Dennis Kucinich has been representing the 10th Congressional district of the state of Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996. Congressman Kucinich chairs the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is a member of the Education and Labor Committee. In 2004 and 2008, Congressman Kucinich was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

– Congressman Kucinich, a year ago I was at the Kennebunkport summit, where President Putin and George Bush met to discuss America’s intentions to set up missile defense systems close to Russia’s borders. There has been much talk about this issue over the past several months; however, no clear resolution appears to be in sight. Experts concluded that U.S. military installations would not pose any considerable risk for Russia’s interests. Why cannot the United States find some form of consensus with Russia?

– First of all, I think that the United States needs to look more carefully at its relationship with Russia. The way to weld a relationship is to engage in confidence-building measures that generate trust between people. The Bush administration has not done that. It started out by cancelling the ABM treaty, which was a product of years of painstaking diplomacy between Russia and the United States. It constituted a real effort to limit the spread of nuclear arms. In its efforts to put a missile base in Poland, the Bush administration reignited the fears that all of us had from the Cold War period. By trying to put a radar installation in the Czech Republic, the U.S. has also sent an aggressive signal towards Russia.

I don’t understand why these individuals are doing it. There is no need to be rattling sabers with Russia in any way.

The United States had a hand in promoting the so-called Orange revolutions. Of course, nations have the right to self-determination. However, at the same time, the United States should not be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and trying to destabilize countries in order to promote a political agenda.

The missile defense program represents a failure of diplomacy. We need to stop that program because it destabilizes the political situations in both Poland and the Czech Republic. It also puts Russia in an unfavorable light.

I’m in favor of taking a new direction with Russia. We need to restore our previous arms agreements, to take down our aggressive pose of a missile site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. We need to be looking for ways to cooperate with Russia on matters of commerce so that we could both enjoy prosperity, which comes from the interchange of ideas and trade.

We must stop the buildup of arms. It does not benefit anyone except the arms manufacturers.     

– Congressman, you are one of the strongest supporters of nuclear arms reduction and believe that the U.S. should lead the world in disarmament. How do you think such a goal can be attained in the very difficult global security situation that we must confront today?

– From the time that Nikita Khrushchev led the Russian government, there was an understanding in Russia of the dangers of nuclear arms. In one of my first trips to Russia, I went to a nuclear research lab where the first Soviet atomic bomb had been developed. When you sit inside those pale, green, almost ghostly walls and you understand that Russian scientists have developed that technology, and U.S. scientists also developed that technology, you come to a reflection of how fragile life is. We almost destroyed each other.

Before I arrived in Russia, when I was flying into the Sheremetyevo Airport and the plane broke through the clouds, I could see the Russian countryside – the little Russian dachas. It looked like a scene from our Pennsylvania, maybe a hundred years ago. I was very touched when I saw it, and it almost made me cry. I thought about the humanity of the people of Russia and the humility of those people. They lived in a very humble way, especially in those rural areas… We almost killed each other. We would have simply wiped each other out had there been a nuclear war in 1962.

We must work together to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. That was the reason for the ABM treaty. That’s why we had the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. That’s why we had worked to build up relationships with Russia – so that we would not worry about war anymore.

Russia understands war better than most nations. When you drive from the airport on the main road and you see the place where the Russian army stopped the advance of the German army and saved Moscow and you realize that Russia lost almost thirty million people in World War II, you know that Russia understands war. Russians do not like war, Russians like peace. At the same time, they want to be respected. They don’t want any nation to project force towards Russia. Russians do not tolerate bullies. Russians are people of great courage. The United States has misread Russia.

The uranium deal that we have now just keeps the uranium business going. It is true that Russia has uranium, and it is true that it is a very important natural resource. The fact of the matter is that we are building up nuclear weapons and providing the materials that make us unsafe. I think that when Mr. Bush came to office, Vladimir Putin made a strong effort to try to build on disarmament. Instead, President Bush cancelled the ABM treaty and offered a very weak structure of an arms agreement that had little to no meaning as a way to try to offer Mr. Putin a means to save face.

