Chat Session with Prof. Holloway (IDL 101) on Monday Nov.
4
Andrei: Alright. Welcome, everyone! Today we are having a chat session
with prof. David Holloway. The rules are the following: I will name each
university in the following order: Yaroslavl, Ural, Tyumenj, Cheliabinsk,
and Amur. While prof. Holloway is answering one question, I will call
on the next university to prepare their question and so on. If prof. Holloway
is not finished he will put three dots like this: ... Also, don't feel
shy to respond to prof. Holloway's questions if he has any, alright? Let's
now start from Yaroslavl. Your question first please.
Kuznetsov: Do You think that the Nuclear (Biological) Weapons is the
necessary mean of the external policy nowadays?
David_Holloway: No, I don't think it is necessary for a state to have
nuclear or biological weapons for its external policy. Some states have
been very successful without such weapons (e.g. Japan or Germany)...
David_Holloway: And most states have made it clear that they do not want
to have nuclear weapons by signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,
Over 180 countries have signed the treaty, all but five as non-nuclear
weapons states. The thing that worries me, however, is that we might drift
into a world in which many states do come to believe that such weapons
are necessary for their external policy. The current nonproliferation
regime is fraying at the edges, and I don't think we have a really clear
idea how to strengthen that regime.
Kovalchuk: President George Bush is keen on developing a new project
on BMD, so don't you think that it would lead to new tensions in the world
rather than help to bring more stability to it? thank you very much in
advance.
David_Holloway: The ABM Treaty was the cornerstone of strategic stability
during the Cold War, and I was opposed to the US decision to withdraw
from it. I have been struck, however, that Russia, though clearly not
happy with the decision, has accepted it calmly, believing apparently
that the American BMD program will pose no threat to its strategic forces
over the next 15-20 years at least...
David_Holloway: I am more worried about the impact of US policy on China,
since the prospect of BMD deployment (as well as deployment itself) will
almost certainly stimulate the expansion of Chinese strategic forces (which
China is modernizing anyway) and that in turn may affect Indian nuclear
policy. So I do believe that in the long run US policy will make it more
difficult to achieve reductions in strategic nuclear forces, though at
the same time I have been somewhat reassured by the relativelt calm way
in which Russia has reacted to the decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty,
especially in view of some earlier Russian statements.
Mingaleva: Good evening mr Holloway! here is my question: in 1990 leaders
of the NATO-states assured Gorbachev that alliance would not expand to
the East. But right after the collapse of the SU NATO started its expansion.
Why?
David_Holloway: I don't know exactly what commitments were made, and
I believe that the US leaders later claimed that their commitment extended
only to an independent East Germany -- or at any rate that whatever commitment
they made did not apply in light of what actually happened. I don't know
enough to make a judgment as to whether they broke their word or not.
What is clear is that the decision to expand NATO did appear to Russian
leaders to be a betrayal in light of the political relationship that they
thought had been created in 1990-91...
David_Holloway: So why the decision to expand NATO? i think there were
different reasons. One was to consolidate the US position in Europe; a
related reason was to strengthen US influence in Central and Eastern Europe.
And in Germany Helmut Kohl apparently did not want Germany to be, as it
were, on the front line. There were also arguments about consolidating
democracy in the new NATO members, though I think that that was a less
important argument. The second round of expansion (which will soon be
completed at the Prague summit) is motivated by the same arguments, and
also by the view that a partial expansion of NATO makes no sense...
David_Holloway: The NATO countries have made a serious effort to convince
Russia that NATO is not a threat to it, with some success. The paradox
is that there is every chance that an expanded NATO will be a much less
effective military alliance than NATO used to be., that it will be little
more than a talking-shop. The US made it clear, I think, after 9/11 that
it much preferred to pick and choose its allies (in "coalitions of
the willing") thaan to work through NATO.
Andrei: The question by Pervukhin (from Southern Ural SU?)now: What is
the most important factor for the U.S. to intervene in a conflict?
