A series of public events unfolded across Russia for almost three weeks under the title "NATO-Russia Rally 2006: What binds us together?" NATO officials, their Russian counterparts from the foreign and defense ministries, and public figures toured nine Russian cities from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad.
They met with people of different ages, told them about the work of the NATO-Russia (NRC) and joint projects, and took part in the debates. What are the impressions of NATO officials of the rally?
Director of the NATO Information Center in Moscow Isabel Francois answers this and other questions of RIA Novosti military commentator Viktor Litovkin.
Litovkin: Relations between NATO and Russia are complicated. Many experts even claim that they are deteriorating. Is this so? You've seen the entire country - from one ocean to another. What are your personal impressions of the rally? Is it true that people no longer perceive NATO as an enemy - just as a not-so-great partner? Or is it a delusion? Is it due to a misunderstanding or for lack of trying to understand?
Francois: Indeed, there are certain differences between the approach of your officials to NATO-Russian relations, and the attitudes of the Russian public. The former are generally positive in assessing what the NRC has achieved, and what we are doing now. Regrettably, the public simply does not know enough about our work.
I'd like to recall an article by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Glushko, which was published shortly before the session of the NRC Foreign Ministers in Sofia, and the opinion expressed by the Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Lyubov Sliska in Sochi the other day.
They both spoke highly about our cooperation. It will help us a lot in our work if Russian officials inform the public about the Council, not just NATO people like me. Russians will believe more their own officials.
You are right - I have indeed traveled all over Russia, from one ocean to another, and I have my own impressions of what the Russian public thinks about our work. The NATO-Russia Rally 2006: What binds us together?" lasted for almost three weeks, and embraced the territory from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad. It is very important to stress here, because the media did not always duly explain this, that it was not a NATO project, but a joint project, in which Russian officials from the defense and foreign ministries took part.
Litovkin: What did you see?
Francois: Above all, I was struck by the great interest in us. We were showered with questions, people wanted to find out more and more. We held many meetings in universities, and heard professors, experts and students ask not only us but also Russian officials to give them more information. They said it was important to receive regular information. Many universities want to organize courses on Russia's relations with NATO. This was my first observation. I also noted that whenever relations between NATO and Russia were discussed, young and old people alike talked about "us" and "them." It is time to start thinking in the "we" category. Regrettably, people do not yet perceive us as partners. This is why it is necessary to talk more about cooperation, about what we are doing together, and we are doing a lot.
I've also noticed that people are clinging to many old notions, which simply do not tally with reality. Take the situation in Kosovo, for one. Judging by all, they are still thinking like they did in the 1990s, although the situation has changed very much. Today, the entire world community is involved with this issue - the UN, NATO, the EU, and other organizations. They are all working very intensively and in close cooperation. Russia is taking an active part in these efforts via the contact group. But, unfortunately, people do not know this. They talk about the bombings of Kosovo in the 1990s.
There is another wrong idea, which has struck root in the minds of people. When they hear about NATO, they think about the United States. They think that the U.S. dominates NATO. In fact, NATO has 26 members, and they are not prepared at all to accept that NATO is just America. Russian officials, who take part in all joint sessions and undertakings, have a much better understanding of this.
And, finally, here's a third and the last example. I mean the idea that NATO surrounds Russia on all sides. Of course, there are certain historic reasons for this view, but it is still a vestige of the old mentality. After all, if NATO and Russia are now partners, if we work together, people here should not mind that NATO countries are close to the Russian territory. Because the notion of "encirclement" makes sense only in the old system of thinking, where "we" are opposed to "them." I mean a system of thinking which accompanied "zero sum politics" - if one wins, the other loses.
I'd like to make one more point about another idea which does not leave people's minds. It is important to change this attitude. NATO and Russia do not always agree, and will not always agree in the future. There will be issues at which we look from different perspectives. But this does not mean that we are sliding down to the Cold War again, or that our cooperation is doomed. Look how the members of the alliance are cooperating. They do not at all agree on all questions but they are allies nonetheless.
Litovkin: I could object to each of your examples, relying on Russian public opinion. We believe, for one, that in Kosovo the genocide of one ethnic group has been replaced with that of another group. NATO is contributing to this. The fact that NATO countries surround us does not matter. This is geography. What matters is that the Alliance is upgrading its military infrastructure, deploying radars, repairing airfields in these countries... We have been through two world wars, and one cold war, and we cannot but be apprehensive. I understand that when you invite young people to take part in your discussions, you are staking on future relations. But it is hard to make people change their minds if they already have stereotypes.
Francois: We have traversed the whole country during the rally and, indeed, met a lot of young people because many meetings took place at universities. But the audience did not consist of young people alone. I was glad to see that the audience was always very mixed - war veterans, professionals, local officials, representatives of local legislative assemblies, and, of course, students. In other words, we saw the whole of Russia. I noticed that stereotypes, these vestiges of the old mentality are not at all typical just of the older generation. Some young people also think in much the same vein. They are echoing what they have heard from older people.
