Opinion Editorials & Interviews
Interview with Mikhail Overchenko of Vedomosti
William J. Burns, U.S. Ambassador to Russia
Vedomosti, December 06, 2006
OVERCHENKO: Why was a WTO bilateral agreement reached only recently? Russian officials hoped to conclude the agreement in July during the G-8 Summit.
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The WTO bilateral agreement that we recently signed is the single most important achievement in U.S.-Russian economic relations in more than a decade. We were very close to reaching an agreement at the St. Petersburg Summit.
OVERCHENKO: Why were these issues so difficult to resolve during the G-8 Summit?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: These questions are challenging ones. The negotiations began roughly at the time I last served in Russia in the mid 1990s (I worked here as Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs). When I returned to Russia ten years later, the negotiations were still going on. The two presidents recognized in St. Petersburg that they were very close top an agreement and directed their negotiating teams to complete the remaining work.
OVERCHENKO: What was your personal role in the signing of this agreement?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The people who deserve the credit for this are the negotiating teams and our presidents. My role as the ambassador is simply to advocate the interests of my country in the WTO negotiations and to support the work of our negotiators. I tried to explain to my Russian colleagues through the course of negotiations why it is that the United States is as concerned as it has been on some of the key issues. For example, intellectual property rights were a concern of American industry and the Congress, and we looked for creative solutions that serve Russia's interest as well as ours.
At the same time I explain Russian concerns to Washington. For example, in banking and in the question of bank branching there are a lot of understandable concerns in Russia dating back to the experience of August 1998 about the banking system. I make sure my colleagues in Washington understand the context within which Russian decision makers are looking at these issues.
OVERCHENKO: When Russia intended to re-direct Shtokman gas from the U.S. to Europe, some experts suggested that Russia meant to punish the U.S., to some extent, for taking a firm position on the WTO bilateral agreement. How do you think the Shtokman issue will play out?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: You would have to ask the experts about their judgments. With regard to Shtokman or cooperation in the gas sector in general, I think there remains enormous potential for Russian companies to work with American ones. Shtokman is just one example where diversifying the markets that Russia seeks for gas an oil is very important. There is also a shared interest in taking advantage through North American market and a shared interest in the best American companies complementing their capital and their technological expertise that Russian companies have in developing big and complicated projects like Shtokman.
OVERCHENKO: Now that the bilateral agreement is signed, are there other formal procedures? Does Congress have to approve it?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The next step for Russia is to complete the multilateral accession process in Geneva. The United States will work closely with Russia to support its efforts to resolve the remaining issues as quickly as possible. The US Congress focuses not so much on the formal question of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, because that is the function of Russia's successfully completing the multilateral talks and the remaining of bilateral negotiations, but on the question of repeal of Jackson-Vanik. The issue is whether or not American business can take full advantage of the new terms of trade that are offered as a result of Russia becoming a member of the WTO. Congress focuses on considering the repeal of Jackson-Vanik.
The administrations, both Democratic and Republican, going back to the 1990s, have made clear their view that the Jackson-Vanik should be repealed. I cannot speak for the Congress therefore cannot tell you what will occur. There will be a serious and intense debate in the Congress, but I think people will see that this is a very strong trade agreement in the interests of both of our countries.
OVERCHENKO: Why do you think Jackson-Vanik remains on the books? The Soviet Union and its emigration policy have been history for a long time.
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The original motivations for Jackson-Vanik no longer apply, and it is an issue that we will have to deal with. The debate will be serious and intense.
OVERCHENKO: With the Democrats wining a majority in Congress, what consequences will it have for U.S.-Russia relations?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: I do not think that you will see any significant changes in American policy toward Russia. President Bush has made very clear the main direction that he intends to continue to pursue. Having said that, I think it will hardly surprise you that there are concerns and criticisms voiced by Republicans as well as Democrats in the American Congress. There is bound to be a continuing critical mood in the Congress but it is one which crosses political party lines.
OVERCHENKO: Are you a member of any political party?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: I am a career diplomat and I have served presidents of both parties, Democrat and Republican. I look forward to continuing to do that.
OVERCHENKO: What is your assessment of Russia's political evolution?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: Americans have not been shy about expressing their concerns about the over centralization of power in Russia. Americans recognize that building modern political and economic institutions is a difficult and long term challenge. We do not hold all of the answers. As Russia tries to build those kinds of modern and more open political institutions it is important to recognize that dealing effectively with the practical challenges that the Russian leadership has identified, problems like corruption, requires modern political institutions.
I do not know of any good example around the world where you successfully fight corruption without an independent media and an independent judicial system. There is a self interest for Russia that goes beyond what the United States may think or say in building those kinds of institutions. I do not think it will be easy, and I do not think it will happen over night. People have to be honest about the challenges, but those are challenges which can be overcome.
