Interview with CC CPRF Chairman Gennady Zyuganov on Russia’s Foreign Policy and World Development Trends

Vladimir Putin’s second presidential term is drawing to a close. He has presided over the country’s foreign policy for almost eight years. What has changed over these past years compared with the Yeltsin period?

Little has changed, if one leaves aside details or trifles, and looks at the position of Russia in the international arena. Unfortunately, we are still being pushed and discriminated against. From the West the NATO steamroller is advancing on Russia, acting hand-in-hand with the European Union. Japan looms over our Far East retaining its territorial claims, demanding not only the four South Kuril islands, but hinting that it may claim more. The areas to our south are anything but calm. War is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is no end in sight to the war. Far from winding down, the conflict in the region is set to escalate. There is a danger that it may spread to Iran and Syria. The Palestinian issue has dramatically sharpened. Behind all these developments in the West, East and South stands the Untied States. Its present leadership seeks to rule the world, i.e. world domination under the guise of fighting terrorism and imposing American-style democracy, exporting the American way of life through the use of force and gross violation of the norms and principles of international law. What is particularly disgusting is that this openly imperialist policy of robbing other peoples and countries, blackmail and violence is covered with pious talk about the defense of human rights and democratic values and sometimes even references to God’s providence and the Gospel.

It looks as if the US is claiming the role of world policeman and seeks the right to judge, punish and pardon anyone who stands in the way of its imperial ambitions.

I disagree when the US is called an international policeman, even if only a self-appointed one. A policeman is called upon to serve the law. The US openly declares that the law is not for them, that the UN Charter and international law are obsolete and that the US can ultimately do whatever it likes because it has force on its side. This is not the way the guardians of law and order behave, this is how gangsters behave. Washington would like to turn the whole world into its “turf” where it would hold sway. He who yields to these claims is doing a disservice not only to himself, but to other peoples and countries. That adventurous policy must be stopped through the common efforts of the world community. Otherwise the world will face a catastrophe.

In his Munich speech, and later in his April message, President Putin did not pull his punches in assessing the policy of the US and its allies and threatened that Russia would no longer dance to their tune and would be more firm in upholding its national interests. Has the Kremlin done anything since then?

Unfortunately, Putin’s pronouncements have not been followed by any substantial changes in the Russian foreign policy. There are objective reasons for that. Of course, one can deliver speeches and fulminate, especially in the run-up to the Duma and presidential elections. This is what the Russian President is currently doing. Neither he nor the so-called elite have the means to realize their statements. During the Yelstin-Putin years Russia has lost the economic, defense, scientific-cultural and information potential required to pursue a policy that matches its position and national interests. It has also lost its allies prepared to support it in the world. Never in its recent history has  Russia been so weak and so isolated as today. We are paying the price for the anti-national policy pursued by Yeltsin after 1991 and now continued by Putin, who leans on the docile United Russia party.

It is not by chance that the Western reaction to Putin’s Munich speech and other brash statements has been somewhat cynical. It seems to say, let him talk and appease the Russian voters who are nostalgic about the times of the Great Russia and the Soviet Union. In reality, the Kremlin cannot do anything to change its current humiliated and deprived position. So, the thinking in Washington and Brussels is that Russia will continue to toe their line. The national projects and programs touted by Putin and the United Russia will take many years to implement. Because of their insufficient scale and lack of a coherent system of projected moves these programs and projects are unlikely to do much to strengthen Russia’s international position. All these projects will most likely be a convenient instrument for dividing up budget money and the Stabilization Fund rather than a means of bringing the country out of its deep systemic crisis. Clearly, most of the money earmarked will be simply stolen by “efficient owners” and the corrupt state bureaucracy.

In general, all our foreign policy problems are rooted in our internal policy course. Without its radical change Russia will not climb out of the pit into which it has fallen as a result of the counterrevolutionary putsch carried out by Yeltsin and the policy of his successor. A change of administration is needed. Failing that, Russia’s current unfavourable and in many ways dangerous position in the world, far from improving, will continue to deteriorate. This is something to be borne in mind by the Russian citizens as the Duma and presidential elections approach.

