Russia in the World after September 11P

Transcription

1 e Institut d Etudes Européennes et Internationales du Luxembourg Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conference on Russia in e World after September April 2002, Moscow Abstract In cooperation wi e Moscow Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (AEAC) and e Institute of Europe of e Russian Academy of Science, e Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies (LIEIS) organised a half-day round table discussion on e standing and role of Russia in e world in e wake of September 11 and e ensuing events. This meeting took place against e background of a rapidly evolving international situation, not only wi respect to e so-called war against terrorism, but also in terms of e future of international organisations such as e EU (and e possibilities of a common foreign and defence policy) and NATO, particular e new NATO-Russia Council, to be signed on 28 Mai in Rome in e presence of resident Vladimir utin and resident George W. Bush. Approximately 25 participants, including several Russian and Western professors of international relations and also younger scholars and graduate students, analysed e world situation in e afterma of e attacks on e World Trade Center and e entagon, as well as e response on e part of e USA and its allies. All e participants agreed at e world has entered a new era and at Russia needs to assimilate is systemic change and its new position if it is again to play an important role on e world stage. In e course of ree main discussion sessions and on e basis of short presentations and interventions, e debates revolved around e present and future relations between Russia on e one hand, and e USA, Europe and Central Asia on e oer hand. These relations are not only of a bilateral nature, but have been, and in future, are likely to be mediated by a number of institutions, including NATO, e European Union (EU), as well as e United Nations (UN). It was stressed by all participants at in e wake of e events related to September 11 end of multilateralism has been consumed and Russia has found itself in a weaker position an ever before in e post-second World War era. This new constellation 21 rue hilippe II - L-2340 Luxembourg Tel. (00352) Fax (00352) armand.clesse@ieis.lu - URL:

2 have century,, LIEIS - Executive Summary 2 implies not only at e nature of e relations wi e USA is at e centre of all strategic considerations, but also at Russia may hold e key to an alternative strategic pan-european alliance which brings togeer Western, Central, Eastern, Sou-Eastern Europe as well as Russia. I. The World Situation after September 11 Ambassador Anatoly Adamishin, AEAC Vice-resident, argued at Samuel Huntington s esis of e clash of civilisations has some mileage insofar as most contemporary conflicts take place along e lines of cultural and civilisational differences and boundaries. The danger which lies in underestimating is dimension of e current political and military system, as well as e increasing privatisation of politics and e rise of private multinational cooperations, is at all of ese factors have contributed to undermining traditional forms of multilateral diplomacy. Dr. Armand Clesse, Director of e LIEIS, raised e question as to wheer Russia is fully aware of e new world situation and of its own standing wiin e emerging new order. He wondered wheer Russia had taken e full measure of its economic decline and e loss of its political power, especially since its practically unconditional backing of e USA in e socalled war against terrorism. Even if Russia still disposes of e nuclear reat and deterrent, it cannot avoid facing up to e question of its future political and military strategy and of its role in e system of international relations. rofessor Andras Balogh from e University of Budapest put forward e esis at e world has entered a period of transition since September 11, since, contrary to e British strategy in e 19 e US has no clear consistent vision, while Europe, despite its assets, does not quite know how to pursue its vision. Dr. Christopher Coker, Lecturer in international relations at e London School of Economics and olitical Science, claimed at US unilateralism was not born after September 11 but as early as In a first stage, during e Clinton Administration, e unilateral approach of e USA took e form of congressional initiatives on e one hand, and military interventions decided by e resident on e oer. The US elections in 2000 and September 11 marked e alignment of Congress and residency and erefore an almost unprecedented form of national unity and unconditional support (including by large parts of e population) for US military adventures. II. The centrality of Russia s relations wi e USA Dr. Coker argued furer at is new configuration implies at relations wi e USA can take two forms: eier band-wagoning (e.g. e British stance since e Second World War) or else balancing (e.g. e French position, based on national sovereignty and on building up e EU). This is all e more true since e USA does no longer distinguish between allies and associates (as was e case under e Wilson doctrine) but today only accepts associates and has no longer any stake in allies.

