On May 4, 2005, the annual World Russian Forum (WRF), bringing together prominent Russian and American public figures to discuss the status of U.S.-Russia relations and future prospects for political, economic and military cooperation, gets underway in Washington, D.C. Following is an interview with the WRF founder and chairman, Edward Lozansky.

Q: How does this year’s forum agenda differ from those of previous years?

A: The World Russian Forum is an annual event that’s been going on since 1981. Traditionally, it takes place in one of the auditoriums of the U.S. Congress. The first session was a tribute to the most famous Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov on his 60th birthday, and until 1988 we tended to concentrate on the geopolitical and ideological struggle with communism. Later, when we realized that Gorbachev was getting serious about democracy, we decided to move away from confrontation to a more positive agenda. From 1989 on, the Forum has been devoted to the broader agenda of U.S. – Russian cooperation and Russia’s integration with the West. Actually, the first Forum with this new theme took place in Moscow when we brought a large American delegation to have an open and frank discussion on many issues facing both countries at that time. This was probably the first conference of its kind in the Soviet Union, where 40 plus well-known scholars and political leaders with strong anti-communist views, including two U.S. Senators, were allowed to conduct an open and uncensored dialogue with Russian colleagues, university students, and media. At the end of the conference we met with the number-two man in the country, Alexander Yakovlev, who for the first time made a statement that the Soviet Union was prepared to let Eastern Europe go free. We reported this news to the White House, but I don’t think they took the information seriously. In any event, after this conference our motto became “American-Russian political, military and economic alliance.” I am not so naïve as to believe that this will happen soon, but one should have a strategic vision and ultimate goal, no matter how impossible it might appear to be.

Unfortunately, this year the situation is pretty complicated. A number of American politicians, scholars, observers, and media have accused Russia of rolling back democratic reforms and sliding toward dictatorship. Congress held several hearings on these matters, but in most cases those who have different views were never invited to present their case. It was a one-sided Russia bashing, and our Forum seeks to rectify this situation.

Q: Does this mean you will only be inviting Russian officials to speak at the event?

A: Not at all. Representatives of both countries will be speaking, including those critical of Russia. But the Forum’s sessions will also give the participants the opportunity to get to know different views and arguments from both sides.

Q: How is it possible for a private organization like yours to hold an event at the U.S. Congress?

A: One has to have the support of members of Congress. In the 80s and early 90s, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas and Congressman Jack Kemp of New York helped us get the room. Now we have support from Congressmen Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, Dana Rohrarbacher of California, Ralph Hall of Texas, and many others who are strong proponents of U.S.-Russian rapprochement. One individual who has been most helpful in bringing together this year’s forum is Paul Weyrich, who is the president and CEO of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation. I met Paul in 1980 when I moved to Washington from Rochester, New York, and we’ve been working closely since then. Paul has excellent contacts on Capitol Hill and this helps a lot. He’s been to Russia many times and shares my ideas on the importance of Russia’s integration with the West.

Q: The Congress members you mentioned are all Republicans. Will any Democrats also be participating in the forum?

A: I have never concealed the fact that I am an active member of the Republican Party; therefore, it is not surprising that for me it’s much easier to get their support. However, among those speaking at the forum are, and always will be, many Democrats, as well as high-ranking government officials; representatives of big and small business, leading universities, and think tanks.

Q: Several U.S. lawmakers are calling for Russia’s exclusion from the G-8 group, most active among them being Senator John McCain and Congressman Tom Lantos. Will they succeed in doing this, and what is your position on the issue?

A: There are those in Congress who are in favor of introducing harsh sanctions against Russia and excluding her from the G-8 group, but their numbers are small. The majority of Congress members and the White House do not share their views. Those who are sincerely interested in the progress of Russian democratic reforms, and I count myself among them, believe that Russia must not be excluded from international organizations, but, to the contrary, should be integrated into as many of them as possible.

Q: How, then, do you explain McCain’s and Lantos’s position?

A: Well, everyone is entitled to their own views and ideas, but I have the impression that some members of Congress are influenced by lobbyists hired by people with a different agenda. Congressman Lantos and Senator McCain, with public relations help from Garry Kasparov, already attempted to ram through a resolution on the exclusion of Russia from the G-8, but their attempt failed. And I am sure they will fail next time, too, at least as long as George Bush is in the White House. President Bush understands all too well Russia’s importance for America’s security and economy. Both countries share a common approach on the war on terrorism and proliferation of WMDs. And only Russian energy resources are able to reduce America’s dependency on the volatile regimes of the Middle East. Those who are calling for a return to confrontation are motivated by narrow, selfish objectives to the detriment of wider U.S. national interests. However, judging by the signals emanating from the White House, I am pleased that George Bush is resisting the pressure of the anti-Russian lobby.

