|
VLADIMIR PUTIN'S FOREIGN POLICY LEGACY. INTERNATIONAL AGENDA FOR DMITRY MEDVEDEV
ANDREY KOKOSHIN, FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE DUMA COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND HIGH TECHNOLOGIES; FYODOR LUKYANOV, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF "RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS" MAGAZINE,
Moscow
Andrey KOKOSHIN, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Science and High Technologies
As a policy-maker and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I see that Vladimir Putin’s presidency was marked by important changes in Russia’s foreign-policy and economic positions. Those changes indicate that now our situation is different.
I would like to mention that the status of a country in the world politics is determined above all by its internal developments. It is clear that Russia’s situation in terms of the government's firmness and efficiency is quite different. Grievances are expressed, but since the nineties great changes have taken place. The state mechanism works, even if not as effectively as possible. We have clear principles in the social and financial policies, in the defense and international relations spheres.
The political-diplomatic course pursued by Vladimir Putin in the world politics meets the paste of the country’s development.
Putin follows the policy that implies maintaining equal relations with those centers of power that are ready to do so without becoming somebody’s satellite and without rigid adherence to the particular political line. The modern global politics and economy are diverse. Parties in international relations can be unanimous on some issues and disagree or even conflict on others. So, today the world politics is a very complex multidimensional system.
I believe that the Russian foreign-policy team, namely, the Foreign Ministry staff, is very efficient.
Our economic and military might is getting more and more perceptible. The military factor is coming back to the world arena. Russia needs the state-of-the-art military equipment in case of conflicts. The military might is a significant factor of strengthening a nation and increasing its competitiveness. In the 1990s we managed to survive in many respects because we kept the main part of the military-industrial complex and created the most up-to-date arms system. Today this factor gives impetus to our foreign policy.
In the economic sphere Russia has fewer opportunities than it would like to have. Indeed, Russia is an energy power but its alternative energy sector is rudimentary, we have not entered the liquefied natural gas market yet, there are problems with the energy export to the East. For all that, Russia has become an influential country in the economic field. Russia has every chance of initiating the formation of a new financial and economic order.
Fyodor LUKYANOV, Editor-in-chief of "Russia in Global Affairs" magazine
The modern world politics is such a complicated phenomenon that, in my opinion, nobody in the world would say that he understands what is going on in full measure. The latest ten years indicate that neither the only superpower nor a great power, nor an international organization manages the processes. All the events have their own implicit logic.
In this context we may try to analyze the results of the foreign policy pursued by Vladimir Putin. At present it is too early to do so because we will know what Vladimir Putin’s heritage is after a while.
How can this time be described? I think that this was a period of change. The September 11, 2001 and 2003 (war in Iraq) events meant the radical revision of approaches to the world politics. On the whole, this time can be called the period of accelerating degradation of the world system. We can observe serious crisis in all the international institutions, even in NATO that, at first sight, successfully enlarges and is still effective in gaining its ends.
The system of international legal standards is getting inoperative. Almost everybody ignores that law or takes advantage of the arising tensions. The key international decisions (on the war in Iraq and on Kosovo) are made sidestepping the UN Security Council. We should not create illusions that the world still depends on the five countries having the right of veto. Unfortunately, it is not the case any longer.
At a time when the standards are being diluted and the institutions’ activities are being undermined the leading states start to build up their strength. It is quite natural. When you cannot rely on the international standards and institutions, the only guarantee is building up the strength. In this sense Russia’s behavior is in line with global trends. One can argue about the methods of the Russian foreign policy, about aspects in which the attempt to make up for the imperfections and the weak sides of the country’s political system was useful and in which disastrous. But on the whole, Russia resembles other large international actors in terms of its approaches.
While the environment becomes more complicated, the instruments and the approaches are being simplified since nobody understands how to behave. For the recent one and a half or two years, especially in the West, a new confrontation system has become necessary. For example, the popular theory of confrontation between the liberal and authoritarian capitalism can be found pretty often in the publications of the Western political scientists. Such theories arise because all those complicated processes should be structured.
