Victor Kremenyuk

Deputy Director of the Institute for USA and Canada Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences

Interviewed by Jennifer Goldman — 2003

Listen to Full Interview

Q: So I have a general sense of the field that you're in from the e-mail that I received from William Zartman and some other things. But before we officially begin the interview, I'd like to gain a better understanding of your background. So please tell me anything you think would be particularly helpful for me to know about your work, your current work, your background...before we begin.

A: So I am in the field about more than three decades. And, originally, my subject was the Soviet/American relationship in the days of the Cold War. Mainly the conflicts in this original relationship, including the theory of conflict, the study of conflict, resolution of conflict, crisis management, negotions, and conflict resolution, of course. As well I was, of course, engaged in the research not only of the direct Soviet/American conflict, but also some other conflicts which you have already mentioned, like the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea, some other regional conflicts, mainly in the ??? of the Soviet Union - of the then Soviet Union. Since then, of course, I was engaged in some both open and closed research of this subject, preparing some position papers and policy papers for the government, but also publishing widely, both in Russian and English. And I think that maybe the best years or days in my research are behind because the most exciting period was, of course, the resolution of the Soviet/American conflict...that is the end of the Cold War when I was currently engaged in research and also in preparing some practical solutions. I also was in very close contact with my American colleagues on the problem of resolution, including Bill Zartman, whom you know, but also the differ rent projects at the Harvard University, the Brown University and Berkley. So that helped me to conduct research, not only in the Soviet system or the Soviet centers, but also the international centers. That also helped me to begin some international research projects like the Negotiation Research at IIASA. That is the International Institute for Applied Systems the Salzburg Seminar and in some other research places in...both in Europe and the Americas. Recently, now I am mainly engaged in Russian foreign policy-making, Russian-American policy in the West and in the East. Also, sometime, of course, I have to pay to the problems of the Russian attitudes towards different conflict. In many way, my maybe best work was published on conflicts in and around Russia. It was published in 1994 in English in the Greenwood Publishers in the United States So this my...widely my background...the area where I worked and the subject which I touched in my research.

Q: That's very helpful and I'm sure we'll come back to some of things that you mentioned. Right now, it would be helpful for me to gain a better understanding of how you think about enduring conflict situations or these intractable conflict situations.

A: Well, I think, you know, that there is a certain unexpected development in this area because when the Cold War ended, there was a feeling...rather wide-spread, both in this country and in the international community that that opened a possibility to put an end to almost all the conflicts, including the intractable conflicts. There was such an enthusiasm shared by many people in the United Nations, in separate nations that we can move on and work out solutions of almost all of the conflict which existed. And, of course, that was supported somehow by the developments in South Africa, in Afghanistan, even in the Middle East where the possibility of some direct Arab-Israel talks was hoped. I think that now, of course, those days are behind, and now we are facing the situation that not all the conflicts were solved and not all the conflicts can be solved. Still, you know, we have the very significant or very, say important situation when the conflict continues, not only because of some civilizational things, not only because of the gap between the rich and the poor, but simply because the human society has not yet grown up to the level when it can really put an end to the conflict. The human society still needs some conflicts to go ahead, to develop. And this concerns not only the group of the backward nations, which are simply in the situation when they cannot live without conflicts. The group of nations which labeled like the Access of Evil or the rogue state, but only more developed nations. They're still mostly ??? the stage when they need to preserve the conflictual development rather than non-conflictual development. So still the problems of the conflicts continue to be extremely, extremely (?posit?--usage) It needs, of course, continuation of the research on the problems of management of the conflicts. Still, you know, the possibilities of both old conflicts and new conflicts is still very high, and the effort, you know, by the international community to undertake something, to do something to work on this conflicts is still ahead, not behind. It also includes such new say new ...areas by "terrorism", like some illegal activities, drugs and so on. Mainly this is still the problem of the human thinking, you know, because the human thinking very often, even in the developed nations prefers the controversial development rather than some development based on the search for consensus.

Q: Human thinking prefers the controversial rather than...?

A: ...non-controversial, you know, rather than the search for consensus.

Q: Can you tell me more about...? Is that a kind of theory, the problem of human thinking or is that just the words that you are using today?

A: It's a combination, you know. The human thinking...the patterns of human thinking and the real situation in some parts of the world. The problem, you know, now simply now has changed because of this globalization trends, which has changed the situation in the international relations into a say much more dramatic than it had been previously because of several groups of nations which have emerged. The group what I call the successful nations, you know, the nations of the West, which have achieved rather high developmental stability...rather high development of the human relation...of the respect to the human rights and the capability to provide the basic human needs to the members of the society. Then the group of the nations which, let's say, try to become successful but still are far from there, like Russia, or China, or India, or Iran, or the others...the nations which try to work out some sensible development strategy but still are far from the desirable level. And then the group of, let's say, failed states, you know, the states which still know...something like the stone know...they are backward; they are poor; they are ravished with the conflict. And, you know, just...the problem is that them ore developed, more civilized states, they cannot work out a sensible strategy. Very often they prefer instead of successful strategy, they prefer simply force...calling it counter-terrorist strategy like that. But, you know, at least they lay mainly on the coercion...on the violence rather on the attempt, you know, how to change the situation in the backward areas of the world. So that's what I mean when I say that it appeared that, you know, that very...very often even the developed nations they prefer simply to use violence rather than to work out some sensible solution.

Q: And what do you think is the cause underlying those...the strategy to use violence rather than working out a solution?

A: Well, to say briefly I think Huntington has described it rather brilliantly...clash of civilizations in which the more developed civilizations they...due to the fact of their power, they acquire a lot of arrogance and instead of trying to do something to help the younger brothers, they prefer to be the sheriffs, assume the position of the policeman. And that, of course, puts the problem of conflict into... ?__________?...because that makes the conflict inevitable, it perpetuates the conflict.

Q: So there's some responsibility that the more developed nations are not taking and if they would take that responsibility more seriously, it sounds like you're saying you think it would help.

A: Yeah. It's a challenge, first of all, for the more developed nations because either they feel the leaders of the whole universal. And that would mean, of course, a totally different strategy and totally different level of responsibility or they feel that they are the best among the others and they would prefer simply to defend their interests against anyone, you know, the barbarians or terrorists or poor people or say religious fanatics, but anyway...they simply regard themselves as bastions, as enclaves, as fortresses. And that's why they have the strategy of something...the strategy of coercion, which I say, perpetuates the conflict because in this way they can put an end to the conflict only if they simply annihilate their enemies.

Q: Now, can you... If we asked you to help in such kinds of situations, how would you approach them or what would you do?

A: Well, I would begin maybe with some very good and careful inventory of the whole state of affairs in the world, you know, because maybe along the lines that I have already outlined, you know, the new groups of the nations, the identification of the most dangerous and the most unstable pieces in this relationship...maybe poverty, maybe you know, just...feeling of desperation, of frustration among the whole groups of the population in the whole area. And then maybe working out some appropriate strategy for help them to overcome their current situation. So reduce the amount of the people who would prefer some violent work encourage those people in these nations, which would be appropriate for some constructive development and so forth. But that should not be carried out as an individual effort of any nation, including the United States. It should be taken out as the global effort. One of the...maybe...of the purposes of the global community. The second, of course, I would put the question of the responsibility of those governments which still continue to use violence against some people in their nations or Chechnya, or like Iraq, like Afghanistan, you know, because we understand that very often, just simply the use of force which is described as a way of solution leads to nowhere. It leads to deepening the conflict. It leads to the new stages of the destruction instead of any constructive development. So the responsibility of the government for their policies. Then, third, maybe, you know, something like the sensible international global strategy just to reduce the sources of this conflict and to create the conditions to overcome this put an end to that. Conflict resolution effort, especially in such areas as you label intractable conflict, the Middle East, India Pakistan, Koreans, the others, you know...not to bomb them but really to help them and to encourage to look for some constructive solutions. So maybe some know...educational measures and some others should also be taken. But at least these three areas of actions would be absolutely indispensable in order to overcome the existing conflict and to avoid the conflicts in the future.

