No scope for 'cold war'

The word combination "cold war" has figured prominently in lead and special articles of both the Russian domestic and foreign press dealing with foreign policy. True, politicians and experts have meanwhile got out of the habit of using the real "cold war" vocabulary. Meanwhile, I would say that those "unbridled" thoughts were not only voiced by journalists trying to catch the readers' attention, but also by some politicians and experts, heaven knows for what purpose.

What I do know is that this careless handling of such notions is a dangerous thing. Words have the ability to materialise; it is dangerous to say aloud what is on the tip of your tongue. Therefore the phrase "cold war" said in vain cannot lead to anything good; it can only increase Russophobia abroad and anti-Americanism at home.

Russia's present position in global politics is such that a "cold war" against whomsoever, first and foremost against the US, is out of the question. A unipolar world with US hegemony has not become a reality, but international relations have yet to be put in good order. Small wonder if one tends to describe any clash of interests in historically outdated terms. However, a "cold war" is not even a period of history but a whole era. At some time in the future, a term will be found to define our time; however, for the moment it is just the world after the Cold War, nothing more.

That war became obsolete because cardinal changes occurred in that period that resulted in a new map of the world. It is impossible to wage a "cold war" using the new map. As to the US, it is aware of this: Russia and America "are not enemies," says President George W. Bush, as well as a majority of practical politicians on that side of the ocean. There are not two systems or ideological differences that are tantamount to the confrontation of communism and capitalism.

Rivalry

That rivalry is present in Russia-US partnership is a different matter. This became especially noticeable after Russia began forging a foreign policy of its own. It was in the character of Americans to say that this independence was a "policy of containing the US" and they immediately did. Admittedly, American experts acknowledge that the US is also sticking to a "policy of containing Russia", specifically in the CIS space.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that both Russia and the US have some common areas where cooperation is possible, but there are also some other areas where their interests do not coincide. This actually means that the US only wants to deal with Russia when it benefits the US, otherwise America won't have anything to do with Russia.

I don't think that is very promising, because the areas where cooperation with the US benefits Russia may not coincide with those where it benefits the US. It is a shaky partnership, but it is not yet a "cold war", all the more so as the US policy is much more intricate than the statements of its creators are.

It is no secret that rivalry to control the sources of primary hydrocarbons and their transportation routes is going on. Scientific assumptions to the effect that the post-industrial world would not need oil and gas altogether, did, of course, not come true.

Still worse, the way the needs of developing and new emerging countries are growing is jeopardising the oil market. Their might and independence depend on oil and gasoline to a great extent. This is what makes the world multipolar and it is naive to think that this does not interest the US. There are two independent policies - that of Russia and that of the US - as far as this is possible in the face of the fetters of globalisation. The matter is that without their respective independent policies there would be neither the US nor Russia.

In the 1990s Russia tried to be a "good guy", in the sense that the US understood it and it almost disappeared from the world's political map. Russia is too big a country not to have a foreign policy of its own, it is simply its way of existing.

Russia cannot endorse the US idea of the indiscriminate "spreading of democracy", including, for, instance in Islamic countries. Jihadism is exactly a consequence of democratisation, including in the course of a national liberation movement, and a consequence of the self-identification of Islamic peoples.

I won't speak about Algeria or Lebanon, or about the Islamist revenge in Iran following the toppling of Shah Pahlavi who was going about the modernisation of the country. Nor will I speak about the drug plantations in "democratic" Afghanistan - in any case, we did not need a bellicose Afghanistan. There are closer examples: Iraq and Palestine.

Nuclear issue

We don't think sanctions and pressuring Iran will help the international community tackle the nuclear dossier issue. Russia is not interested in Iran's nuclear bomb.

The experience of enforcing the non-proliferation treaty shows that it contains many ways to get hold of nuclear weapons for those who wish to, to say nothing about simple refusal to join the treaty.

It is exporters rather than importers who began competing in the market of nuclear materials. This treaty transformed the whole nuclear issue into some kind of market: following it to the letter, it is enough just to pay those who want to produce nuclear weapons, and they will renounce them.

Such ambitions are not for sale, however. The more states categorised as "rogue states" or in the "axis of evil", the bigger the nuclear club will become.

As for terrorism, it is a phenomenon that no state can stand up against single-handedly. Terrorism is now able to use the latest technologies and weapons, it can inflict environmental and economic damage not only at the level of cities or individual facilities but at the level of a whole state as well. This is catastrophic terrorism.

Nowadays, thousands of people, irrespective of their gender and age, die at the hands of terrorists. The growing scale of violence suggests that the day is not far off when weapons of mass destruction will be used in acts of terror.

Accordingly, Russia and the US have a lot they need to do together. Only one should not think that Russia is the only international partner of the US. The US, for its part, has too many problems - both inside and outside of the country - to declare a "cold war" on us.

M.V. Margelov is Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Federal Council of the Russian Federation.