of Russia's domestic and foreign policy. In turn, the Russian press has also increased the amount of vociferous attacks on the U.S. and the West in general.

Why have drastic changes in relations between Russia and the West happened? The external factors are obvious. The West has been sharply critical of Mr. Putin's reform of the political system launched after a series of terrorist acts culminating in the Beslan tragedy, Russia's attempts to interfere in presidential elections in Ukraine and Abkhazia, the Yukos case, and the lack of independent media in Russia.

In reality, many problems in relations and inappropriate actions have not occurred because of reciprocal enmity, but because professionals have failed to discuss and coordinate simple and routine issues in advance. Constant dialogue has been interrupted and there are few professionals to tackle the issues.

If interests had been clarified in good time, many difficulties could have been avoided. One problem was the appearance of four NATO patrol aircraft in the Baltic states. It is well known that NATO countries share common airspace and patrol its entire perimeter. However, no one thought about discussing this problem while the Baltic states were in the process of joining NATO.

The world around Russia is quickly changing, and the country has long ceased to be "a fortress surrounded by enemies" that has to face the combined forces of the West.

Despite what many Russian politicians and experts may think, the West and particularly the U.S. pay much less attention to Russia than they think and even less than it really deserves.

Another widespread misconception in Russia is that the U.S. is making every possible effort to weaken and ultimately destroy the Russian state. We have to realise once and for all that the uncontrolled collapse of a large Eurasian power, which possesses thousands of nuclear warheads, would be catastrophic for America. Objectively, Russia is a key power safeguarding the security of the West, and the U.S. in particular.

Consequently, it is vital for Washington (although it has yet to understand this completely) that Russia remains strong economically and militarily, and politically stable. All the recent conflicts in Russia-U.S. relations on post-Soviet space were related to the fact that both sides considered it a zone of rivalry rather than cooperation. Russia is very sensitive about everything that distances it from other CIS countries.

However, if it genuinely aspires to be the centre of political and economic gravity across post-Soviet territory, then its main task is to offer to other CIS countries a more attractive model of development than those they can see in other neighbouring countries.

Russia is very concerned about the situation in Siberia and the Far East. There has been a great deal of speculation about those who would like to obtain the wealth of this region. However, once again, the major threat here is not from overseas, but within the country's borders.

The demographic situation and the lack of a sensible migration policy have led to the possibility that Russia might ultimately be deprived of these riches, as it would simply have neither the manpower nor resources to explore and control them.

All the above-mentioned factors form a mandatory agenda for the Russian-U.S. dialogue. The current one that includes terrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and energy dialogue is not enough. Naturally, acute problems such as the future of Iraq, relations with Iran, and the North Korean nuclear programme need to be discussed.

It is also important to determine the political sense of the current U.S. concept of struggling against the "outposts of tyranny," which has come to substitute the concept of countering the "axis of evil." It is more important, though, to go beyond the constraints of the electoral cycle in political thinking and answer a simple question: What do we want Russia-U.S. relations to be like in the near and distant future?

Russia must clearly define its national interests, primarily in relations with CIS countries, formulate these interests in a comprehensible manner and discuss the rules of conduct on post-Soviet territory with America. If interests are clearly defined and justified, they will be respected and Moscow will not have to clash with Washington in the Caucasus, Central Asia or Moldova.

The presidents should probably discuss how Russia sees the future of Siberia and the Far East. The economic dialogue is a separate matter. It has to be an economic dialogue in the true sense of the phrase, one that includes not only energy resources, but also the entire spectrum of problems related to Russia's integration with the economies of the developed countries. Moreover, a comprehensive security dialogue needs to be revived with the U.S., considering all aspects of this notion, including security in the environment, demography, and border protection.

Russia must take the initiative. The U.S. can still afford to notice Russia's existence only when it has to deal with terrorist threats or the proliferation of nuclear weapons; so Moscow should be the first to produce initiatives. Today's agenda features the issue of a new world order, where Russia might occupy a prominent place or might be left in its remote corner.

Even in the current situation, some Western experts mention the possibility of transforming Great Russia into the Third West, not in terms of its importance, but as an addition to the existing two - the United States and the European Union. However, this scenario will be feasible only if both sides fulfil a number of requirements, one of which is to improve the quality of respective policies.

(The writer is President of the Russian Institute for Strategic Assessments, Moscow (for RIA Novosti)

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager