      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is Russia A Threat Again? main page    Transcript for: Is Russia A Threat Again?Think Tank Transcript: Is Russia a Threat Again? ANNOUNCER 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen,unlocking the secrets of life through cellular and molecular biology.At Amgen, we produce medicines that improve people's lives today andbring hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theWilliam H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the JMFoundation. MR. WATTENBERG Hello. I'm Ben Wattenberg. Russia is in turmoil: warin Chechnya, a stagnant economy, a faltering democracy. But doestrouble for Russia mean trouble for America? Helping us to answer that question are: Leon Aron, residentscholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of aforthcoming biography of Boris Yeltsin; Peter Rodman, former nationalsecurity aide under Presidents Reagan and Bush and the author of abook about the Cold War, 'More Precious Than Peace,' he is currentlyat the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom; Peter Rutland, a professorof government at Wesleyan University and author of 'The Politics ofEconomic Stagnation in the Soviet Union'; and Paula Dobriansky,former director of European and Soviet affairs for the NationalSecurity Council under President Reagan and now an adjunct fellow atthe Hudson Institute. The topic before this house: Is Russia a threat again? This weekon 'Think Tank.' For 40 years, from an American perspective, the Soviet Union wasthe most important foreign country. Then the Soviet Union splitapart. The years following the collapse of communism have not beeneasy for Russia. When the Berlin Wall came down, people on both sides of the formerIron Curtain rejoiced. But today's mood is much more sober. Russia'sgross domestic product has been shrinking, by 19 percent in 1992 andby 12 percent in 1993. Inflation currently runs at 18 percent permonth. And crime is increasing. The so-called Russian mafia controlsan estimated 40 percent of all transactions in goods and services. Last December, Russian troops invaded the breakaway republic ofChechnya, bombing its capital of Grozny to rubble. The death toll hasreached a reported 24,000 civilians. Former republics like Ukraine and Kazakhstan fear that Moscowmight turn expansionist and try to rebuild the Soviet empire throughcoercion or even outright invasion. It is said that President Boris Yeltsin, once called 'the GeorgeWashington of Russian democracy,' is now overwhelmed by the job andsuffers from ill health, perhaps alcoholism. Many Russian democrats,like former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, have turned against Yeltsin.Hard-line nationalist parties are believed to be rising in popularityand influence. And while Soviet communism has been delegated to the dust bin ofhistory, Russia still has thousands of nuclear weapons capable ofhitting Western Europe and the United States. It used to be, gentlemen and lady, that the views on the SovietUnion were divided into hawks and doves, and now it seems to be thatthey are divided between optimists and pessimists. And I just wonder,just to sort of establish where you all are, maybe we'll just goquickly around the horn here. Starting with Leon Aron, if you couldjust try to tell me where you are. MR. ARON Ben, I think I am a very cautious optimist. I thinkit's a very cold spring. We just had a big chill with Chechnya andperhaps frost, but it's still a sowing season. MR. WATTENBERG Okay. Peter Rutland. MR. RUTLAND I'm also an optimist in the long term, although Iwouldn't underestimate the problems in the short term. In terms of athreat, Russia may be a threat to its own people more than to peoplebeyond its own borders. MR. WATTENBERG Paula Dobriansky. MS. DOBRIANSKY In the short term, I'm a pessimist, specificallybecause of the events in Chechnya. The fact that Moscow has wagedsuch barbaric actions in dealing with the circumstances do not bodewell for the future. Lawlessness, corruption is still prevalent. Thelegacy of communism still has not been broken. In the long term,maybe a cautious optimist; in the short term, a pessimist. MR. WATTENBERG Peter Rodman. MR. RODMAN I'm a pessimist. Russia has always been a problem. Imean, the history of Europe teaches that Russia has always been abig, clumsy, difficult, powerful factor. And I think we're seeingthat again. I wouldn't