#4
The Russia Journal
October 19-25, 2001
Window of opportunity for U.S.,
Russia
By SERGEI ROGOV
(Sergei Rogov is director of the Institute of the United
States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences.)
The Sept. 11 attacks have challenged many of the premises of U.S. foreign policy. While terrorism itself is centuries old, this type of terrorism is new and closely linked to the process of globalization.
The old terrorism reflected political and social developments within a country and tended to have a political ideology. The new terrorism has evolved to go beyond borders.
Terrorist groups now operate as global institutions and rely on networking and global financial systems for their activities. The new ideology of the terrorists is based not on communism or anti-communism, but on nationalism and religious fundamentalism.
Its root is not in Cold War confrontation – it has had a life of its own. The reaction of Islamic fundamentalists to the challenge of globalization is not dissimilar to the reaction of those Americans who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing – radicals with a connection to Christian fundamentalism. But Christianity had this crisis during the period of the Crusades and the religious wars of the 17th century in Europe. Islam is a younger world religion, and is having its crisis now, when traditional Islamic societies cannot cope with the challenge of globalization.
A common threat
Traditional terrorists always knew there was a risk of death that went with their actions. But they never wanted to die. Now today’s suicide bombers plan to die, hopefully taking as many as possible with them. The Bolsheviks wanted to create paradise on earth, but these guys are seeking a short cut to a heavenly paradise. To stop people like this, we need to invent a new way of fighting – since death is their aim.
In that regard, a formerly unilateralist U.S. administration is creating a new global multinational coalition, quite unlike NATO or the Desert Storm coalition. The terrorist attacks may be perceived as the end of American isolationism – of which national missile defense was a part. Americans now know that they cannot retreat to their fortress and hide, just as they cannot prevent this kind of attack.
President Vladimir Putin has recognized that this terrorism is a common threat. Remarkably, Russia is providing the United States with unprecedented help – from the UN Security Council to the former Soviet military facilities in Central Asia.
It’s important to remember here that an alliance does not require the countries involved to agree on everything. Enormous disagreements between Roosevelt's America and Stalin's Soviet Union did not prevent them from successfully defeating Hitler. And even today there are some serious conflicts between the United States and European Union, the United States and Japan and the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, these alliances work because there is an overwhelming common interest.
An alliance with the United States will tremendously help the integration of Russia into the global market and the Western community. It will also give a boost to domestic political and economic reforms.
Can we overcome the obstacles? An alliance against international terrorism cannot hold if we do not agree on what the threat is. The U.S. and Russian lists of terrorist enemies are not identical, but they do overlap.
This is a problem for U.S. relations with other countries as well. (Why were Hamas and Hezbollah left off the list?) There are also double standards for freedom fighters pushing for self-determination, which was allowed for Bosnia, Estonia and the Palestinians, but not for Kosovo, Chechnya or the Kurds.
Rethinking approaches
What about Chechnya? The Chechen problem cannot be reduced to terrorism, although there are some Chechen and Arab terrorists there. Some of the hijackers had been in Chechnya earlier – eight of the 19 terrorists told their families they were going to Chechnya. Russia may use this connection to portray the conflict as part of the fight against international terrorism. But Putin has made some important moves on the Chechen issue and used the attacks as an opportunity to start a political dialogue.
Russia would like U.S. assistance in two areas here. First, it would like help in closing terrorist training camps for Chechen fighters, including those located in Turkey. Second, it would like to have the network of Islamic "charitable" foundations funding Chechen terrorists rolled up with the other terrorist financial networks. Chechnya is an important issue, but not the main factor in the Russian-American relationship.
Can we find compromises on the issues that previously divided us – missile defense, NATO enlargement and the arms trade with Iran and China? Missile defense is still the least efficient means to fight against terrorism. The terrorists' brilliance is their ability to use primitive means to inflict massive destruction. But at the same time, is missile defense really a threat to Russia? In the current environment, should Russia focus on ABM Treaty violations if America keeps felling trees and digging holes in Alaska without unilaterally abrogating the treaty?
We also have to reformulate the Russia-NATO relationship. Probably Russia's membership in NATO is not an immediate issue, but much greater military cooperation is possible and necessary. Naturally, an early admission of the Baltics into NATO to protect them against Russia could disrupt Russian-American cooperation in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But Moscow also needs to rethink its approach.
If Russia is America's strategic ally, it is also NATO's strategic ally. If they are allies, then why is NATO enlargement a threat to Russia? Russia wants some control over U.S. military action in Central Asia, including assurances that the bases won't be used to attack Iran or Iraq. It wants to know whether the United States will stay or leave after the war over, and it doesn’t know which it would prefer. But these are the sorts of issues that exist within any alliance.
Necessary steps
America can take some declaratory steps. It has already headed in this direction by recognizing the connection between Chechnya and the terrorists. Second, it should pressure Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Georgia to end support for the Chechens. Third, it should start a discussion at the IMF and World Bank on debt relief. A decision on this issue will need to be made in early 2002. The United States should make its Iran and Iraq policy part of a bigger package. Fourth, America should also tone down its rhetoric on including the Baltics in NATO too soon. America could assure them that they will not be forgotten, while noting that changes in military policy take time. Finally, America should not rush to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. There is a real window of opportunity in Russian-American relations if only the right steps are taken.
Next Article