So, age does not matter much when it comes to stereotypes. Here's another point, which I think is more important. We conducted a public opinion poll on the eve of the campaign. As a result, we have received some figures, which are important for me as the Director of the NATO Information Center in Moscow. Having acknowledged that they do not know enough about NATO and Russia's cooperation with it, 44% of those polled said that they did not want to know more, that they did not need more information.
This is very important for me because it is my duty to talk about NATO, and to cover its joint events with Russia. It is impossible to make people listen against their will. Information is just one side of the coin and it is not enough to simply have it. It is important for people to learn to hear a different opinion, to be ready to change their views and their way of thinking. It is very difficult to conduct a dialogue if people do not ask themselves - why do I have this opinion? Why don't I want to change it?
In the final count, this is the reason why it is very hard to destroy stereotypes. Stereotypes are a way of thinking that makes people feel very comfortable and confident. People are accustomed to them, and do not want to give them up. Apparently, they think that if they abandon their stereotypes, the world around them will cease to exist. This has more to do with psychology than information.
This is probably why I like to work with young people, and why I like the atmosphere of universities. Students come to universities to acquire knowledge - they are ready to listen. Of course, it also helps that at universities many more people know foreign languages, and it is easier to communicate for this reason. But one's psychological readiness to perceive information is crucial.
Litovkin: If people want to learn something, one should know how to bring new ideas home to them. Something must change not only in Russia for us to understand better what NATO is all about. Something must also change about NATO for Russia to understand it better. What do you think should be changed in the alliance for Russia to open its heart to it?
Francois: I fully agree with you. It takes two to tango. People should learn not only to talk but also to listen what the other side has to say. At this point we again see the difference between Russian officials and the public at large. It is easier for Russian officials to understand that NATO listens to them. But ordinary people will find it much more difficult. Spokesmen for the Russian leadership take part in NATO's activities through the Russian-NATO Council, and have the same vote as all other participants. They have the right of veto, and if Russia says "no" to a decision, this decision will not be made.
Let's be more optimistic. If Russian government officials want to report something to the NATO leaders, or let them know about their opinion, they do have an opportunity for this. The NATO-Russia Council of Ministers goes into session at least twice a year, but usually more often than that. It adopts joint declarations, which accommodate the opinions of all sides. The Russian officials see for themselves that their opinions have been considered, and reflected in the final text of a declaration. As for the question whether NATO is changing - of course it is. NATO is undergoing reforms as an organization, and this is a very fast process. Russian officials have said more than once that they see into which direction NATO is moving, and are closely following this process.
Today, NATO is very different from what it was in my parents' time. It has undergone dramatic changes. Moreover, now NATO is not at all the same as the organization in which I started working in the 1990s.
But let me ask you a question, too. How much should NATO change for the Russian public to acknowledge the process? During the recent campaign, we often heard people ask one and the same question: "Why don't you change the name of your alliance?" But what's in a name? Maybe, they are more interested in symbols than in the process?
Before this interview you asked me what Brussels expected of Moscow. I've thought a lot about this question, and here's what I can say - Brussels does not expect more of Moscow than of NATO members. This is very logical. This is not a politically correct statement, but Brussels expects Moscow to react positively to the arising opportunities, just like NATO countries do.
Needless to say, Russia is a sovereign country, and should decide for itself what it is ready to accept, and what it wants to do. But I'm always surprised and even perplexed when I hear Russian officials say that Russia is prepared to cooperate with NATO only as far as this conforms to its national interests. But the representatives of NATO countries think exactly the same. If a country believes that an NRC undertaking does not meet its national interests, it does not take part in it. In this sense, Russia's position doesn't differ at all from that of NATO members.
We have so many things in common. We have the same threats - terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, instability in some regions of the world... This is exactly why I'm so positive about the future of NATO's cooperation with Russia; this is why I'm optimistic about the prospects of what we are doing together.
I'd like to add that in practical terms our cooperation rests on the organization, which we have established - the NRC. It is very young - only four years old. We'll have good times and bad. We will hear criticism. The time of elections will come, and there will be verbal battles, but the NRC will continue working. Any organization starts with heated debates, and then goes over to action.
I firmly believe in the potential of international organizations. I work in one of them myself. They will help us cope with the hard times in the future. It doesn't matter that we do not agree on all questions. The main thing is that we have an organization, and, hence, we have a future.
Litovkin: Here's my last, small question. What will you say after your rally from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad - has Russia become closer to NATO, or has NATO become closer to Russia?
Francois: This is a good question. Here's my answer. What was I most pleased about? I managed to bring many NATO officials to Russia for the rally, and not only to Moscow or St. Petersburg, but also the rest of the country. They had a chance to hear for themselves what people think, and how they perceive NATO. But, after all, we let many Russian people, both young and no so young come to Brussels and see what NATO is all about, and how it works.
It doesn't matter who's become closer to whom. What matters is that we have become closer.
