Opinion Editorials & Interviews

Interview with Izvestiya’s Editorial Board

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

Izvestiya, March 20, 2007

"We need each other. It would be a mistake to overlook that."

Izvestiya is initiating a Diplomatic Club, whereby our editorial board will be inviting foreign diplomats to meet with us, asking them various questions (including some that are not so diplomatic), and exchanging opinions on what is going on in our country and in the world. Our first guest of Izvestiya's Diplomatic Club was the U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation William Burns.

INTERVIEWER: Mr. Ambassador, we are delighted to have you and your colleagues at Izvestiya's Diplomatic Club. With your permission, our first question: In your opinion, what are the reasons behind the recent disagreements between Moscow and Washington?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: It's obvious that there are frustrations on both sides right now. Some reflect honest and principled differences over particular issues. Sometimes Russians think Americans take them for granted, and sometimes Americans think Russians tend to always assume the worst about American motives. Despite the fact that there are element of competition and differences between us, the truth is that we need each other. It would be a huge mistake for us to overlook this fact. For example, our bilateral cooperation in the framework of Russian's WTO accession and our nuclear cooperation…

INTERVIEWER: The intention to place elements of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic has triggered an unpleasant reaction from Russia. Perhaps it would have been worthwhile to undertake consultations with Moscow early on in order to reduce tensions?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: Let me make two points. First, as we have discussed many times with our Russian colleagues in recent months, the very modest ideas we are exploring are not in any way directed against Russia, nor do they threaten Russia. We are talking about ten small missile interceptors in Poland potentially and one radar in the Czech Republic. It is not capable in any way, and even Russian specialists acknowledge this, of threatening Russia whose fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles is much too big and much too fast for these interceptors to do anything about. Our concern is not Russia, but potential new threats from the South, especially Iran. Not that the threat exists today, but again, to be fair, the threat could emerge in a few years. And the reason we fear that is not totally unreasonable. We were surprised when the North Koreans built their long-range missile, and we were also surprised at the speed with which they built it. My second point is that there is a great deal of room for more detailed and perhaps more ambitious consultation and cooperation between us, between Russia and NATO, on the whole issue of missile defense. We will need to work harder at that.

INTERVIEWER: If we speak of cooperation in the security field, then why not offer Russia the opportunity to place elements of this missile defense system on Russian territory?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: We should be talking in more detail about how we might cooperate with Russia in the field of missile defense. I don't know exactly what form that cooperation could take, but I know there's more room to work together than we have so far. It should be part of a broader strategic discussion between us, about how we see new global security threats, and what to do about them.

INTERVIEWER: Don't you agree that installing a radar system based on Polish phobias, their fear of a "Russian invasion," makes no sense?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I understand the concern behind your question, but let me repeat that the motivation behind our talks with Poland and the Czech Republic is certainly not about a threat from Russia, nor is it in any way a threat to Russia. It is about a potential threat from the south that concerns all of us – Americans, Russians, and Europeans. We need to discuss this issue and what to do about it more systematically. Not because this will change our mind about talking to the Poles and the Czechs. But because we might be able to reassure people -- a little bit at least -- that this not part of some secret strategy for constraining Russia, undermining its options, and undermining its security.

INTERVIEWER: Why, when dealing with Iran, do Americans make demands that Russia meet certain requirements but offer nothing in exchange?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: Good question and I'll try to give a single answer. Russia and the United States are cooperating diplomatically on Iran because we share a serious concern about Iran's ambition to develop nuclear weapons. This is not about demands that we make to one another or trades between us. It is about a very dangerous common concern, in which we are joining our diplomatic efforts with China, Britain, France, and Germany, and are working closely in the UN Security Council and with the International Atomic Energy Agency. So this isn't a question of "buying" anyone's cooperation. It's a question of mutual self-interest. We need to do everything possible, with these types of dangers, because the alternative is an Iran moving even more quickly toward acquiring a nuclear weapons program, and the negative consequences of that would be quite significant for Russia, as they would be for the United States.

The dangers of greater instability in the Middle East, a part of the world where I have also spent a fair amount of time, are quite considerable. I know that there may be some Russians who say "What's the problem? This is keeping energy prices high." I would argue that is a very short-sighted view. The dangers in that part of the world go beyond what's already happened. These dangers are very real for Russia as well as for the United States. There are no easy solutions, and there are consequences and costs for everyone. That's why I think that the diplomatic position of Russia, the United States, and our partners, on the Iranian nuclear issue has been very careful. We have undertaken a very deliberate step-by-step approach to increase diplomatic pressure on the Iranians and incremental steps with the first resolution, and now the second resolution. I think that is the best chance to get the Iranians to realize that their own interests -- security and otherwise -- are not going to be well-served if they continue to pursue their weapons program and refuse to comply with international obligations.

INTERVIEWER: As experience shows, Security Council resolutions do not work on Iran. Is there an alternate way to solve this problem? War?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: The alternatives to a diplomatic approach are not very pretty. I think it would be wrong for anyone to underestimate the consequences of the use of force in this situation. The United States is committed to a diplomatic solution. In that sense, the political message has been sent through our joint efforts in the Security Council. I do not want to pretend to you that I am confident this will work, as it has been a very difficult task. I would say again that nobody underestimates the complexities or the potential consequences of the use of force. That is not a very attractive option for anyone.

INTERVIEWER: Does the U.S. have a concrete strategy on Iraq? Why didn't the White House consider the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommendations?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: The Baker-Hamilton report was one of several proposals that the Administration has considered very carefully. A number of the steps which were in the Baker-Hamilton report are being taken now. We are engaging the local population to a greater extent and have an increased focus on training the Iraqi military. We are also engaging with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in a series of conferences which aim to help ensure stability in Iraq. Russia is also participating actively in those efforts. Iraq is one of those situations where we have a collection of not very attractive options. But whatever our differences before, we all have an interest in improving the situation now.

INTERVIEWER: Iraq before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a secular society where people lived according to the established rules. It is true that there was a dictator, but there was also stability. Look at how everything has changed. Now there is a wave of terrorism. It is especially dangerous for Russia; the U.S. is across the ocean, but we are right here.

AMBASSADOR BURNS: The regime of Saddam Hussein was terrible and dangerous. Both Iraqis and the region are better off without him. But you're absolutely right that we are left with a very difficult situation, and it's true that some significant American mistakes after the war have contributed to that. The truth is we both have a stake in as much stability as we can encourage in Iraq. There is more we can do in Afghanistan together, whether it is in counter narcotics or border control. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov just was in Kabul. Iraq is another area where we've had some very sharp differences. But the truth is we both have a stake in stability in Iraq in trying to ensure that the difficulties that Iraq is likely to experience for some years to come do not spill over outside its borders. That will be catastrophic for all of us. The same is true with regard to the Iranian nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the United States it is very important to work with Russia and others.