Izvestiya - 05.16.2002

from Johnson's Russia List

 

Michael McFaul: The Idea of Friendship with Putin Belongs to Bush

 

Interview by Georgy Stepanov

 

Izvestiya

 

from WPS Monitoring Agency

 

A SPECIALIST ON CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA SPEAKS ABOUT HOW RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES ARE DEVELOPING, AND WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM THE SUMMIT NEXT WEEK. ISSUES COVERED INCLUDE THE MIDEAST CRISIS AND THE ONGOING WAR IN CHECHNYA.

Michael McFaul is one of the most well-known specialists on Russia in the United States. Some even regard him as the main ideologue and consultant to the Bush administration on Russian policy. He was invited to the White House solely to help the president prepare for the first meetings with Vladimir Putin. What can we expect from next week's Russian-American summit? Michael McFaul spoke to us about this at Stanford University. Question: There are many hawks in the Bush administration, who do not welcome close contacts with Russia. They are Vice President Richard Cheney, head of the Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Can they interfere with success of the summit?

McFaul: This is hardly likely to happen. After the events of September 11, these people are alarmed not at Russia or China, but at different problems. This allows such people as Colin Powell and  Condoleeza Rice to dominate in the foreign policies. As far as President Bush is concerned, he is not just a passive on-looker as it may seem. The idea of closer contacts with Putin belongs to him. Bush does not have the experience of the Cold War, at that time he was not in politics yet. He dealt with other things, such as baseball, and I believe that he has never met a Soviet leader. In contrast to those fighting against the USSR, Bush is sure that Russia is a part of Europe. He has no stereotypes in regard to Putin. It does not matter to him that Putin used to work with the KGB.

Question: Does it matter to you?

McFaul: Yes, it does. I have certain fears in this connection. I fully support all what Putin is doing in economy. His foreign policies, even if they do not correspond with the United States's interests, prove that he is a  very competent person. I have questions to your leader concerning democracy. I know civil servants of the Kremlin and of the Russian government. They believe that dictatorship can secure economic growth. But this can be so only in agrarian countries, willing to become industrial ones. And now Russia has post- industrial economy. I am afraid that Putin does not realize this.

Question: Do you hint at the stories about NTV, Berezovsky?

McFaul: I speak in general. I think that Putin does not understand that criticizing power can help this power. How do we fight corruption in the United States? There are two forces - independent media and powerful opposition party. Question: What are the priorities of the administration in your relations with Russia?

McFaul: After September 11 the priorities have essentially changed. Some time ago I thought that there was nothing more important for Bush and Condoleeza Rice than contacts with Moscow. After the terrorist acts they stopped paying due attention to Russia. In any case, the United States aspire to secure membership of your country in the western community - this is their prior task now. It means cooperation in fighting terrorism and the planned admission of Russia into the WTO. The administration does not Bush and Putin to talk only on the standard set of topics during their Moscow meeting - nuclear arms, stability in Europe, regional conflicts and suchlike.

Question: Will the summit become a significant stage in the development of the Russian-American relations?

McFaul: I think so. Firstly, the administrated wants to conclude an agreement on reducing strategic offensive arms and believes to make Putin happy with this. By the  way, earlier Bush was not ready to sign it. Secondly, the United States is likely to cancel the Jackson-Vanik amendment about Russia. Thirdly, the administration is interested in closer contacts of Moscow with NATO. This will be discussed at the summit. And the question of Iraq, too.

Question: Many believe that the military operation of the United States in Iraq will take place at the end of the year. Is it so?

McFaul: At least, we wish to do so. A month ago I was sure that the United States would strike at Saddam Hussein, at the end of the year. But while the Middle East is at war, while the countries do not reach an agreement, the White House will not start the operation.

Question: At the new stage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the White House acted in a different way than Israel had expected. Terrorists did not offer any choice to Israel with their explosions in cafes, markets and buses.

McFaul: Bush announced, quite unexpectedly for me, that there should be a state named Palestine. This is the cornerstone of the problem, the cause for the disagreement between many Israeli politicians, who refuse this idea point-blank. Of course, Bush supports Israel as a country counteracting terrorism. This is our main ally in the Middle East.

Question: Why did not the United States change its critical attitude toward Moscow's actions in Chechnya after September 11? This has been proved that Al-Qaeda financed, armed and instructed Chechen guerillas.

McFaul: Many Americans believe that the previous position should be changed. I am not one of them. "We should use the experience of Russians in Chechnya", said one congressman. But I would like to draw a historical example. If I am not mistaken, in 1985 Nelson Mandela was mentioned in documents of the State Department of the United States as a communist terrorist. He supported units destroying white farmers in South Africa. Yet the sole purpose of Mandela was independence. The situation in Chehcnya is very similar: there are extremists, who need an Islamite order who think about destroying Russia, the United States. And there are young people, who just want to be independent from Russia. They fight together like it was in Angola, Zimbabwe, SAR, Vietnam...

Question: And what do you suggest?

McFaul: I advise Chechens to stop taking money from Islamites, to declare that you are not with them, with terrorists. Maskhadov is too weak for such declarations. But I am sure that the political process, not the military one, will prevail in Chechnya. All wars end in agreements. It is better to do it now than in twenty years.

Question: You do not support Russian military actions in Chechnya, do you?

McFaul: I supported the military response of Russia to Basaev's sortie to Dagestan in 1999. We would have done the same if some revolutionary from Mexico wanted to liberate Texas from the United States. Of course, Russia should protect itself. Yet the  continuation of this war and the present tactics of military operations will not secure the major task - they will not protect the country. Now all extremists of the Arabian world want to fight in Chechnya. Is it in Russia's interests?

Question: Do you think that negotiations with Maskhadov is the only way out?

McFaul: I cannot think of any other way out.

Question: Who is it more advantageous to keep contact with - Moscow or Beijing?

McFaul: I will answer in a different way: the contact with Beijing is more complicated. The progress with the relations with Russia is obvious. And it is not clear yet what we will have with China. We have a good trade with it but let us remember: the USSR traded with the west before the WW II  very well. I am sure that the threat to the world in the 21st century will come from China.

Question: Does Russia pose a threat to the United States?

McFaul: Americans do not think so any more. And I am worried about the destiny of democracy in Russia. The conservative military- industrial complex is still influential in Russia. It is it, not Putin that needs to export nuclear technologies to Iran. Look, each trustworthy ally of the United States is a democratic country, each enemy is a dictatorship. Now Russia is much closer to  the democratic standards than a decade ago. But it has not come to them closely enough.

Question: The development of the Russian-American relations is obvious. Now we have more agreements than disagreements.

McFaul: That is why I am optimistic. We have got the basis, we just have to use it correctly. The relations between Putin and Bush are also good. They are just as close as those between Yeltsin and Clinton, and even more stable. Both the presidents are pragmatic, in contrast to their predecessors. That is why they have found a common language.

(Translated by Daria Brunova)