Russia’s task is to realize that and to avoid the system confrontation. Some aspects require extraordinary conditions. First and foremost this is the quality and the quantity of the human capital. The public health system, the pension system and the demographic statistics are factors of foreign-policy success as the military might is. For the time being Russia has little to be proud of. Judging by the authorities’ rhetoric, it is understood and steps are being taken. But probably this is the most difficult aspect where quick wins cannot be expected.
Now a few words about the tasks facing the next President. We have already spoken about the post-Soviet space. In my opinion, the term is absolutely incorrect. There is no point in uniting those countries only because once we were the single state. In our case the differences are fundamental.
During Vladimir Putin’s presidency the important changes have taken place in those countries. The 2004 events in Ukraine were a turning point. The change consists in the fact that Russia can no longer influence the domestic policy of its neighbors. When that became clear Russia chose the pragmatic approach, though it was not declared officially. The crux of the matter was that Russia’s neighbors could freely pursue their interests, but Russia would not help them, unless that was in Russia’s own interest.
In this context the approach is progressive. But we should not plan on resorting to it in the future. Currently the situation has changed again. Russia’s new policy showed how some countries depend on Russia and what the West can do to support the former Soviet nations. It is no secret that in the countries, which are the West’s favorites, the society and the policy-makers are disappointed that they received too little from the West. Evidently, the West is ready to give them moral support. It is ready to support them with funds to a very small degree. But the West is not going to make sacrifices for the sake of post-Soviet states.
Those two factors have changed the situation, when the opposition either supports or opposes Russia. The new states, that have proved viable, have more balanced approaches and are concerned about their interests. With this in view, Russia also has to act in a more balanced manner. Besides the energy threat that always exists, it is necessary to think about the long-term intellectual and pecuniary investments in those countries with which we would like to cooperate.
As to Belarus-Russia Union, it seems to me that we will give up the idea. There can be no equal integration. The unequal integration, absorbing Belarus into Russia, is impossible either. Belarus has changed since the early 1990s. Then the country came from “nowhere”. Now it is a viable state. Though a strange one, but national identity for Belarus was created by Aliaksandr Lukashenka. There is no hoping that Belarus will make concessions here.
The second aspect Dmitry Medvedev will have to be engaged in is the relations with the European Union. They do not boil down to specific regions. The relations are the pivot of the whole foreign policy of Russia because those are based on the relations between the energy producers and consumers. Today this is a key to international stability. If Russia and the EU work out the balance of interests, lacking now, this may outline the global picture. It’s another matter that for the time being the attempts are being made to get unilateral advantages.
The third aspect is the relations with China. Here Russia faces a serious challenge. We will have to maintain the political parity with China soon. Now the level of Russia’s political development is equal to that of China. I believe that the situation may change during the next 5-10 years. China started growing politically and it is getting ready to participate in the world politics. In my opinion, Russia does not realize how to behave in this case.
The SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) is a good tool to make it clear to some countries outside the Organization, in the first place the USA, that this is our territory and that only we will decide what you can or cannot do there. But it cannot be called a tool of the balance of interests with China. The SCO is interpreted by Beijing and Moscow in different ways. For China’s Ministry of Trade, the SCO is a department promoting China’s commercial interests to Central Asia. I do not think that Russia wants to participate in that.
I do not mention the relations with the USA among the next President’s priorities. There cannot be the full-fledged bilateral relations to which we are used. We have to do with the USA neither politically nor economically. The USA is not a partner to Russia. It is a factor determining the environment of Russia’s foreign policy on the aspects I spoke about. The U.S. factor plays a significant role in the former Soviet Union, in the relations with the EU and China. It is impossible to calculate on serious deals and agreements. The different tasks confront the country. But the USA will take into account the factors of those countries including Russia in its specific activities.
Thematerial is based on the experts' addresses to the discussion “Vladimir Putin's foreign policy legacy. International agenda for Dmitry Medvedev” organized by Rosbalt News Agency on April 9.
April 16, 2008
|