Q: So you just mentioned three different ways that you might approach these kinds of conflicts. Let me repeat back what I think I heard you say to make sure I've got it right. The first piece of what you said was that you think there should be some kind of international global effort to help different nations encourage less violence, reduce violence among the people and that it should not just be a United States-led effort but really a global effort?

A: That's right.

Q: The second one that you mentioned is that there should be responsibility placed on the governments who do use violence against their own or other people, such as Chechnya, Iraq, Iran...

A: That's right.

Q: ...other places. And then the third seems similar to the first...and tell me if I'm...

A: No, no, no. The first task sound a bit, you know, wide. But it means something like a strategy to avoid the conflicts in the future and to reduce the possibility for the current conflict while the third one is a more or less concrete, specific, conflict resolution strategy for those areas where they exist and where they have acquired, you know, the intractability.

Q: Okay. And when you talk about an international global strategy or effort...?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you say more about how do you envision that? What does that mean to you?

A: Well, I tried to write about that and even publish in our newspaper, it's identification of the sources of the sources of the possible conflicts, conflicts in the future. Like environmental conflicts, you know, caused by the different consequences of the global development for the environment, like Kyoto Protocol and so on because different nations would suffer differently because of the the resources wars because of the inequality of the resources distribution in the world and the need for different nations to have an access to the resources which they don't have but they need badly like electric power or other sources of power. Then the population wars caused by this...the inability, you know, large sections of the population to simply survive in some areas and what forces them get access to some better organized societies. Like just the millions of people who went to emigrate to the United States or to Europe or to some developed nations in Asia and the wars based on impossibility of some societies to take in all those amounts of people who want to emigrate. So the wars based on the inequality of the development and inequality of the resources...the situation of the inequality over any other things and the inequality of consequences of industrial development for the environment and so on. So, first of all, I think that a large effort should be taken to try to identity where can we expect the conflicts....why they should come. I'm excluding now ideological conflicts. I'm excluding maybe conflicts based on some religious differences because more or less they are known and we have already knowledge how...what do with them but not with the others. And then on the basis of this inventory, you know, just to try to work out sensible can all these conflicts...expected conflicts be treated. What should be done for this purpose; what resources we need; what strategies should be worked out; and what purposes should be set; how can we avoid all these population wars, resources wars, environmental wars and so on. This is roughly what I think about this part of the subject.

Q: And so there would be some kind of international or global group that would get together and help all around the world different conflict situations...

A: You know, I don't think particularly of any one agency. But we have already enough of the international groups, for us and so on. Like, for example, the G-8 could do something here. And, as far as I know, the G-8 is trying to do... There is something like an effort within that group on the conflict identification and the problems of working out the level of strategy. The U.N., of course can do something about it. NATO can do within its area of responsibility...other regional organizations. So we have the mechanisms. The problem is simply to give the people the sense of where are the problems related to conflicts exist and what they should to avoid that. Because I say, you know, if we set as a moral principle that there will be no more violent solutions maybe only in some cases when really have to do with some criminals like maybe the narco barons in the Latin America. But mainly as a principle, no more violent solutions, only non-violent solutions...legally based. The solutions oriented towards th use of some economic measures, social, cultureal measures, social measures, educational effort. In that sense, you know, just, of course, we should need all these mechanisms to start working.

Q: And is there some theoretical material or background that informs the approach that you're suggesting?

A: Yes, of course. I have completed a month or two months ago an article for some Russian theoretical magazine on the conflict management in thecurrent situation. Of course, that needs some additional theoretical research...not so much maybe on the strategy of conflict because that is, more or less, we have worked out during the days of the Cold War. I think it simply should be stressed on conflict resolution and conflict management. You know, these two disciplines. Conflict resolution is also, more or less, worked out...maybe it simply needs some additional things. I think that what I would suggest is conflict management...a new thing which should become like a cover notion for all the efforts which concern the conflict...the subject of the conflict...that is conflict control, conflict avoidance, conflict resolution, all this subjects should go under this major cup of the conflict management, which still needs or rather I will say intensive international research. What is the conflict management? What purposes it should bear? What type of mechanisms should be suggested? What types of strategies these mechanisms should carry out in order to put the existing and the possible future conflict on some manageable grounds.

