According to Alexei Pushkov, the head of the State Duma Committee for international affairs
Recent statment made by US presidential candidate Mitt Romney who said that Russia "is the US’ geopolitical enemy number one" gave Russian expert community quite aт occasion for discussion. During a press-conference dedicated to the topic “Russia in Europe and in the world: the current agenda” Alexei Pushkov, the head of the State Duma Committee for international affairs shared his point of view on this statment made by US presidential candidate, member of republican party and their preferential candidate as well as on the US-EU missile defence system that became the apple of discord between Russia and US.
Alexei Pushkov, the head of the State Duma Committee for international affairs
Of course Romney’s statement is connected to the campaigning. There’s no doubt of that. Romney is trying to dissociate himself from Obama’s policy, to show that this policy is flawed. There was such a situation in Seoul: a part of the Russian and US Presidents’ conversation that wasn’t meant for the public was heard and reported by journalists. Romney tries to take advantage of that, to show that Obama negotiates on some topics with Russia, topics that shouldn’t be negotiated under any conditions. In my opinion, Obama hasn’t said anything in this private conversation that is unthinkable or unusual. It is obvious that the most important issues are always postponed until after elections. No important issues can be resolved in a pre-election year, as the candidate is pressured by his opponents. Each action of his that he deems adequate could trigger criticism and weaken his electoral base. So all complex questions, including strategic ones, or those related to state security, proceed with great difficulty. It is no accident that before the New Year the American administration made a statement, the general sense of which was that the US will implement its missile-defense plans no matter what Russia thinks of them and these plans wouldn’t be changed no matter what concerns it has. After that the US tried to show that it was nothing but a pre-election statement. Obama needed to show his strong position on the question of anti-missile defense, he needed to show that he’s able to impose his position on Russia, that he is what a true US President should be – strong and decisive in protecting the US’ national interests. That statement was made in the framework of the presidential run, but it also reflects the US’s principle position. And in the same way, Romney’s statement is also connected to the campaigning, but it also reflects the position of the right-wing republicans. Romney’s predecessors were Bush the younger, with his talk of "an axis of evil", Vice-President Richard Cheney, US Secretary of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld (he held his post in Bush’s administration during his first term), and some other politicians who are partisans of direct confrontation with Russia. It is also worth noting that Romney’s closest adviser on foreign policy issues is the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, some say he’s Romney’s speechwriter too. Kagan is known as one of the leaders of a neo-conservative group of experts that had a great deal of influence over Bush’s administration, and even defined some aspects of its policy. Their influence was very strong, as there were not only experts, but also acting politicians from the Secretariat of Defense in their ranks. For example, the famous Paul Walfovets, who was responsible for substantiation of the American occupation of Iraq. This conservative group, which lost a great deal of its influence after Obama came to power, has regrouped and is now cooperating with republican candidates, with Mitt Romney in particular. So it is not a simple attempt to use Obama’s incautious words against him, Romney’s words reflect a certain ideology, and it is a fundamental ideological system. It is not a mere pre-election gimmick, even though some prefer to view it as such, but I think the problem runs deeper. We see that this line in US policy is persistent and has a great deal of influence. This is the same position that can be traced back to senator McCain, who’s always impelling the US to bomb someone. He called on it to bomb Libya, now he calls on it to bomb Syria, and he calls for a coup in Russia, and so on. Four years ago he ran for presidential elections on the same platform that Romney uses now. Romney’s words "the US should rule the world or else someone else will do it for us" is also well known. This statement was also made in the framework of the election campaign, and many experts say that he is just appealing to the right-conservative section of the American electorate – and this is also true. But one can make such appeals in a different manner. And if we hear the words "enemy number one" and "the US should rule the world," then we see that it is a revival of the old doctrine of American hegemony. Romney isn’t alone in his approach, there’s a group of senators who always try to promote the idea of US global domination and at the same time have anti-Russian views. So in my opinion Romney’s statement was a pre-election one, but it also reflects the position of a very influential group within the US administration – now this group consists of right-wing republicans who will challenge Obama at the upcoming elections. It is also worth noting that there are no moderate republicans among those who compete today for the position of the party’s leading candidate. And Romney is in fact the most moderate of the party’s candidates. It means that the republicans have adopted the Bush-McCain ideology for their campaign that is the ideology they try to use to gain power. If it was just a mere attempt to use the unfortunate phrase of Obama, and nothing would testify to the fundamental nature of this ideology in the US political system, one could say that Romney said those words in the heat of campaigning. But that is not the case. I think it is a very serious trend and we should treat it correspondingly. We should understand what ideology can gain power in the US. Of course, Romney could have miscalculated the effect of his words: by naming Russia as the US’ "geopolitical enemy number one" he de facto recognized that Russia has the necessary potential to become the US’ adequate rival. He has recognized that today Russia’s geopolitical position is strong enough for us to challenge US domination. I think this unexpected aspect of Romney’s statement shows us that the US has a strong desire to dominate over the world but at the same time it understands that there are some states ready to oppose this goal. Romney named Russia as the US’ main opponent in this way. It is still debated in the US. Others say that it is China, not Russia, that should occupy this first position. But Romney chose Russia, and that elevates our international status, so one might say that Romney sees great opportunities for Russia on the global scene. It is a sort of recognition of Russia’s achievements in the field of international affairs.
