Red Line - this week we discuss Gypsies' expulsion from France, compare Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama and talk about John McCain

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Welcome to the Voice of Russia and its weekend program Red Line.  Every weekend we Sergei Strokan, Mira Salganik and Ekaterina Kudashkina discuss the most significant events of the week. We are joined in the discussion by Russian and foreign experts, political, academic or cultural figures sharing or opposing our views on the vast and increasingly interdependent world shared by all of us. We want the program to be personal, provocative and above all honest. 

Sergei Strokan: This week we shall discuss a Pan-European scandal that is rocking the world. The scandal over Gypsies in France. Who are they - a tribe, a minority, a clan? I don’t know really, how to define them. Down rotten of Earth versus cream of humanity, or cream of humanity versus vagabonds, looters and trouble-makers? The answer depends on our vision of this interdependent world we keep on talking about week after week.  

Mira Salganik: This is our first heading – Beyond the Headlines. President Sarkozy has decided that time has come to rid his country of Gypsies. You may ask, why? Well, he believes the Roma (alias Gypsy) minority are linked to all kinds of crime, from prostitution to child slavery. So, now he is dismantling their illegal squatter camps and sending Roma back to Eastern Europe. Let me emphasize one thing which makes the main controversy. Officially the campaign is called voluntary return program in the framework of which the deportees get free air-tickets; adults are given 300 euro per person, minors – 100 euro each.  But! Those who do not wish to return voluntarily receive an order to leave France with which they must carry out within a month’s time or face forced repatriation - without the cash handout.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: So, it’s only natural that Mr. Sarkozy’s policy has been widely criticized. Many claim it amounts to racism, that Gypsies are among the most impoverished minorities in European Union's, and that Sarkozy is playing to the far right before the 2012 presidential election to boost his poor approval ratings. Analysts suggest that Sarkozy is trying to recover at least some votes he lost after the recent scandal involving famous L’Oreal Company’s alleged funding of his election campaign. However, Sarkozy’ strategy seems to have certain appeal with the public: the latest opinion poll indicates that his ethnic policy is supported by about 80% voters. Something we need to reflect on… But – the figure is really impressive. 

Sergei Strokan: Surely, there is another side to the success – loss of image. Not Sarkozy’s alone, but the image of France too. Paris Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois said that he planned to meet with the interior minister to tell him what Roman Catholics think "and to remind him that there are certain lines that must not be crossed."   Pope Benedict XVI urged people to accept "legitimate human diversity" in remarks widely interpreted as a message about the Roma. The Apostolic See is always cautious. Amnesty International is not. Amnesty International said that linking Roma to crime may "lead to even further discrimination" against them. It added: "No one should be returned or expelled simply because they are Roma." Finally, the British Times went even further. It compared demolishing of Gypsy camps to Gestapo’s manhunts of Gypsies whom Hitler earmarked for total extermination. By no means a pleasant comparison. 

Mira Salganik: And one can go on. Yet, French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux dismissed criticism as "political blather" and insisted racial prejudice was not behind the operation.  He insists the problem was illegal camps. "We are enforcing simple rules. One cannot just illegally occupy land without authorization." So France brushed off the criticism and put 300 Gypsies, or Roma, on flights to their home country of Romania. Please, mark this “home country” as we shall have to come to the term! 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: France has already been expelling Gypsies for the past few years. According to Rom Europe, the advocacy group some 12,000 were deported in 2009. There have been 25 rounds of expulsions already this year; however, the number of the deported has not been disclosed. Many critics pointed out that the policy of “voluntary return” quickly dubbed as “voluntary deportation” is not only discriminatory – contradicting all human rights – but absurd, because the Roma who had been deported, simply return to France. Romania and Bulgaria from where most of the Gypsies are coming to Europe are now members of the European Union, and their citizens can enter France without a visa. 