David_Holloway: That's a good question, and something that is much discussed
in the US now, at a time when the US feels that it is in a position of
unprecedented military predominance. The Bush Administration stated initially
that the key criterion was US national interest -- that it would not interven
in conflicts for humanitarian reasons alone. It was very critical of the
Clinton Administration for not having a clear conception of when and why
to intervene. But of course "national interest" is not a completely
clear concept. Before 9/11 it was supposed to limit US interventions.
Since 9/11 the concept of national interest seems to require a readiness
to intervene very widely. The major reasons now given are intervention
to root out terrorism, which is a very broad term; or to prevent so-called
"rogue states" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction...
David_Holloway: So the US is now asserting a readiness to intervene much
more widely, and to do so preemptively. Thus there has been a big shift
in US thinking about intervention. And of course it may shift again in
the future.
Litvinskaya: Prof. Holloway, bearing in mind that the US experiences
economic recession nowadays (unemployment rate is on the increase, the
budget has a deficit again after a “surplus” era of Clinton’s
presidency, turmoil on American stock market after a number of scandals
with some of the leading companies) what is your opinion on the fact that
an expensive NMD research program might undermine vulnerable economic
stability and exacerbate some of the negative trends in the USA?
David_Holloway: There are many fears today about what the greatly expanded
defense budget may do to the federal budget and to the economy. I don't
know that NMD itself will affect the economy profoundly, but I do think
that economic constraints may limit the system that is deployed. Congress
has not yet authorized funding for a full system, and I can imagine that
there will be some hard questions when the time comes for expnditure decisions
to be made. At the moment there seems to be widespread support for greater
spending on national security, but that might change.
Kuznetsov: Mr. Holloway, what is the most useful ways of using Nuclear
(Biological) technologies in future, from you point of view, and can it
be possible to take away the Nuclear (Biological) Weapons from the political
and military spheres and to use it only in the peaceful purposes?
Kuznetsov: Mr. Holloway, what is the most useful ways of using Nuclear
(Biological) technologies in future, from you point of view, and can it
be possible to take away the Nuclear (Biological) Weapons from the political
and military spheres and to use it only in the peaceful purposes?
Zykova: Taking into consideration spreading of terrorism on such a huge
scale nowadays, what do you consider to be the best (or most appropriate)means
of rooting it out? Thank you in advance.
David_Holloway: I don't believe that there are practical peaceful uses
for nuclear weapons technologies. Both the US and the Soviet Union did
have programs of peaceful nuclear explosions, and there are still advocates
of these in both countries. But it would be hard to permit peaceful nuclear
explosions while keeping tight control over nuclear weapons and prohibiting
nuclear weapons tests. I think the same would be true about biological
weapons. Obviously, however, biotechnology has great peaceful uses, as
does nuclear power. There are great problems in building barriers between
the civilian and military uses of these technologies, though it is I think
easier for nuclear technology than for biotechnology. The linking of civilian
and military uses means that nuclear and biological weapons cannot be
controlled only -- or even primarily -- by controlling the technologies;
we have to get some political answer to that question
Kuznetsov: Thank you very much.
Andrei: The question by Zykova now: Taking into consideration spreading
of terrorism on such a huge scale nowadays, what do you consider to be
the best (or most appropriate)means of rooting it out?
David_Holloway: The question about terrorism is a huge one, and I don't
know that there is a simple answer. I am not very happy that we talk about
a "war" on terror because that implies the possibility of decisive
victory. Fighting terrorism will be a very long-drawn out struggle which
will have to rely on intelligence and law enforcemnt as much as military
action...
David_Holloway: But how to root out terrorism? I don't think it's primarily
a matter of economic development, though that is very important. The huige
inequalities in the world provide fertile ground for anger and indignation.
In the end, however, I believe that most terrorism is political and that
ultimately it is the expression of a political conflict. That means that
one should not ignore the idea of political so;utions or compromises that
will remove the context for support of terrorist movements.