- After the talks with Obama, Dmitri Medvedev told a press conference that the talks on the missile-defense system would continue at the level of technical experts. However, some time before that he had to admit that the talks had hit a dead-end. So what will these experts discuss for half a year?
I think Medvedev’s statement about the talks hitting a dead-end is quite adequate and correct. This dead-end is due to the US’ position, which decided to install the missile defense system with no regard for Russia’s position. The US thinks that Russia shouldn’t participate in the decision-making process at all, as well as in the practical stages of development of the missile defense. This is what the December statement of the State Department was all about. But on the other hand the problem remains, and if it is in a dead-end it doesn’t mean it ceased to exist. For example, the problem of the Middle Eastern crisis is in a dead-end. It has been in a dead-end for almost all our lives, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. There are always those who try to do something about it, to make decisions, take actions – more or less successful – they even get results. Both Russia and US – and by the US I mean the Obama administration, as it is much more appealing to Russia than the Republicans, especially after Romney’s words – so, the Russian and the US governments are not interested in direct confrontation, as I see it. The reasons for this are obvious: we are not living in the era of the ‘cold war’ anymore, we need each other. It is obvious that the US can’t achieve their geopolitical goals on their own; they have to interact with other states – for example, in the case of nuclear non-proliferation activities. It is also obvious that Russia doesn’t need any confrontation with the US, which is the strongest member of the Western alliance and has great resources to influence the decisions of international organizations, including economic ones. Economic development is the number one priority for Russia today, so we are very interested in constructive development of our relationship with the US. Yes, we had to state the fact that the question of missile defense has hit a dead-end. So what can we do now? One way to deal with it is to give up. But the other way is to think of what we could do in the future to resolve the situation. It is obvious that nothing can be done in the pre-election year. So how could we manage to return to the question when the situation allows it, without burying it for good? We should give the issue to technical experts for study. They will deal with issues we won’t be able to discuss at our press-conferences, due to their immense complexity. For example, there’s the question of whether the US would pass on information about the acceleration of their missiles. Of course, we can obtain this information with our satellite intelligence, but if we exchange information (that we can check by the way) it will be a good basis for building up trust.
It is yet another small brick to build mutual trust. So I think it was a diplomatic move made in order to show that we don’t see the situation as a completely hopeless one, even though it is very grave. Due to the above-mentioned political reasons, the answer to this question can’t be found now, so the two presidents agreed to search for this answer in the future. For now the technical specialists will study all the parameters, they will discuss all the questions that can be discussed, and that might increase the level of trust. In fact the whole issue of the missile defense system rests on trust. For example, the US would never try to construct its defense system aimed against the UK, as the UK would never attack the US, the very idea is ridiculous. The US says that the system is targeting other countries that might pose a real threat. Our two countries have been in a state of ‘cold war’ for far too long and now we have to build up trust. As we have seen, the republicans are proceeding from the doctrine of ‘unconditional mistrust’: Russia is the enemy number 1 and that’s all. The democrats have a more developed position. They perceive Russia as an important geopolitical factor, as a factor that sometimes stands in the way of American political goals, for example, in the instance of the Syrian crisis the Obama administration has almost hysterically criticized Russia’s position. But at the same time they also understand that we have to maintain trust at least in some areas. We can’t go back to a total political and military confrontation. The way of cooperation is the most promising. I think now there will be a pause till the next stage of the dialog is possible, when we’ll be able to see what our positions have in common, when we’ll have to try to prevent the issue of the missile defense from becoming the breaking point of our relationship.
- We all know that this system of missile defense has a prefix ‘Euro-‘, however, we negotiate only with the American side. Is the European factor present in this question at all?
-Of course it is, the system will be dislocated on the territory of European states. Secondly, this system will be created not only be the US, but by their NATO partners as well, due to the geographical factor. As you know, the first missile defense-related crisis broke out when Bush’s administration decided to install the system’s elements in Poland, close to our borders, and strong radar able to scan all European part of Russia near Prague. The crisis started with the US introducing its defense systems to the states of Eastern Europe. New plans suggest that the elements of this system would be installed in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea and in Romania, probably in Poland. So the European factor is definitely present. You could have noticed that some European leaders, for example, German, have already made statements regarding the system. Europeans are more inclined to include Russia in its architecture, even if only formally, they want to find some compromise. It is natural that they don’t want a serious conflict with Russia. In general, Europe plays a conciliatory role in the discussion between the US and Russia. But not all European countries. The states of Eastern Europe, on the contrary, assumed a very harsh position. In Eastern European papers you can read some things you’ll never see in the West European media. Western media says the threat comes from Iran, but East European media doesn’t hesitate to say that Russia is one of the threats that the system should protect Europe from. Of course, these are not official statements, but such publications are widespread. Eastern Europe constantly spurs Western Europe and the US itself to create the missile defense system to protect Europe from enormous and potentially dangerous state which is Russia. So the European factor plays an ambiguous role. Some Western European leaders stand for including Russia into the system’s development, some Eastern European leaders are flatly against it, they are not even ready to exchange information on the system’s operation with Russia.
