#5
Russian-US Cooperation Seen Requiring Trade, Economic
Underpinning
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
10 November 2001
[translation for personal use only]
Article by Russia-United States Association Board Members Sergey Oznobishchev
and Igor Runov:
"Comrades in Arms in Arms or Brothers in Reason?"
Relations between Russia and the United States have changed in a matter of months. From mutual aversion and scandals in espionage and diplomacy at the beginning of the year to June's declaration of partnership in Ljubljana and finally to being almost brothers in arms in the joint antiterrorist actions after the tragedy of 11 September.
We must not fail to go further. But where?
In order that this dilemma become clearer, we should remind ourselves that the concept of if not Cold War then Cold Peace somehow unnoticeably found itself in currency once again after the "strategic partnership" slogan had been repeatedly proclaimed in the early 1990s. Relations began to slide toward global rivalry. The partnership's underpinning proved to be weak in terms of its material basis and concrete actions.
The West's efforts to provide technical and other kinds of assistance to Russia did not yield the desired result. The West was unable to adequately assess the scale and importance of the changes happening in our country. At the same time fears about Russia began to get the upper hand in decision-making at a "middle-high-ranking" political level.
Some political scientists call the 1990s a lost decade. But that is not quite so. It will indeed prove to be lost if we do not draw the necessary conclusions from what happened.
The main conclusion lies in the fact that we could very simply let slip the partnership in our relations, as we did once before.
The partnership will never be realized unless now, when disaster has made them comrades in arms, Russia and the United States put the vocabulary of the Cold War (phrases like "nuclear containment") on public trial, methodically clarify the concepts it contains, and turn them into pulp. Unless some real partnership mechanism is created capable of eliminating both sides' concerns, however close our cooperation may be, it will inexorably perish under a hail of mutual recriminations.
The rapid deterioration of Russian-US relations in the 1990s graphically demonstrated a lack of reliable "balances." Hence the need to rapidly build up these relations' "positive capital" as a guarantee against breakdowns and a slide back toward Cold War. This should include promising spheres for developing collaboration -- trade and economic relations, high technology, science and culture, and so on.
It is precisely here that a clear revival can be seen. US Secretary of Commerce D. Evans has visited Russia. And the conclusion both sides drew during the talks was the we must liberate and depoliticize the bilateral trade and economic dialogue.
Both countries' presidents set an objective in Genoa in July to arrange and develop a Russian-US business dialogue. But problems are subsequently emerging, moreover frequently ones that do not have any relation to the subject but rather flow from traditions, approaches, and interpretations of the interests of both countries and various groups.
One of these difficulties lies in the fact that Russian business is much less organized in the US field; it lacks both experience of operating on the US market and a clear understanding of its own interests. There are two powerful organizations operating on the US side -- the US Chamber of Commerce in Russia and the US-Russian Business Council -- whereas the analogous council set up in Moscow is only just beginning to organize its work.
Several groups of Russian producers of goods and services have already formed that could now act as a kind of "positive pressure group" on both Russian and US functionaries. They are the power sector (investment in Russia, cooperation with the United States and third countries, access to the US oil products market), ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy (export to the United States and third countries), joint projects (machine building, aviation, and the food industry), the agro-industrial complex (import replacement, machine building, and the food industry), the bank and financial sector including insurance, space and aviation, and arms production.
If in the near future the West does not "give a sign" or make some tangible steps to meet Russia halfway that would give supporters of partnership and cooperation weighty arguments to persuade those opposing this line, the business of getting cooperation going will freeze once again. The Russian president currently enjoys broad support, of course, but he is not all-powerful and has to reckon with internal political factors and public opinion. And it has ceased to be favorably disposed toward the West over recent years.
So political sympathies alone will clearly not be enough; they must be augmented by a program of action, perhaps even one passed at a high level and underpinned by lofty signatures. This is the cement that will strengthen partnership for long years and will not allow it to be eroded again.
Next Article