Name: Ilya Baryshev
Nationality: Russian
Education: PhD. Russian Academy of Sciences
Activities: Vice-president of Russian Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation; research fellow at HSE (http://www.hse.ru/lingua/en/index.html)





1. Studying at a faculty dedicated to the international relations of the Northern Americas, your insight in its history and present grants you a unique perspective on how world politics are processed, namely in the US and Canada. To begin with, could you clarify us about the range of areas you have studied in the past and how does a Russian higher education institution view the so-often-criticized core of today’s international system?

The Institute for the US and Canadian Studies is among leading think tanks in Russia and worldwide in terms of international relations and particularly US and Canada (and their beliefs and ideas in terms of world order, international security, etc.). However I want to talk to you on my own behalf so that nothing will constrain me from speaking frankly. As you know official positions very often differ from the ones people believe in. And it is up to the person to decide whether to be a playback or an ipodiator (ipod+negotiator) or to speak what's on his mind or not. Let’s get back to topic. The Russian higher education system doesn’t differ that much from the European (one of the examples is its transition in accordance with Bologna process). So you may find all political schools from realists to globalists being taught there. And it’s up to the person to decide what views suit the most to him. And as for me I am doing research on governance in international relations. (Apart from the work on my thesis I am doing research on international security, foresight, forecasting, and lobbyism).

2. Regarding the fall of the last historic period on which we could scientifically determine what were the dynamics and intertwined relations between global contenders and regional powers – the Cold War -, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, we witnessed the affirmation of Washington worldwide. In your opinion, what were the main aspects that lead the US to victory?

I would not say that it was a victory of the US as there was not a single person who knew that the Soviet Union would fall in 1991. It became a shock to the US, the West, and the world order itself. The Bipolar system was extremely well built. It was built to last for ages. Take a look at proliferation of WMD. It was a real problem at that time and is still acute. But have a closer look at how it was managed by two superpowers (USSR an US) – they handled the problem by creating a non-proliferation regime. This is what I call governance. And the principles that are behind it are the ones that lead to the collapse of Soviet Union and “the end of history”. I mean globalization, democratization, and obviously ineffectiveness of communist states in many aspects. There were many other reasons in political culture, human rights protection, attitudes to business, etc.

3. Moreover, and despite its reasons, after the Cold War the United States, along with several other parallel yet inferior powers (like Canada, Great Britain, France and others), managed to establish the foundations of a system that has been “exported” throughout the world, and that today determine most of the guidelines upon which world politics function. Can we talk about a north-american world system, with its own branches, points of force and of tension?

Tiago, compare your question with the following quote from the article “The End of History?” (1989) by Francis Fukuyama “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”. You see the world is so diverse and different from academic reality of some researchers that you may fail to grasp its essence into one single concept.

In his other article (The Guardian, 3 Apr 2007) Fukuyama would write “The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organisation… I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.” And who knows how EU is going to look like in 2020?

4. In many matters, however, that power’s influence and domination is being questioned by many emerging actors, both state-based, state-sponsored and/or non-state actors. One of the most pressing is related to the credibility, image and governance of the US in the international community and its multiple institutions and organizations. How do you see its role in dealing with present and upcoming issues? Does domestic public opinion and its external counterpart really determine the north-american decision-making process? If so, in what ways?

Definitely. Have a look at one of the definitions of the term global governance introduced by J. Rosenau: “Thus, global governance may be defined as the complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental, through which collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated”. Be NGO’s, individuals and other non-state actors ineffective or even not herd noone would have introduced this term. Non-governmenal sector in the US is world’s eight largest economy!

5. Currently doing your PhD thesis, under the topic of Governance, it is becoming an issue of increasing importance, especially when you think under the theories of globalization and world politics management and dynamics. Would you like to quickly lecture us about some of the concepts and conclusions you have developed throughout your research?

Working definition of governance adopted y me from Viktor Kremenuk – a renowned professor and academic is the following: the ability to solve problems. To put it in another way it deals with: “Efforts to bring more orderly and reliable responses to social and political issues that go beyond the capacities of states to address individually”. So, governance arises when you have several actors and a problem that conserns two or more actors and they are not able to solve it without uniting their resources. The complexity rises when the number of actors and problems increases. Plus you have to add that a state has to take into account nowadays not only the voices of other states but non-state actors as well. Issues that may help you see it involve extraordinary range of interdependencies – international security, sustainable development, environmental protection.

The term governance in international affairs is rather new. For example common definition has not yet arrived to scholars of international relations. However the term itself gained its popularity in 1990ies. Among articles to read about it you may consider:

Bloomfield L. Rethinking International Governance. In: Facing the Challenges of the 21s' Century. 20th Anniversary Essays. Center for Applied Studies of International Negotiations (CASIN). Geneva. 2000; Finkelstein L. What is Global Governance? // Global Governance. 1995; Friedrichs J. Global Governance as the Hegemonic Project of Liberal Global Civil Society; Gordenker L. Weiss T. NGOs, the UN and Global Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996; Warner P. Governance in Global Civil Society // Global Governance / O. Young (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997; Groom A., Powell D. From World Politics to Global Governance: A Theme in need of a Focus // Groom A., Light M. Contemporary International Relations. London: Pinter, 1994; Hewson M., Sincliar T. (eds.) Approaches to Global Governance Theory / New York: State University of New York Press, 1999; Lipscutz R. Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature from Place to Planet. New York: Suny Press, 1996; Massicotte M. Global Governance and the Global Political Economy: Three Texts in Search of a Synthesis // Global Governance. 1999; Rosenau J. Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics // Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics / J. Rosenau, E.-O. Czempiel (eds.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Rosenau J. Governance in the Twenty-first Century // Global Governance. 1995; Spaeth K. Inside Global Governance. New Borders of a Concept (www.cpogg.org).

