Sergey Rogov on U.S. Kosovo Policy (srogov at glas.apc.org)
Moskovskiy Komsomolets 6 May 1999 [translation for personal use only] Interview with Doctor of Historical Sciences Sergey Rogov, director of Institute of United States and Canada, by Anna Petrosova under the "Abroad" rubric; date, place not given: "Tomahawks for World Domination"
Was the war in the Balkans the [United] States' cynical response to the introduction of the euro? Is it true that Clinton, the dawdler and roue, yielded to pressure from the frenzied rigorist Madeleine Albright, who was demanding that Serbs be shot? What kind of world will emerge from the Yugoslav tragedy? Doctor of Historical Sciences Sergey Rogov, director of the Institute of the United States and Canada, answers these and other questions from Moskovskiy Komsomolets.
[Petrosova] Sergey Mikhaylovich, in your opinion was the decision to bomb adopted on the basis of moral considerations, or is the United States concealing its "dark," purely imperial interests?
[Rogov] Neither. Dozens of conflicts are continuing to smolder in the world, in the course of which ethnic purges are taking place, and even though a humanitarian problem unparalleled in history undoubtedly exists in Kosovo, this was still not the main reason for the U.S. actions. After the Cold War Washington conceived the idea that America had become the sole superpower. The Clinton administration is trying to realize surplus military might in order to consolidate the unipolar structure of the world on the eve of the 21st century. The U.S. strategy is aimed at becoming the leader in the system of international relations for a long time to come. This has been manifested during the past nine months, when the Americans have struck with cruise missiles against four countries which posed no threat to U.S. territory -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and Yugoslavia. Today the Americans are increasingly showing the arrogance of power. The so-called escalation syndrome is a consequence: One mistake gives rise to another, and reluctance to acknowledge one's error leads to a widening of the scale of war. The United States made a colossal miscalculation when, by analogy with Bosnia, it reckoned that Milosevic would make concessions in Kosovo. It failed to realize that in Bosnia it was a question of grandiose plans to create "Greater Serbia," while in Kosovo it is a question of preserving Serbia itself and its historical nucleus. The adoption of the decision was also influenced by current considerations, such as the six-month paralysis of the Clinton administration while impeachment was dragging on. Clinton had barely extricated himself from that trouble before it came to light that a lot of problems required an urgent solution -- Kosovo, for example.
[Petrosova] Is it true that, when the question of bombing raids was being decided, "weak-willed" Clinton was pressured by tough Madeleine Albright, who suffers from complexes because in her childhood she lived through the Hitlerites' persecution?
[Rogov] I do not believe that Albright has such an influence over the President. She is just a high-ranking official. If need be, she can easily be returned to her professorial activity. Clinton is a second-term President and, on the one hand, he is finding it very difficult to keep control of the various political forces. But, on the other, Clinton cannot be pressured by lobbyists, because he does not need to win support for the next election. Clinton has another problem: How he will go down in history. He has no longing to be remembered by his descendants for Monica Lewinski's dress but needs other achievements. The entire country was acquainted in detail with all the finer points of Clinton's sex life. He has become America's most scandalous President. But the country's economy is continuing its unprecedented growth by leaps and bounds for an eighth year. What they have in their wallets is very important to Americans, nine-tenths of whom would be unable to find Yugoslavia on the map. Since the population's well-being has increased under Clinton, the public support their President in all his "good" undertakings. Some 60-70 percent still approve of him, although the situation may change because of Kosovo.
[Petrosova] It is known that as much as $1.5 trillion has accumulated in Europe, which runs the risk of depreciating badly if the new European currency takes off. Was the war in Yugoslavia not an original response to the euro and an attempt to remove the threat to U.S. economic interests?
[Rogov] Indeed, the United States is threatened today not by Russia and China but by its own allies and economic competitors. The emergence of the euro marks a serious shift in the world economy and another headache for Washington. The Americans have to conduct negotiations with the EU on an equal footing -- which is quite difficult for them. It is far easier to promote the idea of U.S. superiority through NATO -- which is why the United States is bringing this military-political bloc to the fore. But it should not be said that in this case the euro is already making politics, because it will become a real force only in about five years' time.
[Petrosova] It is said, is it not, that the United States started bombing to rid itself of obsolete weapons and to expand the markets for sales and tests of new models?
[Rogov] That is nonsense. On the contrary, the Pentagon budget has shrunk because of the reduction in spending on purchases of "commodities" from the military-industrial complex. The Americans are economizing on purchases of fourth-generation weapons but are spending generously on developing the latest arms systems in order to start producing weapons of the latest, fifth generation in the next millennium. U.S. troops are now equipped mainly with third- and fourth-generation missiles, but there are not many "smart" new Tomahawks, because most of them were already expended during the first weeks of bombing. Therefore the Americans have mobilized high-precision weapons for the first time. Whereas they expended 100 cruise missiles on Desert Storm, more than 500 have already gone on Yugoslavia.
[Petrosova] And yet the percentage allocated to the military-industrial complex has increased sharply in the current U.S. budget, has it not?
[Rogov] In recent years the Pentagon has spent approximately $40 billion on buying arms. The program for purchasing the latest arms, which is now being drawn up in Washington, will demand $80 billion a year. Back in January, before the war, Clinton increased the military budget so as to bring annual spending on purchases up to $60 billion a year at the beginning of the next millennium. But these billions are not enough, just the same! Therefore the Pentagon urgently requested extra money to substitute missiles with conventional warheads for cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. The new generation of weapons will be purchased only in 2001.
[Petrosova] Do the Americans regard Russia as their main rival in the arms market?
[Rogov] That is a myth in which we indulge ourselves. Back in 1990 Soviet GDP was five times "skinnier" than U.S. GDP. This is even more true of the situation today. The United States controls more than half of world arms exports. Both Western countries and former Soviet clients buy from it. Russia trades with Third-World countries -- with those with which the United States does not do business. Our share is 12 percent. What question can there be of competition?!
[Petrosova] How might the world change after the Kosovo war?
[Rogov] The world is being divided up by force, and the winners are in a hurry to impart a definite form to the hierarchy that has taken shape. This is being done at the expense of the side that has lost. Unfortunately, the side that lost the Cold War is Russia. The Balkan conflict may lead to a new geopolitical split in the world -- the United States and the European powers on one side, and Russia, China, India, and Third-World countries which feel that they have been done out of their fair share on the other. But there will not, of course, be a unipolar world headed by a superpower. As we know, no one has ever been able to achieve world domination. By the way, sending NATO infantry into Kosovo will lead to no good -- Brussels is forgetting that this mountainous and forested territory is nothing like a desert. It will be even more difficult than Vietnam. [Petrosova] Your prognosis?(more) 6 may dp/owen
[Rogov] I do not believe that Clinton, in the 18 months that he still has in power, will simply shoot up unhappy Yugoslavia. He will try to resolve the conflict by other means. Strong-arm interference may continue until they start bringing home the bodies of U.S. soldiers. That will sharply change the tenor of public opinion in the United States, which today sympathizes with the Kosovars and is indignant at "the Serbs' brutality." The conflict may move into a different phase when a different president accedes to power. When a different president accedes to power, he will have to look for peaceful ways out of the conflict, and it will not be possible to do this without acknowledging the key role of Russia -- both in diplomacy and among future peacekeeping troops.