The Russians knew objectively what was going on. President Bush essentially slapped the Russian people in the face by cancelling the ABM treaty – as if we can’t trust the Russians. Russians should be our best friends, and instead we have taken an approach that has been unproductive.

– What about Russia’s efforts to strengthen its own military might. Russia now has strategic bombers flying in the air for the first time in fifteen years…

– When you look at who is rattling the sabers, it becomes clear what fuels this arms buildup. The hardliners in Russia look at the aggressive position of the United States and say to themselves: “Well, we are not going to be dominated.” Every time we build up arms, every time the United States rattles its saber, there are hardliners in every country that say: “We also need to get strong.” It’s a simple reaction.

We spend almost half a trillion dollars a year on military here. Plus we spend tens of billions of dollars on our intelligence agencies. Plus we spend hundreds of billions of dollars for the war against Iraq. All that money is spent either for war or preparation for war.

Yet, we have many people who don’t have jobs, who are losing their homes, who don’t have healthcare coverage, whose children are going to schools that are falling apart. Still, we are building up all these arms.

What about Russia? What do people want in Russia? They want to have food on the table; they want a place to live; they want to make sure that their children can be educated; they want peace; and they want prosperity. We know what people’s basic needs are.

Why do we let the hardliners in our country, or in any country, to go through the cycle of building up armaments? It takes resources away from what the needs of the people are. Again, the United States, under the Bush administration, has acted in a way that has not built confidence in peoples around the world, including the people of Russia.

Disarmament has to happen everywhere. There has to be a multi-lateral nuclear disarmament. Any nuclear weapon in the world, no matter where it is, is a threat to everybody. The very idea of arms treaties was generated not just to reduce the arms. Years ago, the goals of our arms treaties was to get rid of all weapons. We need to get back, and we need to retune ourselves once again before there is an accidental launch or before nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.                  

You and I are sitting here talking about this, but both of our nations continue to be at risk from nuclear weapons. They don’t protect us; they make it more dangerous. If the United States leaders better understood Russia, they would know that we could find a path to work with Russia to get rid of all nuclear weapons. That’s what the ABM was about.

– You have noted repeatedly that politicians in America should not try to interfere with Russia’s internal politics and decision-making. At the same time, the processes that go on inside a country invariably have influence on how that country behaves on the world stage. It is, of course, of primary importance to the bilateral relations of Russia and the U.S. who our leaders will be tomorrow. To your mind, have Russia’s democratic mechanisms matured sufficiently by now?

– Russia has its oligarchs. They are very famous, and the influence of the oligarchs is well-known. The United States, too, has its own powerful financial interests. They may not be in the hands of a few people, but they are in the hands of corporations that wield tremendous power as well. The question is: “Will the economic forces in a society operate in such a way, so as to make sure that there is progress for everyone?”

The idea of capitalism is an interesting idea, but capitalism does not work without strong governmental regulation. Otherwise, it becomes predatory, sweeping up masses of people. It can be really destructive. We have seen that in the United States. There must be a very firm hand from the state in establishing rules for operation. Russia has also experienced that.

After the change of governments in the 1990s, there was a massive transformation in the Russian economy that made a few people very rich, but it did not translate into improving the lives of the average Russian.

Any system with the goal of providing prosperity has to provide prosperity across the board, not just to a small number of people. When people have to worry about the cost of bread, there is a failure somewhere.

The failure of democratic traditions comes when people’s basic needs aren’t being met. When the price of housing goes up, and people cannot afford a place to live, that would be a systemic failure. During my visits to Russia I talked to some of the old-timers. Under certain Russian leaders who weren’t held in a particularly high regard in the United States, people were happy. They had a place to live, they had food, and they could work. People’s concerns are very down-to-earth.