Q: So again, I'll repeat back what I think you just said that we can go deeper into some of the things you said. So it sounds like you feel there are two different area here: one would be conflict resolution and the other is conflict management. And under conflict management, it includes conflict control, conflict avoidance and conflict resolution.

A: Resolution.

Q: Okay. Can you say more about each of those three: Conflict control, conflict avoidance, and conflict resolution and how you envision those?

A: I have to think, you know, because some of them are, as I say, are more known and already studied in depth....those at the UN level and in different national research centers like Bill Zartman in the many other peole, you know, U.S. like the people were make research of conflict resolution in the Anna Arbor in the U.S. so I think that you know maybe even more than me about these people working in those area...I mean, the conflict resolution as such. Conflict control is a bit different, but it also was worked out by, mainly it was...the idea was helped by the U.N - US Association. There was even such a work called Controlling the Conflicts. It was still in the seventies, but the ideas which were laid down, I think, are still applicable for the subject today. Conflict avoidance was the subject, I think, awareded by the former U.N. Secretary General Butros Ghali. He has said this as a subject in the nineties, when I say there was a euphoria among the leading nations which felt that they can deal with all the conflict; they can put the end to all the conflicts and then and a top purpose of that was this problem of conflict avoidance. That is what to do to avoid the conflicts in the future? So I think that this different subjects they were worked out sometimes because of specific tasks, for example, the Cold War. Or in some cases when the people simply wanted to use the existing the U.N. Association of the United States. Now I say, you know, just all the...even there was the concept of the conflict reduction...was worked out together jointly by Bill Gartman and myself, and we have made even a book on that in 1995. But now I feel simply that all these separate disciplines should be put together under this cover of the conflict management and the subject of the conflict management should be spelled out as a purpose of the global community.

Q: Okay. You've talked a little bit about this already...

A: Yeah.

Q: In an idea world, what do you believe needs to happen to deal with these kinds of situations that we're talking about?

A: In the ideal world?

Q: Mm-hm.

A: I don't know what is the idea world.

Q: Oh.

B; We have the world that we have. Simply... Very often the world changes because of what are doing or not doing. So I think, you know, that the fact now we are facing again this role of the intractable conflicts and the role of the possible conflicts, is the result of the failure by the leading nations of the world to use the opportunity which was opened with the end of the Cold War and to start the program of the ocnflict resolution or conflict management more intensively.. Instead of that...the nations sort of relaxed and they have simply missed the opportunity to work hard on that. that's why, you know, this was gap growing between the developed, less developed nations. That's why, you know, just some areas in the world have appeared, which are simply producing conflict almost daily. Again, the poor nations in Africa, the nations like Aphghanistan or Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh or Asia, you know...or the poor nations in the Latin America which produce all these drug problems. So I think that, to a logical stand, it was a responsibility for the results or the lack of responsibility on the part of the leading nations, that we have run into these problems. So now this is the high time to understand what the ??? They have to unite their forces. They have to work out something like a code of conduct like it was in the last days of the Cold War which would help to at least avoid creating the situations like similar to Chechnia, you know, creating the sitatuations when the conflict would be simply perpectuated and become really intractable. So, first of all to work out a code of conduct for themselves and then, on the basis of that, to to start working with the existing or potential adversities and to try to prove them. To accept some rules of conduct, you know, as I say, you know, because to a large extent my background was based on the Cold War relationship. I remember how important there was the problem of the working out of the working out the code of conduct between the two super powers and thus maybe to lead to the end of the conflict ??? between them. Something similar should be done right now between that part of the world community which may be called as responsible and forward looking and the other part of the world community I would not... I would avoid to call them irresponsible, but still, you know, to the other part of the world community which still seeks conflicts, which still seeks some benefit in subversion of the existing order.

Q: And what is the purpose of the code of conduct?

