The dividends of pragmatism

Mikhail Margelov, Chairman, International Affairs Committee, Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia, RIA Novosti, Moscow

Several years ago a full-scale involvement of Russia in G8 discussions seemed purely hypothetical. But today the Russian president is an obligatory and sometimes privileged interlocutor in discussions of key international policy issues, from nuclear non-proliferation to prices for energy resources. This is largely a result of the pragmatic foreign policy pursued by President Vladimir Putin.

His predecessors, in particular Soviet leaders, always spoke about the messianic role of their country. Mikhail Gorbachev, who replaced them, though he rooted out the feeling of Moscow's hostility in the world, failed to remain at the helm of the imperial ship, which soon crashed.

Boris Yeltsin to behave far too exotically for foreign partners to take Russia seriously. His demonstrative steps towards the United States and the European Union, cut short by U- turns towards China and India, left the impression of improvisation without a clear view of the future.

Soon after the election of Putin as President Kremlin was clearly working on a new foreign policy strategy. It was to be geared to the requirements and possibilities of the state in the throes of a deep economic crisis, and to its historical role of a bridge between the West and the East.

It had to be devoid of expensive great-power ambitions, but needed to incorporate careful analysis of possible consequences of decisions, a firm negotiating stand, and an ability to find compromise solutions. It became clear that at this stage the country's foreign policy goals were located inside the country.

The main task, is accelerated reform and modernisation of the obsolete economy. Putin clearly formulated his criterion of judging the work of the state structures -- effectiveness. It is the underlying principle of his new foreign policy.

Pragmatism as the definition of Putin's foreign policy stemmed from his understanding of the country's situation. The country has rich deposits of mineral resources, yet its population suffers from oppressive poverty; it needed investment but had only a fragmented market infrastructure. Separatism was growing stronger and preparing for a drawn-out terrorist war.

Pragmatism does not tolerate self-deception. As a pragmatist, Putin drew the only possible conclusion: Russia will not benefit from international crises; it can allow itself to take part only in actions with predictable consequences. This is why the President calls for creating a world order based on clear norms and rules of the game.

Internal stability has become the business card of the Putin administration for Russians. Likewise, the striving to ensure regional and global stability has become the highlight of Putin's dialog with foreign partners. He acts consistently.

His support for the U.S. president on Sept.11, 2001 and subsequent participation in the anti-terrorist operation was a logical decision. The closure of bases in Cuba and Vietnam was not a present to the U.S., but a decision based on awareness of national defence requirements.

An ancient Chinese philosophical postulate goes that flexibility defeats harshness. This approach would appear to be appropriate for the settlement of international crises. The Iraqi problem revealed not only the weakness of such international institutions as the UN, but also the risk of contradictions between the traditionally rallied NATO members.

Some observers interpreted Russia's stand in the crisis as an attempt to play on the contradictions. In fact, Russia was only protecting its interests and acted flexibly in the pursuit of this goal.

The tactic proved worthwhile. Moscow has maintained normal relations with the U.S. and the Arab world. It called for the active involvement of the UN in the settlement of the Iraqi problem. Moscow also called for spotlighting the risks inherent in the Palestinian-Israeli dialog.

Russia's understanding of the best conditions for its development prevents it from remaining an aloof observer. The duplicity of Saddam Hussein and the military operation did great damage to Russia's interests.

The drawn out nature of Iraq's normalisation, the weakness of its authorities, and growing confessional and ethnic contradictions give a chance to the extremist forces which stand behind the Sept. 11 attacks and numerous explosions in the Middle East, Central and South East Asia, and which are resisting the restoration of peace in Chechnya.

This is why Russia is considering the possibility of dispatching troops to Iraq and is holding intensive consultations in the UN Security Council in an attempt to find effective solutions. Moreover, a country with 20 million Muslims, Russia probably knows better than many other countries that the struggle against terrorism must never be presented as another crusade.

Accordingly, President Putin is paying great attention to the development of dialog with Southeast Asia and the Persian Gulf countries. However, this vector of Putin's actions traditionally has an internal goal: He wants to free relations from old dogmas and facilitate ties based on new principles and traditions, ties that should become the pillar of harmonious development of the polyconfessional Russia.

Pragmatism does not mean myopia. While spotlighting its internal problems, Russia cannot and will not remain on the sidelines of globalization and growing global competition. The stakes are too high and time goes extremely quickly in the 21st century. But then, other countries hardly make plans on the assumption of Moscow's sluggishness. Caution does not preclude quick reaction, while pragmatism and consistency obviously make for a worthwhile strategy.