call Russia a threat. I think it's going to bea major problem. I see some disturbing trends in its foreign policy,and I think we need to be more realistic about it than we havebeen. MR. WATTENBERG Why do people say, and it is said, that Russia hasalways been a problem? I mean, is it their geography, is it theirpsychology, is it their history? I mean, Leon, you grew up inRussia. MR. ARON Yes. Well, it certainly was a problem for me as I wasgrowing up. (Laughter.) But -- well, I think there are a number ofthings, Ben: its positioning sort of between Europe and Asia; itstradition of authoritarianism; its sort of inability to decidewhether they belong to Europe, with Enlightenment and free enterpriseand democracy, or whether they belong to Asia. And it's alsoperennial -- almost perennial insecurity, which largely was broughtabout by its own expansion, that led Russia to this paradoxicalsituation that the more expanded, the more insecure it became. MR. RUTLAND I'm not sure we should say it's a problem. I'm notsure that any country be described as a problem. Sure, Russia has hada difficult history. But at various points in history, it's pulledEurope's bacon out of the fire; it's saved Europe from sundrydictators, from Napoleon to Hitler. And so it's been a cycle ofsuccesses and defeats. And Russia right now is at the depths of atrough. But it will come back, and I don't think we should say thatit's a demonic country that's doomed to cause problems. MR. WATTENBERG Well, will it come back as a democracy? MS. DOBRIANSKY Well, I think one of the greatest concerns today,especially, is the fact that democracy has not taken hold in thesense of the term in Russia, and especially that those countries inCentral and Eastern Europe are very concerned about Russia'sintentions. They're unclear. Take Ukraine, for example. Ukraine is very concerned about the eventsin Chechnya, especially because Russia has not really, in all intentsand purposes, fully acknowledged the sovereignty and the existence ofUkraine. So the dust has not settled, and in that sense, it does posea problem, not only for us, but for the Europeans. MR. RUTLAND But, Paula, you say Russia isn't a democracy, but fiveyears ago, would you have expected Russia to be this democratic? MS. DOBRIANSKY No. I think that it has made certain strides. That istrue. But still, it is not a democracy in the truest sense of theterm. Clearly, the actions undertaken by Moscow in dealing with thesituation in Chechnya defy any semblance of democratic, peacefulactions. MR. ARON With one exception, Paula. It seems to me that indeedChechnya was a test for Russian democracy. The executive failedcompletely. MS. DOBRIANSKY They failed it. MR. ARON The executive failed. However, there is one silverlining. MR. WATTENBERG Wait, wait. The United States -- I don't want to soundas if I'm pro the Russian government, but the United States was ademocracy when we engaged in a civil war dealing sort of with a,quotes, 'breakaway republic.' I mean, it's not, just on its surface,an outrageous behavior. MR. ARON No, I don't think so. And, you know, the Chechnyaregime itself, the Dudayev regime, was far from democratic andblameless for all this. But it failed in its brutality, it failed inits ineptness, it's failed in the amount of casualties that itinflicted. More importantly, I think it failed in the way that warwas presented to the people and the way that the executive workedwith the parliament. MR. WATTENBERG Peter Rodman. MR. RODMAN The question you asked was, why is Russia a problem?And I think Leon described the historical reasons very well. But Iwould emphasize one factor, which is its power. It is a hugeconcentration of power in the middle of the Eurasian land mass, andit has always been a problem for anybody who had the misfortune tolive in its immediate neighborhood. And as Leon said, it's beenclumsy, it's never been quite sure where it fit into the sort ofinternational system. And I think -- MR. RUTLAND Sort of like Germany. MR. RODMAN Exactly, like Germany. And it's not an accident thatthe history of the last -- this century has been, you know, Germanyand Russia either competing or taking turns disrupting the peace. Andwe may -- you know, I worry that we may be heading in -- you know,right now the balance of power in Europe is benign. But I think a lotof that is because the United States is sitting there as thestabilizer. I mean, this gets into the