A: The purpose, first of all, is not to do something which may lead to the aggraivation of the conflict, not to understake some forays against the other nations, which maybe are not that developed as the more developed nations, but still which still not treated as simply as sites...for their aiffoce exercises and so on. So to say to take some code of conduct which would avoid...which would prevent the possibilities when the more developed nations create because of their arrogance and because of their inability to work out some peaceful strategy. That's number one and then number two of the conduct is to suggest to the adversaries, which exists right now, people like...I don't Iatolahs, for example, in Iran, or the leadership of the North Korea, to suggest to them this conduct and to make sure that we could respond somehow to this proposal. I think, you know, there is simply no other way.

Q: So is the idea behind the code of conduct that there would be equal codes for everyone all around the world?

A: Yes, that's right. Something which is based on the U.N. Charter. We have the U.N. Charter. We have the U.N. Charter; but you understand it is usually, you know, Orwell was saying that we all are equal, but there are more than the others. So we should work out the standards of the conduct, the standards of behavior, which would really just give a possibility to all the nations and how to heal that,you know, they have respected and that they can hope for some better future. Not to put them into the position of rogue states, you know, which are simply maybe labeled just as the gain for the hunting...for the hunters or in the position of the Axis of Evil, you know. You feel that they are simply doomed to be bombed one day. So to avoid such situations. I think that this is much more promising than simply to prepare the armed forces.

Q: Now, you've mentioned a couple of times in our conversation the idea that we are in some kind of evolution. That's my word, but evolution of the world where we've come from warring states and we're moving towards a more peaceful world. Do I have it right? Is that part of your thinking about...?

A: Yes.

Q: ...resolving conflict.

A: Yeah, but simply, you know, this depends on what we are doing today. There is a chance that we may move from one world, one type of the world into a another type of the world. There is a strong chance because of the globalization, because of the existence of this global community. But that doesn't mean that it will happen automatically. It may happen only if we do something for that. Then, of course, we are doomed to have the situation where we shall have an America fortress, for example, in the Noarh-American hemisphere, maybe something other developed enclaves, which would be increasing their military capability...the hand that fell against the barbarians, like NATO countries and so on. And all the rest of the wolrd which will simply poor, savage, looking with some greediness at the more developed nations. So we shall have the situation which I label in some of my writing as Rome and the Barbarians. The situation where Rome will inevitably be run over by the Barbarians sooner or later because these people have nothing to lose. They want better living and they think that the only way to the better living is to rob conquer the rogue. And sooner or later they will do it. So to avoid that, of course, we need some different philosophy.

Q: A different philosophy being conflict resolution, globalization...

A: Yes. That's right. Yes.

Q: Okay. If you could use a metaphor or an image to describe the kinds of situations that we're talking about, what metaphors or images would you use and why would you use them? You can take a moment to think about that. That's always a hard one for folks.

A: I don't know. What type of situations do you mean, you know, for example, to describe the current situation regarding the United States strategy is, of course, the world's policieman. When I was commenting, you know, some of the decisions by your administration, I said that at least two years ago it had a choice to become either the world's leader - a good father creating something like a paternalistic relations between the U.S. and the nations which need mostly the U.S. attention and US generosity. And the alternative was to become a policeman...a tough policeman and to hunt for the criminals. And the choice was made by the American administration to become a policeman, which sounds maybe more attractable, which maybe attracts some more support on the part of the American public, but I think, you know, which was very short-sighted because inevitably it will put on the U.S, with all its undeniable achievements into the position of defending know...the country fortress because it will be hated...because it will be regarded as a hostile force by the billions of people in the of the world. So this is one of the types of the metaphors I am using in my analysis.

Q: And our there any metaphors you're thinking of to describe the conflict situations themselves? You described a metaphor for the intervenors...well, the way that I'm thinking about about the intervenors in the conflict situation.

A: No, frankly... Well, of course, I think, you know...there can be some metaphors, like for example, the trouble-makers because we have always to look after them. But we equally have to be very cautious in separating the trouble-makers from the rest of the people because in every nation, Islamic nation or not, you will have these troublemakers who would raise noise, who would declare some holy wars, you know, on the infidels and so on, which does not need...the rest of the society shares their goals. Simply the rest of the societies either has no possibility to spell out their goals or simply it is ignored under the domination of these people. So there should be very careful policy in doing that. Like, for example, take the Iraq and the situation in Iraq. I think that on one hand of course the American operation there was extremely successful because it has managed to put an end to one of the most dictitorial regimes in the current world, but something was made wrong - something was not made - which has forced the Iraqis to resist against this, which now makes the which now makes the conflict intractable. So the question is what was not done? Who is responsible for that? Why the possibility just to put a real end to the conflict was not realized. Where were the mistakes? And I think to that extent...because the answer to his question should be given through what I'm trying to talk about...that is no idea of confict management...the half-baked idea of dealing a blow and after that I don't care anymore, which is wrong. But that has little to do with your question metaphors. But simply , cannot think of any other metaphor right now.

Q: Okay. So earlier in our conversation you mentioned that it would be helpful to identify future sources of conflict such as environmental conflct, resource wars and need of different countries to have access to resoures, population wars. And after that you mentioned that these are particularly helpful for us to think about and that they are different from idealogical or religious conflicts. And when you spoke about the idealogical and religious one, you mentioned that you felt that we had already figured out kinds of solutions or ways to deal with those conflicts. Did I hear you correctly in saying that, and if I did...

A: Ah, not exactly. Because I wouldn't say that we know what to do with those. At least, these types of conflicts is known to us. At least, you know, Huntington in his work on the clash of civilizations have touched this side of the problem. That is idealogical...the impact of religion on the conflict, the impact of the ideologies, and so on. So at least this is a known evil for us.

Q: Got it.

A: I hope maybe I have been exaggerating our abilities, but I least I hope we know what to do with that. But so far we have not studied yet the relation between these idealogical religious sides and the problems which are related to the, I say, the inequality of the resources , inequality of the capablilities the inequality of expectations for the billions of the people. Very often what we label as a religious war in reality is a resrouces war and visa versa.

Q: Can you say more about that? How is that so?

A: Beg your pardon?

Q: So in the case where we think something is a religious war but it's really a resources war...because you're saying people are making...

A: Oh, yes, yes, of course. I understand. Yes. Recently, I read something in the Russian article which really just made feel furious because the person there was writing about terrorisim and hinting that terrorism is tightly connected to the Islam as a religion. And I think I thought that that either the person is simply illiterate and does not know many things, or he is writing because someone asked him to write that. Because, of course, may be labeled as the religion, which some say is tightly connected to fantaticism or which can produce conflicts very often. But the problem is mainly the Islamic people, they live ina poor country. There are among them rich countires like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, but they are not very numerous. The rest of Muslim world, which is almost a billion peole, are poor, backward, illiterate. They suffer; they are under-nurished. You know, they suffer the diseases. No one cares..even their own to help them. But at the same time, of ocurse, you know, the expectations of those millions of the people... They are framed as idealogical conflict with the infidel West. And many researchers even...they take this as the truth, and they say, yah, I see...the Islam is so much...there's so much unrest, there's so much aggression and so. It's not aggression; it reflects the feelings of the desperate people.

Q: That's very interesting. So you're saying that conflicts arise and whow themselves to be idealogically or religiously based when, in fact, the feelings of desperation that lead to terrorist acts actually come from people feeling under-nurished and poor and don't have enough basic needs.

A: That's right...especially in the current world...a globalized world. You know, it maybe was much easier to live, say, a hundred years ago when millions of people somewhere in Egypt or in some other... They never knew anything about America...about the high standards of lving in the more developed nations. They lived a traditional life. But due to the globalization, this isolation was broken. And now millions of people in India or Bangladesh or in any other, you knw, just...poor country, they know that there are nations which live much better or millions of people here in Russia, they also know... They have seen movies, you know, they have seen other TV programs. So they know that in other nations people live much better. So the problem is now what to do with their desire to live better. Then it'd be framed as a constructive force which will make the people become more active for reforms, for changing their lives, or it may be used to frame a hostility towards the richer say that you are poor because they are frame the whole attitude in the terms of the zero-sum gain. If you want to become richer, they should be robbed. So this is the only possibility for you to become rich. Then, of course, that will be framed as an idealogical conflict. In that case, the communisitic ideology will come back and the millions of people will believe again that to make their lives better, they should attack and destroy the bastians of capitalism or, if to speak about the Islamic war, so...those peole...also the millions of those peole they want to make their lives better....they have to attack or fight against the infidel and to take part of their wealth and to share it.