Sergei Strokan: Like this Roma woman who was recently turned out of an illegal camp in the Paris suburbs said she has already been expelled to Romania once before but immediately returned to France. She said "I could not live there. So, I bought a bus ticket to come back." Just like that! Meanwhile, Romania’s foreign minister Theodor Baconschi sees the problem this way: "I am worried about the risks of populism and xenophobic reactions in a context of economic crisis". He added that Romania cannot prevent a deportee from France to go back there unless there is a judicial decision against him.  

Mira Salganik: All this civilized bickering is making it abundantly clear that neither new nor old Europeans are particularly keen to have Roma in their territories.  Just came to my mind: the EU is lucky not to have Russia as a member - with her large Gypsy community!  And we all know how prejudiced is society against them here. As a matter of fact distrust of the Gypsies is a common phenomenon everywhere including India from where they originally hail. There are historical reasons for it. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: But in the Soviet times a lot has been done to integrate Gypsies socially, to make them non-migratory, to open education and create jobs for them… 

Sergei Strokan: And they did very well indeed, say, in performing arts: this famous Romen theatre in Moscow is still immensely popular. 

Mira Salganik: But the question is: are the Gypsies willing to trade their traditional way of life for integration into modern society?  Look, it has been proved linguistically and genetically that Gypsies come from North India, their language is Sanskrit- based. Why and when they left their motherland is not really known. But at least for a thousand years this mysterious tribe is roaming around the globe, so to speak, fiercely safeguarding their language and customs known as the Gypsy law. Sergei, as an Indologist you know it all and I guess you would agree that Gypsies are unique in the sense that they make the only nation without a territory of its own. 

Sergei Strokan: True. In 1971 at the World Roma Congress held in London they have proclaimed Roma to be the only non-territorial nation. It means that Roma will have to remain a minority in any country they live. Hence the conclusion: the sooner they integrate into the ethnos of the country of their residence the better is it for both the indigenous population and the Roma. There is no other way, is there? Speaking of the EU, every member of it has integration programs for Roma and efforts are made to settle them. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: May I ask you, learned people, a couple of questions? First, could you tell me what is the proper name of the people? What are these people to be called – Roma? Gypsy? Something else? 

Sergei Strokan: Again it has to do with their history. The name “Gypsy” comes from Egypt where they lived for a couple of centuries. “Roma” comes from Byzantium or Eastern Roman Empire. Plus, there are dozens other, local appellations that you’d better check in the Net.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: At least now I know that you don’t know everything which is a consolation. Still, my second question: the French media is filled with stories of Gypsies demonstrating violently in Paris suburbs like Neuilly-sur-Seine where Nicolas Sarkozy was Mayor for almost 20 years till 2002. They are rioting in Grenoble and a number of other places. Should the French government react to it somehow?  

Sergei Strokan: Most certainly! Except that it doesn’t involve punishing a whole community for misdeeds perpetrated by individuals or, say, a group of criminals. Sentencing a whole ethnic minority is racial discrimination. Besides, Gypsies are not the only criminals in France, not even the only foreign criminals – whether French passport holders or otherwise – but Sarkozy has chosen the most vulnerable minority for his law-and-order enforcement drive.  About demolition of their camping sited – if the Gypsies settled there illegally, that is without permission of the local authorities, they have to be told either to apply for permission or to be given another site. Pre-emptory deportation en masse certainly is a contradiction of EU laws.   

Mira Salganik: And Sergei, I don’t think I can subscribe to your view of integration. I am sure that integration must be a two-way traffic. Pope Benedict XVI has made a very important point urging people to accept "legitimate human diversity”. Migration processes in the present day world cannot be curtailed, nor can their vector be changed – from overpopulated poor countries to the rich and well developed ones. Instead of trying to homogenize humanity we must learn to make compromises needed to live in today’s multi-ethnic society in Europe and elsewhere. To learn to understand the other. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Now let’s see what is the position of our today’s expert, Professor Sergei Arutyunov, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the head of Caucasus Department at the Institute of Ethnology. Professor Autyunov, our first question: what in your view should be the government policy in developed countries towards the massive immigration these countries attract? Should they and can they stop it or should they try to integrate the immigrants? 