For centuries Russia has been a great power. Gorbachev and Yeltsin turned it into a second-rate, weak and poorly managed country. Now Putin has come up with a consolation for the Russians. It turns out that Russia, though no longer a great power, is still a power of sorts -- an energy power.

Oil and gas have become the Russian President’s hobby-horse. But he forgets that an energy power is as a rule an underdeveloped country, a supplier of raw materials to leading world economies. Russia is addicted to oil and gas. If export of energy is interrupted if only for a month or if the prices for it drop sharply, that would cause an immediate collapse of the Russian economy and finances. And that would bring down the current administration with its rhetoric about the doubling of the GDP, the lack of inflation, growing investments and prosperity of the people. The Kremlin is well aware of it. So it is doing everything to continue to pump abroad growing quantities of oil and gas, that non-renewable wealth of our people. Putin is doing it personally. As soon as things stall with the northern gas pipeline, he rushes to the south – to Italy and the Balkans, all in order to maintain gas and oil sales abroad. But Russia itself is in need of gas. Half of our country does not have gas. It is high time to build capacity for deep oil refining and modern chemical production based on our natural gas. It is a disgrace that Russia, which produces hundreds of millions of tons of oil, has to import from abroad almost all the high-octane petrol it uses. It is even more of a disgrace to have to import from abroad almost all the products obtained from gas. And yet the Russian Government persists in building its “northern” and “southern” streams, burying into the ground millions and millions of tons of metal, and taxing its people, planning to raise internal gas prices to the world level in its new three-year budget, all to enable our oil and gas barons to line their pockets and do nothing to develop production capacity in Russia. If this is a national policy then what is stupidity or, worse, a crime against the national interests?

But the Government acts deftly to raise gas prices for Byelorussia explaining that this is done to boost the prosperity of the Russians.

This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. They try to create problems for Byelorussia and destabilize it from within. It is a thorn in the flesh for the Russian ruling elite. Why? Because during the 15 years that our neo-liberal capitalists and their underlings in the government have ruled Russia, they have never managed to create a truly effective transitional economy. Russia has nothing except oil and gas money and revenues from the sale of round timber, it does not produce anything and it is tens of years behind the modern world, having failed to reach the 1989 level on a single count. By contrast, Byelorussia has created such a model. They have a working industry, a robust agriculture and they successfully address the social issues. And Byelorussia has no gas or oil or gold or diamonds. You can ask the inhabitants of the Russian regions that neighbour on Byelorussia where life is better. And they will tell you that life is better in Byelorussia. This is an indictment of our current regime. So it is furious, looking for ever new ways of making mischief for Lukashenko and evading the fulfillment of the agreement on the creation of a union state. We demand that this situation change. We demand an end to the blackmailing of Minsk and bickering with the Byelorussians over who should be president and who should be the vice-president of the union state while casting a covetous eye on the Byelorussian factories. If you have signed an agreement on creating a union state be so kind as to fulfill it. Be so kind as to create a single body for governing that state, uniting the defenses, foreign policy, the customs services and harmonizing the laws. The West dreams of tearing Byelorussia away from Russia, toppling the current government and making Byelorussia part of NATO and the EU. Resolute actions are needed to stop these plans, and to protect Byelorussia from the West’s aggressive designs. The CPRF believes the creation of a union state to be a priority of the Russian foreign policy. At the end of the day it is the key to ensuring the security and geopolitical interests of Russia.

What can you say about the Russian policy in the CIS space?

