"RUSSIA AND USA TODAY is not the enemy"

Tomorrow in Washington, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will hold consultations with their American interlocutors, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Two weeks later, in Moscow to hold talks on a new agreement on strategic offensive arms. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Kudrin said that there is every possibility before the end of the year to resolve outstanding issues through negotiations with the U.S. on Russia's accession to the WTO (Kudrin said that one of the obstacles is long obsolete, but acting in relation to Russia American Law on the role of SOEs in the economy of the USSR). From the first meeting between Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in April, relations between Moscow and Washington have become more active. American Enterprise Institute Richard Perle ("Hawk", "neoconservative," "Prince of Darkness," as they call it in Washington) talks about the myths and barriers in relations between Russia and the United States. - You were the author of the Jackson - Vanik amendment, while working in Senator Henry Jackson. For many years Russia has been seeking repeal. As the author of the text say what's the problem? - The amendment should not be abolished, because in relation to Russia, it does not work long. Adopted in 1974, it was a specific and narrowly focused. Non-market economy, which deny their citizens the right to emigrate freely, can not be granted the status of most favored nation, to receive the direct and indirect loans from the U.S. government. The amendment had the caveat: if the President believes that its suspension for a year will promote free emigration in the country, he has the right to do so, and Congress - to support him. And the failure to apply constraints can be renewed annually. Given some improvement in emigration, the President proposed to Congress to renounce the use of trade restrictions since the Soviet Union. In 1989 came an end to non-market economy and the Soviet policy of restricting travel for their citizens. Russia simply could not fall under the Jackson - Vanik Amendment. That's when American presidents would say that Russia, as successor to the USSR no longer subject to amendment and must be given the status of most favored nation. But the president did not do ... And every year, the U.S. administration prolongs the rejection of the application to Russia of the Jackson - Vanik Amendment, and Congress approves. But this is not a problem ... - What? - For permanent most-favored-nation trading is another obstacle. There is a law in 1951, which denies it the status of the Soviet Union and, therefore, Russia. Section 5 of the Act to postpone the trade agreements, says: "Whenever possible, the President shall take the actions necessary to suspend, revoke or prevent the use of reduced rates of customs duty, excise and other benefits contained in trade agreements ... import from the Soviet Union and any State or territory under the control of a foreign government or organization that controls the world Communist movement. " It was part of the anti-Communist legislation, and the law still in force. And as long as it is not canceled, Russia can not get a permanent trade status. It is this act of standing in the way, not the Jackson - Vanik Amendment. - Then why talk about it, and not on the statute of 1951? - I think because of the statute of forgot about it and remember it. The amendment is controversial, the annual debate in Congress. In the 1990s, some lawmakers have used it as a way of putting pressure on Russia. Remember "chicken war"? - "Bush legs", a dispute which ended in 2005, but then started again ... - The then head of the International Committee of the Senate, Joseph Biden (now vice-president of the United States. - Ed.) Consisted of Delaware, where many bird farms. Biden took a position not to open the road to a permanent trade status until the issue is not solved for poultry. The White House did not want to engage in debate with Biden, and never commented on the situation, though, in my opinion, he should have. - The White House had different inhabitants. No one wanted to remove the amendment? - Yes, it should not be clean! All that was necessary, so that the president said that the amendment does not apply to long ago in Russia, because Russia does not fall under it. But for various reasons, no president has done so. - As a result, today the Jackson - Vanik amendment - a symbol of the past to Moscow calling for repeal of the amendment. - What actually mean that Russia calls for the repeal of legislation in 1951, not having to do with the amendment. And applied to, say, North Korea. - However, with regard to China or Vietnam, was a special solution, and then on the amendment concerning these countries have forgotten. Neither the annual debate, no vote in Congress. - When the decision was made, China satisfies the criteria for the amendments, for example, in terms of restrictions on the travel of its citizens, and to him the correction was applied. As for Russia, I believe, you do not want to be the subject of annual debate on the subject, although, I repeat, this amendment is legally and so can not be applied. - And yet the annual debate over a small joy. From the new U.S. president can be expected that he finally pronounce that long to say? - I'm still only heard that there is an opinion, in principle, to repeal the law of 1951. But do not think this should be done as there are countries to which it applies. I suspect that around the law will be a struggle. As for Russia, the president may say tomorrow that the law is more applicable to Russia. Without any debate in Congress. - Why has not said? - I think he just did not know that a problem exists in principle. - In any case, until July, when Obama and Medvedev meet in Moscow, the topic of Russian-American relations will be heard. Unlikely because it would be difficult to draw the attention of U.S. President on this issue. - That is why we are with you and talk. - It turns out that the amendment does not impose any restrictions today, say, mutual investment, capital flows and general economic relations between Russia and the U.S.? - Absolutely no. But if the country talking about strengthening the ties, to say the abolition of the law itself in 1951: while it is not canceled - it is applied. - How would you rate the Obama administration's intention to improve relations with Moscow and Russia's intentions in relations with the U.S.? - I think by the end they are not yet clear on both sides. But what exactly does not contribute to the improvement of relations, so the number of anti-American statements, sounding in Russia. In the U.S., you will not find so much anti-Russian statements. - I would not say that. - Then what you find? The fact that people were not happy when Russia, for example, sells weapons to Iran. Or when it comes to freedom of speech. But the U.S. government does not always criticizes Russia. That did not happen under Bush, I think there will not be under Obama. But in Russia a lot of officials often talk about the U.S. is bad. I think that if you want to improve relations, it is necessary to refrain from such statements. - Some explain this by saying that Russia's ambitions do not always coincide with the capabilities, resulting in becoming irritated rhetoric. But the U.S. is not very visible to any positive intention. - The U.S. and Russia have great potential for improving relations. For example, the two countries can work together on Iran. But Russia does not want to do it. - Russia talked a lot about safety initiatives, the missile defense system, but it seemed not to hear. - Sadly, security issues occupy a huge place in our relationship. This heritage is the "cold war". - Sometimes it seems that the whole complex of bilateral relations - the legacy of the "cold war". Maybe it's because we have no basis on which others can build a relationship? Iran is not the basis. - We need to talk about Iran, terrorism and the expansion of economic relations. In Russia, vast resources, it is a potential market for the U.S., the U.S. - a potential market for Russia. Another thing is that nobody wants to see some country a monopoly of energy supplies. Russia, if it fell into the same situation, would have behaved the same way. In addition, it is important to create confidence among investors that their investments will select no. The situation with Yukos affects so far. - In Russia there are many foreign investors. - It's true. But the investment could be much higher. I have, incidentally, were the shares of Yukos ... - You do not have for them? - Nothing. Lost everything. - After two weeks will be consulted to conclude a new treaty to replace the previous strategic arms. In the 1970s, you were an opponent of similar agreements with the Soviet Union, believing that the U.S. is too much inferior. What about today? - And today I do not think that it is generally important. How many units of weaponry Russia wants to have, how much the U.S. - long there should be no problem and the subject of the contract. Part of the professional life I have spent dealing with the balance of power between the two nuclear powers. We were afraid that we can attack Russia, and you - that the United States. But today the United States and Russia are not enemies, and, you know, cool about it do not worry. We're not talking about mutual deterrence with France, Great Britain. Why do I need to talk to Russia? Is not there more important issues? I think if we had not made the reservation every detail of the strategic arms, but simply an agreement without holding each other up to date, it would be a great step forward.