Sergei Arutyunov: Of course, the second option is much more preferable. You see, the climate on the planet is getting warmer, glaciers are melting and torrents of water with mud and stones are running down the slopes of the Andes and the Alps. And in the same way, the political and social climate on the planet is also getting warmer. Huge masses of population, which could be frozen in their initial habitats in undeveloped countries, now come into movement and torrents of immigrants ram across the surface of our planet. And the same as water is running from top to the bottom, the same way the immigrants are naturally going from less developed places to more developed places, from undeveloped countries to highly-developed countries. And nothing can be done about it. These torrents may be devastating - they carry with them lots of mud and stones, and can destroy houses and gardens. What, for example Sarkozy is trying to do, is to pump the torrents back to the sources, but it is nonsense, it is not possible at all. You may try to erect dams and barriers, but they are not sufficiently efficient and not efficiently sufficient.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Professor, I just wanted to make some things more clear perhaps for our listeners. Is it justified if we call the gypsies immigrants and if we talk about getting them back to their sources, because the gypsy community is rather special. I don’t think we can trace them back to their sources right now.  

Sergei Arutyunov: What about sources? You have Chinese immigrants all around the world - they are mostly from southern China. They have not originated a thousand years ago or several thousand years ago, in this southern part of China. Southern China was a land of barbarians. So, Chinese in southern China are also immigrants, but thousand-year-old or two-thousand-year-old immigrants from the north. And just the same, gypsies have a thousand-year-long history - their migration started from northern India through Iran, through the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, Spain, northern Africa to southern and central Europe. They were immigrants everywhere, in all parts of this difficult way. For centuries they have lived in Romania, in Bulgaria, in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and so on. They can’t be considered the native population of these countries of southeastern Europe. In Britain they appeared, if I’m not mistaken, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. And there were draconian laws against gypsies under Queen Elizabeth, as well as against all people who could have been helping gypsies or accepting them. So, the persecution of gypsies has a long history even in northern Europe, in Britain, for example. A Slavic-speaking Bulgarian or a Turkish-speaking Bulgarian is an immigrant when he comes to France. Whether he is a gypsy or a true Bulgarian, whether he is a Christian or a Muslim - it doesn’t matter - he is an immigrant, he comes with a different culture and has to adjust to the culture of France.  

Sergei Strokan: Professor, but I hope you will agree that if we speak about gypsies as a global phenomenon, this is actually the question of an integration model. Do you think that multiethnic societies are to become multicultural ones? Can you elaborate on that please? 

Sergei Arutyunov: Yes, it cannot be otherwise. A multiethnic society must be multicultural and this is also a great resource in the prosperity of such a society, because a multicultural society can combine many traditions. I have lived and I have taught in California, in Arizona, in southern United States, where in every town there are at least four groups of people: white American, black American, Mexican or Latin American, and natives, the American Indians.   

Sergei Strokan: Please explain why didn’t it work in France? 

Mira Salganik: Why can’t they live in France in the same manner as you described their living? 

Sergei Arutyunov: France cannot help but be a multicultural society, because there are genuine French who have lived in this country from the beginning of the Christian era, from the collapse of the Latin Empire, and also there are people of various roots. French people in Normandy and French people in Provence are not the same, they have different cultures, it is obvious. But besides, there are a lot of immigrants from African colonies of France and from Martinique and Guadalupe, as well as a plenty of Arabs from Maghreb and a massive immigration from Poland. 

Mira Salganik: Excuse me, Professor. Can you explain why did Sarkozy earmarked the gypsies; given there are many immigrants in France everybody knows? 

