by Aleksei Tarasov

"Shevardnadze steered Gorbachev in the right direction"

General Brent Scowcroft is truly a legend of American foreign politics. National Security Advisor

to two U.S. Presidents, Gerald Ford and George Bush Sr., military assistant to President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under President George W. Bush - this list of titles constitutes a very brief summary of General Scowcroft's career. In the 1990s, General Scowcroft and George H.W. Bush coauthored a book A World Transformed, reflecting on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, General Scowcroft runs an international consulting company and helps American businessmen work on the world's markets. We met with the General in his cozy office located not far away from the White House.

- General Scowcroft, your military career began at the West Point Academy, where you taught Russian history. How did your interest in Russia originate?

- It originated really because I graduated in 1947, which was about the time the Cold War was starting. I had studied World War II. I had a natural interest in Russia, which I continued to develop.

- Do you speak the Russian language?

- No, I do not. I speak Serbo-Croatian, but not Russian.

- General Scowcroft, when you joined President Nixon’s Administration as the assistant to Henry Kissinger, the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States began to stabilize with the new policies of Dйtente. The U.S.S.R. established better trade relations with America and space cooperation projects got under way. Was it better for the two countries to be partners, rather than enemies?

- Certainly it was better. I would not say we were partners. I think both sides exaggerated what Dйtente could do. But what Dйtente did, while we were still deeply suspicious of one anther, was that it established the process of talking to each other and gradually getting to know each other. I think, that was an enormous benefit. Unfortunately, Dйtente did break down later on.

- Throughout your long and very impressive political career, you have met with many Russian public figures. On a personal level, what character traits did you see in Russian members of government and other leaders, such as Brezhnev, Gorbachev, or Kosygin? With whom was it easier to work?

- Brezhnev was a very elemental, a very earthy man. He had a very strong personality. He was not sophisticated at all. Kosygin I never got to know well enough to describe. He always seemed to be a very distant, practical, and organized person.

Gorbachev was very much an intellectual. He came at things in a very cerebral way. Of all Soviet leaders it was easier for me to work with him. While Brezhnev was friendly personally, he had very fixed views about the United States and what we represented. That attitude changed significantly with Secretary Gorbachev.

- President Reagan once said that the Soviet Union was destined to end up on the ash heap of history. In reality, few politicians in the U.S. throughout the 1980s actually believed that the giant communist superpower could ever collapse. After the U.S.S.R. fell apart, did you believe that we truly reached “the end of history”? How did the events of December 1991 impact the course of America’s foreign policy?   

- The United States breathed a great sight of relief. It was less that the Soviet Union collapsed, but that the consequence was the end of the Cold War. President Bush Sr. then got the notion of a new world order. It was a world order, in which the United States and Russia, rather than opposing each other constantly – for example in the United Nations Security Council – could cooperate on dealing with international aggression. That opened up the vistas of a much more peaceful and stable world for all of us. I am not a believer in the end of history under any circumstances.

- In the late 1990s, you wrote A World Transformed together with President George H.W. Bush, reflecting on the collapse of the Soviet Union. Have today’s events confirmed your thoughts about the destruction of the U.S.S.R. and the future of Russia?  

- I think they largely have. I think we did not visualize the extent to which the United States and Russia would drift apart the way we have in the last few years. We were so intimately tied together whether as opponents or collaborators that we assumed it would continue to a larger degree than it has. I believe that did not happen because, with the end of the Cold War, the world events that preoccupied us and everybody were changing so rapidly. A new world emerged immediately, and it preoccupied the United States. I think we tended to neglect attention to Russia.

- In retrospect, who were the bright stars of Russia’s politics and foreign policy?

- I would certainly say Gorbachev. While he did not envision the end of the Soviet Union, he envisioned a different kind of a Soviet Union, a one that would be more productive and more attentive to the needs of its citizens. I think, behind Gorbachev, I would give Foreign Minister Shevardnadze an enormous amount of credit. I believe that Mr. Shevardnadze did develop a democratic ethic. It is my sense that he steered Gorbachev in the right direction. When he left as Foreign Minister, you could see a change in the policies. I think he is an underestimated hero of the entire transformation.

- The people you name all come from the perestroika period. Do you think there are any bright stars today?

- I think it’s too early to decide… I’m also not saying that there weren’t any outstanding leaders in the Soviet Union during the times of the Cold War, but it’s hard for me to describe them as outstanding, since we were opponents at the time.