I am afraid we don’t have any policy there. We just react to the situations as they arise. That’s all. But the West has a consistent and considered policy with regard to the CIS countries. Russia is being surrounded with a cordon of states which are to become a kind of geopolitical counterweight to Russia. They started with the Baltics. Ukraine and Georgia are next. And this only begins the list. The pattern of actions is the same everywhere: squeezing out the Russian population or its forcibly assimilating it,  reorientation of the policy of these countries against Russia, involvement in various international actions and structures hostile to us, such as GUAM, and invariably a commitment to bring all our neighbours into NATO and the EU. Their actions are aimed at cementing and making irreversible the results of the dismemberment of the USSR. They aim to hobble Russia with various disputes and conflicts along the perimeter of its borders. To continue sidelining it from big politics. To lay the ground for establishing control and possibly dismembering the Russian state and gain possession of its resources.

Only very naïve people can believe that Washington and Brussels could help us to cut down to size the Balts or the Georgians or Ukrainian nationalists. In reality we are faced with a united front of our adversaries and ill-wishers whom the Kremlin is unable to or does not dare to expose or split. And yet we have incomparably greater opportunities in the CIS space than our rivals. Until recently we were a single state. But there is no will or determination to use these opportunities consistently and rationally for the good of Russia and our fellow countrymen.

The Russian policy with regard to the Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria is puzzling. Their people in numerous polls and referendums again and again speak in favour of independence and subsequent merger with Russia, while the Kremlin keeps silent or even frowns upon such appeals. How long can this continue? What is possible today will become impossible tomorrow and new criminal omissions will be added to the Byelovezhskaya crime causing colossal damage to the interests of Russia. We have not written off and will never write off the 25 million Russians who have found themselves outside Russia not of their own wish, and we will fulfill our duty of successors to the Great Russia and the Soviet Union. We are ready to extend a hand and to be a reliable shield and support for all those in the CIS space who still see Russia as our common Homeland, our common destiny and future.

This prompts the following question: what to do about the Kosovo problem?

First of all, we should not yield to pressure from the US, NATO and the EU which demand a recognition and legalization of the results of the aggression against Yugoslavia and the collusion with the Albanian separatists. If they persist in attempts to get the UN Security Council pass a resolution recognizing the independence of Kosovo over objections from Serbia we must use our veto. If, in the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution the West recognizes Kosovo independence unilaterally we should act similarly with regard to the so-called unrecognized state entities on the territory of the former USSR. The issue of Kosovo is today a touchstone of the Russian leadership’s determination to uphold its stated position, and the interests of Russia. On the eve of the elections we will see the real worth of the Kremlin’s declarations. The CPRF is ready to back the Russian leadership on the issue of Kosovo. But the question is whether the leadership will show enough determination to act as it should.

Could you now comment on the US plans to deploy elements of its national missile defense in Poland and in Czech Republic?

It is part of an overall plan to bring the US armed forces to the Russian borders. Sizable American contingents are being deployed in Bulgaria and Romania, the Czech Republic and Poland. In the former case these are mainly Air Force assets and in the latter case missiles and radars.  The operation is carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism, although it is obvious that the US has never been threatened by Iran or North Korea, especially by their missiles. We see the start of the building of new bases close to Russia,  one of the aims being to intercept our ballistic missiles. They are starting with a modest 10 interceptor missiles, but things will not of course end there. Before long they are likely to be provided with multiple warheads, their numbers may be increased and additional cover assets, including missiles, will be deployed. In short, a new spiral of the arms race is beginning. An attempt is being made to shift the strategic balance still more in favour of the US. Of course, the current American anti-missile assets are inefficient. The Americans risk to plough colossal amounts of money into the NMD without providing an effective cover for the US territory. But apparently blackmailing Russia and a tighter grip on its satellites in Europe is reason enough to spare no money for its implementation.

As for Moscow’s reaction of concern over these moves of the US, it is quite natural. Obviously, a new threat is emerging. But what strikes one is the chaotic and ill-thought-out statements and countermoves. When the US pulled out of the ABM Treaty, the Russian leadership issued threats and looked very angry. But when the withdrawal was complete it said that after all it wasn’t such a big deal because our self-targeting supersonic missiles could easily handle American interceptors. The question arises then, why is Moscow so exercised about ten American interceptors in Poland or the Czech Republic?