Sergei Arutyunov: Every group of immigrants creates its own problems. Sometimes these problems are easy to cope with, sometimes not, but they cannot be solved by pumping people back to their sources of origin. They cannot be solved by erecting dams and barriers either. They can be solved only by digging some channels, creating some niches where you can accommodate these immigrants, because they will keep coming and you cannot avoid it.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Professor, thank you very much indeed, it was very nice talking to you.   

Now let us come to the Red Line's second heading Between the Lines to discuss the most intriguing publication of the week. This time I am sure it should be The Chicago Tribune story “Call me Ishmael”, a splendid piece of journalism, comparing the latest public exposures of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama.  

Sergei Strokan: The paper is quick to note that while Putin shot with a crossbow a gray whale off Russia's eastern coast in a scientific expedition Obama bought shrimp at Nancy's Restaurant on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. You may say that these are two unrelated episodes - one is connected to Mr. Putin’s private life, and the other one to the private life of Barack Obama. However, the editorial sobers its audience with a straightforward question: “We ask you: Which is cooler?” 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: I loved the piece – it’s witty, amusing and – gently provocative, inviting you to reflect on things which we have grown accustomed to, but which are nevertheless very significant.  To start with the title “Call me Ishmael” which is the opening phrase from the famous Moby Dick novel by Henry Melvill – my favorite, about the adventures of the wandering sailor Ishmael and his voyage on the whale-ship Pequod. Well, who, do you think, is the person the Chicago Tribune designates as another Ishmael? You'll never guess. It is Vladimir Putin, the all-powerful prime-minister of the Russian Federation.  But - joking aside, what impressed me in this piece was a clever analysis of how Obama's and Putin's images are built and why they appeal to such large numbers of people both inside the two countries and abroad. And that's what I think is worth talking about. 

Mira Salganik: So, it is not only the story about Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama and their image-building campaigns. It is an attempt to draw a line, excuse me this pun, to draw a red line between private and public elements in the life of national leaders.  Specifically, the first big question is what part of the private life of the world leaders should be deliberately exposed to consolidate their positions both at home and abroad. So it is a sort of pre-planned, carefully calculated move. The other question is what is the relevance of every photo opportunity, or every public gesture disseminated by world media to the actual policy of the people at the helm of power whose every step inevitably comes under the scrutiny of millions?  And this is the way how the question “Which is cooler?” - comes up. 

Sergei Strokan: Going back to The Chicago Tribune story, Mira, the questions you are referring to, are put with the overwhelming charm. “Has swimming with dolphins and bare-chested fishing burnished Putin's image? Would wrestling a grizzly bear or skydiving into the Grand Canyon aid Obama's? Can it hurt him any more than visiting the Vineyard to eat seafood that someone else - maybe Putin himself - caught?”, - the author deliberates. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: If we speak about Obama we need to remind our listeners of the shrimp topic. Shortly after The Chicago Tribune story was published, President Obama who had already completed his holiday at Martha's Vineyard visited New Orleans to mark the 5-th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina with a solidarity visit to this city which is still recovering from the devastating storm. His first stop was the Parkway Bakery and Tavern, a century-old landmark in the Mid-City neighborhood that Katrina submerged under 10 feet of water. There he ate a shrimp po'-boy sandwich, - a nod to the safety of gulf seafood after the BP oil spill - and kissed the cheek of the woman who took his order. “We're still here, and we're just going to keep on building," Obama told the diners. "We're going to keep on working, all right?" And then a call came over the loudspeaker announcing, "Pickup, Barack."  

Sergei Strokan: Must have been a not-what-you’d-call a case of top-class PR, Katya. In fact according to Gallup Obama's approval numbers in polling now hit the lowest point during his presidency - 43 percent. Like the editorial put it, “critics smell blood in the water, and it isn't the whale's”. To follow the editorial’s logic comparing the two leaders, given that Putin and Obama have different political agendas, each of them has had his own share of trouble. Both need to counter the economic crisis and its consequences. Both the US administration and the Russian government could hardly be described as efficient in fighting major environmental trouble, like the BP oil spill in the Mexican gulf or summer wildfires that were raging across Russia this summer. However, Mr. Obama’s popularity is nose-diving, whereas Mr. Putin’s remains comfortably high. According to Gallup pollsters, Putin’s approval rating is soaring at some 74 percent. How would you explain that? 