foreign policy concern for us,which is how do we, you know, stabilize the situation, make sure thatit doesn't become a threat, because as I said before, it's not athreat, it's a problem. MR. WATTENBERG Why did de Tocqueville, when he came here, I guess inthe 1830s, say that the two great nations of the future were going tobe the United States and Russia? What did he sense then? Was itphysical -- MR. RODMAN It was physical power that was dormant and yet wasinevitable. MR. WATTENBERG If you were writing about the world today, say, forthe next hundred years, would you say those are the two big powersstill? MR. RODMAN No, it's more -- there are more other players --Germany, Japan -- MR. RUTLAND China. MS. DOBRIANSKY China. MR. RODMAN -- and China, absolutely. So it's -- you know, it'sbeen evolving into a, you know, more multipolar system. But they'restill -- I mean, Russia is big, and particularly because it's inturmoil, it is scary to anybody who lives in its immediateneighborhood. MR. ARON Well, just continuing with that theme, it seems to methat when I talk about the silver lining in this Chechnya affair, onething that it did show is that the Russian society is no longersynonymous with the Kremlin, that the people did not buy the partyline and, most importantly, the media were completely free to reportsomething that in its explicitness and candor, I would say, wasprobably unequaled by any country at war, except for that of theUnited States during Vietnam. I mean, the coverage that you saw on national television duringthe Chechen war utterly belied the notion that this is anauthoritarian regime in that particular regard, that it could crackdown on the media whenever it wanted. So it seems to me that while the executive, I repeat, failedmiserably in this war, we no longer could equate the Kremlin withRussia, something that is utterly new, and in my view quiteoptimistic. MS. DOBRIANSKY Leon, I would agree with your point. Absolutely, thatis the silver lining. My reason before for mentioning why I don't seeRussia at this time being a democracy in the fullest sense of theterm is because, yes, there have been free and fair elections, yes,as you mentioned the silver lining, an important factor in the crisisin dealing with Chechnya has been the fact that there haven't beenthese constraints on media, that there has been a vibrant media, andin fact, public opinion has gone very much against the actions ofMoscow. However, there still is not an independent functioning judiciary;there is no rule of law, which is a bedrock of any society. That hasnot taken hold. And secondly, although I think the population has certainly becomemore engaged in democratic ideas and values, the understanding andthe grasp of it and its translation into concrete action, it stillneeds to evolve. Much needs to be done. MR. WATTENBERG Let me ask you a question. What about the commercialrealm? We said in the setup piece that 40 percent of the Sovieteconomy is run by the mafia. But that mafia, or earlier the blackmarket, I mean that can be viewed as sort of a rudimentary stage ofreal capitalism. You let all the illegal enterprises flourish, andthen you regulate them. I mean, is that plausible? MR. RUTLAND I think if we look from the robber barons in Americanhistory to the current situation in China, we can see that this sortof informal economy, to use a more polite term than 'mafias,' thatthe two shade into one another. The informal economy is rife in everyeconomy in the world. And in some economies, it's more prevalent thanothers, in some economies, it's legislators that are getting shotdown on the streets. MR. RODMAN We did have our robber baron period. MR. WATTENBERG We also had people selling protection in the UnitedStates. MR. RODMAN Well, but that's a local aberration. We also had alegal system and a political system. And as our society evolved, thelegal system was able to dominate these -- for the most part, thesecriminal elements. I mean, Russia doesn't have a legal system or anestablished political system. Everything is in turmoil at the sametime, and there's no guarantee it's going to evolve smoothly into anice, bourgeois, you know, law-abiding society. MR. WATTENBERG But it has a president. And Leon, you are writing abiography about Mr. Yeltsin. And I guess the popular question is, ishe a Democrat or a drunk? And I wonder -- MR. ARON Or both. MR. WATTENBERG Or both, right. MR. ARON He could be both