Chat with Michael McFaul

On May 6, 1999, CBS News and the AOL audience chatted with Michael McFaul about the joint Russian and Western agreement for a plan for seeking peace in Kosovo. McFaul is with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Michael McFaul: The components of the plan are still rather vague, in that a general set of principles were agreed to in the meeting of the contact group in Bonn, but the specifics of a peace plan have yet to be spelled out.

The most important part of the agreement today was that all powers, including Russia, agreed that an international security force should go into Kosovo in order to provide the secure conditions for the safe return of the Kosovars. Before today, Russia had not agreed to either endorse, or participate, in such an international peacekeeping force.

Russia, it must be remembered, has its own problems with ethnic groups that want to leave the Russian federation including, first and foremost, Chechnya. Consequently, Russia has been reluctant to set a precedent of foreign troops intervening in the sovereign territory of another nation. Today's agreement was a fundamental change in Russia's position regarding the conflict in Yugoslavia.

The key difference between Russia and the NATO alliance is over what nation's troops should be involved in this peacekeeping force. The NATO alliance and the Clinton administration still believe that NATO forces should constitute the core of an international peacekeeping force. Russia, however, believes that only neutral countries or NATO members who have not participated in the bombing of Serbia should participate in this peacekeeping force.

Audience question: Might Russian troops be involved in any peacekeeping force that goes into Kosovo?

Michael McFaul: My guess is most likely yes. The Russians have indicated that they are willing to send troops to Kosovo. However, their one precondition is that these troops be under the command of the United Nations and not under the command of NATO.

Audience question: What is Russia's attitude on the ethnic cleansing issue and will they support the world court if charges are brought against the Serbian government?

Michael McFaul: The Russian position consists of many different positions. Russia is no longer a totalitarian regime, but is a democracy. Consequently different political parties in Russia have different views regarding ethnic cleansing. In fact different governors within Russia have different positions regarding ethnic cleansing.

For instance, the Russian Communist Party does not believe that there has been ethnic cleansing in Koovo. Likewise, the Nationalist party in Russia, headed by Vladamir Ghirinovsky, also does not recognize that any ethnic cleansing has occurred in Kosovo. However, liberal parties in Russia such as Yabloko, have recognized that ethnic cleansing has occurred. Leaders of several Russian ethnic republics such as Tatarstan are especially sensitive to the plight of the Kosovars because the population of these republics are predominantly Muslim.

However, the official position of the Russian government is still to not allow Mr. Milosevic to be prosecuted as a war criminal. Again, Russia does not want to set a precedent here. President Yeltsin initiated a military campaign against Chechnya in which 100,000 citizens of Chechnya were killed. Some in Russia believe that Yeltsin himself should be tried in the International Court of Justice for this crime against humanity.

Audience question: What is the assurance that Milosevic will accept the "agreement" that was initiated between the US & Russia? He has been adamant to this point in having no armed peacekeepers in Kosovo.

Michael McFaul: That is an excellent question. To date we have been negotiating with the Russians and have made real progress. But Russia does not control Serbia. On the contrary, I believe that we in the West have tended to overestimate Russia's leverage over Mr. Milosevic. I suspect that we are still very far away from an actual agreement with Mr. Milosevic. Today's agreement was a good first step but only a very small first step.

Audience question: Has NATO's intervention into Yugoslavia without Russian approval has placed US and Russia relations in peril?

Michael McFaul: The consequences of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia for US/Russian relations are still unknown. Initially, after the NATO campaign against Serbia began the Russian response was extremely negative. Before the NATO bombing campaign anti-Americanism in Russia was an elite feature. Foreign policy elite in Moscow had grown increasingly disenchanted with the United States.

After the NATO campaign against Serbia began, however, anti-Americanism became a populist cause. Public opinion polls conducted soon after the beginning of the war revealed that 90% of the Russian population opposed the NATO bombing campaign. 65% of the population in Russia believed that NATO was the aggressor in the conflict, while only 15% believed that Serbia was the aggressor.

What the long-term implications of these negative attitudes toward the US will be, however, remain unclear. The events of today bring Russia back into the international spotlight and will help to make Russians feel like their voice is being listened to in the West. In many ways, the Russian involvement in the peace process regarding the conflict in Kosovo has been important in reestablishing Russia's pace in the international community.

Audience question: What made Russia change it's mind?

Michael McFaul: I think two things. First, Russia, after an initial emotional reaction against the NATO bombing, realized that it was not in Russia's long term national interest to be involved in a conflict with the West. Over the long run, most Russians and first and foremost, President Boris Yeltsin, still believe that Russia will be better off being a partner of the West rather than an enemy of the West.

A second important factor in Russia's change of position has to do with domestic politics in Russia. At the beginning of the Kosovo conflict, Prime Minister Primakov was Russia's point person on the Kosovo conflict. Mr. Primakov is known in the West for his anti-American sentiments. Consequently, when he was in charge, Russia was not cooperating with NATO.

President Yeltsin and Mr. Primakov are now political rivals in Russia. Many believe that Primakov will be the next president of Russia. Consequently, Yeltsin was disturbed by the fact that Primakov was gaining so much international attention over the Kosovo conflict and was pursuing an anti-Western policy. Therefore, he appointed his former prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin, to be his special envoy on the Kosovo crisis. Chernomyrdin has a reputation for being a friend of the West. In the United States, he has an especially close relationship with Vice President Gore. It is in large part because of Mr. Chernomyrdin that Russia has become more cooperative with NATO.

Audience question: If Russia hadn't been in such a financial crunch, do you think they would have intervened militarily on behalf of Milosevic and Yugoslavia?

Michael McFaul: If Russia had the same capabilities as the Soviet Union did ten years ago, NATO would have been deterred from bombing Serbia. Russia today, however, is too weak to protect Serbia. Moreover, Russia is a democracy and 85% of the Russian population opposes Russian military assistance to Serbia.

Every Monday through Thursday evening at 7:30pm ET/4:30pm PT, CBS News hosts a live chat with a CBS News Correspondent or newsmaker on America Online. On AOL, Keyword: Live.

CBS Worldwide Corp. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed