US & Russia: Allies Again?

A Russian view of the US in the aftermath of September 11

Sixty years ago, the Soviet Union was fighting virtually alone against Fascism in Europe (see page 49). Then came Pearl Harbor, which “changed everything” and brought the US into the War both in Asia and Europe. Four years later, US and Soviet troops met as friends and allies on the Elbe river.

Today, after an attack even more horrific than that of December 7, 1941, the US and Russia again find themselves thrust into an alliance in a worldwide war against a horrible “ism.” Sixty years ago, the fight was with Fascism; today it is with Islamic Fundamentalism. As the Russian saying goes, “protiv kovo druzhit budem” (who are we going to be friends against)?

It has always been our central editorial imperative at Russian Life to help Americans better understand Russia and Russians. So we felt it particularly important for readers to hear the views of influential Russians about our current international situation. Toward this end, in mid-October, Russian Life Executive Editor Mikhail Ivanov sat down with Yevgeny Bovt, deputy editor in-chief of Izvestia daily, one of Russia’s most authoritative newspapers, to talk about how the tragic events in America look from Russia and how they have affected Russian-American relations.

Russian Life: We keep hearing that “America has become different, it is a new country.” How does it look from here? Does America look like it has learned any lessons from the events of September 11? When I hear news of t-shirts being sold there with the inscription “I survived  September 11 in NY,” or t-shirts with a target over Osama bin Laden, I get the feeling that nothing can kill that famous American business spirit ... I mean, I try to analyze the moral aspect of it. I don’t remember any Russian-made t-shirts on sale here after the terrorists exploded two residential buildings in Moscow in 1999. And this is why I wonder if the US has learned any lessons.

YB: Well, sale of t-shirts is what I call a traditional popsovaya [pop-culture] reaction to a phenomenon ... We also don’t print t-shirts on other themes. It is just their traditional reaction— they produce t-shirts in the wake ... As for me, I have not been there since September 11. They say America has learned lessons. They will now have to fight with terrorism by changing numerous traits that previously seemed inseparable from the American lifestyle—be it the mail, be it the interference with private life … lots of things. They don’t even know, and we don’t know, how many things will be affected. But what is sure is that this is permanent; this will last a long time and that it will result in changing basic, habitual things of their daily lives—this is inevitable. And we too will have to face the same problems, just a bit later. We will also be changing many things which have become a part of our lifestyle.

RL: Do you see further liberalization or to the contrary, more austerity?

YB: I don’t think it will be either liberalization or austerity—at least in the former meaning of this [latter] word. I think there will be some revisions of things—and we will have to adjust to it as well.

RL: You said America will have to revise many things ... By this I suppose we are talking about restrictions on personal freedoms and human rights ... Is this not an acknowledgment of the fact that the tragic events of September 11 testify to the crisis of a system based on the notion of “political correctness”?

YB: Yes, it is a crisis of the form of political correctness—the way it was formed before September 11, 2001. Sooner or later, one will have to solve a very cynical problem—for example, can Arabs study in private aviation schools? You may try to cover these issues with a veil; you may pretend that Arabs are not to blame, that skin color has nothing to do with this, etc., etc. … you will have to raise this issue ... And how they will solve this problem, I don’t know. What I am saying is that, in the Soviet army for instance, we had the principle of percentages ... For example, units formed of Uzbeks could not serve in Uzbekistan. There could not be purely Uzbek units per se ...

RL: Let us explain to readers why ...

YB: It was because they feared national revolt. That goes back to the time of Stalin and actually Trotsky—our first military commander. Could you imagine a Chechen politruk (political leader) in the Soviet army? Never. I am not saying whether it was good or bad. I can actually say it was bad, from the point of view of political correctness which took shape in the liberal era, the era before September 11. And how will it be now, after September 11? I don’t know. Maybe they will reconsider it, or maybe they will again conclude that whatever existed before September 11 was right. Maybe not. The political correctness which was formed before September 11 led to the events of the Durban Conference [on Human Rights] under UN auspices—held approximately two weeks before the terrorist attacks in New York. And what happened there was an orgy of black racists, together with Arab racists. It was a UN conference chaired by Human Rights Expert Mary Robinson ... She also visited Chechnya and was teaching us lots of things. So there [in Durban], they approved a resolution calling for whites to pay blacks compensation for slavery, saying that one needed to blame Israeli Zionists and US racists for everything. So it was an overtly anti-white conference and anti-white resolution. Later, all of this resulted in the fact that the West had to keep apologizing ...

RL: A sort of inferiority complex...

YB: Yes, an inferiority complex: “Yes, yes, we are at fault.” But then nobody raised the issue that Arabs, for instance, used to trade slaves as well. Then they must also pay compensation. And what is happening now in Zimbabwe? In Zimbabwe a black racist regime has replaced the white racist regime. And people are shy to speak about it, it is not correct. Why can’t blacks be racist? No, they can. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe put in place a black racist regime, and this issue needs to be raised. In South Africa, there is a soft racist regime now. Again, instead of a white racist regime. And there are a number of other African countries with the same racist regimes.

And then there is the, wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia, which, in terms of its ideological views, is worse than what is promoted by Osama bin Laden. Well, maybe not worse, but in principle it is all the same. They are also shy to talk about it, but this is a problem. So, either we approach the whole world with the same standards with regards to human rights, or we have different standards. If we say that there are problems with human rights and with the freedom of press in Russia, then what, such problems don’t exist in Saudi Arabia? Maybe there are some, and even more acute ones, but for some reason it is not being discussed. Is it only because, formally, Russia is part of the European Council? Or is there some other reason? I think there are other reasons.

RL: Financial ones?

YB: Well, oil-related, whatever other reasons.

RL: You said Americans will have to solve the problem of whether Arab citizens should be allowed to study at aviation schools. But after the bacteriological terrorist attacks, when anthrax was disseminated by mail, it looks like one needs to look at the problem in a much wider context: what to do with the residence of Arab citizens in America, whether to give them visas, residence permits, green cards ...

YB: These issues also need to be raised. Or rather they need to be resolved. If, for instance, Great Britain keeps saying, ‘OK, we adhere to the same policies as before,’ then the question is: “Isn’t the office of bin Laden’s representatives in London annoying you a bit, guys?” I think it is annoying them. But it is there. It exists there quite legally, in compliance with all British laws. So, either you keep being hypocrites, and simply keep pretending that everything will be the old way, but still, in fact, keep evicting aliens through unlawful means. Or you sincerely review the system of political correctness which was formed before September 11.

RL: It sounds like the US, in the figurative sense, needs to bomb the system of political correctness, rather then Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan ... We know that bin Laden has many relatives in the US with solid financial interests there. In fact, all of this bombing of Afghanistan may end up being what we call “firing at sparrows with canons”?

YB: Yes, I think the bombing of Afghanistan will achieve nothing globally. Your magazine is a bimonthly, so our interview will be published in November. We are in mid-October, so I can say that even if by mid-November Afghanistan is erased from the earth, it will achieve nothing. Because there are seeds of this terrorism in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, in Saudi Arabia, in our Northern Caucasus, in the Trans-Caucasus, in the Fergana Valley of Central Asia, in Pakistan, in Kashmir (India).

RL: To follow up on that idea, some Russian observers have said that, by bombing Afghanistan or Sudan, the US is just multiplying the number of people who are desperate, who have nothing to lose and thus will be willing to become suicide bombers—people for whom life has no value. And then the argument is: one needs to make these people cherish their lives, help them become attached to material well-being, material values, so that they become attached to their houses, their insurance, like Americans are ...

YB: Why isn’t bin Laden attached to his house and to his insurance? Many of these fighter-terrorists are rich people.

RL: So it is not a conflict between the worlds of rich and poor? Is it then a conflict of two ideologies, no matter how reluctant people are to look at the problem from this angle?

YB: If you give money to the poor, they will later demand apologies, they will say just money is not enough. They will force you to apologize, to be humiliated. Then they will demand more money anyway. As a matter of fact, we have already had this in Russia after 1917. Well, it was not quite the same, it happened differently. But it all ended up in the unequivocal victory of one side: the victory of the former poor who later just formed a new elite. Humankind is created in such a way that people will never stop halfway: they will always demand a maximum victory. Compromise in the history of mankind has only ever been possible when it was based on strength. Mankind has never achieved anything otherwise.

RL: Other observers say it is all about a division of power. They say that now just another “ism” has replaced fascism, and the militant Muslims, or wahhabists are seeking to redo the world map and dominate the world, as utopian as this idea may be. So, what do you think Osama bin Laden seeks?

YB: Osama bin Laden seeks to destroy American civilization, then he will take on European civilization. How? First, through a strike against skyscrapers, then through the creation of total panic and fear. We already see this. The disruption of the work of major social and political institutions. It will have an impact on the economy, and on and on ...

RL: But if so, why then are people so scared to present this as a conflict between two civilizations. And what is it, if not a clash between two ideologies, two different views of the world?

YB: In October, when the US began bombing Afghanistan, over 80% of Pakistani citizens were against the US. In other words, the top leadership of [Pakistan] may support America, but the major part of that society, on the grassroots level, will be against America. It is a conflict. A social conflict. Not a conflict between George Bush and bin Laden, but rather a conflict between the US way of life and the mentality of those who support bin Laden, at least emotionally.

RL: Let’s look at how all of this affects US-Russian relations. Here I am talking about Putin’s speech in Berlin, after which event it was said that Russia unequivocally sided with the West in its fight against terrorism. The results of subsequent Russian opinion polls (see page 6) published in your own newspaper testify to the fact that the majority of Russians, to put it mildly, aren’t supportive either of the bombing of Afghanistan or of America and NATO becoming our friends again. Frankly, aren’t we faced with the same situation as in the early 1990s, when our leaders moved toward the US with open arms, and then later simply got snubbed like little boys?

YB: Well, in the 1990s, Russian public opinion was not so unequivocally positive about America, because during previous decades this public opinion had been turned against the US. This cannot pass without any consequence, without leaving a trace.

RL: And what is your personal attitude towards this eventual new alliance? Americans sympathizing with Russia already talk of Russia’s imminent entry into NATO. They draw the parallel between 1941, when Russia was fighting Hitler all alone and then allied with America, that now the two countries should ally against a new “ism.” It sounds like a remake of “the encounter on the Elbe river.” Are we allies again?

YB: So far, Russia has not really grasped for good the Islamic threat, even despite Chechnya. For many Russian regions, Chechnya is far away, something abstract. And even despite the explosions of residential buildings [in 1999 in Moscow], your average Russian quickly forgets such things. And the mail system which terrorists in the US have used to spread germs, well, it works rather poorly in Russia, so it hasn’t quite scared Russia the way it scared America. When it does scare us, then there will a common understanding of this common threat.

RL: And how do you explain the fact that our political leadership rushed to help America—some say precipitously?

YB: Because the elite understands that threat better than the obyvatel (the common man). On the level of the ruling elite, namely on the presidential level, there is a better understanding of this threat. They understand it rationally, while the average Russian will not realize this threat until he gets it on the emotional level.

RL: And what can America do for us now? What we did for them is clear: we are supplying arms to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; we put pressure on former Soviet Republics in Central Asia to open their air corridors and their bases to the US; we promised to open our air corridor for humanitarian cargoes; we approved of the operation in Afghanistan. So far, all we have seen from the American side is a slight change in tone regarding the US position on Chechnya ...

YB: I would not look at it from this practical angle—i.e. how much money we will get ...

RL: Of course, I don’t mean money or new credits—especially now that Russia is doing much better economically ... I am talking about more global things.

YB: What specifically? If we have a new emotional climate in our relations with the West, and with America specifically, it can’t help but have an influence on all spheres of our relations, including the economic. And what if we find ourselves on the other side of the barricade, siding with the Islamic world, eh? To appreciate the former, one needs to answer the latter question—what if we are regarded [by the West and America] as a hostile party in these events? Because they have many fewer economic ties with us than with Saudi Arabia, so they will be less ceremonious with us, and then they would seriously rebuff us in terms of different sanctions, in terms of barring access to markets, in terms of toughening the general tone in negotiations on all fronts—the WTO, trade relations, credits.

RL: Is it realistic to expect that this new, improved tone in our relations will contribute to such things as the final abolition of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment [a congressional act from the 1970s that ties US-Russian trade to human rights], and the recognition of Russia as a country with a market economy?

YB: Well, not overnight—far from it. But gradually, step by step, yes. If we di not have this new climate, our prospects would be worse. It would result in a tougher stance vis-à-vis the West in the economic and political fields.

RL: Well, let me continue to act as a “Devil’s Advocate.” Could we foresee a situation where Russia is useful to America in providing support in the US’ anti-terrorist operation, but once the operation is over and such support is no longer necessary, Russia will be cast aside like a used tin can? The terrorist problem will be solved sooner or later, the US economy will improve and it is “bye-bye Russia” again. One only needs to consider how Russia was seen by the new Bush administration before September 11.

YB: OK, let us cite the example of a country whose economic weight vis-a-vis America is approximately the same as Russia. For example, Finland. Did the Americans trash Finland once Finland stopped being useful in the Cold War? Finland was needed by America during the Cold War, but has American trashed Finland now?

RL: But is Finland’s role in geopolitical issues comparable to Russia’s?

YB: To better understand whether we can ask this question, “Will America trash/dump Russia again, like it did in the 1990s,” one needs to look in closer detail at the nature of the conflicts we have had with America in the 1990s. The Balkans? OK, we supported Milosevic. But how did it all end up? At the last moment, we joined in his dethroning with our own hands. So, was it worth supporting him? We have been arguing with America at length over Iraq. Now it turns out that Iraq was one of the countries which attempted to produce bacterial weapons, including anthrax. So maybe they were right to criticize us? Then there was the issue of our arms sales to Iran. But it turns out that part of these weapons ... ended up in such organizations as Islamic Jihad in Egypt or in Lebanon ... Our differences over NATO expansion? OK, NATO has already expanded to the Baltic states almost, and nobody has so far proven that NATO creates a direct threat to Russia. And then, in the fall of 2001, the Russian president began saying that we need to radically revise our relations with NATO, thus hinting that Russia needs to enter NATO ... So it turns out that, throughout the 1990s, we argued over all these issues in vain?!

RL: But are they going to accept us in NATO?

YB: I don’t think they will do it all at once. But someday they will probably take us.

RL: So when is it going to happen? Right now, it looks as if a year from now NATO will accept the three Baltic states and not Russia. And what are we going to say then?

YB: The world is changing so rapidly now that it is hard to predict what we will have in a year. I don’t rule out such a situation whereby events will develop even faster in the near future—that what seemed impossible two years ago will become possible in the near future, like Russia’s entry into NATO. For now, in October 2001, there are no grounds for saying that, in a year we will be accepted into NATO. But in a couple of months the situation in the world will change even more radically. There are periods in history when the situation changes so fast, that radical decisions which seemed impossible before are taken.

RL: Any example from history ?

YB: When the Soviet Union was collapsing. One year prior to its collapse, I personally heard some quite serious people—who later became leaders of Russia—saying that, technically, it is impossible for such a huge state to disintegrate, if only because one will have to sign anew so many international accords and treaties, etc. And what? It all happened in just three months after August 1991.

RL: So what specific radical changes in the world must happen so that Russia’s acceptance into NATO stops looking like a fantasy?

YB: The main factor will be the unpredictability of military actions in Afghanistan, which may result in the expansion of military actions into other regions. This may lead to outbreak of other conflicts which have been dormant for decades. These conflicts may put in jeopardy entire states, such that they may face threats unthinkable two months ago, including the use of chemical or bacteriological weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, as does India. Maybe there are nuclear weapons in Iraq or Iran; Israel has nuclear weapons.

RL: Lest we think only in terms of such apocalyptic scenarios, let us take a more down-to-earth look at Russia’s relations with the West and with America specifically. What are, in real terms, the points we have in common now? Other than the recently growing economic interest?

YB: Militant Islam is threatening the existence of the Russian state to the same degree it is threatening the existence of the American state. This is point number one. A market economy and commitment to its principles is another thing we have in common. Commitment to the principles of self-regulated societies—despite all the caveats here with regard to Russia—is commonality number three. Finally, our way of life is closer to the European life, to the Western lifestyle and thus indirectly to the US lifestyle, than it is to the Afghan way of life, if we take life in Afghanistan as the ultimate goal the Taliban is fighting for.

RL: And what to do with all those talks about the “mysterious Russian soul,” which has a lot of oriental elements?

YB: The mysterious Russian soul is closer to the European soul than to the Taliban soul.

RL: So, to sum up, what President Putin has done, beginning with his speech in Berlin and continuing with his subsequent statements regarding the US and its anti-terrorist operation, is it a step in the right direction, even though our society is lagging behind in its opinions?

YB: Yes, a step in the right direction and, yes, the society is lagging behind. Our leaders have always led the society, and not the other way around. All the more so that our society still trusts Putin a lot, so it will listen to what he is saying.

RL: What then is your prognosis for the Russian-American summit in November? Especially in the context of the coming radical global changes you mentioned?

YB: For now, my prognosis, based on today’s realities, is that nothing sensational is going to happen. But it is now clear that the previous discussion about the ABM Treaty is no longer topical. Other problems have become more acute and this is actually just a sensation. Who on earth would even have thought at the beginning of this year that our discussion of the ABM Treaty would no longer be topical?! Americans will even more persistently reiterate that they want to withdraw from the treaty.

RL: Condoleeza Rice made it plain during her visit to Russia in mid-October ...

YB: To me it was clear after September 11: the ABM Treaty is buried. And I don’t see any argument the Russian side could find polite to cite in the defense of this treaty. And it seems to me that Putin will not fiercely defend the ABM Treaty.

RL: And what is he going to talk about with Bush? “Take us into the WTO, abolish Jackson-Vanik [while outdated, the amendment is simply overridden annually], take us into NATO?

YB: These are all petty issues. Even our admission into the WTO is a small issue as compared to a new tone in Putin’s conversation with Bush. I mean, what if they began to speak for good like allies? A totally new context for our relations would be created if they could speak with each other like Bush speaks with British leader Tony Blair. This is more important than our admission into the WTO because this latter issue would then be decided upon in a different context.

RL: So a Joint Declaration or some Declaration of Intent would be enough?

YB: Maybe such a declaration, yes. Of course, there will be some progress on WTO, some progress on Russia’s relations with NATO. But it is the general context which is essential, even if they don’t sign anything concrete. The very style, the very spirit is important. Not even the spirit of Lublyana [where the two leaders met earlier this year]. I expect an even newer spirit in relations between the two leaders and their perception of each other as allies.

RL: It sounds like you feel the events of September 11 have helped US-Russian relations, as cynical as that may sound?

YB: Yes, the explosions of September 11 helped Russo-American relations. As cynical as it may sound.   RL