at the same time. History is repletewith Democrats who have dabbled into all kinds of diversions. MR. WATTENBERG Where do you come out on your general view ofYeltsin? MR. ARON Well, I think Yeltsin is a man who is generally infavor of democratic development, but who himself obviously does nothave the experience being the party boss all his life, doesn't havethe experience or very much understanding of the free market ordemocracy. And I think he was an ideal person for the barricades. MR. WATTENBERG But it must have been a great temptation duringChechnya for such a man to close down the press, and yet hedidn't. MR. ARON That's precisely it. And not only that, but in hisaddress to the nation, he reaffirmed that with all his problems thathe has with the media, he still will not allow any sort of crackdownon the media. So I think he also -- unfortunately -- like Gorbachev, is a manwhose hour has passed. I mean, he won the revolution. There is nodoubt about that. But Russia now moved beyond the barricades, and inthis space between the revolution and democracy, Yeltsin is lost. Hecould not find his proper niche. And I think part of it, part of thereason he decided on this utterly disastrous -- politically, morallyand militarily -- action in Chechnya is because he was searching fora mission and he was searching for a way to establish himself. MR. RUTLAND The question I would like to come back to is whetherYeltsin, if he leaves the scene, can be replaced. Is he actuallypivotal to the way that the political elite works in Russia? Andthat's the thing that worries me, that there may not be a cleartransition to another -- MR. WATTENBERG If they go to chaos and anarchy in Russia, is thiscause for America to worry? I mean, is that -- is this a huge concernto us, with the nukes rattling around and -- MR. RODMAN Well, you put your finger on it. The nukes are themain concern. And anarchy -- MR. WATTENBERG How many are there? MR. RODMAN Well, there were 20,000, I think, before the -- andthere are arms control -- arms reduction agreements that are bringingit down under 10,000. MR. WATTENBERG Warheads. MR. RODMAN Warheads. And that process is going on, and we have astake in it. Now, so far, the Russians have had very good command andcontrol over their nuclear weapons. But the continuing deteriorationof their political authority, you know, could change that. I mean, I think if Russia is weak, it obviously addresses theconcern I raised at the beginning. Then it's less of a threat to itsneighbors. On the other hand, there is the nuclear anarchy, which isenormously dangerous. And secondly, I think there is an Aristoteliancycle. I don't think a great power endlessly tolerates humiliation. Ithink there will be a return to some central authority. I mean, youknow, a strong man -- I think you'll have -- I think anarchy willinevitably produce some kind of authoritarian regime, so we'll beback maybe where we started. MR. WATTENBERG Peter, when you say we might go back to where westarted, we're not going to go back to the Soviet Union with -- MR. RODMAN No, no, no. But in terms of its -- we're talking aboutits internal evolution and, you know, whether we have the hopes fordemocracy. And I think if democracy turns into anarchy, it usuallyends up in some authoritarian -- MR. WATTENBERG But if it then goes retrograde, we are not as bad offas we were during the Cold War in terms of the whole USSR and -- MR. RODMAN Well, I think there is a big difference betweenRussian foreign policy and Soviet foreign policy. I think there is abig improvement. I mean, Russia is a state. I think it has a sense ofits national interest, or it's groping for a sense of its nationalinterest. It doesn't have this Leninist ideological thrust to disruptthe Western position all around the world. So even I, who worry aboutit, I can see a big difference. MS. DOBRIANSKY Peter, wouldn't you agree, though, that although yousaid that Russian foreign policy is not synonymous with Sovietforeign policy, that nevertheless, one of the problems or one of thechallenges which we face is that Russia's interests are not -- orhave not been in common with ours. When you look at the situation inBosnia, look at the situation in the Middle East of late, as well asin Europe the handling of NATO, our interests or our directions havebeen rather divergent. MR. WATTENBERG What have they done in the Middle East? MR. RODMAN They're selling nuclear