#6
Izvestia
September 21, 2001
A LEADER IS REQUIRED
Putin is offered the chance to become father to a new system
Author: Svetlana Babaeva, Georgy Ilichev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
SOME RUSSIAN POLITICAL SCIENTISTS GATHERED YESTERDAY AT THE CIVIL
DEBATE CLUB TO DISCUSS RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND
FORMULATE A NEW AGENDA FOR THE GOVERNMENT. TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER
STRIKES AGAINST CIVILIZATION, IT WOULD BE BETTER IF RUSSIA AND NATO
MEMBERS FORM A REAL PARTNERSHIP.
We are entering an undetermined situation. There is no place in
the world for a new equivalent of the Roman Empire; but a leader is
required. Putin may become such a leader if he does not allow his
country to become involved in a war, proves capable of proposing
unifying initiatives, and shapes Russia's interests and line of
conduct. These are the opinions of some Russian political scientists
who gathered yesterday at the Civil Debate club to discuss Russia's
role in the new world order and formulate a new agenda for the
government.
There are other assessments. Economist Mikhail Delyagin, speaking
about the US: "It has reclaimed the mandate of world leader." There is
no consensus on evaluations of the general situation either: some
consider that "World War IV" has started (the Cold War was considered
to be World War III), others that "the old era has ended, while the
new one has not yet begun".
Despite the absence of a clear definition of the point we are at,
the political scientists at Civil Debate (incidentally, they are
sponsored by the authorities to some extent) tried to "shape the new
agenda" for the Russian political establishment. Speakers said that
this is the first large-scale crisis in which Russia can express its
own position - a crisis in attempts to guarantee security for itself
while ignoring the security of others.
Political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky and other experts who may be
described as close to the top decision-making circles proposed to
develop a new security system. Their proposals can be reduced to some
key points. The first is as follows: contemporary (also political)
institutions, which had inherited much from the Cold War, have shown
their inability to respond to new threats. It is necessary to reform
NATO, the UN - and the UN Security Council, which must be "deprived of
the status of Washington's regional committee" by means of admitting
new members. In addition, the security system must be collective,
without a dominant force but with a leader, possibly Putin, and all
civilized countries as members of the system. Close cooperation
between special services, especially in intelligence exchange, must
become a "subdivision" of this system. Since Russia has various forms
of intelligence, it will be able to be on an equal footing with the
leading world powers, primarily with the US.
Also, new initiatives and think-tanks are required; otherwise
Russia will remain shackled by an antiquated foreign policy and will
continue to "counter new threats by old methods".
It is not ruled out that some of these initiatives will be
announced by the president within days.
Statements made by many senior state officials and political
scientists are remarkably similar on a few points: the need to
transform NATO into a structure which does not dictate ideology; the
need to admit new states into the process of shaping the world order
(via the UN Security Council); active cooperation between the G-8
member nations, especially their special services.
Another point was mentioned by Alexander Auzan, director of the
Consumer Groups Confederation, at a roundtable meeting. He said that
society itself would cope with solving some of the problems - such as
ethnic and religious conflicts, which will inevitably arise and which
must not develop into international antagonism, relations between rich
and poor, etc. He added: "As a citizen, a taxpayer, I am willing to
pay additional taxes to maintain the special services if they deliver
Khattab, Basaev, and others within a year, preferably to stand trial.
However, I do not wish to pay for satellites which can detect the
light of a cigarette but cannot see a detachment of 100 guerrillas."
Another leading Russian political scientist, Dmitry Trenin,
deputy director of the Moscow Carnegie Center, expressed a sharper
opinion about Russia's foreign policy. He spoke of the role of a
"junior partner" being prepared for Russia, rather than a leader's
position.
Trenin thinks that the major problem Russia faces now is simple
and cruel: whether we should fight side by side with the Americans, or
try to stay out of it. If we make the wrong decision here, we will
have to pay a very high, almost exorbitant, price.
Admitting the obvious - the fact that "the terrorist attacks
proved to be an ugly and dreadful creation of US foreign policy" -
Moscow will factually be forced to make decisions instead of America,
Trenin believes.
The difference between our countries' weight categories is that
Russia may only claim the role of a junior partner of Washington, even
though it might be "the senior among juniors".
The US will be alone on the bridge. As Trenin said, it seems to
many people in Russia that the most reasonable move now would be to
stay out of this, allowing the Americans to make their decisions
independently and bear the complete burden of responsibility for any
unsuccessful military actions.
However, says Trenin, in this case "we will be defeated one by
one." According to him, "the next blow to contemporary civilization
may turn out to be just as unexpected and even more painful" than
passenger planes smashing into Manhattan. The only way out is to
conclude a full-scale alliance between Russia and NATO, instead of a
mythical "strategic partnership".
(Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)
