Why Should We Talk About the National Interest?
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
We talked to Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, member of RIAC Presidium about the new project “National Interest” which focuses on the topic of national interests and external policy analyzed through the social prism, i.e. citizens’ demands, needs and perceptions.
We talked to Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, member of RIAC Presidium about the new project “National Interest” which focuses on the topic of national interests and external policy analyzed through the social prism, i.e. citizens’ demands, needs and perceptions.
Mr. Lukyanov, how would you explain the goals and objectives of your new project National Interest, as well as the timing of its launch?
As a matter of fact, not only professionals engaged in foreign policy advising, but also broader social groups should participate in the analysis of the numerous dynamic and diverse developments surrounding Russia. Some time ago foreign policy was believed to be the domain of the government and only properly trained officials were seen as the rightful handlers of these issues. Nowadays, things seem to have changed, because foreign policy decisions directly affect every citizen.
I'm far from holding the illusion that foreign policy can be shaped by a referendum or some other kind of voting mechanism. But the discussion should be expanded to embrace all interested strata of society. This is something that does not exist in Russia, since for political and cultural reasons, we traditionally believe that it is up to the boss. Meanwhile, the government – no matter how committed the professionals are who are running show – needs nonstop feedback. Hence, our initiative, which had been mulled during sessions of the informal club set up by Russia in Global Affairs magazine. This club unites dynamic young activists from the government, universities and academia, think tanks and NGOs. We are also partnering with the Russian International Affairs Council to place the debate on a more substantive basis.
Some time ago foreign policy was believed to be the domain of the things seem to have changed.
To a certain extent, we are trying to formulate the national interest as a notion, because the very idea appears rather unclear. Basically, I consider the project as a forum for debates on concrete issues, and an attempt to see them through the prism of the consequences for the everyday life of citizens. We are also being assisted by the Institute for Socio-Economic and Political Studies through a targeted presidential grant.
You said the idea of national interest is quite unclear. How do you understand it, and what is Russia's national interest as seen by elites and society?
Whereas in English nation virtually means state, in the Russian language, the interpretation of nation seems broader, which makes a debate over certain wordplay possible.
Russia appears to not have an understanding of the national interest at all. You can find zillions of references to this notion in doctrinal documents, but nobody can explain its essence, the process for elaborating it, and the mechanism for coordinating state and private interests in order to achieve a complete vision for national policy. And our project is intended to get these people involved.
In order to attract the expert community or society?
Actually, we would like to engage both, because the national interest has become a cliché. What are the guidelines for Russia's foreign policy? – They should be the national interests. It looks as an obvious cliché that doesn't imply the next question about the content.
This issue is much more advanced in the United States, where relevant commissions have been set up several times over the past 20 years and have issued lists of the U.S. national interests. Although these make strong assumptions, certain reference points do emerge. I've never seen a documented list like that from Russia.
Russia appears to not have an understanding of the national interest at all.
Is the Russian society able to analyze the national interests and what do you expect from the project?
On the one hand, I expect being able to choose the instruments for identifying and analyzing of the interests and views of certain social groups. And on the other hand, we have in mind education. Of course, this is not about engaging the masses. But those interested in foreign policy, international relations and Russia's place in the world are most welcome. We would like to distract them from clichés. Hence, if our publications and discussions help to formulate public attitudes towards the established national priorities, a broad debate may arise that would get the wider public involved in the process.
We seem to have a definite skew toward a traditional understanding of national interests.
Where do you see the main barrier for realizing Russia's national interests?
We seem to have a definite skew toward a traditional understanding of national interests, i.e. security and classical tough measures. Once there was an illusion that the international policy of today implied the use of utterly different tools. However, there are many new dimensions related to economic interdependence, when the proven instruments misfire. Sometimes our leaders fail to take this into account.
Second, communications have become very open, which complicates diplomacy or even renders it absolutely impossible. Hardboiled diplomacy used to work behind the scenes. But now the practice appears to be vanishing because almost everything goes public, either on purpose or by accident. So, diplomats must invariably keep in mind the public consequences of their actions and words.
What country seems to lead in the process of realizing its national interests and why?
Hard to say. As far as the diversity of instruments is concerned, then obviously the United States, which boasts a plentiful arsenal – from classical military actions and enforcement to economic, communicative and ideological instruments.
But the effectiveness of their use is questionable because the U.S.’s system of checks and balances malfunctions for various reasons – from political radicalization to the growing clout of ethnic and professional lobbies.
And what about China?
Until recently Beijing had been rigidly orientated towards self-development at the expense of foreign policy ambitions.
China offers another example of a most powerful country, although minor vis-à-vis the U.S.A., at least for now. China is a great economic power, even the world leader in some areas but it is still wobbly in terms of economic development. I think the country is in transition. As for national interests, right now the Chinese are pondering what they actually want, because until recently Beijing had been rigidly orientated towards self-development at the expense of foreign policy ambitions. Today, international objectives are coming to the forefront. So, forecasting China's national interests as far as 15-20 years from now is hardly plausible. The PRC is working hard to build up its international levers, trying to catch up with the United Sates in the use of not just standard economic and military tools but also information assets.
Both the outbreak and deepening of the Ukraine crisis are absolutely contrary to Russia's interests.
Could you predict the outcome of the Ukraine crisis? Is there a way for Russia to accelerate a settlement and does it really fit Russian national interests?
Both the outbreak and deepening of the Ukraine crisis are absolutely contrary to Russia's interests. The time will come to make an unbiased assessment of the causes and mistakes committed by Russia and other actors. Forecasting now appears pointless. The only positive scenario appears to lie in freezing the conflict, which is in fact the idea of the Minsk process. All other insights seem meaningless because the interests of the external actors actively participating in the Minsk process overlap with the construction of the Ukrainian statehood. In essence, a new state is emerging after a failure that Ukraine has suffered over the past 25 years. This is a wholly unpredictable process that is hardly worth noticeable meddling because such actions can only bring harm. And we should be ready for any scenario.
Interviewer: Daria Khaspekova, Chief Web Editor
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