Mira Salganik: One thing is obvious. No PR strategy could do the trick if there is – how shall I put it – if there is no flesh, no real politics behind the image. Yet, there’s no doubt that the real politics must be well highlighted by the image, and it’s most important that the image should hold a great deal of appeal to the public. So, I’d suggest we take a closer look at what our prime-minister is doing and how he’s perceived by the Russian voters. 

Sergei Strokan: Well, most observers point to Mr. Putin’s ‘ultra-macho’ image which he has been carefully cultivating since the early days of his presidency. If you remember, back in 2000 he piloted the SU-27 jet fighter, and supervised the navy exercise from his command post aboard Karelia nuclear submarine. He still keeps his image of confident and resolute leader, a hands-on commander, capable of taking hard decisions with a clear view of strategic perspective.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: This month, for instance he was shown piloting a fire-fighting plane and, like we said, going after whales with scientists in a rubber boat in the Pacific. And – what the WSJ described as ‘remarkable even by Mr. Putin’s standards’,  he travelled some 1,240 miles from the Pacific coast city of Khabarovsk to Chita, a town near Mongolian border, on a soon-to-be-completed stretch of a highway, the first paved road linking eastern and western Russia. For half of the trip he was driving – and talking to reporters – from behind the wheel of the yellow Lada Kalina compact. And he sounded just as tough as he looked. 

Sergei Strokan: "What we're doing convinces me that we're on the right track", he told the Russian Kommersant daily, asked whether he regrets any mistakes he made during a decade in power. "The main thing is to make sure these problems around 2012 don't pull us off the path of this stable development," he told the reporter, describing his vision of the coming Russia’s presidential election. He also sounded rather imperative talking of the Russian – US relations, saying he supports the "reset" in relations with the US and believes Mr. Obama does, too. But he questioned US moves he described as going against its spirit, such as arms sales to Russian rival Georgia and US plans for building missile defense in Eastern Europe. "Where's this reset? In this area, we don't see it," he said.   

Mira Salganik: Well, such image could really be appealing, especially in difficult times. And perhaps President Obama could use some of it, too.  

Sergei Strokan: But, like the Chicago Tribune put it, “no wind-surfing. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can explain”. The final remark sounds rather puzzling to me. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: That’s a perfect reminder of how powerful a weapon images can be. The story goes all the way back to the 2004 presidential campaign. At the time Kerry launched what even some Republicans quietly said was the most effective Democratic offensive - directly taking on the increasing violence in Iraq and accusing Bush of ignoring what Kerry described is a worsening crisis. And, as we can see now, Senator Kerry had a point.  Then – there always comes the ‘then” -  Mark McKinnon, senior adviser of George Bush election campaign, saw a video of John Kerry windsurfing off Nantucket during his holidays, his boat twisting back and forth in the gusty air – just the maneuver Republicans accused the Democratic candidate of making on important policy issues for months. McKinnon used the footage to produce a simple ad piece starting with a question ''In which direction would John Kerry lead?"  In fact the ad featured nothing more than a video image of Kerry windsurfing for the duration of the spot. Its closing phrase sounded point blank: ''John Kerry. Whichever way the wind blows." Well, the piece came as a powerful blow on the whole of Kerry’s presidential campaign…   

Sergei Strokan: Great and simple, like the saying goes. And now I suggest we turn to experts in image building, who could explain to us some of the details in Mr. Putin’s image-building effort. We are now joined by Boris Makarenko, the Chairman of the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. Well, two leaders have different domestic agendas. Do you find anything common in their public exposure? 

