Opinion Editorials & Interviews

Interview with Kommersant

William J. Burns, U.S. Ambassador to Russia

Kommersant, December 15, 2005

You worked in the U.S. Embassy to Russia in first half of the 1990s, and four months ago returned here as Ambassador. What has changed during your time away?

I'm very happy to be back in Moscow, where I served ten years ago. Probably the most visible change is Russia's economic revival. The Russia that I knew ten years ago faced many, many financial difficulties. I don't mean to suggest that all the problems have been fixed, but clearly you can see today the economic potential of Russia and that creates opportunities, first and foremost for Russians, but it also creates opportunities for American businesses and for trade relations and investment relations which serve the interests of both our countries.

So, you only see positive changes?

Well, I think like any society which is going through a complicated evolution, as Russia is, that there are many problems to overcome. Just as one example, the problem of corruption is growing, as many Russian commentators note. In any society the problem of corruption is an obstacle to economic growth and development and it's a problem which Russians themselves need to tackle.

Over the past ten years, do you believe the level of anti-Americanism has increased?

I think you would have to be blind not to notice that there is a good deal of skepticism and sometimes hostility towards certain aspects of American policy, not only in Russia but in many parts of the world today. I think it is also clear that there is sometimes resentment about what people see as an American tendency to preach or to patronize. The truth is we are sometimes guilty of that. I think there is also a sense on the part of many Russians that I talk to that somehow the United States is determined to take advantage of Russia and to increase our influence at Russia's expense, that somehow the United States has more of an interest in a weak Russia than in a strong Russia. That's simply not true. The United States has a profound interest in a partnership with a strong Russia in the years ahead. I think the only two points that I would add are the following: The first is that it is important to distinguish between skepticism or criticism of aspects of American policy and the attitudes of Russians towards Americans as individuals, as people and as a society. In my own experience ten years ago and since I've returned as ambassador, I find a genuine curiosity on the part of Russians about the United States, about Americans. You see it expressed every day in many ways -- in interest in educational opportunities, exchange programs, business relationships. One of the most important objectives of our embassy is to help strengthen those connections between people, people to people exchanges, the connections between our societies that are so important over the long term no matter what differences we have from time to time over policy issues.

The second and last point I'd make in response to your very good question is that while it's true that there are some aspects of American policy that generate skepticism and hostility, it seems to me that there is much more common ground between the United States and Russia than there are differences. We both have an interest in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we both have an interest in Russia's integration into the global economy, and there are many other areas where we can work very productively together.

Many in the West are worried about the direction of Russian democracy, which has not slowed so much as it has regressed. At the same time, Washington pretends not to notice. Is this a new direction in U.S. foreign policy?

No. Where the United States has concerns on issues involving development of political institutions in Russia or any other country, we discuss them quite candidly in official channels. This is a subject, like many other subjects, that President Bush and President Putin discuss. But the one thing that I would stress is that when the United States expresses these concerns through those official channels, we do so because we have the firm conviction that the development of modern economic and political institutions in Russia is the key to Russia's own interest in realizing the potential of its people. For example, I mentioned earlier the problem of corruption. What you need in order to defeat corruption is an independent media and an independent, efficient judicial system. I think what's most important is to focus on the debate within Russia and amongst Russians on these issues. Russians themselves are going to have to make the choices about their political future. They are not going to be imposed from the outside, by the United States or anyone else.

A good example of that is the current debate of the draft legislation in the Duma about non-governmental organizations. Since the first draft was presented, many Russians have expressed concerns about some of its provisions. It seems that as a result, there's movement towards some significant amendments of the original draft legislation -- not as a favor to the United States or anyone else, but in the self-interest of Russia, where civil society and non-governmental organizations play a very important and constructive role. And our hope is that what emerges from that debate will be a situation in which the role and the work of non-governmental organizations is facilitated and enhanced, not inhibited or undermined.

Do you believe the positive developments, about which you spoke, came about in many respects as the result of criticism of the initial proposed amendment on the part of the U.S.?

What's important to focus on here is the debate amongst Russians themselves on this issue, which seems to me a very lively and very healthy debate. We'll see what emerges from that debate. But our hope, as I said before, is that what emerges is going to serve the interests of civil society in Russia, allow non-governmental organizations to make their positive contributions, and also allow the United States and the other countries around the world in a fully transparent way to continue to make contributions to some of those non governmental organizations in whole variety of fields, not only in supporting Russian efforts to develop modern economic and political institutions, but also health care, education, exchange programs. We do not provide any funding nor do we support any programs, the U.S. government does not provide any funding, nor does it support any program in this country, without full coordination with the Russian government and without the agreement of the Russian government, and in a way that is consistent with Russian law.

As part of the uproar surrounding proposed changes to the NGO legislation, appeals in the West to remove Russia from its position as president of the G-8 began to appear. Is the application of this measure possible?

President Bush has been very clear about our strong support of Russia's chairmanship in the G8 in 2006. The main themes that Russia has identified for its presidency, its chairmanship in the G8 – energy security, infectious diseases, education – seem to us to be very worthwhile. We look forward to working with Russia and other G8 countries to develop those themes. We also view the St. Petersburg G8 Summit next July as an opportunity for Russia to highlight its potential; to highlight its commitment to a business climate, for example, which is predictable and transparent; and to continue to move along the path of creating modern political and economic institutions.