Paidulova: as far as NATO expension is concerned if Russia is currently
regarded by the US as a partner why the US keeps to expand its influence
around the russian borders? (because it looks like surrounding the enemy)
David_Holloway: Another good question! The US does talk about partnership,
but it does not see Russia (or any state) as being its equal. What the
US wants to see in Russia is a stable, prosperous state that is integrated
into the Western world. Since the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus
(for example) are now independent, the US feels that it has every right
to be involved there. If that looks like US hegemony, then I think the
US does see itself to be in a position of unprecedented power, with a
consequent responsibility to provide oreder in the world. It sees itself
as a benign hegemon. To return to NATO -- the US position is that if the
states of Europe (including the Baltic states) want to tbe members of
NATO, they have a right to be, because they are sovereign states.
Sibileva: David Holloway! What do you think about using of gas in Moscow
theatre recently? Do you think it was illegally? Was it possible to avoid
such a great number of gas victims?
David_Holloway: I just came back on Saturday from a short visit to Moscow,
so I am aware what a terrible impact the taking of hostages and storming
of the theatre had. My feeling is that Putin faced a terrible decision
and probably had to act, given what the Chechen captors were saying. My
understanding is that the use of that gas was legal, but I haven't yet
had a chance to talk to people who know more than I do about that. what
I heard and saw about the use of gas suggests that perhaps the way the
gas was used was miscalculated, and that more should have been done before
storming the theatre to provide the medical personnel to deal immediately
with the victims.
Pervukhin: SUSU. Return to the “previous” question about the
major factor to intervene. Mr. Holloway, it seems more likely that under
the U.S. statements about solving the problem with “rogue” states,
North Korea, Iraq, etc. The U.S. simply supplies the “Public Support”
factor (according Pr. Blacker lecture) and simultaneously gaining its
national benefit. What does compel to think so? It seems that North Korea
has more opportunities to acquire WMD, (according to our lectures) but
the U.S. goal is to capture Iraq. How do you explain such U.S. conduct?
Malorosyanov: Prof. Holloway! There is an opinion that the USA initiating
a campaign against Iraq strives to create a precedent of using military
forces against states that do not fit into American idea of what state
should be like (apart from an oil-question). In case Washington succeeds,
it will enable the US to conduct the same operations almost anywhere in
the world LEGALLY. What is your comment on this opinion?
David_Holloway: Let me try to answer both of those questions, since they
are related....
Andrei: Dear students, while prof. Holloway answers these questions,
let me remind you that we will have another chat in two weeks - with prof.
Gail Lapidus. She specializes on Chechen conflict, and you can ask her
any questions on that topic. You can come up with any, even provocative,
questions - as soon as they are non-offensive and well formulated, ok?
David_Holloway: At a general level the US has tried to gain acceptance
(from US public opinion) for the right to impose upon the world a certain
conception of order and of "state responsibility," according
to which some states can be branded as rogue or outlaw states. That makes
those states liable to intervention by the US. What the US actually decides
to do can differ from case to case, as the contrast between Iraq and North
Korea shows. The Iraq decision is driven partly by the desire to finish
off the Gulf War and to destroy a regime that has defied the US for so
long. I think that those are more important than the oil factor, thought
that is also not neglegible. But North Korea is trickier because military
action by the US would surely lead to a North Korean attack on the South,
and especially on Seoul, with enormous casualties...
David_Holloway: I think that a key issue -- and it is one that your questions
raise -- is how the US, which now enjoys such military predominance, is
going to use its power. The Administration thinks that the US is good
and its opponents evil, and that that is all one needs to know. But most
of the rest of the world wants to see the US exercise its power in line
with international law, and especially through the UN.
Andrei: Ok, we have to finish our chat now. Prof. Holloway thank you
very much for "attending" this chat. I hope, it was interesting
for everyone
Krylov: Thank you everybody!
Voronina: We want to thank prof. Holloway for his answers as well as
other frinds for the participation! It was really nice chatting with you!
Good bye, everybody!
David_Holloway: Thank you all for the interesting questions.
Andrei: Dear students, thank you all for participating:o)!
Malorosyanov: thank you, prof.Holloway!
Back to other news
|
