Mikhail Margelov, former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia’s Federation Council and Special Representative of the Russian President for cooperation with African countries, shares his insights with RIAC on contemporary international relations and the role of parliamentary diplomacy in the international arena.
Mikhail Margelov, former Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Russia’s Federation Council and Special Representative of the Russian President for cooperation with African countries, shares his insights with RIAC on contemporary international relations and the role of parliamentary diplomacy in the international arena.
You chaired the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee for nearly 13 years. How would you assess the changes that have taken place in the Russian foreign policy over the years?
A cooling in relations between Russia and the United States, and therefore the West as a whole, is, I would say, the most apparent feature of these 13 years in foreign policy. And this is not just my personal opinion. President Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to express his support and sympathy to George. W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. At that time, Russia supported the United States’ position on Afghanistan, and joined the antiterrorist coalition. U.S. military bases were opened in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and Russia provided aid to the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. The NATO-Russia Council was launched. Everything seemed to indicate that the partnership between our countries would continue to strengthen.
But then came the American concept of the Greater Middle East and “spreading democracy”, and Washington started promoting a unipolar world. Russia, alongside France and Germany, opposed the aggression in Iraq, and showed its unwillingness to function as a junior partner to the United States. This was followed by the BMD system deployment, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, and dividing international terrorists into “friends and foes,” undermining those very unifying factors that shaped relations between Russia and the United States after the September 11 attacks.
Relations again reached a high point with the much-vaunted “reset”, but its potential was not realized, and the differences between the two countries have led to the kind of relations we see today.
What would you regard as an absolute success of your chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and what could have been done differently?
Not enough time has passed since I left this post. And the time for introspection has not yet come. Therefore, it is difficult to say what I would have done differently, had I faced the same situation again. As to success achieved in my work, I think that the intensification of parliamentary diplomacy could be regarded as one such success, since in my time it went beyond being just a mere exchange of parliamentary delegations. I tried to use various forms of cooperation with foreign counterparts, and we did manage to achieve some good results. For example, during the ratification of the START treaty in the United States.
How developed is parliamentary diplomacy? What role can it play in international relations and in Russian foreign policy in particular?
Since parliamentary diplomacy is no longer my occupation, I would rather refrain from passing judgment. Let me just say that it is effective when properly conducted. It even has an advantage over official diplomacy, since we can discuss international issues more frankly. Parliamentarians have more freedom in choosing foreign partners for visits and invitations to Moscow, although in our country parliamentarians’ activity in foreign policy has always been in line with the policy pursued by the country’s political leadership and Foreign Ministry.
What are your plans for maintaining contacts in the future with the Russian foreign politics community and the sphere of international relations in general?
In my new position as vice-president of the state-owned Transneft I will chiefly be responsible for its international issues and public relations. Without the help of the Foreign Ministry and our ambassadors in different countries, establishing successful external relations would be rather problematic. Companies around the world enjoy the support of their governments, and foreign ministries in particular, in expanding their activities. At the same time, I retain the post of Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on cooperation with African countries, which requires direct involvement in Russia's foreign policy in this area. Also, in 2003 I was elected President of the Russian Society of Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity and Cooperation, a non-governmental organization that is the successor to the Soviet Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee. The Society provides ample opportunities for public diplomacy, and we take advantage of this. And, of course, I hope to work closely with RIAC.
What goals will your successor strive for? Will the nature of the Committee’s work change given the current international environment?
I cannot answer this question, since it requires being inside the House and recommendations from the outside are not appropriate. The nature of the work will depend on the new Chairman of the Committee. It is up to him to decide how to respond to the current international situation and meet its challenges as best as he can.