OVERCHENKO: Can you give some examples of successful anti-corruption efforts in the U.S. which Russia can use as an example?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: Americans do not have perfect answers for the problem of corruption or any number of other problems. Corruption is a problem we still wrestle with in our society. Where we have had some success, the key has been in institutions. Checks and balances amongst the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, the judicial system, and what has often referred to as the fourth branch of our government, the media – an independent press.
OVERCHENKO: Do you understand what "sovereign democracy" means?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The noun is far more important than the adjective. Democracy doesn't need an adjective. Democracy, in terms of its institutions, takes different forms around the world. In the United States you have a Presidential system; in Great Britain you have a Parliamentary system. But the concept is very straight forward and consistent, no matter how the particular institutions develop.
It's government by the people. It's government with a system of rules and laws that protect the majority and the rights of the minority. It's a system of checks and balances where no one branch of government dominates the others. It is much easier said than done. It takes a long time to build those institutions, but that is how I conceive of democracy.
OVERCHENKO: The U.S. expressed a serious concern over Mikhail Khodorkvoskiy during the Yukos trial. Are you still concerned?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The concern about the selective application of the law and the importance of strengthening the rule of law in Russia certainly has not disappeared. It is important, for the sake of Russia, to build those institutions. They provide the best means to deal with many of the challenges that face Russia today whether it is ensuring continued economic growth, taking advantage of the opportunities for diversification, fighting corruption, or ensuring that people are able to compete politically and have free expression.
OVERCHENKO: Is there free speech in Russia?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: What I see today is freer expression in the print media than the broadcast media.
OVERCHENKO: Prominent journalists and U.S. citizens Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov were killed in Russia. Do these two murders have anything in common?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: I do not know the reasons for these murders. What's common is the serious challenge the murders of these two investigative journalists poses to rule of law in Russia and to Russia's own self interest in developing a strong, responsible independent media. We welcome President Putin's and Prosecutor General Chayka's statements that these investigations have high priority. We welcome the Russian Supreme Court's reversal of the acquittal of the defendants in the case of Paul Klebnikov.
OVERCHENKO: In 2001-05 you worked as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Did you advise the White House for or against the invasion of Iraq?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: One of the practices that diplomats observe is not to talk about what advice they provide when they are in different jobs.
OVERCHENKO: Did you foresee any of the problems that the U.S. faces in Iraq today?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: I think we were wrong collectively in the United States about some important things with regard to Iraq -- most notably the presence of weapons of mass destruction. I think we've made mistakes especially in the immediate post war period for which we are paying a price today.
The essential thing for all of us now is to look forward. The choices are not easy ones. It is in the interest of the United States -- as well as Russia -- to try and do everything we can to stabilize the situation in Iraq and to ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over outside its borders. Countries' regional leaders have an important role to play.
Russia has an important role to play, too. Its decision to forgive Iraqi debt is an important economic contribution. Whatever our differences before – and I don't mean to underestimate them – I think we share an interest in trying to bring stability to Iraq. That will not be easy, but it is a very important challenge for all of us.
OVERCHENKO: How do you see resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The United State and Russia share a clear strategic concern about the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. We've worked effectively together along with Great Britain, France, Germany, and China in trying to encourage a diplomatic resolution of this problem. The issue is not whether or not Iran has the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. We all recognize that it does. The issue is that Iran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has concealed important nuclear activities for more than a decade.
Last summer, the United States, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and China made a very generous offer to Iran which called upon Iran to meet its obligations to the IAEA to suspend uranium enrichment activity because of the concerns that have been raised. It made clear the benefits for Iran of complying with its international obligations. Russia also introduced another creative idea to allow enrichment on Russian territory -- an idea that we welcomed. Unfortunately, Iran has not responded favorably to that offer. The United States, Russia, and other powers are considering in the Security Council in New York taking a step which would make clear to Iran the consequences of continuing to refuse to meet its international obligations.
The purpose of that effort in New York is not to close the door to negotiations. It is rather to encourage, to urge, and to press Iran to come back into negotiations and respond positively to the very generous offer that all of us put on the table.
It is true that the United State and Russia have had some technical differences over what exactly should be in that resolution; the two presidents have talked about this. I believe that we are making progress, and I think it will be possible to come to a resolution that serves all of our interests.
OVERCHENKO: When you came to Moscow a year and a half ago, what goals did you set for yourself and what have you achieved?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: There were a number of goals we've been pursuing over the last year and a half. The WTO bilateral agreement is one of them. I am very proud to have been able to help our negotiators on both sides get to a successful agreement. At the same time, our economic cooperation is an important part of the relationship between the United States and Russia, and it has also deepened. Of course there were disappointments and uncertainties along the way. But overall American investment in Russia grew last year by almost 50% not just in energy sector but in non-energy sectors as well. It was very important.
An obvious goal was to work with Russia on its G-8 Summit year. Another area which is very important to our relationship, a third area, is nuclear cooperation. We have made some progress in strengthening that cooperation. For the first time we have begun negotiations on a bilateral agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation.