You want the economy to grow, but it cannot grow just for the benefit of the few. Russia has had a very fast-emerging wealthy class, but one should not mistake that with the overall progress of the people. It is the same way in the United States. Russia and the U.S. have much in common. We have more billionaires than ever in the U.S. We also have a high rate of poverty. I think that I would not be wrong in saying that there are more people that don’t have access to the healthcare system on regular basis in the U.S. than in Russia. The privatization of the medical system here has made it very difficult for people to get the care they need.

We all like to think that our system is the best, but systems are made by people. People are sometimes wise in the way they proceed, but sometimes that wisdom is tempered by greed. When greed enters in, all bets are off, everything changes.

After the governments changed, some people saw a chance to cash-in on Russia’s natural resources. Many people did very well. My measure always is: “How does it benefit the average person?” I think that building business relationships with Russia is very important. It is easy to do that when business is based on trust between nations.

Just think of how antithetical that is. We have a schizophrenic relationship. On one hand, we are trying to create obstacles for Russia with respect to all oil matters. Russia had a 40-billion-dollar contract with Saddam Hussein before our attack. We totally wiped out Russia’s interests in the region. In the Bering Straits, Russia had a tremendous presence and was poised to capitalize on natural resources there… The United States should be cooperating with Russia.

We should also cooperate on global climate change. The global climate change issue is huge, and it is going to affect both of our nations. It is going to change weather patterns. It is going to change agricultural patterns. It is going to change for farmers the ability to make a living. Russia has a massive agrarian presence. We have to be respectful of that. We have to help Russia find markets for its produce.

And so, we put missiles in Poland… The Polish people don’t need missiles there. Why don’t we put a wind farm there instead? Why can’t we create a basis for sustainability by installing solar collectors? There are so many different approaches that we could take. Military presence is the wrong approach. It is first and foremost bad for business. The only people that war is good for are the arms manufacturers and the people financing the war. While they make money, everybody else dies. If more people understood what Russia went through in World War II, they’d understand the Russian mentality of not wanting to be threatened. If you threaten Russia, Russia is going to build up its own force and resist.

When you take the example of Stalingrad, and you look at the tremendous losses that occurred there, you realize that there are few people that suffered as much as the Russians did during the War.

I don’t know how far we should celebrate the new uranium deal. Of course, it’s good for the uranium mine, but if it leads to the production of nuclear weapons, it means that Russia would also have to build new armaments as well. What for? It’s crazy, and it makes no sense at all!

– As far as U.S.-Russia trade is concerned, do you think that the lack of balance between imports and exports can be at some point remedied? The U.S. is currently one of the leading trading-partners of Russia, all the while Russia trails somewhere in the third dozen of countries with which America does business.

– I think there is a good reason to have reciprocity in trade with Russia. Russia has always had great science. The Russian people are craftsmen. Russian workers can produce very good products.

If you strive to have more of a balance in trade, then there are more opportunities for everyone. But if there is an imbalance in trade, it shows the lack of respect. We should appreciate our position with Russia, but we should not be trading missiles, we should be trading goods. The United States has to change its position in the world. We cannot continue to try to dominate the world. It is not an appropriate place. It is not sustainable, it is not affordable.

The United States has to go through its own period of glasnost and perestroika.

– That’s what General Secretary Gorbachev once told me during an interview…

– He’s right. I followed very closely the changes that took place in Russia at that time. With the massive amounts of money we’re spending on the military here in the U.S., we cannot sustain what we are doing. What we are really looking at is a change in our government that would be much more fundamental than a shift of power from one party to another. It would be a much more foundational change.

– In contrast to some traditional Democrats in the U.S. Congress, you have always been active on international issues. What should be the guiding principles for America’s foreign policy to preserve the country’s status of a major world power for the next decade? 

– First of all, we need to end wars as an instrument of policy. The ability to wage a war ends up being a weakness because it is impossible to sustain your position and try to dominate countries. Look at what has happened in Iraq. Russia learned a lesson in Afghanistan. We’re in Afghanistan and Iraq! We should be out of both. We cannot determine the fate of these nations. We cannot impose our way of life and our point of view on other people.