Q: Could you name the people or organizations that you believe are carrying out this anti-Russian, or anti-Putin, lobbying campaign?

A: Above all, I have in mind those who, for geopolitical, historical or other reasons, do not accept the Russian state, regardless of whether it’s a monarchy, communist dictatorship or democracy. Among them are many countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, as well as their respective ethnic communities in the United States. Admittedly, all of them suffered under the Soviet regime, and some under czarist Russia as well. But with the collapse of communism a new era has arrived, and we need to try and get over old wounds and insults and strive to integrate Russia into the West’s geopolitical structures. Russia should be regarded as a Western partner and ally ready to confront the threats of the 21st century, not as the successor of the Evil Empire. Germany and Japan did no less, or perhaps even more, harm to many nations but they are now accepted as part of the West. I do not see why Russia cannot be accepted as well.
As for the narrower anti-Putin lobby, the main role here is played by the disgraced oligarchs and the American lobbying firms they’ve hired.

Q: One gets the impression that you stand behind Russia and its leader unreservedly in everything. In your view, is Russia’s position always the right one?

A: That’s not true. If you examine my writings, you’ll see that I am often at odds with certain aspects of Russian foreign policy. For example, in my most recent columns, which appeared in Izvestia and even the government-backed Rossiyskaya Gazeta, I was quite critical of Russia’s behavior during the elections in Ukraine, as well as of its positions on Iran and Syria. American intelligence has indisputable and clear evidence of the latter two countries’ involvement in terrorist activities. In this context, a demonstration of warm relations and cooperation in nuclear and military fields unsettles even the sincerest of Russia’s friends. I am sure we will talk about this during the forum, and tough questions will be asked.

Q: You say the objective of WRF is to initiate a process of rapprochement between Russia and the United States. Specifically, how will you be able to influence this process?

A: Above all, by serving as an intermediary, networking place to establish new contacts between American and Russian businessmen, politicians, scientists and educators. Quite often after meeting at our conferences, people will embark on joint projects. The forum plays another crucial role in that both sides are able to clarify their positions on topical issues. This is important; especially considering the media’s news coverage in both countries tends to be negative about each other. There are, after all, a lot of positive developments in our relations, but they remain unknown to the public.

Q: How does the World Russian Forum differ from myriad other conferences that deal with Russia; for example, the Harvard Symposium, the London Economic Forum, Sachs-Bloomberg in New York, etc?

A: I would cite two main differences. First, the conferences you just mentioned are dedicated exclusively to financial and economic issues, while ours, as I said earlier, has a wider scope. But the main distinction is that it is the only one of its kind taking place inside the U.S. Congress with the participation of U.S. lawmakers, high-ranking administration officials and other influential decision makers. Therefore, it’s possible that our conference will have a direct impact on decisions made later by the executive and legislative branches of power. One additional difference also worth mentioning is that our registration fee is 10 times less then theirs.

Q: You wrote a book about ethnic lobbying in America, and support the creation of a Russian lobby in Washington. What does America’s Russian community look like? How politically active is it? What is its relationship to its homeland? Is it cohesive or splintered?

A: Various estimates put the number of people with Russian heritage anywhere between 3 and 6 million. From an economic point of view, it is one of the most successful ethnic groups in America, and I would venture to say that most of them relate positively to their historic homeland, especially after it was rid of communist dictatorship. If Russia has truly chosen to embark on a path of rapprochement with the West and the United States, then the Russian community in the U.S. could play a very important role in this process.

Q: Can you share your ideas about what this Russian lobby should look like in practice; its structure, leadership, agenda, method of financing, etc?

A: Considering the splintered nature of the Russian Diaspora, I imagine at the initial stage an American lobbying firm representing the core of the Russian lobby, which is allowed under U.S. law. It’s important to stress from the very beginning that its main objective will be the promotion of U.S.-Russia strategic partnership. I am sure that later on many Diaspora activists will join the process.

With respect to how these activities ought to be financed, I believe Russian business should get behind this initiative, and definitely not the Russian state. This will be a more legitimate, effective and dignified approach. Large Russian corporations like Lukoil, Yukos and Severstal have long been lobbying for their narrow interests in the U.S. However, it’s critical that Russian companies present in the American market combine their corporate lobbying efforts with the support of a broader agenda for U.S.-Russian cooperation.

Q: How can individuals interested in the World Russian Forum attend the event?

A: By simply visiting our Web site, www.russiahouse.org/wrf, and registering online, or by sending an email to Forum@RussiaHouse.org.