| This weekend, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush are meeting at Camp David, the country retreat of US leaders. The Vremya Novostey newspaper talks with Leon ARON, a leading expert on Russia from the American Enterprise Institute (AIP), about how this summit is perceived in the United States.
— Since Soviet times, Moscow has presented meetings with American presidents as something epoch-making. How do you see this from Washington?
- There is an asymmetry of impressions here. For 25 years I have seen American interest in summits decline. The latest surge of attention was caused by the summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush. But I don’t see anything offensive for Russia in this. Having reduced its weapons, it ceased to be a military threat. She is no longer seen as an enemy. These two factors neutralized one of the main vectors of American foreign policy - the vector of fear, a threat to national security.
The second vector is the interests of trade. But here Russia has not yet managed to become on a par with the more significant partners of the United States. So the lack of excitement is a good sign. This is an indicator that there are normal, predictable relations between our countries. Since Stalin's times, Moscow has attached great importance to meetings with American presidents. And now in Russia, as in other countries, negotiations with the president of the only superpower remain a big event. This is fine. By the way, it is customary to invite only friends to Camp David and only under important circumstances.
-- Should we expect concrete results from this meeting?
-- In the next decade, three issues will remain on the agenda: first, the fight against international terrorism, in particular Muslim fundamentalism; secondly, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; thirdly, energy, in particular the export of Russian oil to the United States. At each of these strategic points, sub-points of high interest will appear. The key issue today is the deployment of multinational troops in Iraq. There may be progress here, as President Putin has made it clear that Russia does not share the approach of France and Germany and views the UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, which is to be adopted in the near future, more favorably than these two European powers.
- And the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment, adopted during the Cold War due to the fact that the USSR prevented Jewish emigration? Why won't it be cancelled?
- I doubt that the presidents will touch on this issue. This is already an invasion into the sphere of what divides. Secondly, this is not a Camp David caliber problem, it’s small. Although it is possible that the issue will be raised at the level of advisers and ministers, and he is not alone. A lot of topics have accumulated: Russia’s concerns about the “ingrowth” of American troops into Central Asia, US emigration and visa policies towards Russian citizens, Afghanistan, where, as it seems to Moscow, it is being treated unfairly, and, of course, long-standing disputes over Iran.
-Both Bush and Putin never tire of talking about their warm feelings for each other. How sincere is this?
“I’m not sure that statesmen at this level have room for personal feelings.” Of course, President Bush appreciates the solidarity that Vladimir Putin showed so quickly and unexpectedly after the September 11 attacks, complemented by practical steps such as Russia's agreement to temporarily station US troops in the former Soviet Central Asian republics.
What might Putin value in Bush? It seems to me that he could not help but appreciate the fact that he became the first Russian (including the Soviet era) leader to be invited by an American president to his home, on a Texas ranch, exactly two years ago. What was important was Bush's statement that he trusted the Russian president, that he could be dealt with. Of course, this benefited Putin domestically, perhaps strengthening his self-confidence at the beginning of his presidential term. And despite the disagreements over Iraq, Bush still came to St. Petersburg this spring for a holiday that, as everyone understood , bore the imprint of a personal celebration of the Russian president.
— Your book about the life of Boris Yeltsin examines in detail the leadership style of the first Russian president. What can you say about Vladimir Putin’s style?
- These are two opposites: the explosive, revolutionary leader Yeltsin and the emphatically balanced Putin. There is a pattern in the history of powers: when a country is on the brink of disaster, it splashes to the surface the one who is most needed - Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, Charles de Gaulle during the years of the most acute national crisis, Boris Yeltsin during the collapse of the former USSR . Their followers had a lighter burden.
In the case of Putin, everything is obvious: the country is tired of revolutions and upheavals and has decided to give up a little freedom in exchange for order. True, we can already see from the example of the scandalous story around YUKOS how the Russian economic elite became wary: people felt that not every order can be an equivalent substitute for economic freedoms. Interviewed by Nikolai SNEZHKOV, Washington
|