3 seems LIEIS - Executive Summary 3 The Deputy Director of e USA and Canada Institute of e Russian Academy of Science, Dr. Victor Kremeniuk, pointed to e need to denounce some of e mys associated wi e world prior to, and after, September 11. US-Russian relations were hostile roughout e Cold War, ruled by e nuclear reat and e maintenance of e status quo. After 1989, e entente was of a very short duration, ending wi rime Minister s rimakov U-turn in respect of e strategic alliance between Russia and NATO. September 11 to have inaugurated some form of professional relationship between e leaders of Russia and e US, wiout, however, defining a new foundation for a permanent strategic partnership. Several students expressed eir pessimism as to e US readiness to reform e current form of international relations and to revise its unilateralist stance. Similarly, ey criticised a lack of clarity on e part of e current Russian leadership, namely wi respect to e use of e nuclear reat and deterrent. One of e central questions which emerged at is stage of e debates is e possibility and scope for reform of e various international organisations, above all e UN. According to Dr. Vladimir Baranovsky, ere are ree basic scenarios: first, e USA has no medium- or long-term vision and Russia could realistically play a more important role in shaping e contours of a future system of international relations. Second, US actions serve not only its own, but also Russia s interests, for example in fighting terrorism and exploiting petrol resources in e Caucasus and in Central Asia. Third, US and Russian strategies collide and ere will be a period of sustained tension. Dr. Mirsky mentioned two forms of anti-americanism, one common general form which is increasingly widespread in e world, and one form specific to Russia and going back to 19 century history. Bo forms are not only a manifestation of nationalism, but also, and increasingly so, a strong reaction to US unilateralism, which implies at all accounts of multilateralism lack any convincing basis. This is also to say at bo powers, e USA as much as Russia, need to adopt a balanced approach, predicated upon pragmatism, not ideology, and on cooperation, not confrontation. Dr. Coker pointed to two of Russia s distinct assets in seeking to redefine its relations wi e USA: first, e important natural resources and, second, e crucial geographical positioning wi respect to US military campaign against terrorism. The central question for Russia is en how to use ese two assets to its advantage. III. What might be e nature of Russia s future relations wi Europe and Central Asia? rof. Balogh drew attention to e crucial importance of e future Russia-Europe relations: he argued at Europe is characterised by generally high economic grow and a diverse yet united culture, bo of which are important for Russia s economic development and its political integration. What emerged from is account is not so much simple resistance and opposition to e US, but a genuinely different, alternative vision of e future international relations system. The Director of e Institute of Europe, Dr. Dmitry Danilov, agreed at e relations wi Europe will increasingly be at e centre of Russia s geo-political and economic considerations, but at a newly founded partnership wi Europe can only be realised as part of a pan-european civilisation, cultural and political space and framework. To is pan- European space belong not only Central and Eastern Europe, but also Sou-East Europe and

4 September LIEIS - Executive Summary 4 possibly furer regions. Moreover, such a vision is realistic only if all parties involved agree on a common definition of European culture and civilisation. The debates intimated at such a new Russian and European partnership is increasingly possible, subject to e condition at bo cease to view e USA as e only important interlocutor and eir only possible future. Dr. Coker emphasised at Europe should become aware of e imminence of e widrawal of US troops from e Balkans and at Russia will have to accept an extension of NATO towards former Socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe. However, in e medium run e current US strategy will lead to a political and cultural vacuum at e very heart of Europe. This will be e crucial opportunity and test for e potential of a new alliance between Europe and Russia. Dr. Sergey Lounev from e IMEMO focused on e potential for cooperation between Russia and Asia, arguing at it is quite possibly more important an e potential for cooperation between Russia and Europe. For Russia s natural resources are indispensable to e development of Central and Sou-East Asia (mainly China) and e scope of market outlets on e Asian continent for Russian products exceeds by far at of Europe. It is also true, according to Dr. Lounev, at e Asian culture is much closer to Russia s, in particular e middle-way between e extremes of individualism and collectivism. Europe will be important for Russia in terms of economic cooperation, but any political and strategic alliance requires at Europe fully respects Russia s peculiarities and interests. Outlook The round-table discussions served a two-fold purpose: first, establishing and consolidating contacts between e AEAC, e Institute of Europe of e RAS and e LIEIS, particularly among e younger, developing scholars and e graduate students. These fruitful contacts have e potential of yielding furer interesting results on e basis of future research work and future meetings. Second, e discussions pinpointed a number of problematics which need to be addressed, as well as some interesting approaches which might have some mileage in conceptualising international relations after e events related to 11. For instance, a common European and Russian project seems to command an increasing interest among scholars (and perhaps also decision-makers), but ere is a distinct lack of ideas and concepts capable of articulating such a common vision. In particular, e notion of a pan- European civilisation needs to be spelled out and explicated. This also begs e question as to which political forces are in a position to activate ose cultural resources in order to overcome e present ideological impasse which seems to consist in centrism for e sake of it and which is void of any vision beyond accommodation wi, and possibly regulation of, e status quo. Anoer problematic intimated by e discussions concerns e future geo-political and military strategies. Bo Russia and Europe, albeit in different ways, are for e time being locked in e so-called war against terrorism. According to e logic underpinning e present US approach, is war will go on indefinitely, bo at home and abroad. The question for Russia as well as Europe en is how to coordinate action against organized international crime, including cross-border terrorism, while not launching fully-fledged wars on countries

5 LIEIS - Executive Summary 5 because ey simply dare disagree wi US policy and conflict wi US interest. Moreover, bo Russia and Europe will have to decide wheer to continue to back pro-western corrupt oligarchies and to ignore e Muslim opposition, or wheer to engage in a critical dialogue wi e latter. International security, be it in e Middle East or in Central Asia, will hinge on such a wholly new approach. Adrian abst LIEIS