– John M. O’Keefe, Executive Director, Open World Leadership Center at the Library of Congress

Since 1999, Open World has brought more than 13 500 emerging leaders to the United States from Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. This autumn, Open World will welcome its first delegations from Turkmenistan. Through Open World, mayors, legislators, judges, civil servants, educators, and cultural leaders from across the former Soviet Union have come to know the real America.

– Ambassador, what would explain your interest in U.S.-Russia affairs? Do you speak the Russian language?

– When I first joined the diplomatic corps, I was naturally anxious about the first assignment. I was initially advised that I would be going to Italy. Then, I was told to start preparing for a long winter. It was 1976. One of the places that I wrote down on the sheet where new personnel members of the State Department list their desired “destinations” was Leningrad. My fascination with Russian literature and culture began before, when the world of Dostoevsky and Tolstoi came to life for me in their novels.

I do speak some Russian, though not very grammatically.  Because we have many Russian delegates coming on Open World, I do have some opportunity to speak Russian and understand my limitations.  Last week, my discussion with experts of water pollution from Stavropol slowed considerably because my vocabulary stretched too thin as I tried to explain how the persistent presence of polychlorinated biphenlys in the Great Lakes affects the fish there.

– You have had a distinguished career as an American diplomat. As you were growing up, did you know with certainty that you would work in the foreign service field? What were your aspirations, and how were you able to realize them?

– I grew up in Baltimore, which, even though it is geographically close to the nation’s capital, was very provincial at the time. Most people who were born in that city stayed there. Life was limited to one’s local community.  I really had no thought of becoming a diplomat, though I definitely planned on a career in public service.

When studying in the MBA program at a local university, I saw an announcement about the Foreign Service Exam. I decided to take the test and passed, and that is when my interest in the field grew.  As with many young people, I hoped to make a difference, contribute to the common good.  

Fortunately I worked primarily in countries that were important to the U.S. and most often during times of stress and transition – in Moscow in the mid-1990s, in Yugoslavia as the winds of war picked up in 1990, and then as the Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, when the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred.  As a partner in the coalition to wrest Afghanistan from the Taliban, Kyrgyzstan was instrumental in helping those efforts by hosting the Coalition airbase, initially composed of French fighter jets, Spanish helicopters, Italian transport, and a Korean medical unit. But that aspiration for positive change really found its best example not in the security field, but in working with the Kyrgyz Ministry of Education in establishing a fair and non-corrupt entrance test for universities.  It is still functioning, and it has served as an example that other countries of the former Soviet Union are emulating.

– The work of a diplomat is not at all easy, especially on a long assignment in another country. Situations arise, both with the citizens of the diplomat’s own country and the government system of the foreign nation that put to test one’s organizational abilities in a high-pressure environment. Former President Putin, for example, when he was working as a cultural attache at the Soviet Embassy in Berlin, once had to calm German protestors who wanted to storm the diplomatic mission by brandishing a firearm... Any such experiences in your career?

– To be a good diplomat, one needs to have a great deal of patience, always work with care, and speak clearly and bluntly. It is imperative to establish connections with people. That way, even when disagreements occur later, you will have established relationships.

I remember a difficult situation that we had in Yugoslavia. I was in that country when the constituent republics declared their independence.

We were driving from Belgrade to Sarajevo, and there were people with weapons along the roadway. I could not tell who they were. They were not part of any professional military force. There were many roadblocks. Violence could occur at every instant.  We had to talk our way through many checkpoints, some Serb, some Bosnian.  We had handguns, but brandishing them in that context would not have worked.  I was trained in our Army as a combat engineer, so I understand the threat of force is sometimes necessary, but not always.

Four years and much bloodshed later, I returned to Sarajevo to help set up the Office of High Representative.  Those lessons of the futility of violence as a solution to ethnic strife and creating institutions that help reduce conflict are probably the best ones to learn.

– The Open World Program, created thanks to the great efforts of Senator Ted Stevens, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, and several other remarkable individuals, is unique in that it combines the formal approaches of official-level government exchanges with the people-to-people style of citizen diplomacy. To what extent does the informal component of Open World visits contribute to the development of political and economic relations between the countries?

– The Open World Program is proving to be successful in helping to establish a basis in law for conducting business. More than one thousand judges from Russia have gone through the program. Certainly, it is not possible to do something overnight, but gradually, with the exchange of ideas, positive results become noticeable. As Russia develops, reforms will be needed, as President Medvedev has stressed. Also, I need to emphasize that the mission of the program is complementary to what the people want to do already. We need good, solid economic relations.

As for the economic development, Open World participants from Russia have the chance of looking at various business models that can be used.