reactors and submarines toIran, which I think actually bothers me more than Chechnya does,because this impinges directly on an area of vital interest tous. MS. DOBRIANSKY And this is one of the -- MR. RODMAN I think -- MS. DOBRIANSKY Excuse me, I was just going to say, this is one of, Ithink, the greatest challenges that we face that's separate from whatis evolving on the domestic scene, that internationally, instead ofour interests being more parallel, that they have become divergent,and there is a polarization. MR. ARON I think Paula and Peter have put their fingers on it.I think there are several aspects of the new Russian policy that needto be taken into consideration. I think to me the Russian foreignpolicy, globally -- I'm not talking about the back yard; that's aseparate issue -- globally, is sort of like de Gaulle's France. Thatis, you lose in substance what you try to acquire in rhetoric, andyou try to show, at least on the rhetorical, symbolic level, thatyou're not in the U.S. pocket. MR. WATTENBERG For example? MR. ARON For example, Bosnia is one example. Iran is anotherexample. MR. RUTLAND The debate is pretty much within the Cold War schemeof things, where security is the dominant factor in foreign policy. Iwould suggest that economics is much more important in the presentworld. In economic terms, there are lots of mutual interests betweenthe West and Russia. And the things about selling nuclear reactors toIran is purely economy. I mean, if the Russians don't sell them infive years' time, the French or the Germans will be selling them. MR. RODMAN No, but from our point of view, it's security, becauseof the Middle East and the problem -- MR. RUTLAND But from Russians' point of view, it's economics. MR. WATTENBERG Let me ask a question. How is the Clintonadministration doing? Have they handled this situation well? MS. DOBRIANSKY I don't think that they have handled it forcefully anddirectly. First of all, on the issue of Chechnya, the comparison thatthis is similar to America's Civil War I don't think was anappropriate parallel. Secondly -- MR. WATTENBERG Did the Clinton administration make that parallel? MS. DOBRIANSKY Yes. The initial statement was that, well, this is aninternal matter and we should wipe our hands of it. I don't think itcan be viewed as an internal matter. It has ramifications forRussia's development, it has ramifications for us from a securitystandpoint, and it certainly has ramifications for EasternEurope. Secondly, and very significantly, I think that the administrationhas put too many eggs in Yeltsin's basket and also has placed toomuch of an emphasis on a Russia-oriented policy. MR. ARON Well, I think Paula is right in the sense that itshould not be Russia only. But I think we would all agree, it shouldbe Russia first. And the reason for that is not any specialpredilection for Russia, but the fact that if Russia goes down, sowill other countries. MR. WATTENBERG And you have those nuclear weapons around that nobody-- MR. ARON That's right. MS. DOBRIANSKY If I may just jump in on that, I don't think I wouldsay it should be Russia first, because psychologically I think thatsends a very wrong signal. Secondly, many of these countries, just asmuch as they are dependent upon the fate of Russia, I think if you donot have democracy in Ukraine, I think that is very much intertwinedwith the future of Russia if Ukraine does not succeed. MR. WATTENBERG Where do you come out on how Clinton has done -- orthe Clinton administration? MR. RUTLAND Well, I don't think there has been an effectivepolicy, either a Russia-first or a Ukraine-first policy. I thinkthere has been just a status in policy, which in the long run willprobably -- MR. WATTENBERG A what policy? MR. RUTLAND A status. There has been no real movement forward inAmerican policy. And in the long run, this is probably a good thing,because if America had adopted a determined policy earlier on, itwould probably have been the wrong policy, so we're better to just bean observer on these processes. MR. WATTENBERG Peter Rodman, you have generally been a critic of theClinton foreign policy. MR. RODMAN Yeah, I have been, and on this one in particular. Isee it in geopolitical terms. I think Russia -- you need to hedge apossible reemergence of Russia. And yet I see -- which means that ifyour first line of defense is Russian policy, your second line ofdefense is the independence and security of all the