Alexander Darchiev, the Russian Charge d’Affaires in Washington, D.C.

By Aleksei Tarasov

– The events of early August in the Republic of Georgia shocked the international community. Judging by the rhetoric of many American state officials, the situation can have serious ramifications for U.S.-Russia political relations and military cooperation. Does it make sense for the U.S. to take back the progress that has been reached in our bilateral relationship during two decades over the conflict in Georgia?

– With regards to Russian-American relations, I can say that our position is that the cooperation between the countries is much wider in scope than just this specific issue. There are issues of joint security, of non-proliferation. There is the problem of countering the terrorist threat. Certainly, we do have disagreements with the Administration. We have difficult question that need to be answered. We have complaints.

Deputy Undersecretary of State has essentially stated that he was personally involved in conducting negotiations with the Georgian side on that critical day of August 7. The Georgians informed him of what they intended to carry out. At the same time, he found it “not logical” to inform us about these discussions. Another individual, the Permanent Representative of the U.S. to NATO has also acknowledged that the U.S. knew about Georgia’s intentions. In his statements, the press secretary of the State Department, however, made attempts to turn everything upside down – that it was Russia that started military operations, and that Georgia simply responded. If you ask me, I do not know of how one can simply be “responding” with the use of the “Grad” heavy artillery guns pointed at a peaceful city.

Of course, we are encouraged that the Administration – and the Ambassador to Moscow has emphasized that – does not make plans to destroy everything that we have worked so hard to achieve for many years. Right now, the news coverage of these events is becoming more and more sober.

From the perspective of U.S. foreign policy, this situation makes clear that America made a serious error by putting all bets on a single man. Mr. Saakashvili fluently speaks English. He seems to be saying the right words about democracy, but he himself has never truly subscribed to those ideals. He is the archetypal nationalist. He utilizes the support of the United States in order to solve Georgia’s territorial problems with the use of force. His own actions have dealt a deadly blow to the territorial integrity of his country.

– How can we regard the prejudices that have come to light in the American assessment of those events – media coverage, political statements, etc.?

– I will tell you quite frankly that we were profoundly shocked by the reaction of the U.S. Administration as a matter of human decency. The American side has not expressed any regrets and has not extended its condolences to the families of the victims in the city of Tskhinvali – these were civilians. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow was among the very few embassies that have not lowered their flags on the day of mourning. Considering the aggressive rhetoric that this confrontation prompted, I have never seen or heard anything like that. I have been working in the field of U.S.-Russia relations for a very long time, and the actions of many American politicians and members of government are reminiscent of the times of the Cold War.

To some extent it is possible to understand the frustration of the U.S. America “pumped” large sums of money to Mr. Saakashvili’s regime. The U.S. gave the funds for rearming the Georgian military. That notwithstanding, there are limits to everything, and portraying the victim as the aggressor is simply unacceptable.

– How will the Georgian-Ossetian conflict impact the economic cooperation between our countries?

– We can have varying perceptions of certain events, and everyone is entitled to his own point of view. At the end of the day, however, we need to look at things objectively, in an unbiased way. U.S. businesses view everything that is happening with greater “sobriety” than certain members of the government. Businessmen understand that Russia is a big, developing market. To pass up the opportunity of entering that market would be a loss to them. If they do not come, entrepreneurs from other countries would arrive first. As one Russia proverb says, “A holly place never remains unoccupied.”

– Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in one of her statements made a few weeks after the conflict ended said that the U.S. will “take [its] time” and evaluate what measures should be applied towards Russia. President Bush also emphasized that many things depend on the way Russia conducts itself right now. In your view, is there still a chance for resolving the political conflict between the two countries and avoid an abrupt change for the worst in the Russian-American relationship?

– I do think that our differences can be settled. I still am enthusiastic, but of course it will take some time. A new Administration will come in. It will not be bound by the mistakes committed by its predecessors. Clearly, it is difficult and unpleasant to come to terms with reality. The reality has changed. It all happened as a consequence of the actions of Mr. Saakashvili himself. The sooner this will be understood here, the better it will be for everyone. Our cooperation does not stop with Georgia and South Ossetia.

– Not long before the hostilities in Georgia erupted, Director of Russian Affairs at the State Department said in an interview with me that the main priority for the U.S. right now was to forge the legacy of good relations with Russia for the future President. What does the future hold for Russian-American relations?

– I believe that many things will change when the new Administration is in. Certainly, we do not know which candidate will prevail, but these would be new people who, at the very least, do not carry any personal responsibility for what has taken place. I hope that the situation that happened recently will not repeat itself. The problem is that due to the extremely busy schedule of the current head of the State Department, American policy towards Georgia was shaped by a very narrow circle of people. These individuals had personal stakes in what happened.

From the contacts we’ve had and still continue to maintain with the staff of the two presidential contenders, it is possible to say that in spite of the rhetoric (and of course, it can be very heated especially during campaigns), the general attitude of both candidates towards Russian-American relations is constructive. I will repeat myself in saying that our joint agenda includes international security, counter-proliferation, arms limitations issues, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and the Middle East, where it is impossible to solve problems without Russia’s involvement.

Our main message to the Administration – we need less heated rhetoric. On our side, we have given clear indication that we do not find that Mr. Saakashvili has standing as a partner in negotiations. We do think that he should leave his post, but of course that’s not for us to decide – it’s for the Georgian people. “Regime change” is not something that we have in our political lexicon; it is not the object of our current policy.

– Russia’s recognition of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has not yet received approval of other major states. Is Russia certain that the international community will gradually endorse the new status of those two republics?  

– Russia does not require other states to recognize independence immediately. We are not trying to pressure our partners. I will, however, emphasize that there is a qualitatively different situation in the region today. The peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia no longer see their future as constituents of Georgia (the reason for that is the criminal military escapade of Mr. Saakashvili). I am convinced that the global community will be able to recognize this reality in the course of time.

– Russian military commanders are concerned that humanitarian aid to Georgia is being supplied by the vessels of the U.S. navy. Should the U.S. and other countries of NATO fear that Russian advances into Georgian territory would resume?

– Russia did not attack Georgia, and it is not the objective of Russia to occupy the country. We brought reinforcements to our peacekeepers and followed through with the operation of forcing Tbilisi to accept peace. The President of Russia Dmitriy Medvedev clearly stated that the operation has been completed. We do not need to destabilize the situation in the Caucuses, but we will do everything for securing the safety of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the extent things depend on us. We will not allow repeated aggression on the part of Georgia.