Q: I can see that you care very passionately about these issues and it's very...

A: Yeah, because I live in a country which has only ten years leaving behind the burden of the communistic ideology, which also making all us the enemies of the U.S. of the West, you know, and feeling that we had our poor life simply because someone was robbing us. But in reality it was the communistic ???...which was robbing us. So it's a part of my life. That's why I'm responding in this way. But at the same time I'm trying to think about all those hundreds of people who still live in the poor the world where they have no hope for tomorrow. And when they don't know what to do or how to live and that's why they are becoming the victims for the propaganda of the local...say...some propagandist and these propagandists turn them against the United States and the West. This is what makes me feel very passionate and very...why the U.S. is working in the same direction...why the U.S. government is doing the things which really supports this idea.

Q: Which really supports the...?

A: The views of the propagandists. Those who are against the west because the West is the enemy they say. Yes, the one who bombs us or who kills my friends or my relatives, or my children, of course, is my enemy.

Q: And you're saying the U.S. plays into that by continuing the violence?

A: Unfortunately, yes. Unfortunately, yes. Because you know just now, I feel since I am working in the Institute of U.S. and Canada studies and I'm studying the situation of the U.S. And the world, I feel that the image of the U.S. as the hope, as the source of hope for the millions of people now is changing into the image of the source of hostility - source of threat.

Q: Yeah.

A: This is extremely important for the future.

Q: You just mentioned one of the places that you're working. Before we close, I have a couple of closing questions for you, one of which: Can you describe a little bit about the PIN group that you're working on with Professor Zartman and any of the other current things that you're doing that would be helpful for us to know.

A: Oh, yes, of course. Of course. So first something...a few lines about the location, which is the International Institute for Applied Analysis...a think tank, established jointly by the United States and the Soveity Union in the early seventies to work together on the subject of which were talking...and that is resources development, population development, energy and other "non-political matters". So the fruitful ideas spelled out by the clever and responsible people in the midst of the Cold War that we should combine our forces to work on the subject which would determine our future. And as an addition to that, the idea which was spelled by the first American director of the Institute, ?name?, that is, we should also study the process of negotiation because there is no other way how these problems may be solved but only through negotiation. So to say from the very beginning it was a conflict, no imposition, no coersion, only negotiation. So... And I was maybe one of the first Soviets who was sent there in early eighties to try to begin this project on the status of the international negotiations and second how to make the process of international negotiations a part of the solution of the international problems. Several years we spent in just looking for partners in the project, sources of funding, and finally, it was on the generous support of the Carnegie Corporation of New York that finally this project was launched in the year of eight-six or eighty-seven. So the format, which was suggested by the then director of the Institute, Bob Pry from the United States, a very clever person...was that there should be a steering committee for this project, which would incorporate the people rom different cultures, like mayself, a Soviet, two Americans, Bill Zartman and Jeff Ruben...the late Jeff Ruben from the program on negotiation which the Harvard University...a Swedish, a German, an Austrian, a French, so it was a host of the international scholars coming from different disciplines like history, as myself, or political science as Zartman or lawyers, like the Austrian, mathematician, the German and so on, which were...decided to unite their knowledge, their connections, their views in order to work out something like a generally accepted negotiation strategies. And since then we have worked, we meet there regularly three times a year...there or in some other nation where we make launches. And when set the subject for topics for our book projects and thus we have already published something like a dozen of the books on the different aspects of the negotiation processs, including the opening book, which I edited on the international negotiation, which was a real success and there was a second edition published by Josey Bass in the year 2002. By the way, the book as received the Book Award of the CPR Institute on district resolution. So still we have something like another dozen of the books in the pipeline coming up. So this is what we are doing, working together and contributing into the general understanding of the different aspects of the international negotiations. And the second, of course, the active policy of dissemination because we have our newsletter, which we've sent to the four thousand addresses. And besides, every year, once or twice, we meet with different audiences. Sometimes very exoctic like Argentina or China or Japan and we speak to the audiences on the subject that we are doing. We are supported financially not by this Institute. The Institute is only for us to seige location. But financially, we are supported by the Hewlett Foundation. We have also our students in this Institute...some younger people who are our future and our hope. And I say again, originally, it was begun as a firm choice between the alternatives of coersion and negotiation and we opted for this negotiation. And now I'm trying to add some more of the conflict management subjects into this research. So far, it has not acquired any material form. But I have written papers and I am sending them around on the possibilities of conflict management in this current situation, and in the forthcoming future. And I strongly hope that maybe one day, within this PIN group, we shall start also maybe conflict management and negotiation.

