Celebrating 90 Years - Foreign Policy Association

Relations Between Russia
and the United States
74 | FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION
(Continued)
the problem of Iran’s nuclear program, like any
other international problem, cannot be resolved
by force. Therefore, there is no alternative to
a political and diplomatic settlement. Iran
is undergoing a political process that can be
influenced positively only through engagement.
We should have learned the lesson of how
dangerous it is to artificially create rogue states
and to refuse to provide equal security for all.
We can hardly prevent mistaken steps
if someone is determined to take them, but
we will feel sorry if our partners make a
hasty choice in resolutions concerning Iran or
unilateral independence for Kosovo. The real
question is whether the United States, Europe,
the Middle East, and the entire international
community can afford such moves.
It is quite telling that appeals to build
pressure on Iran, while leaving no options on
the table, were voiced precisely at the moment
when the International Atomic Energy Agency
obtained Tehran’s pledge and commitment
to resolve the important issues related to its
nuclear program. Let us not forget that a similar
situation existed in 2003 vis-à-vis Iraq, when
the IAEA was not given a chance to complete
the work it had begun, and the so-called
coalition of the willing, in circumvention of the
U.N. Security Council, undertook to accomplish
the mission. By the way, coalitions of the
willing do not constitute multilateralism. They
are simply a group of countries subscribing to
decisions already made by somebody else. As
Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote, they are “longing for
submission to somebody else’s will.” I think that
true multilateralism is found not in the number
of participants, but rather in the modalities of
their participation. Multilateralism implies
joint analysis from the very beginning, joint
decision-making, and consequently, shared
responsibility. If this approach had been applied
in respect to, say, Iraq, I think the results could
have been different.
As for Iran, we started working in the
format of six countries, and at the very
beginning, we agreed to work on a collective
basis and within the U.N. Security Council. The
Council included three countries in Europe, the
United States, Russia, and China. However, in
addition to our mutually developed plan, which
has been endorsed by the Security Council and
has begun to bring results, the United States
and some European countries have announced
unilateral and obviously disproportionate
sanctions against Iran. Such steps absolutely
damage the common course.
Our relations with the European Union
have suffered from what I would call collective
unilateralism. The new members of the EU
seem to be mesmerized by their numbers,
and each of them may demand solidarity with
everyone else on any individual problem. As
a result, we encounter a bloc position, and
we find this bloc position not only when we
negotiate directly with the EU, but also when
we negotiate in the United Nations, in the
Coalitions of the willing do not
constitute multilateralism. They
are simply a group of countries
subscribing to decisions already
made by somebody else.