The United States is rattling the sabers now against Iran. We should not dictate to Iran what kind of government they have. The United States has also tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela. We should not be involved there.

We are fomenting revolutions and changes in government along the whole western perimeter of Russia. We have no right to do that. Nor do we have any business in trying to influence and destabilize the Russian government itself.

The first step that we need to take is to end the war as a policy instrument. I would proceed through a doctrine that I call “strength through peace.” The doctrine that the United States is operating under right now is “peace through strength” – unilateralism, preemption, first strike, building up big armies, and projecting force wherever we care to. We should go a different route – diplomacy, human relations, understanding that we’re all interdependent and interconnected citizens of the same planet. We need to identify our cause as human unity. We have a lot in common to preserve this planet. We need to quit being competitors.

When Russian cosmonauts began to work with American astronauts, it was a major event in world history. Before that we had the space race ever since Sputnik was launched. 

I would see changing the model of our interaction with other countries. We also need to obey international law. Our country illegally invaded Iraq in violation of the United Nations charter. The Bush administration ordered attacks on civilian populations in violation of the Geneva Convention.

We have to gain the respect of the world once again by adhering to international law and strengthening those institutions that help create security for everyone. We also need to be involved in addressing the global climate change. We need to play an active role in making sure that the populations of the world have health needs met… There is such wealth in the world, and we are squandering it on destructive forces.

The United States has the means to change its direction in that regard. That’s not just about one election. This is about systemic changes.

The increase of the arms spending in Russia has been precipitated by United States’ policy. U.S. policy is also driving up arms spending in China. It’s precipitating arms spending in Iran. It’s precipitating arms spending around the world.        

– Congressman Kucinich, you have been one of the most vocal opponents of the war in Iraq that this President’s administration started. Some of your colleagues, American lawmakers and other political figures often say that the results of the national defense strategy have been positive, since no subversive activity against the U.S. has taken place after September 11, 2001. How do you evaluate the success of U.S. military engagements?

– First of all, the war in Iraq was based on lies. Everyone knew that. The whole world knows it, except a few people in the United States – those who happen to be supporting this administration. The Bush administration misinformed the American people to create a cause for war against Iraq. While there have not been any more attacks on the U.S., the fact of the matter is that, in being responsible for destroying the nation of Iraq and creating conditions that resulted in the death of over a million of innocent Iraqis, we set the stage for retaliation in the future. We have to move to try to heal those wounds. We have to move forward in a way that is not with malice.

It is naпve and quite presumptuous to assume that just because we put up this security curtain that somehow we can’t be touched. September 11 should have been the proof of that. If we don’t want more 9/11’s, the thing to do is to stop attacking other nations and work with the world community on matters of global security. 9/11 did not come about because people hate us, as our President described so famously. It was the culmination of a series of events that have to do with very unwise choices that were made by U.S. leaders on foreign policy.

If there is no understanding of cause and effect, then you basically become insane. You do not know why anything happens. Some people don’t know why 9/11 occurred…

We need to take a new approach in this country, so we can create reconciliation. But if there is no truth, there is no way to reconcile. If you don’t have truth, you cannot build a firm foundation. Right now, the foundation of our international policy is based on lies. The foundation of our domestic security is based on lies.

We have to go back to the truth. The only way to understand truth is to be able to create peace. There is an enormous amount of naпvetй about all this, and our President has not helped matters by continuing to live this fiction that he is defending America from the rest of the world. In reality, the rest of the world is angry with America because we attacked a nation that did not attack us.          

– Last April you introduced in the House of Representatives the Articles of Impeachment to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Earlier this month, you drafted House Resolution 1258 setting out the causes for impeaching George W. Bush. Many of the charges have to do with the events leading up to the Iraqi invasion – that the President misled the public about weapons of mass destruction. In the free and transparent American system can one man in effect deceive the entire country and make it accept an erroneous policy course?