Q: How do you see the main differnce between conflict management and negotiation?

A: Oh, negotiation is a tool, you know. Conflict management is a strategy. I know, because conflict management is a certain strategy of action undertaken by the group of people, of the nations, of the companies and so on, in order tokeep the possible conflicts existing or possible future conflicts under some sort of control and...with the purpose of resolving them. But if they are intractable, as you say, at least to keep them under control. Negotiation is the main tool how to do that. Of course, it's not simply a tool...not simply an instrument. The negotiation itself was the whole microcosm, but still relations between them is is the purpose...the other one is the mechanism how to do it.

Q: That's a helpful distinction. Over the course of our conversation, you've mentioned a number of different books and articles that you've published or published with other people, and one of the focuses of this project is actually to collect a list of references that we can provide for people on our website. I don't know what the best way to get the exact names of the books and even bilbiolographical references, if possible. One thing I've been doing with the some of the other people I've interviewed is that I've e-mailed them a reminder e-mail with a list of the things that you've mentioned like the book from 1995 that you and Professor Zartman wrote or the papers on conflict management that you just..that you just wrote recently. Would it be helpful for us to do that? Then I'll send you an e-mail to prompt you to send me back some more spcific references or since you're on vacation, would it be more helpful for us to go through it now, and I can tell you the ones that I've highlighted if you wanna tell me some easier for you.

Q: One thing I can suggest immediately; the one other I can promise within ten days--not earlier than that.

A: The first thing... There is such a company... I think that you can look it up in some of the...of the dictionaries, which is called Contemporary Writer. Have you every heard about that?

Q: Contemporary Writers?

A: Ah...

Q: It is somewhere in the United States. They send periodically, the questionnaires to me and I responded to them, so I should. And I have sent to them the list of my recent papers, maybe written during the last fifteen years, articles, books, whatever that exists. They have never confirmed to me that they have received it. You know, I remember that I have received from the questionnaire and they asked me to send them this list, and I have done that. But they...if you can find them anywhere and you can asked them. Because I've never received anything like a book or anything, which I could look up, you know, my documentation. .

Q: Okay.

A: But the good thing is that I have that list. It's still,I think, two years old because I think I made it two years ago, but I can refresh it very quickly, and I can send it to you individually. But I say that that can be made not ealier than two weeks.

Q: Okay. That's fine. That timing is fine.

A: Yes?

Q: Well, what I can do is send you an e-mail as a reminder foor you to forward on the names of the books to me by e-mail.

A: Okay. But you should try this Contemporary Writers.

Q: I will. I'll try the first. I gues I'll look on the web to see if I can track them down.

A: Yeah, because they should be someonwhere, you know... This is something like a dictionary edition because they send out to people in the whole world who publish something...and they ask...please send us...and they have something like this...the information on the people who write.

Q: Okay.

A: But I say, if you fail to do that or they have not received what I have sent to them, then, of course, I'll have to find this paper and to refresh it and then to send it.

Q: Okay. That sounds like a good plan. So I will try to locate the Contemporary Writers and ask them if they can send me your list, and if they can't, then I'll follow up with you by e-mail.

A: Okay.

Q: And the timeframe you suggested sounds fine, so. Anything you'd like me to know before we officially close the interview that I didn't ask you about? I know we've talked for awhile. I really appreciate it.

A: Yeah, let's make a break. Afterwords, I shall remember something.

Q: Well, if you do, feel free to send an e-mail or whatever you'd like.

A: Okay.