6. In Sachs’ thesis, the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), as emerging powers, are definitely going to rival the US’ power in many issues, stressing to new limits its power and leadership. As a citizen and scholar of on of those countries upon which rely many hopes and questions, how do you see the influence of these countries, namely Russia, in this world order?

One of the findings of my work is that although we pay a lot of attention to the rise on nonstate actors in this age of globalization. The main shapers and shakers of global governance are states themselves. States-leaders establish the rules of the game and the main parameters of governance. Who are states-leaders? Developed countries-members of G7 on the one hand and BRIC countries on the other. Russia has the potential to contribute to the resolution of many burning issues worldwide. The key is the issue of global governance – the concept that represents the only way to solve the problem of “horizontal threats and vertical governments”.

7. In that sense, how would you describe today’s US position as a global superpower? Are we witnessing the solidification of a world hegemon, or rather the starting-point of the decline or the unipolar system that survived Cold War?

To cut the long story short in my view we see the emergence of a multipolar world where power centres will be highly fragmented i.e. political superpower will not necessarily be economic and cultural. Consider the quote from the article “The rise of the rest” by Fareed Zakaria.

"Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories.”

8. Regarding the current affairs related to the War on Terror, the role of NATO in securing peace-building conditions in Afghanistan is somewhat a fundamental piece in this broader strategy pursued mostly by Western nations. What developing new issues do you think are unfolding concerning the counter-insurgency efforts against the Taleban and other terrorist groups?

Afghanistan is next to being a do or die case for NATO. Bucharest Summit Declaration [1] states that "Euro-Atlantic and wider international security is closely tied to Afghanistan's future as a peaceful, democratic state, respectful of human rights and free from the threat of terrorism. For that reason, our UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission, currently comprising 40 nations, is our top priority".

NATO's first mission ever outside Europe was officially launched in August 2003 when it took control over ISAF in Afghanistan. Today it is far from meeting its goals – having on a map safe and stable Afghanistan. However it is crucial for NATO to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan as we have no alternative to it because if Afghanistan becomes a failed state it would definitely destabilize the whole region as well as the whole world. Not only would it be a great victory of international terrorism, potential nuclear catastrophe and a humanitarian disaster of the decade but it would be a giant step backward for international community and all its institutions.

And as for NATO decision-makers dealing with Afghanistan, they face two main challenges. Firstly, they are to see the opportunities that are now open to the alliance as it could come up with a model of next generation conflict resolution. Such a mechanism would strive to unite not only NATO member countries and their partners - Russia, Japan, and others (including China, India, etc) but a broad range of other relevant actors including international organizations and NGO's. Such an approach is called comprehensive.

Secondly they have to use this comprehensive approach not only to stabilize the country but to build a regional system of security by engaging Afghanistan's neighbors in it. This system in turn would only work being a part of a greater security system. Therefore we have to think in terms of strategy not only tactics.

[1] Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008


9. NATO, like the European Union, is struggling to fit in its new strategic concept toward the issues of the XXI century. Particularly in its possible enlargement debate, what position do you defend? Should it enlarge toward Eastern Europe, areas outside of Europe's geographical boundaries (e.g. Cape Verde, Brazil) or it shouldn't enlarge at all?

Enlargement of any institute, mechanism, or organisation is a always an-open-heart-surgery issue. So far for NATO it has been successful and meaningful. However as far as collective security and safe and secure Europe is concerned enlargement is not crucial. Instead both the alliance and Russia should focus and come up with a solution of how to integrate Russia. As in my view it holds the key to solution of many problems including Afghanistan, Iran, energy security, etc.

10. The security environment of the international society seems to be developing toward the formation of new alliances to further deepen the ties of economic and political cooperation and inter-dependence. Is the world becoming more insecure and volatile as the US is stepping down its global responsibilities in comparison to the emerging powers?

The world is moving towards a new system of governance (from bipolar word order during cold war). It is not going to be a unipolar one. The US has lost if it ever tried to become the only ruler of the world. And the world is too complex for any single actor to try to rule it. The emergence of new actors and players on the international stage will, in my view, contribute to stability and prosperity rather than to chaos and disorder. And the US will continue to play leading role in this process even against its own will as forces and processes that are promoted and supported by the US i.e. globalization and integration not only help to do business but at the same time it creates competitors. Competition makes the system more volatile and insecure on the one hand but on the other hand EU, Japan, BRIC countries should have a say in international affairs otherwise they will establish their own world order without the US.

Last but not least, I have to thank you as I appreciate your time and attention for this interview. It can be very difficult to contact Eastern European scholars, specifically from Russia, so my appreciation is not without a special meaning. That said, I once again thank you, I will be looking forward hearing from you in the future.