WashProFile - 01.22.2004

Washington ProFile News Agency /Johnson's List

Forgetting Russia: A Reaction to the State of the Union Speech 

An interview with Nikolai Zlobin, Director of Russia and Asian Programs at the Center for Defense Information.


Q: President Bush delivered his State of the Union earlier this week. Russia was not mentioned once. Why?

Zlobin: First, Bush has not forgotten Russia. He was simply talking about the things that are most important to the American political establishment, and Russia doesn’t have that high a priority. Second, Bush did not mention his relations with Russia ­ or with China, for that matter ­ because slippery issues like that are generally avoided during election years if the politician doesn’t feel he can win on the issue. Members of the US political establishment don’t feel that they have a good enough argument to win a debate over how Russian-American relations should be developed. That’s why everyone prefers to avoid the question.

Third, there is a certain skepticism toward Russia which began forming last fall. Russia position towards the questions facing the world order has been passive in many respects, making Russia a less important country for the US. It is especially unjust that Bush did not name Russia as one of the countries hurt by terrorism.

Q: The loss of interest in Russia ­ is it a result of Russian foreign policy, or the emergence of a new political reality?

Zlobin: Both. Today, there’s a rethinking of American policy toward Russia. Increasingly, Russia is being judged by what’s going on inside the country. In this setting, the idea of a strategic partnership, only recently espoused by both countries, has evaporated. I think the idea of partnership in the energy sector is now received with much less optimism than it was a few months ago. The American elite has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to build a partnership with Russia, since they have nothing in common, in terms of either value systems, goals, or approaches. Meanwhile, differences between their values and approaches are increasing. Interest is also falling because Russian-American relations remain without substance, and cooperation proceeds along narrowly defined lines.

Interest in Russia as a country that can help America has disappeared. Interest in Russia as a country to be wary of has not emerged. Interest in Russia as a country to be paying attention to is rapidly disappearing. The only growing interest in Russia is as a country which should be studied as a special phenomenon. And that’s rather sad.

Q: While not mentioning Russia, Bush nevertheless mentioned Ukraine…

It seems to me that the foreign policy section of Bush’s speech was not very convincing. He took a defensive position and tried to show that the actions undertaken by America over the past year were reasonable and necessary.

Bush shied from tradition by devoting the first part of his speech to foreign policy ­ American presidents usually begin with the economy and domestic problems. Bush changed the order as a consequence of the debates going on within the Democratic camp. Bush said very clearly and frankly that America will continue spreading democracy and building democratic regimes in those countries where democracy is lacking ­ primarily, in the Middle East. But the same could be applied to former USSR countries. America will take an active role in the building of democratic political systems, civil society, the free press, etc, and will actively cooperate with the local elite.

I can easily predict right now that 2004 will be a year of increasing conflict between Russia and the US as regards to the sphere of influence in the former USSR space. Coordinating the interests of Russia and the US will not be an easy task. Special attention should be paid to Ukraine, certain Central Asian countries, Georgia, Moldavia, and maybe even the Belarus. These will be sources of tension between Russia and the US. In this light, Americans find it difficult to see Russia in the role of a strategic partner. But I think Washington will have to acknowledge that Russia has important political and economic interests in the post-Soviet states and that America will have to take these interests into account in all of its dealings with the region, and remain friendly with Russia.

Q: Did the speech fulfill its purpose for the Bush administration?

Zlobin: Bush’s team though the speech would set a contrast to the squabbles going on in the Democratic camp, where candidates are fighting for votes. It was supposed to transcend politics and offer a strategic long-term vision for the country. But the speech did not fulfill that goal ­ it turned out to be more political and more conflict-oriented than its authors intended. As the speech went on, Bush’s face gradually changed ­ his growing irritation was noticeable, stemming from both the text of the speech and the reaction to it. Many things he said were taken with a great deal of skepticism from his audience.

Another thing became clear ­ America is not ready to shift to a wider international base for cooperation in Iraq and on the war on terrorism. Bush said that the US does not need permission from the UN to defend America’s national interests.

The most important thing that Bush wanted to emphasize to his audience is that the work his administration has begun on foreign and domestic policy is not over. Therefore, the administration should get four more years to finish the job, so as not to change horses in midstream. We should therefore expect the continuation of an active US foreign policy, breaking with old stereotypes and standards of international law. American politics will remain utilitarian, and will come into conflict with the world view of the traditional international organizations and power centers.