Boris Makarenko: I don’t think President Obama ever uses this kind of language that Mr. Putin uses, which I find so difficult to translate. Slang, hard language against street protests for instance - I would not expect anything like that from President Barack Obama. Western press and sometimes Russian press as well often portray some of Mr. Putin’s adventures, like using a crossbow for getting a sample of grey whale’s skin or driving a sports car on the new highways to Siberia. They like to portray this as PR moves.  I would not deny there is a PR dimension in all these things, but if you look at Mr. Putin on the TV screen, he obviously enjoys it, it is fun for him. He does not want to look like a macho - he wants to be a macho. I don’t think that President Obama thinks of that image. The political culture in America is quite different and if he did anything of the kind, a Russian or a pragmatic American would probably say: What is he doing? He’s got a thousand problems on his back and he is hunting whales? As for Mr. Putin, much of the public enjoys to see their Prime Minister in this capacity. Putin is Putin and Obama is Obama.  

Sergei Strokan: Well, but Mr. Makarenko, what are the political technologies in the politics of today? In other words, can smart PR moves somehow substitute for real political steps? 

Boris Makarenko: I wouldn’t use this kind of mannequin picture. If you don’t use what you called political technologies - Americans don’t - then political technologies would be a euphemism or a synonym for a doctrine. It’s a big question. Politicians want to win elections, they want to sell themselves and their policies to the public and they use all the media available. As long as they do it in ways in which political culture and public of the country finds acceptable, and not dirty - it’s fine. Whether or not to call that a political technology is up to your taste.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: And now we move to our concluding heading – The Man in News. This time we thought it should be John McCain. Unruffled warrior of US neocons, a one-time world headliner who stubbornly resists all attempts to write him off as a constant loser in the fight for political helm and rebuffs that old is gold also in politics.   

Sergei Strokan: After the last week primaries in Arizona there is every reason to believe that a 74 year-old veteran of the US politics has totally healed the wounds of the latest presidential campaign of 2008, miserably lost to Barack Obama and is preparing for a spectacular comeback.  As Obama’s popularity rating is nose-diving, and there are growing signs of disarray in the democratic camp, McCain has comfortably won the republican primaries to be propelled for another term in US senate – fifth in his career – that must be a nice present for his birthday of August, 29. And the most surprising thing is that he has seemingly made a U-turn on some of the key issues he stood by very firm. So my question is what would be the implications for the world as the pendulum in US has obviously swung in opposite direction?  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, while Americans primarily think of John McCain in terms of upcoming mid-term elections as an important indicator of electorate sentiment in the US, we here are more interested in Mr. McCain in a different way. His pledges to force Russia out of G8 along with his rambling jokes about the eyes of Vladimir Putin and Russian soil is only part of the whole thing. For example, as McCain says that the US troops should stay in Iraq till what he defined as a permanent, undisputable  victory or when he openly supported Georgia in the Caucasus war, we come to regard him as embodiment of certain tendencies in the world politics which are not only American, but global.  So, given that he’s modified his stance on a number of issues, I suppose, it’s important to see whether we would face another John McCain, whether his message on international issues to the voters in 2010 would be different. Or is he not that new? 

Sergei Strokan: What do you mean, the ‘new John McCain’? 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, some say that there are "two McCains," their long-time, "maverick," straight-talking Senator, and the new conservative, Tea Party-courting McCain.   In fact this led Stephen Colbert, the host of the popular satirical program the Colber Report, to start his program with offering his condolences to Arizona Senator John McCain for losing his primary bid for re-election.  “No incumbent out there last night suffered a more decisive defeat than Senator John McCain,” said fake conservative Colbert. “Last evening he was rejected by voters for his anti-tax cut, anti-border views. Instead they voted for a candidate who took the exact opposite position of John McCain, dark horse candidate ... John McCain.”  

Sergei Strokan: But, Katya, McCain has denied he had reinvented himself. You might remember that he insisted he would be returning to the Senate "the same guy who left it". He said: "I do not buy the storyline that I have changed." 