Further, if the Iranians have no missiles capable of reaching the US territory and will not have them in the foreseeable future why do we offer Bush the use of our radar station in Azerbaijan? What does the Treaty on Medium and Shorter Range Missiles, from which we threaten to withdraw, have to do with elements of the American missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic? OK, we pull out of the Treaty. What do we get in exchange?  American Pershings, only stationed not in the FRG, Italy and Holland but in Poland, the Baltics or Georgia which can reach our territory within 10-12 minutes or less? What is in it for us? What has the issue of Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) have to do with national missile defense issues? And yet for some reason we have linked the two.

In general, there has been a lot of talk, but we have yet to see any real countermeasures that could impress the Americans. No wonder they don’t show any concern. The Russian foreign policy may be heading for another capitulation. To capitulate would mean to invite the Americans to go on tilting the balance which is increasingly not in our favour. The reason why all that is taking place is one: the weakening of Russia as a result of the policy pursued by our rulers over the past 15 years. That policy continues to this day.

What about Iran?

The West has managed to get us approve the resolutions on sanctions against Iran. On Estonia, which is spitting Russia in the face, Moscow keeps saying that it will not impose any sanctions against Tallinn as a matter of principle. Allegedly Russia is against sanctions in general. But when it comes to sanctions of the UN Security Council against Iran or the DPRK, which have done us no ill, Moscow promptly forgets all these principles and votes with the US and its satellites. The resulting situation is quite embarrassing. We spoil our relations with Iran and do not get any substantial concessions from the US in return. We are hostages to America’s adventurous and short-sighted policy with regard to Iran.

An agreement could long have been reached with the Iranians that they would confine themselves to R/D required for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. They were ready to accept any IAEA monitoring. The US blocked such an agreement. In response the Iranians started producing low enriched uranium, but they agree not to launch production of weapons-grade uranium and are again ready to accept IAEA monitoring. But the US is not content with that. It still hopes to break Iran’s will by tougher sanctions. Obviously it won’t succeed. But it is quite likely that it will prompt Iran to take the next step in deploying the production of enriched uranium. Russia tags along with this harebrained policy. It is prepared to forego its economic interests in Iran, see the relations with its southern neighbour deteriorate and stop the construction of the nuclear plant in Bushehr (under ridiculous pretexts). One can understand the Americans using the issue of peaceful nuclear energy in Iran to destabilize the situation there or hoping to topple the regime and establish control of a strategically very important country. But what use to Russia is an Iran captured by Americans or controlled by their puppets? Why are we playing up to Washington at our own cost and to the detriment of all our southern neighbours in the region? The CPRF categorically rejects that policy.

How to you assess the results of the latest Putin-Bush meeting?

I followed the meeting closely. Unfortunately, I do not see any issue on which the Americans are ready to meet Russia halfway. Meanwhile Russia again appears to be backtracking. You can judge for yourselves. The Americans do not renounce their plan to deploy their missiles next door to us. And in response we suggest creating a Europe-wide information system for national missile defense. We have promised to modernize our radar station in Azerbaijan in the interests of the Americans and even to allow their presence at our new modern radar in the Krasnodar area. We will provide them with information in real time. What does Russia need today? It wants the US to renounce its deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead we will have American missiles there and then probably in Ukraine, and simultaneously we are becoming involved in the negotiations during the course of which the US wouldn’t budge on a single issue while we will end up presenting them with our radar stations and much else.

The press reports that during his meeting with Putin Bush raised the issue of democracy in Russia. Most probably he was interested in the internal situation in our country on the eve of the elections and the outlook for the internal political development in Russia. What do you know about it?