- Some twenty-five years ago, the proposal Russian President Putin made to George Bush of establishing joint missile defense programs would have seemed totally absurd. How is the world different today that our leaders can talk about these issues seriously?  

- I believe that the thing that has changed most fundamentally is that we realized that the weapons that we held against each other partly out of fear of not having them were a threat to civilization. As our antagonism receded, it seemed natural to begin talking about building defense systems that would protect us and everybody else against the possible use of those weapons.

- What is your view on the situation as it stands right now, when Russia expresses fears that the United States might have some strategic objectives in Eastern Europe?

- I believe that it’s a misunderstanding. I believe that President Putin misunderstands what the United States is about, and I think that the United States has underestimated how what it is now doing would affect the psychology of the Russian leadership. I believe that we should be able to find a resolution to that problem.

- You lead a global business-consulting firm, and some of your clients are interested in working with Russia. How does the risk of investing in Russia stack up against the opportunities and the potential that exist there?

- They are both high. The benefits are high. There are many opportunities in Russia because it has now become a vigorous economy fueled by energy resources, but the risks also are high. For most international investors there is no adequate recourse if something goes wrong. One is at the mercy of arbitrary forces. The difficulties associated with bureaucratic inefficiency are even less significant than the problem of arbitrary laws and regulations that become imposed on these businessmen after they enter the country.   

- Aside from energy cooperation, in what fields do you see prospects for America’s partnership with Russia?

- I think that we can work together in many areas. In nuclear energy our cooperation is unique. We are still the two creators of the nuclear age, and, I think, we ought to cooperate everywhere, from reducing our nuclear stocks to non-proliferation and to providing nuclear energy to those countries that need it. In addition, there are all kinds of fields open to us. The transportation sector is where there is a great possibility for development. Manufacturing also promises opportunities. Russia is rich in natural resources. In many areas it is a skilled manufacturer, but in some it is not. The country could profit from some techniques that can be brought over from the United States. I think there is big potential for commercial cooperation.

- What other emerging markets in the newly-independent states, such as Belarus, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, in your opinion, would produce good results for U.S. businesses?

- I believe that most of the near abroad countries are fruitful areas. Most of them are beginning to develop. Many of them are rich in raw materials, and they seek technical know-how.

I would hope that rather than viewing that area with mutual suspicion of each other, the United States and Russia could cooperate and help bring those countries more fully into the developed world.

- When I interviewed former CIA Director George Tenet, he said that Russia was “not even [among] the top five” countries that the U.S. has interest in. To your mind, how important is the Russian-American relationship?

- The U.S.-Russian relationship is more important than our actions indicate. I think that George Tenet is right in the sense that since the end of the Cold War we have tended to neglect attention to Russia, other than when something required us to look at that country. That has bred a considerable amount of resentment on the part of the Russian leadership. But I think that it is incorrect. My guess is that if you were to go out in the street and ask almost any American citizen to name the five countries they think are important, every one of them would include Russia.

- The media and the popular press in the United States, as well as in Russia, seem to remain in the old Cold War mode. One often sees headlines both in America and in Russia that the Cold War will be rekindled. Do you believe that the people in our two countries really have an adequate perception of each other?

 - No, I don’t think so. I think that we are going through a readjustment period. In historical terms, it has not been long since the end of the Cold War. Many people in the bureaucracies of our two countries grew up and were nourished, if you will, by the Cold War. Those habits don’t die easily. I think there will be ups and downs for a period of time, but I believe that they will gradually get fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller. The potential of cooperation between us is much greater than the differences that still separate us. I am optimistic about the future.

- In one of your recent interviews, you noted that Russia seems to be “searching for its soul.” What is the Russian soul?

- This goes back to my Russian history times. Since the days of Peter the Great, there has been an internal debate in Russia whether the Russians are really Europeans that did not necessarily have the Reformation and the Enlightenment, or whether they are basically Asian in their outlook with a veneer of European civilization. I think that Russian history has flowed back and forth between those two. I believe that, while this is a long way from Peter the Great, there is still that notion - “Who are we?” and “To whom do we belong?”, “Where is our place in the world?” Russia is going through that process. That also expresses itself in real political terms.

- What direction do you think the relationship between Russia and the U.S. will take after George Bush and Vladimir Putin leave office?

- I believe that there will be some fairly sharp, but not really deep changes. I think that the general direction will be towards improvement. As I look out, I see many more areas around the world, where cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is in both countries’ interest, than I see areas where we are fated to disagree.