new states thathave emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet empire. And so I thinkwe have a geopolitical stake in Ukraine, in protecting the EasternEuropeans. And that's why I think the disproportionate foreignassistance that has gone to Russia is a geopolitical mistake. I mean,we have a stake in the independence of all the others just in orderto stabilize the present situation, and as a hedge against thepossible, you know, as I said, emergence of Russia as a problem. MR. WATTENBERG We are running out of time. Let me just ask you onepersonal question. Five years ago, 10 years ago, the people who dealtwith the Cold War and the Soviet Union were sort of at the top of thefood chain in Washington. You know, that was what was reallyimportant. Now the Cold War is over. Do you find any difference? Imean, do people not return your phone calls? Are you no longerinvited to as many parties or -- (laughter.) MR. RODMAN No, no, but foreign policy as a whole is lessimportant. And I worry about an isolationist mood in the countrybecause I think if the United States removes its stabilizing role orits stabilizing policy in the world, then I think all these problemswould end up bigger than they otherwise could be. MR. RUTLAND Well, Ben, Henry Kissinger said famously that power isthe ultimate attraction, right? MR. WATTENBERG The 'ultimate aphrodisiac' is what he said. MR. RUTLAND Aphrodisiac, right, exactly. I didn't know if I wasallowed to say something like that. MR. WATTENBERG No, no, we're allowed to. We have a very matureaudience. (Laughter.) MR. RUTLAND But I think Peter's right, though, you know, while theforeign policy in general has changed, clearly I find in retrospectthat fear is also an ultimate attraction, and there is no doubt thatthe attention that's given to Russia and to those who are dealingwith Russia is not what is used to be and -- but you're stillinviting us, so we must be doing something right. MR. WATTENBERG Well, but we do more shows about welfare andaffirmative action and crime than we probably would have done hadthis program started 5 years ago or 10 years ago. MR. RUTLAND Absolutely. MR. WATTENBERG All right, let me just as a closing exercise here --again, we have to do it sort of briefly -- picture the year 2002,which is when the -- 7 years from now, when the budget is supposed tobe balanced here. What will the Soviet Union look like? MR. ARON Russia? MR. WATTENBERG I'm sorry. MR. ARON I mean, that's an easy question. (Laughter.) MR. WATTENBERG Right. What will Russia look like? MR. ARON I think it will still be a country strugglingeconomically and politically, but less of a threat to its neighborsthan at any time in its 400-year history. MR. RUTLAND I think Russia will be seen as a major economicpartner. It already supplies 50 percent of West Germany's gas needs,it's running a trade surplus. We should stop thinking of it as justhaving 20,000 nuclear weapons, but start thinking of it as a majortrading partner. MS. DOBRIANSKY I think that authoritarianism will reign in Russia interms of the leadership. I think there will still be strong andvibrant dissident groups trying to change that, but unfortunately,politically I see authoritarianism as reigning. MR. RODMAN If Russia gets back on its feet economically by then,I think it will be more of a problem than it is otherwise. MR. WATTENBERG Meaning that it would be a greater threat. MR. RODMAN It'll be stronger, and I think we'll have a biggerproblem in foreign policy. MR. WATTENBERG You've managed to come out pessimistically eitherway. MR. RODMAN Yes, yes. MR. WATTENBERG All right. Thank you, Leon Aron, Peter Rodman, PeterRutland, and Paula Dobriansky. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. 'Think Tank' has been made possible by Amgen, bringing better,healthier lives to people worldwide through biotechnology. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation, theWilliam H. Donner Foundation, the Randolph Foundation, and the JMFoundation. BEN WATTENBERG And thank you. We enjoy hearing from our audiencevery much. Please send your comments to: New River Media 1150 17th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 Better yet, wecan be reached via E-mail at:thinktv@aol.com. Return to ThinkTank Online HomePage Think Tank ® is a Registered Trademark of BJW, Inc. All Content © Copyright 1995 New River Media, Inc. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |