The following is an interview with Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs on Russian-American politics.

Q: Do you agree with expert predictions that Russian-American relations will worsen after the Democrats take over Congress?

A: I don’t see any serious reasons for contradicting the expert opinion. And it is not just about the November victory of the Democrats at the elections to Congress. There is a strong feeling that the positions of both major American parties on Russia, though not completely the same, are similar in many respects. And, sadly, there is unanimity in a negative perception of Russia.

It is true that the Republicans have a reputation for being more pragmatic, with less emphasis on human values (and this is not an entirely Russian expert opinion). So it is supposed to be easier for Russia to negotiate with them. It is true to a certain extent, but I would not consider this a decisive factor today. The term of George Bush has been the most ideologically loaded administration for the last decades. It was a real "democratic missionary policy."

It is quite unfortunate that we are still scared of anyone who would openly discuss rights and freedoms with us. This is abnormal for a state which declares its firm democratic position. We must be open for any serious dialogue on these topics, and we are absolutely convinced that we are developing in the same framework of values as our partners in Europe and the U.S.A.

The stronger Russian role in international affairs and the more impressive its position as an energy state with a powerful nuclear arsenal, the more attention it will be getting, especially from America. So we are sure to attract attention of both Democrats and Republicans in the nearest future. The question is: What sort of attention is it going to be? It is most important that we should overcome the anachronistic public demand for a conflict, when parties in America compete in "who is less friendly with Russia?"

Q: What is your estimate of the level of cooperation between the Duma and the new American Congress?

A: It is still too early to make any judgment on inter-parliamentary cooperation. But we were able to reach a sufficient level of cooperation with the previous House of Representatives, for example, and we would like to maintain it. As the head of the Duma Committee on International Affairs, I can mention, for instance, a conceptually new form of work—joint sessions of our and American committees in Washington and Moscow, accordingly. It will be desirable to pursue this practice with colleagues from the newly elected Congress.

Q: Russian members of parliament urged the U.S. Congress to accelerate ratification of the key treaties on international security. What treaties exactly do they mean? And what will happen if America decides not to participate in these international treaties?

A: Yes, the State Duma addressed the newly elected Congress on January 10. It is not only an appeal to work more actively on international treaties, though it is one of the main issues. Considering what has been said, we would like to use the new start of the American Congress to raise our relations to a new level, to review the ‘arrears’ and to preserve the achievements.

As far as the international agreements mentioned in the address are concerned, we aim at making provisions of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) universal, as well as at ratification of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), U.S. joining the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, maintaining the efforts of the international community to establish effective control over the fulfillment of obligations by members of the Convention on Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We have not forgotten about such relics as the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a mere mention of which today seems embarrassing.

The situation with each of these agreements is different. Nuclear tests held recently in China make the CTBT exceptionally topical. The U.S.A. expresses concern with the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, and there are grounds for strengthening the CTBT regime. Both Russia and the U.S. maintain a moratorium on nuclear tests, but we cannot allow such tests by other states to become a normal international practice.

Speaking about the CFE, we must say that this document is extremely important for Europe, since it can become an effective instrument for the limitation of a whole range of arms on a densely populated continent. It is high time to discard the legend about Russia’s alleged non-fulfillment of Istanbul obligations, which we have heard time and again as the grounds for non-ratification. It’s high time to switch on to something more up-to-date and plausible. Reality is already different from the clichés learned long ago, which our partners still use to camouflage their own inactivity.

The topicality of the Kyoto Protocol is more than vividly demonstrated by the global weather. I think that one of the most powerful states in the world, which is otherwise actively involved in global issues, should not withdraw from the acute topic of climate on the planet. And this opinion is shared by most U.S. partners in NATO.

Q: How could you characterize the current U.S.-Russian interaction in the former Soviet territory? Is it a partnership rather than a rivalry, especially when it is viewed in the light of the American Congress’ support of the potential membership of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

A: I don’t see any real interaction in the post-Soviet space. We reached understanding in the issue of assistance in preparing a military operation against the Taliban in Afghanistan. There we had both interaction and cooperation. But when someone is trying to turn the territory of the former U.S.S.R. into an arena of geopolitical games, it is only natural that Russia should feel concerned.

Each nation is free to decide which unions to join and how to protect its security. Accordingly, the American Congress is free to support any countries in their efforts to join NATO. A crucial question for us is: What is NATO—a structure from the previous century, which is specifically designed for the realities of the Cold War—doing in the present century? It is not fit to deal with the challenges of the new millennium, but it persists in doing what it was designed for: It stubbornly spreads to the East, ignoring the real threats and changes in political situations.

By Nadezhda Sorokina