I can imagine that the Americans wanted to know what Russia would look like after the Duma and presidential elections. In short, who will be at the helm and whether there are sufficient guarantees that no major changes will take place in Russia. It was important for them to find out whether the current economic and social policy will continue. Whether we will continue to be committed to an alliance with the West and follow in tow of the EU and the US policy. That was why Putin was summoned to America, treated to lobsters and taken out on a fishing party. If he has given corresponding assurances and opened all his cards, in short, pleased the American hosts, Washington will continue to fret about infringements upon democracy in Russia but will not quarrel with Putin and his team in spite of certain differences. If, however, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did not find the assurances convincing enough then one can expect attempts to interfere in Russian affairs according to “orange” or some other “fruit color” schemes. We will know about it very soon.      

In the coming month the CPRF will build its policy accordingly. We believe it vital for Russia  to substantially adjust its internal and foreign policies. We will press for it and insist on it.

What sort of relationships does the CPRF have with the left-wing forces in Latin America?

What is happening on that continent is in many ways a prototype of what is sure to happen in Russia. It was in Latin America that the US was trying out, since the early 1970s, its neo-liberal concepts of an unbridled sway of the market economy with minimum government interference. And, like in Russia today, the policy was imposed through tough, occasionally dictatorial police methods of suppressing the opposition.

And what has been the outcome? A rejection of the economic concepts and political models imposed from outside because they had collapsed. The overwhelming majority of the population in Venezuela, a country rich in natural resources, lived in poverty. Argentina, a country with excellent conditions for agriculture, was totally ruined. The same happened in practically all the Southern and Central American countries.

Latin America’s shift to the left is a direct answer of the people to the tough neo-liberal course of the preceding years. The left-wing forces were suppressed for a long time, but they could not ultimately be stopped. You cannot cancel the laws of nature and society by force of arms. The recent years have seen one country on the continent after another adopting a left-wing orientation. We are extremely interested in the experience of the reforms carried out by our Latin American friends. They are pursuing them from positions similar to ours: following the chaos brought about in their countries by the “reformers”. Of course, in many ways they follow the example of Cuba where many of these things have been sorted out. But the new governments are operating in their specific conditions working out the forms and methods of actions that suit the local conditions.

We do not just follow the transformations in Latin America, we maintain constant contacts with the left-wing forces of these countries at international forums and in our bilateral relations. I recently visited Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela: they have valuable experience that we try to use.

On the other hand, we know the experience of the communist parties which have long been in power.

 Yes, anti-communists in Russia and in Europe try to obscure the fact that the ideas of socialism exert a very favourable impact on the fate of a number of countries which were colonies or semi-colonies only half a century ago. China’s success today is not only indisputable, but is taken for granted. But one should recall that only 60 years ago (a very short time by the measure of history) that country was fragmented and the Chinese people, with their rich traditions going several thousand years back, were living under feudalism. The Communist Party was the modernizing force which turned the country into a world leader.

Similar processes have been taking place in Vietnam which in the 1960s-70s inflicted a heavy military defeat on the American imperialism.

Left-wing forces are driving some interesting processes unfolding in Laos. In India, the Communist Party is part of the ruling coalition. The Chairman of India’s National Parliament is a communist. By the way, this is a measure of the influence our comrades exert in this, one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Our comrades abroad, especially in Asia, are pioneering ever new effective forms of building socialist society. That is an example of a creative approach to socialism. That is an example of mutual exchange of ideas between parties working in different conditions. The communists in China and Vietnam have treated Soviet experience in a creative fashion taking on board all the valuable things and renouncing what has been rejected by life itself. Similarly, we closely study the experience of our friends in order to use it with due account of the conditions in which Russia has found itself as a result of market “reforms”.

The countries where the communist parties rule or take part in ruling the state are the home of about 40% of the world’s population. Almost half of all the Earth people consciously opt for socialism. Is it not a potent proof of the relevance of socialist ideas? The successes of our friends show that socialism is not the past of mankind,  but its perspective.

This is the message we should firmly and very clearly get across to people during the celebrations of the 90th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution which will take place in Minsk and Moscow and which will be attended by tens of delegations of fraternal parties from all over the world, in order to stress that the future, the 21st century, belongs to socialism to which we will dedicate our efforts, knowledge and our faith.

Pravda, July 12, 2007