A critical factor here, of course, is that the U.S. does not have and does not claim to have the absolute knowledge. These are exchanges of ideas between professionals. People from Russia do not come here just to study the American example, they also contribute their own ideas and experience in their interaction with Americans.

– How many delegations from Russia and other former U.S.S.R. republics do you accept on annual basis? What are your principal areas of concentration – a government branch, an industry sector, or something different?

– We have averaged over a thousand people per year from Russia to the U.S. through the Open World Program. The sectors that we have focused on most recently include healthcare, the judiciary, and accountable governance. The professionals are matched to the same kind of profile. Cultural delegations also take place.

So far, ten percent of the members of the Russian State Duma have gone to America through Open World.

– With what organizations do you work in the U.S.?

– The Open World Program has been working closely with the Committee on International Relations of the U.S. Judicial Conference. District Judge Charles Simpson  and Chief Judge Robert Henry of  the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have been very good partners. We are also working together with members of Congress and their staffs.

On the state level, we work with local organizations. We keep delegations in Washington only for one day and a half. These people need to learn about America without any filter. Here in Washington, it may seem that everyone has a point of view.

– Russian-American relations in our lifetime have witnessed a profound transformation. Our countries used to be enemies number one for each other, and now they are working together. At the same time, Russia, or its predecessor, the Soviet Union, held the status of a major superpower during the second half of the twentieth century. With the advent of democratization, Russia lost its position of supremacy... Do you feel there is any regret or nostalgia on the part of Russian leaders who now must come and see how things are done in the West?

– I believe that nostalgia is gone, and that Russia is playing a significant role.  It remains part of the Permanent Five in the U.N. Security Council, with veto power. Russia is part of the G-8, and other organizations, such as the Shaghai Cooperation Organization.  So Russia is a player on the international stage.

I rarely see this nostalgia from our guests, but it does occasionally happen.  But I must thank our Russian guests for something that is much more important.

If you look at the newspapers or watch TV in the many communities here in the U.S., you will find mostly local news. There are not many international events being discussed. Our visitors help give different perspectives. Cold War stereotypes need to be broken.

Some of American culture is similar to Russian culture. Russia is a continental nation and a leading nation. It looks broadly, and thinks big about what needs to be done within its borders, much as we in the U.S. do. There is also resonance in our approach towards many issues. Also, I think that it is normal for nations to build themselves by absorbing the best from other cultures.  So Open World helps create that zone where we can learn from each other.

– Open World is very famous for its judicial exchanges. Chief Judge Robert Henry and Judge Charles Simpson have helped in arranging the visits to the United States of several Russian Supreme Court justices... Why is the judicial exchange in particular so intense?

– There are a number of factors for choosing judges that will in fact make the visit, as you say, intense. First, it has to do with the discipline itself. A judge has to study law and then apply it. While the substance of the law may be different, the rigor is the same.  And with help from the Russian Council of Judges and the Russian judiciary, they have chosen individuals who have steeped in their judicial traditions.  

Second, the senior leadership is open to new ideas and is initiating reform of the legal system, raising compensation of judges and introducing trial by jury.

We have good judicial exchange programs right now between Arkhangel’sk and Maine, Oklahoma City and Ulyanovsk, and seventeen other “sister” courts.  Judges on both sides have committed to work together to the benefit of both judiciaries.

– In the last two years, Russia has exerted considerable efforts and dedicated significant resources to heightening its image on the world stage. From your perspective, do these desires reflect the willingness of Russian leaders to embrace reform and emulate the systems of other countries?

– I cannot comment on the effectiveness of Russia’s endeavors. I can say, however, that over thirteen thousand people have gone through the Open World Program. We are not political.

Our guests from Russia have interacted with hundreds of thousands of people. The goal is to bring America and Russia together.

At first, the visitors may be skeptical and might think that we are trying to sell them a message. Once they get to a community somewhere in the Midwest, for example, they realize that it is all very sincere. You cannot build a Potemkin village when you are in the village.

– The outcome of Russian presidential elections was not difficult to forecast. President Medvedev inherited President Putin’s foreign relations legacy. As for the United States, the leader of the race for the White House is not yet ascertainable. What development scenarios of Russian-American relations seem likely to you?

– We have right now a solid base upon which our relationship is founded. We have dealt in much more tense situations in the past and are experiencing one now. Since the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both sides have found a way to overcome differences and work for common goals.

Russia is very sophisticated nation. On a fundamental level, our aspirations are very similar, a good life for our children, opportunity for education, health care, equality under the law. For many issues, there is harmony in our relationship that is sometimes overlooked.