Interview with Christopher Jones, associate professor in Political Science at the Henry M. Jackson School of International studies at Washington University.
Can we really talk about a thaw in relations between the US and Russia? Is it going to change now that the Republicans have won a majority?
First, let me refer to your first question. Of course, Republicans are going to be, at least suspicious, if not hostile, towards the Russian Federation. However, foreign policy is a prerogative of the American President and also the American Secretary of State. And, in my view, they have brought about an enormous improvement in American-Russian relations. That improvement is embedded in the series of long-term programs: the new START treaty is one, but the new national security strategy is another, the statement on missile defense is another, the program of cooperation on non-proliferation is another. In my view, under Obama and Hilary Clinton relations between Moscow and Washington really have not been this good since 1990-1991. This is not an arbitrary choice, either on the Medvedev-Putin side or the Obama-Clinton side. But I am afraid that the Republicans will try to undermine those new good relations.
But at the same time, it seems that Obama is paying less attention to the former Soviet republics, as compared to the Republicans, who were very keen to help Yushchenko, and, of course, Saakashvili. How would you evaluate the policy of the United States (the Obama-Clinton administration) towards the former Soviet republics, vis-à-vis their relations with Russia.
To me, it is based on a much more accurate understanding of these controversial events in Georgia and the Caucasus. A number of reports have indicated that the Georgian side bears at least 50% of the responsibility for the war that broke out, if not more. I’m not going to say that there were not some legitimate concerns on the Georgian side about Russian activity. But to me the Obama-Clinton policies have rejected the reflexive anti-Russian pro-Georgian policy of the Bush administration. Regarding Ukraine, I think they are also much more sensitive to the specific domestic conditions in the Ukraine: popular moods in Eastern Ukraine, Western Ukraine, and so forth; and understand that introducing the issue of NATO membership would be very divisive program for Ukraine right now, and really counterproductive to everyone’s interest.
What about the South Caucasus region? It seems that today Russia is regaining its positions there, not only in states like Armenia but also Azerbaijan, hosting meetings between the two presidents over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The United States, although Clinton did visit the region recently, just seems to step back and observe what is going on. Is it just passiveness or some kind of a strategy towards the issues of the region?
I hope it is a strategy. I hope so, because I think an overt American effort to intervene in those issues might really be counterproductive. I am more sympathetic to Russia than many observers in the United States, and I certainly believe that Russia is not into domination for the sake of domination, but stability for the sake of stability in the South Caucasus area on issues of Islamic fundamentalism, on issues of terrorism, on issues of energy development. So I hope that the Clinton policy there is a deliberate effort not to stir up the kind of heated emotions that the Bush-Cheney administration seemed to want to stir up in the Eastern Black Sea area.
And one more very important region. Russia now is providing logistic supportal to US troops in Afghanistan, Russians and Americans have participated together in joint anti-drug operations. There seems to be a shift in the Russian position on the Iran issue. These are signs of a certain change in Russian policy in the region. Do you believe that Russia is now together with the United States on issues like Iran and Afghanistan? And do you believe that there might be a military operation against Tehran?
Let me address the military operation first. The answer is “no”. I believe that for the Americans to undertake a military operation would be a complete catastrophe, whether they do it unilaterally, together with Israel, or multilaterally with other states as well. I would also conclude that a sober analysis of the Iranian issue by the Obama-Clinton administration would suggest that there is a big difference between the legitimate Russian interest in providing civilian technology for purely economic reasons, just as Russia is providing that kind of technology now to Vietnam, carrying out construction with Japan. Russia is in no way interested in generating a nuclear competition in the Middle East between Iran and Israel. So I think those improved relations are based on much more complex and much more accurate analysis than the “black or white” analysis of the Bush era – “you are either with us or against us” – just two possibilities with no room for subtleties. And these legitimate interests of Iran and Russia are essentially defined by the non-proliferation treaty. I think that the Russian proposal on reprocessing would be the best example of the important distinction between assisting in the fully legal, fully legitimate development of nuclear power by the signatories of the NPT and making nuclear weapons.