We are talking to one another seriously on how we can strengthen existing international regimes against proliferation. We are talking seriously on how we might combine the creative idea that both of our presidents have put forward (President Putin's concept of international fuel centers and a very similar initiative that President Bush has talked about is the global energy partnership).
OVERCHENKO: What is your evaluation of the outcome of 'color revolutions' in the former Soviet Union?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The process of building modern political and economic institutions in any of the countries of the former Soviet Union is bound to be a long and complicated one. 10-15 years ago, Russia went through a very tumultuous period. The challenge for Russia today is an equally serious and evolutionary one. Can Russia take advantage of the moment of opportunity before it with high energy prices to build institutions that will ensure that the rule of law applies in the economy and in the political system?
In Ukraine two years ago, you saw a dramatic development: the orange revolution. The United States worked very closely with the so-called orange government of the time. Recently there was another election and Mr. Yanukovich's party did very well. We look forward to working closely with him, too. Our hope, our goal as an American government is to work with countries in this part of the world to try and help develop those modern institutions, both political and economic, to help develop processes which will allow citizens in those countries to make their own choices. The Unites States neither can nor should seek to impose our particular system on any other country. That is not our purpose. But we happen to think that building those institutions serves the interests of people in those countries, serves the interests of regional stability.
OVERCHENKO: U.S. Government -- and other Western countries -- involvement in former Soviet republics seems to have irritated the Russian government.
AMBASSADOR BURNS: We can irritate each other on many different issues, so this does not come as a surprise to me. The United States takes into account that Russia has vital interests in its own neighborhood. Interests are not just political and diplomatic; they are economic, cultural, historic, and linguistic. That is a reality that we understand and respect, so when we talk about helping to resolve so called frozen conflicts, for example, we obviously want to work very closely with Russia to help encourage peaceful resolutions of those kinds of challenges.
OVERCHENKO: How do you think the Georgian crisis can be resolved?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: United States' policy is very straight forward: we support the territorial integrity of Georgia. We believe very strongly that it is only through peaceful means that the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia can be resolved. It is our strong conviction that the use of force by anyone is unacceptable and dangerously counterproductive. That's the message we've delivered earlier. We also believe that it is important to work with Russia on these issues. Russia has a very important role to play and important interest to bring to bear.
Key in resolving questions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is first to deescalate the rhetoric of the tensions because in recent weeks there has been an escalation of tensions and rhetoric which does not serve anyone's interest. Second, to look for ways in which we can rebuild our sense of trust and confidence. Third is to create a greater sense of economic hope and possibility. These are not easy problems. They are going to take time to address. But the United States certainly is committed to doing what it can to help.
OVERCHENKO: What is the role of the United States in the modern world?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: The United States, like Russia, is likely to be a major power in the world for some time to come. I say that without any sense of arrogance, but just as a function of our economic strength or military power or diplomatic influence. It is very important for the United States, if we are to protect our interests and protect those strengths, to stay engaged with the rest of the world. We do not have the luxury of withdrawing. We learned on September 11th five years ago and in facing the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that oceans are not going to protect us from those dangers.
It is very important for us to understand as Americans that we cannot solve these problems ourselves. We cannot solve them on our own. We need to work with others who share an interest in dealing with these issues. Russia can be an important partner in dealing with challenges like nuclear proliferation where Russia and the United State have both unique capabilities but also unique historical responsibilities. And last but not least, it is very important for us to try as best we can to set a good example. The power of our example -- which is not perfect in how our economic system works, and how our political system functions -- can have much more of an impact on other countries than most anything else that we do. It is very important for us to work hard on our own imperfections, on the challenges that we face in the United States.
OVERCHENKO: The US has tightened its visa regulations after September 11. How often does your Embassy deny visas for Russian citizens?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: We issue visas to about 90% of the Russians who apply for non-immigrant visas. It is a relatively high percentage if you look around the world. Over the last four to five years the visa application process has become a little bit clear and a little bit more predictable. Last year 50% more Russian students went to the United States than in previous years. As to business trips, the key is applying with plenty of time before a visit is planned.
OVERCHENKO: In the early 1990s, Russia provided a blueprint detailing listening devices it had placed in the Embassy's new office building. Has the FSB succeeded in bugging your new building since then?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: An interesting question but not one that I would respond to or comment on publicly.
OVERCHENKO: What is a diplomat's mission? Is it possible that a diplomat can be a spy?
AMBASSADOR BURNS: A two part question receives a two part answer. The second part of your question is another interesting question but also not one to which I would ever respond publicly. With regard to the mission of a diplomat, that first part of your question is very straight forward. What any diplomat does, what I try to do, is represent and advocate the interests of my government and of my country. It means trying to explain in Russia and to Russians when I travel quite frequently around the country not only American policy but also American society. Any diplomat also has a responsibility to try and explain the Russian society that he or she deals with every day to Washington and to our own society. I think being honest and straightforward and being a good listener is a very important characteristic for any diplomat. Someone once said that the definition of a diplomat is someone who is sent abroad to lie for his country. I think that's not only a bad approach ethically but it is also a bad policy.