Mira Salganik: Anyway, Sergei and Katya, regardless of what he’s saying,  it seems that he’s actually made a U-turn on a number of core domestic policies, including the immigration issue, which is extremely sensitive for the US – which is a country of immigrants etc. And mind you, in 2006 together with Senator Edward Kennedy, he led the effort to pass reform legislation envisaging legalization of illegal immigrants. This year McCain demanded to “complete the danged fence” and urged that more troops be deployed on the border with Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out.  Many observers now have come to call him flip-flopper of convenience and say he may have lost what was left of his soul.  Remember, he once said he was not much of an economist? And after he said so his popularity rating fell drastically? 

Sergei Strokan: Do you mean, back in December, 2007? But now he’s going into detailed analysis on economic issues, isn’t he? 

Mira Salganik: He blamed the democratic government, as he obviously should, in paying no attention to the dire economic circumstances many Americans have found themselves in. I suppose, he said something like “it's time that they – the Obama administration - sat down and reevaluated and figured out where they're going and what they're doing, is disastrous for our country”.   

Ekaterina Kudashkina: But do you think it’s fair to blame the incumbent for all economic ills the US is suffering from now?  After all, Obama’s government has been trying to straighten things out for a much shorter period than the previous administration which, as it turns out only made things worse. The George W. Bush administration was working on it for eight years!      And then look what McCain’s saying: “The Obama Administration might look and see what the conservative government in England is planning.”  Now, that really looks like a ‘faux pas’. The US voters who are not too keen  on foreign politics, wouldn’t have appreciated that statement had they known exactly that Mr. McCain was referring to some of the measures Cameron’s government is about to announce  - the measures that are likely to be extremely unpopular. 

Mira Salganik: The electorate discontent is what John McCain’s felt and what he’s been wise to take advantage of during his election campaign… He’s blaming the current government for the dire straits the national economy has been going through for some years already, he’s blaming the current immigrant legislation... 

Sergei Strokan: But all these issues are part of the US internal policy. Whereas for us as I said before it would be more relevant to look into whether there are reasons to expect that the new McCain has also changed his attitude on some of the US foreign policy issues.   Look, he’s been saying the US needs a bigger army for more militaristic foreign policy, that he would indict Castro, he’s been linking the nuclear program in Iran with an existential threat to US and a possible prospect of the second Holocaust, and at a 2008 Presidential campaign event he was famously singing “Bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”.  Besides he’s still not a great friend of Russia, is he?  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, I suppose, he seems to be still living in the times of the Cold War, at least, he doesn’t seem to be aware of the recent changes in the global system of international relations. And his stand on Russia has not changed for years!  

Mira Salganik: Let me remind you that McCain’s views on Russia go back to the Reagan years. To quote Robert Kagan, an informal McCain adviser at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who compared McCain to those more eager to support anti-Communist autocrats - "He was a reignite in the Cold War — that was a pro-democracy, anti-Communist approach,” he said.  And not only was he an ardent supporter of Russia’s anticommunist movement and democratic development, but he was also supportive of president Yeltsin from the early '90s through the mid-'90s. 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: If I got it right, John McCain is the chairman of the International Republican Institute, which gets federal funding to promote democratic reform abroad.  And he’s remained at that position since 1993. 

Sergei Strokan: But, then, how would you explain that in 1996 when Russia was still governed by Boris Yeltsin, McCain was already warning of the danger of “Russian nostalgia for empire”? 

