Ариэль Коэн: Слишком много эмоций и слишком мало практической дискуссии между Россией и США

Зарубежный взгляд

Ведущий эксперт американского исследовательского центра The Heritage Foundation по вопросам России, Евразии и международной энергетической безопасности Ариэль Коэн анализирует публичную дипломатию России и Америки, перспективы взаимовыгодного сотрудничества, и то, что вступление России в ВТО и нашумевший закон Магнитского могут означать для будущего российско-американских отношений.

Зарубежный взгляд

Ведущий эксперт американского исследовательского центра The Heritage Foundation по вопросам России, Евразии и международной энергетической безопасности Ариэль Коэн в эксклюзивном интервью для Российского совета по международным делам анализирует публичную дипломатию России и Америки, перспективы взаимовыгодного сотрудничества, и то, что вступление России в ВТО и нашумевший закон Магнитского могут означать для будущего российско-американских отношений.

Интервьюер: Мария Просвирякова (РСМД)

Текстовая расшифровка интервью (англ.)

This is an interview with Ariel Cohen for the Russian International Affairs Council. Ariel is a Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at The Heritage Foundation. His analyses are often incisive. For example, Ariel predicted the Russian financial collapse nine months before the event actually took place in 1998. Ariel Cohen is often called upon to testify on Russian politics before the U.S. Congress. Today Ariel is examining Russia – U.S. relations.

Ariel, what shortcomings do you see in public diplomacies of both countries towards each other? How should the public diplomacy be channeled to improve strained U.S.-Russia relations?

First of all, after the end of the Cold war the public opinion research demonstrates that in both countries the perception of the other side as an enemy decreased, but in the United States it remains pretty stable, the majority of Americans do not perceive Russia as a Cold-war-style adversary. Americans now are convinced that China is catching up or already overtook the United States as the next – in the business we call it– “peer-competitor”, not Russia. Islamist terrorism is also perceived as transnational threat, not Russia. In Russia, on the other hand, the perception of the United States as an adversary fluctuates, it depends on the situation. For example, Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2003) and Georgia (2003) gave peak of anti-American sentiment in Russia. But what worries me is consistent anti-American tenor, tone of propaganda in state-owned channels, especially television, a lot of old Soviet films that hail secret services or new programs - sometimes from the quarters that I didn’t even expect, like Alexander Gordon who brought people to discuss the US roots of 9/11 attack. I was invited to participate - I declined . Programs like Michael Leontiev, Maxim Shevchenko and others that clearly are carrying water for a particular party line. I think, with Russia playing a positive role supporting U.S. mission in Afghanistan in terms of transit, even discussing a transit base for NATO in Ulianovsk, it is high time to put back, to put behind this very nasty language of these images of this adversary when we have common challenges from rising China. In fact, I do believe that rising China is a bigger challenge to Russia because of long land border between Russia and China in Siberia and Far East, because of the uneven levels of population. China has in Heilongjiong Province 3 hundred plus million people, Russia has something between 7 and 8 million people, East of lake Baikal. So, this is a serious long term challenge for Russia and for everybody else. I am not saying it is a military challenge, but it is a security challenge, it is an economic challenge. That issue, as well as the issue of terrorism fueled by religious radicalism, so far as to mention Dubrovka, Beslan and other tragic attacks on civilian population in Russia and compare them to attacks of 9/11 and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I do not see the language of the relationship as optimal at all. There is too much emotion and too little practical discussion of important issues between the two countries.

Has Mr. Putin’s rhetoric towards the USA changed now in comparison to his two previous terms as president?

I think that the first term of Putin was the most cooperative. Let’s remember that this is when the Russian president offered assistance to the U.S and at that time anti-Americanism was not a dominating factor, but as early as 2007 with a Munich speech and then I was in meetings when he blamed the United States for Georgia, when he blamed the United States for the economic crisis. These are not secrets, these are all public statements. I think Vladimir Vladimirovich is being quite harsh in apportioning guilt and blame here. While the United States tends not to respond to such accusations, I am sure that this is not necessarily helpful. Today the continuation of blaming the U.S., the U.S. currency. I did not notice that these statements decrease the amount of U.S. dollars in circulation in Russia or the currency mix of deposits of those Russians who are fortunate enough to have significant foreign currency deposits. Yes, it is euro, it was euro for a while and now euro is, of course, a higher risk currency than U.S. dollar. Every other currency is quite problematic.

How can we build trust between the two countries?

One thing I believe we can do – is reciprocity. If the United States opens its media environment to RT (Russia Today) – and I have it in my house, right next to Al Jazeera and BBC TV and Deutsche Welle and we have now radio Voice of Russia broadcasting in English in the United States – I think the equal time can be presented to the Russian public for U.S.-funded stations, like The Voice of America and Radio Liberty. In FM band or they have it in the Internet clearly, but AM/FM-band is where the radio action is and if we are taking the equivalent of RT. Unfortunately, the United States doesn’t even have a product, it doesn’t have a global TV channel that is funded or sponsored by the U.S. government like RT is sponsored by the Russian government or CCTV is sponsored by the government of China, or Al Jazeera – I hate to say it – it is an excellent news channel in English and is sponsored by the Emir of Qatar. So in that respect there is some lack of equality, but beyond that if you compare the people who receive their education in the U.S., there are tens of thousands over the years, hundreds of thousands of the millions of Chinese, there are very few Russians. The United States is attractive, it offers excellent education, it is expensive, but other governments in Eurasia – Kazakhstan with Bolashak Program, Azerbaijan and others - pay their students to go all over the world to study. And I don’t see why the Russian government should not:
a) invite Americans to come and study in Russia;
b) fund Russian young men and women to come to the United States to study.