– Our media, our major mainstream media have a Pravda-like quality to them. I mean how newspaper Pravda was during the Cold War. In the Cold War, Pravda would carry the message of the government. During this period of President Bush, the media uncritically accepted whatever he was saying, even though there was evidence to the contrary available to anyone who would look.

I did an analysis in October of 2002, which showed that the case advanced by the administration was based on lies. The media chose to ignore that because there is a much better story of a nation getting ready to go to war.

The fact that the nation is transparent – that’s a superficial appearance. The presidency gives someone the ability to put out a message that can trump all of the institutions through the media. It can only stop if someone in the media is ready to stand up to the White House, and really few people in the media are.

The media are made up of corporations. Broadcast corporations have to be licensed by the government, and they have to get approval for their mergers and business transactions. Very few of them want to challenge the White House. Recently it has become easier, as the lies that we were told became patently obvious.

How did it all happen? It happened because the Democratic Party did not do its job in providing an effective counterbalance. It happened because the media was not vigilant in serving the public interest. It happened because what has been going on in Iraq has been essentially swept under the rug since 1991. People here were largely unaware that Iraqis had already been crushed by U.S. policy. It also happened because this country was shocked by 9/11.

When the President started to make statements about 9/11, he would mention Iraq in the same sentence. He kept doing that. People believed it – he talks about 9/11 and he mentions Iraq; he talks about 9/11 and mentions Iraq again… The President created a connection in the public’s mind between the terrorist attacks and Iraq. In reality, no causal link existed whatsoever.

The American people were very concerned about finding those responsible for 9/11, and the President misled them. Then, he made them believe, as did the Vice President, that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had intentions of attacking the United States, and that Iraq had the capability of attacking the United States.

The evidence was fabricated. The President distorted the intelligence. It was all twisted in a way that was quite skilful – as propaganda.

One must look at accountability: violation of U.S. law, violation of the U.S. Constitution, violation of international law, commission of war crimes… All these things happened, and they were brought about by people who are leading our government. They have to be held responsible. That is why I introduced the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President and the Articles of Impeachment relative to the President of the United States.

If we can call ourselves a democracy, then they should be held accountable to the law. If there is even one person that is not accountable to the law, then none of us should be held accountable to the law. It either applies to everyone, or to no one.     

– Congressman Kucinich, you ran for President of the United States twice, in 2004 and then this year. What have you learned about America’s politics from those two campaigns?

– First, the American people are wonderful people. There is an underlying unity in this country. The people around the country have very similar aspirations – for family, love, home, security, jobs, healthcare, education, food on the table, and peaceful retirement. These are the things that connect us to people all over the world.

People are good people. The issue is with the government – it is very, very wrong. We need deep change. Not just superficial change that is generally talked about in an election, but a change that takes us away from war; that provides for healthcare for all, jobs for all; that can create glorious opportunities for commerce between nations; that is based on law, where there are human rights, worker’s rights, and environmental quality principles.

We have to look at business as an agent of world benefit. When business works for the benefit of the world and creates opportunities and progress that can create more prosperity, it benefits everyone. That is what it should be about. We can do that.  

There is a movement happening all over the world. Many younger entrepreneurs are looking at what they can do to help restore the environment or create products that would bring about better health… There are so many different possibilities.

When major nations are rattling sabers, it is bad for business. Talking about the U.S.-Russia relationship, our countries should find ways to work together in peace and should find ways to build a lasting structure for peace – getting rid of nuclear weapons and enhancing sustainability. I remember my first trip to Russia, when I met with members of the Russian Academy and the military. The first toast we did was “Za mir!” (To peace).

– Do you make any future plans to seek the Democratic nomination?

– I will continue to be involved nationally and internationally, whatever position I’m in. One does not need to be President of the United States in order to be able to open doors and extend the hand of friendship to people in other countries.