Mira Salganik: That was when Russia already was near economic ruin, and McCain accused the Clinton team of overlooking Yeltsin’s flaws and betraying Russian liberals.    By mid 90-s McCain already became a public critic of Yeltsin — and of the Clinton administration’s policy of supporting him.  “We should make clear to Russia that we appreciate the importance of Russian stability to our own security,” Mr. McCain said. “But we should make equally clear to Russia that we are free to pursue all opportunities for enhancing our security and that of our allies.” 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: This phrase reminds me of his rhetoric during the Balkan conflicts of the mid- and late-'90s. At the time McCain, like many in Congress, was appalled by Russia’s support for Serbia. Just like he was also strongly critical of Russia’s position during the military conflict with Georgia.  But then let’s see – this already happened when Russia was governed by Dmitry Medvedev, who succeeded to Vladimir Putin, whom McCain could never accept as a reliable partner.  If he tended to support Yeltsin at the early stages of Yeltsin’s career, he rejected the second Russian President right from the start - as soon as Yeltsin handed the power to Putin from 1999 to 2000. At the time some argued that the technocratic new strongman could stabilize Russia to the benefit of the West. McCain was not among the optimists. 

Sergei Strokan: But that antipathy did not seem to be well-grounded. Just take his phrase that he only saw the letters KGB in Putin’s eyes. “I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K”, a “G”, and a “B” he said.  This does not sound serious. Secret service background in quite a number of politicians, including George Bush the Senior, has never been seen as a minus, has it? 

Mira Salganik: But he’s been accusing Putin of suppressing democracy in Russia. In 2003 McCain delivered a speech on the “new authoritarianism” in Russia, aimed at waking America up to the threat from what he called “a country that increasingly appears to have more in common with its Soviet and Czarist predecessors than with the modern state Vladimir Putin claims to aspire to build." 

Ekaterina Kudashkina: This reminds me of another one of his statements after Mr. Putin delivered his famous speech in Munich in February, 2007. Mr. Putin went on to denounce the US foreign policy, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and McCain in the audience. However, McCain was quick to voice the American reaction: “Moscow must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions, at home and abroad, conflict so fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies,” he said. Then, as you said Sergei, he’s been calling for Russia to be booted out of the Group of Eight nations for straying from the club’s founding principles. He said that in his opinion Russia was still being run by former President Vladimir Putin. “We need to improve their behavior,” McCain told ABC television. So, he still seems to be rather unhappy about Russia even now, when it’s governed by Dmitry Medvedev.  So, is there any hope for us left? 

Sergei Strokan: Till there’s life, there’s hope, Katya. Let’s see. McCain’s current foreign policy team is largely drawn from the circle of neoconservatives who backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now, I guess, that despite the recent change in voter sentiment for the right, many foreign policy experts still see Russia as fundamentally less dangerous than the Soviet Union.  Besides, and that’s very important, the US also needs to work with Russia on issues from nuclear weapons to Middle East diplomacy. European allies also rely on Russia for energy supplies. So the reasonable way, to my mind, would be to look for solutions without getting engaged in Cold War rhetoric.  Let us discuss it with our experts. Now we are joined by Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Politics Magazine. Mr. Lukyanov, how far Mr. McCain’s influence might go is he wins his next term at the US Senate? 

Fyodor Lukyanov: John McCain probably will easily win his seat in the Senate and of course, he is one of the most respected and influential persons in the Republican Party. So, of course, his presence in the political debate is very important. At the same time, it is quite difficult to imagine that Mr. McCain, for example, will try again to run for President in 2012. But, of course, any Republican candidate will gain endorsement by McCain and have enormous advantage than the other contenders.  

Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, but Mr. Lukyanov, McCain seems to be rather consistent in his perception of Russia as a threat both to its neighbors and the US. Do you think he might change the stance somehow? 

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr. McCain is a typical representative of the Republican Party. He also had wide personal experience during the Vietnam War. At the same time, he is not the most radical member of the Republican Party and with his certain inclination to look at Russia through the very conservative prism. In case he would have been elected President in 2008, he would probably have been much more cautious and moderate than one can imagine from his statements. The real problem in the Republican Party today is that its most active part, those who endorse the movement against Obama or those who are very active in different public appearances, are much radical than McCain and they used to be not realist-minded, but very much logically-minded. Actually, McCain can play a positive role with his authority and his reputation to make his party colleagues more realistic.