That kind of experience, that kind of education is not a panacea, it is not something that will for sure make people Goodwill Ambassadors. We actually know from history that some of the most notorious people in history like Paul Pott who studied in France, that didn’t make him a great democrat, did it? John Lloyd was I think French educated, although I am not sure French or maybe British educated. So, some of these people who received education did not necessarily embrace Western values. Another good example was the guy name Muhammad Qutb. He hated America, he was an exchange as a young official here and in the late 40’s he said: “American women are immoral, American culture is bad”. And this was the time of very conservative America as opposed to what happened in 60’s. So, there is no panacea, but I do believe that people who meet and experience each other’s cultures put to rest some of the stereotypes. I am active on Facebook including in Russia and you always hear how Americans are fat, stupid, etc. And when you point out that American men live 20 years longer than Russian men, that American average citizen has GDP per capita 4 times, even higher, than his Russian counterpart; and that U.S. still is a home for innovation from iPhones and mp3 files to breakthrough drugs that save lives. This somehow doesn’t count towards American intelligence or American health. So, again I am trying to say that visiting each other, what used to be called during Gorbachev years “people to people exchanges” may have a positive role, although clearly this idealized image of the United States - I remember from my childhood - is gone, it is not going to return, But still I think that America is a great country and there is a lot of things people can learn, enjoy and appreciate if they come to America and vice versa – if Americans go to visit Russia. Just the other day I read a horrible account of getting the Russian visa, it was in the Washington Post. In the 21st century I hope that things like that really should be resolved.

Are there any other areas in which Russia and the USA can cooperate? How Russia's accession to the WTO is going to change trade relations between the two countries?

Well, hopefully it will, because we have very weak economic relationship in terms of sheer numbers. The trade between the US and Russia is 40 billion dollars a year, it is less than our trade with Belgium or the Netherlands, it is smaller than our trade with South Africa. While Russia exports twice as much to the United States as the United States sells to Russia, the balance is interesting too, because Russia primarily is selling raw materials and is buying machinery, hi-tech, entertainment products, films, software, etc. So, there is a huge opportunity here, but at the same time U.S. business is accustomed to invest in the environment that is secure that they know that people will knock on the door and try to seize assets like it sometimes happened to American companies or it happens to the Russian companies in the phenomenon known as the raiding, which is a specific way of doing business with corrupt courts and judges and corrupt law enforcement. That is, of course, what is bothering American business people and American law makers.The latest example is the Magnitsky legislation which I am sure you are going to ask me about. And the Magnitsky legislation - I just came back from the Capitol Hill where I was talking about that - it is not about Sergey Magnitsky, it is not even about Russia, it is about people who violate human rights, but at the same time benefit from this violation, personally benefit in terms of money. That is why the Magnitsky legislation is suggesting that the ill-gained assets by gross human right violators will be subject to seizure around the world, and it is not just the United States, it is other countries like Canada and a number of European countries that are moving in that direction. But the Magnitsky legislation is also about how business is done, because Sergey Magnitsky was working for Western investment fund and the way that fund clashed with some corrupt officials, people that two Russian presidents Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev called “the werewolves in epaulettes”. This is where American business, Western business is extremely uncomfortable and is facing possibilities of losing money, and, of course, that is something that this legislation is trying to address in the environment in which both the Russian lawmakers and the Russian law enforcement failed to address it.

Well, Russian officials obviously don’t see the Magnitsky bill the same way. How is the USA actually going to strike a balance between defending human rights in Russia – and continuing the “reset” policy towards Russia, the policy that is so cherished by the Obama administration?

First of all, let’s start with the piece of legislation that people of older generation remember and a lot of younger people never heard about and it is called the Jackson-Vanik amendment. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was passed in 1974 by senator Scoop Jackson and congressman Vanik to address problems with emigration from the Soviet Union. Well, the Soviet Union is no longer with us, the emigration is free, the problem for people who want to emigrate is to get the entry visa or if they want to emigrate forever to get a home elsewhere, that is a different problem. So, time has come to finish the Jackson-Vanik, to lift its application against trade with Russia. Year after year American presidents lifted application of Jackson-Vanik, so the real business with Russia didn’t suffer very much. But now we are addressing the prestige issues by granting Russia permanent normal trade relations status (PNTR). At the same time I view the Magnitsky legislation as a positive development and I say only in half- chest that the Russian government should give senator Cardin (Democrat) and senator McCain a medal for attracting attention to the real issue of corruption in law enforcement, tax authorities, etc. Everybody agrees that there is a big problem there. I heard presentations and speeches by Mr. Putin (his first term, his second term), Mr. Medvedev and now Mr. Putin again and I read his articles before being elected stressing that corruption is a big-big issue. So, this is one of the ways to address it, as well as the whole issue of abuse of state power, of law enforcement power. It is of great concern for law makers and once the practice is seized, once you have Russian business behaving like Western European business, or Australian, or Canadian business, or American businness, I think we will be able to talk about lifting the Magnitsky legislation. But in the meantime, when people who abused Magnitsky were promoted and given awards after the Presidential Human Rights Commission published reports about the Magnitsky case. The Russian Presidential Human Rights Commission (!) said that Magnitsky was tortured or suspected that he was tortured and in any other country there would be an impartial investigation. Nothing like that happened. These people were promoted, people were awarded medals. So, I think this is the real issue and I think it is actually better not to sweep these issues under the rug.

Ariel, thank you so much for your time. Have a great day.