Russia Would Not Return to the Cold War Era
The following is a translation of an interview with Sadeq Kharrazi, Iran’s former ambassador to France...
The following is a translation of an interview with Sadeq Kharrazi, Iran’s former ambassador to France:
Q: Diplomatic affairs experts maintain two different views on the events that occurred in Georgia last month. Some believe the reason for the new cold war between Russia and the West was because the Kremlin wanted to recover its status under Vladimir Putin both in terms of soft power and hard power. Others reiterate that Russia is still not ready for a cold war because it knows well that in today’s integrated economy it should work to raise its economic strength and then engage in a possible cold war. What is your point of view?
A: In response to the diplomatic experts, I would like to mention briefly that one should not get overexcited and exaggerate in evaluating the events (in Georgia). In other words, we should not replace our wishes with the realities. But concerning your main question let me present a short academic and theoretic discussion regarding the existing doctrines in international relations which may be essential to better understand the issue. What was the cold war and how was it created? The cold war was started by Stalin at the end of World War II and in the wake of the Soviet ideological onslaught on Eastern Europe and Third World. Russia had sustained the highest casualties in the war and emerged the real winner in the conflict. It was the only Allied country which expanded territorially. However, due to arrival of nuclear arms in military and power equations, instead of balance of power a balance of terror was dominated and a military confrontation between the two new camps, namely Socialism and Capitalism was avoided. From that period till Soviet disintegration is called bipolar world and cold war era. Let’s see what the present conditions look like. Russia is neither the winner of the cold war nor independent of the capitalist world. It is in dire need of technology, financial markets and international banking system as well as membership at World Trade Organization.
Q: Do you think Russia has the potential to start a new cold war?
A: The Russian Federation under Putin managed to partially avoid the shocks and confusions of Soviet disintegration thanks to Putin’s cohesive plans and West’s assistance. Russia was able to leave behind the adaptation era without much trouble last year thanks to the high oil and gold prices as well as arms sales. Therefore, I think Russia neither wants nor can return to the cold war era of Brezhnev.
Q: Those who emphasize that Russia wants to start a new cold war under the present condition cite such factors as reemergence of Russian identity and nationalism as their evidence. What is your opinion?
A: Emergence of Russian identity and reemergence of Russian nationalism and renewed self-confidence in Russians, particularly the young generation, is a reality. However, we should not exaggerate about their scope and limits for now. That the Russians were humiliated after Gorbachev era and the superpower nostalgia of the communism era disturbed – and still disturbs – the minds of the Russian youth is another reality but not a driving force yet.
Q: Before coming to power of Vladimir Putin and under Boris Yeltsin, the West strongly increased its influence in security domains of Russia, such as Ukraine and Georgia. Do you think the US could still enter such fields with the coming to power of Putin? What would be Russia’s reaction?
A: As I said the Soviet breakdown, in addition to being a shock, perhaps caused some moral and at the same time politico-ideological depression. This situation naturally generated some power vacuum in the abandoned lands and tempted many to fill the gap. Those who still followed the mentality of the bipolar world were not very successful. But those who were able to properly analyze the events were not overexcited. So, in parts of the world which were the consequence of bipolar climate, Russia cannot put on Stalin’s boots by eliminating that atmosphere. As a specific example, I can mention former Yugoslavia which was basically a production of the cold war era. Even Tito did not consider himself a Serb and the southern Slavs were regarded a political unit created by the conditions of time. But the question of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is something originating from geographic and geopolitical force. NATO could easily bomb Yugoslavia in the west of the Black Sea but membership of Georgia to the east of the Black Sea in NATO would require negotiations and settlement of numerous issues.
Q: Considering that economic growth and development is of vital importance at the present juncture, to what extent do you think Moscow could stand against West’s influence? Would Russia normalize its relations with the West at least temporarily for the cause of economic interests?
A: The Russians are adopting more conciliatory tones these days unlike the Western diplomats, such as Rice, who have taken tough and unusual positions against the Kremlin. There is no doubt that the Russians need the West in continuing their path towards growing capitalism. It is also obvious that the West has vital interests in growth of capitalism and both sides are well aware of this. Meanwhile, Russia and West also know that a return to pre-disintegration era would neither be rational nor possible. Therefore, it is not realistic and appropriate to think that the two parties would destroy all the bridges behind them just because of the Georgian crisis which is actually rooted in controlling energy transit. Putting diplomatic quibbles aside, it would not be easy to see conformity in the attitudes of the West and Russia regarding the need for Caspian energy for development of south Russia. This could even cause more quibbles. Nevertheless, the issue of energy supply and control in south Russia is a strategic topic between Russia and West whose angels had not been fully agreed upon at the time of the understanding over disintegration.
Q: In diplomatic discourse, hegemonic power is a legitimate power where countries would naturally accept superiority of a country. For instance, in the case of Kosovo, after the US voiced support for independence of this secessionist province of Serbia, the entire Europe followed suit. However, in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after Russia recognized their independence, only Venezuela and Nicaragua supported this decision of Moscow. Doesn’t this mean that Russia is not in a position to start a new cold war? We should also remember that at the cold war era, Russia had formed the Warsaw axis against the US and had therefore more room for maneuvering. But today, Kremlin does not have such an axis.
A: First of all, I disagree with you that hegemony is a legitimate power in diplomatic discourse. Perhaps it is the case in realpolitik but in diplomatic world this has not been theorized. Secondly, as I said today we do not have the cold war climate and bipolar world where the Cuban missile crisis emerged at the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev. The fact that two Russian planes participate in a war game in Venezuela or if Bolivia takes some tough diplomatic action does not mean a return to the cold war era. These could only be tools of resorting to bargaining chips which could be spent elsewhere to settle issues more easily. Russia does not have an ideology in contrast with the West, at least for now, and therefore it could not be regarded a global rival and a serious threat in Latin America.
Q: At the time of the cold war, a flexible rather than stiff bipolar order was dominant and it was at this time that the Non-Aligned Movement was born. Russia and US tried at that time to expand domain of their influence in other countries or undermine each other, such as in the Vietnam or Afghanistan wars. But today we see that the US after three years of failure in Iraq, can restore relative security to the country without feeling any threats from a big power. Or at the time of Dr. Mossadeq in Iran, Moscow and Washington tried to expand their domain of influence in the country. Is there room for such rivalry under the current situation?
A: A Russia having no ideological conflict with the West and run on the basis of Western liberalism has a bigger chance than the former communist Soviet Union to influence the Middle East. Of course, control of energy and transit resources is a different story.
Q: Is it wise for certain countries to exaggerate the Georgian conflict and take advantage of it?
A: It depends which countries you mean. If you are talking about Iran, I must say that not only Georgia but all the Caucasus states play an important role in our security and national interest and we are affected by the developments there. We too should try to leave an impact on the strategic events in the region. But by “wise” if you mean some showoff gestures the answer is negative and it must be totally avoided.