- What sparked your initial interest in Russia? In your yearly years, how did you view the Soviet  Union?

- I started to take Russian courses in high school. At that time, everyone thought the Soviet Union to be our arch-enemy. From my studies, though, it did not seem that the Russian culture is as hostile as it was publicized to be. In college, I took Russian Literature, Russian History, Russian Culture – a whole range of courses on Russia and Soviet Russia. All this interested me to an even greater extent. I then became involved with a program sponsored by the State Department called The American Council of Young Political Leaders. They sent me on an exchange trip to Russia, or the Soviet Union. Then I hosted a delegation in my district in 1985 with 12 young politicians from Russia. Many of these people later became influential members of the Russian Government: Valentina Matvienko, Vladimir Aksenov, Sergei Karaganov. These people were all my friends from way back. I developed a relationship with them. When I came to Congress and was assigned to the Arms Services Committee, I became, perhaps, Russia’s toughest critic, but, at the same time, best friend. I’ve maintained a consistency throughout my eighteen years in Congress of working with Russia in a very straightforward manner. While I have seen administrations, both Republican and Democratic, that had foreign policies with Russia like roller-coasters, I think that I have a unique perspective on Russia, a different one than others may have.  

- Recent proliferation of terror in Russia has really underscored the global terrorist threat. In fact, terrorism is among the major issues that face Russia and the US alike. How do Russia and America currently collaborate in the war on terror? What are some concrete highlights?

- I took the first US delegation into Beslan. In fact, Russia would not even allow our ambassador in Moscow to go. But, as I have very many friends in Russia, separate from our State Department, I was able to travel. In spite of the efforts to discourage me from going to Beslan, I thought it was extremely important to express solidarity with the Russian people and to show that we have a common enemy. I also thought it was important because the coverage of the incident by international media was hypocritical: journalists were trying to blame Putin and the military for the debacle. I wanted to go down and see for myself. As typically is the case, the media had grossly distorted it. Their view would have undermined the relationship between our two countries. I went to the North Ossetian Office in Moscow, ironically even before our own ambassador went there. I signed the condolence book and met with the Vice-President of North Ossetia. I talked to him about the ways we could help, what kind of relief efforts we were able to provide. Later, we went down to the site. In Beslan, I was hosted by the speaker of the local parliament, whose two children were in the school when it was attacked. We had first-hand information of what happened. I laid flowers at the school and presented a flag that we’ve flown over the US Capitol building. I made a declaration that the terrorists who did that outrageous act were nothing but cowards. When we met with the President of North Ossetia, I presented him with a framed copy of a proclamation that we passed in Congress, condemning the terrorist attack.

Overall, on the issue of terrorism, Russia and the United States try to join efforts. The Russian Duma leads the anti-terrorism task-force, whose job is to establish international collaborative efforts. I think that now  we need to be even more aggressive in that area. I’ve proposed to Kotenkov, Lebedev, and the President of North Ossetia that we have a conference on anti-terrorism strategies and security in Moscow. That would give us an opportunity to bring hundreds of American companies that have technology that Russia may be interested in. Also, our security companies will be able to see what Russia has developed. We are working on organizing this conference right now. Then, eventually, we will have a similar conference, where our Russian friends would come to the US. There are tangible things that we could do because, indeed, Russia and America now have a common enemy.

- The Jackson-Vanick concern is quite prevalent in the discussion of developing US-Russia economic relations. What, in your judgment, should be done about it? What is your perspective on US-Russia economic relations as a whole?

- I have a four-point strategy, of which I had already briefed the administration. Russia should be taken out of Jackson-Vanick immediately. The same US government officials who now criticize Russia did nothing to elevate it from Jackson-Vanick when they had power. I do not accept their criticism because they did not take the appropriate action for bringing Russia closer to us when they could have. Jackson-Vanickhas has been a dinosaur for already ten years. I was able to get almost every major Russian organization in America to write me letters over a year ago urging the government to take action on Jackson-Vanick. Nothing has happened. The first thing we need to do to insure that Russia will remain our partner is to take steps we should have taken ten years ago and elevate Russia out of Jackson-Vanick. The second step is to increase the efficiency of economic work with Russia. In some cases, when we put money into Russia, we wasted that money. We blamed Russia for the waste, when, in fact, the waste was largely cost by the US’s miscalculations. The US should be putting the process in place. My initiative would solve this problem by dealing with the people of the inner circle that have a far better access than our State Department, than our Energy Department, than our Defense Department would ever have. My third point details joint missile defense. I’ve been the biggest proponent of collaborative missile defense for the last 15 years. The Clinton administration canceled the only joint missile defense program in 1996. Since then, I got the program reinstated, but the Bush administration just canceled it again the second time. How can our President make speeches with Putin and have our defense department cancel the only defense program we have? The Russians look at it and say: “You don’t really mean what you’re saying. These are just empty words.” The same empty words that were said when politicians here would talk about being Russia’s partner, all the while knowing that the oligarchs were stealing millions of dollars of money that should have been going to the Russian people. There were US advisors during Yeltsin’s tenure working with Yeltsin and the oligarchs. Americans knew there was corruption. Instead of taking action on behalf of the Russian people we just went along. The Russians simply lost their trust in the US. My fourth point, the most exciting one, is that the US administration should announce a US-Russia Free Energy Trade Agreement. This would be an agreement between the highest levels of the Russian and US governments that would create a task force that includes top energy officials, both governmental and private, who would create a joint energy plan. This will assist Russia in using the latest technology to extract its energy, in financing the construction of energy pipelines, and in facilitating the exchange of energy workers with new expedited visas. The long-term strategy would be to have Russia’s vast energy supplies become the primary [foreign] energy resource for the US. Such an arrangement will be beneficial to Russia and America alike. The US will be able to say to the countries of the Middle East that it has other reliable energy partners.     

The US-Russia Free Energy Trade Agreement becomes a cornerstone for building a new relationship between our two countries. Having Russia as a partner would allow us to deal with the nuclear situation in Iran, where we desperately need Russia’s collaboration. It would also allow us to work with Russia in dealing with the situation in North Korea. Russia has tons of energy in Sakhalin. That could become a solution for the energy needs of the North Koreans. It could be possible to convince North Korea to get rid of its nuclear materials. The four points would give Putin strong evidence to show to the Russian people that now America has really become a partner.     

- Congressman Weldon, you are quite famous for your proposal “A New Time, A New Beginning” …

- I wrote that document in 2001 for the major think-tanks of America in an effort to convince the two Presidents before any of their summits that this truly was a new direction we could be moving in. The Russian side took my proposal very seriously. In fact, the Russian Academy of Sciences published that document and sent it to every member of the Duma and the Federation Council. The chairman of the Academy of Sciences, chairman Osipov, invited me to Moscow in December of 2002 to defend my document, which was endorsed by 1/3 of the Congress. When I went to Moscow, I spoke in front of 400 academicians, including such individuals as the communist-party leader Zyuganov, who have not been friends of America in the past. When I finished, the resolution to make my document the official document for US-Russia relations was passed unanimously. That same day, I was inducted into the Russian Academy of Social Sciences, making me the only American ever inducted into that Academy.

But in contrast to the Russian side, the American side took no action on my proposal. Condoleezza Rice put the document on a shelf in her office, where it has been for the past three years. To me, this says that, while today the relationship between US and Russia is strong between Bush and Putin, but there’s nothing below it. Certainly, there is some cooperation - sister cities programs, youth programs, chambers of commerce - but it is fragmented.

- Given your involvement with the House Science Committee (Subcommittee of Space and Energy), in what scientific fields is Russia currently the world’s leader? In what fields, is the US the strongest? Are there possible avenues for mutual projects?  

- Russia is the world’s leader in many areas. For example, Russia is very strong in physics. I am very close to Evgeniy Velikhov, who is the leader of the Kurchatov Institute and the honor given to me was to present the 100th anniversary speech at the Kurchatov Institute. The other two speakers were the prime minister of Japan and Evgeni Primakov. Kurchatov is typical of Russia’s institutes. There’s outstanding leadership. The institute, under Velikhov, has changed its orientation to looking for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I also think that the work of Aleksei Yablokov, my good friend, who is on the opposite side of the spectrum, who does not like nuclear power at all, contributed significantly to the understanding of environmental security concerns in Russia, as well as in the rest of the world. I value the work of Russian institutes in health care and medicine. In fact, I’ve linked together our cancer research institutes in the US with their Russian counterparts. Certainly, Russia’s space and missile technology is very much advanced. I hosted the only major conference between Russian and US scientists in Philadelphia, where we had over 200 of Russia’s top institutes. There, all sorts of scientific fields were presented. Russia and the US have great potential in all these areas.    

- After Putin announced his plan-ned changes in Russia’s electoral system, the West responded with criticism. What would be your view on these changes?

- This gets to the heart of a major frustration I have. There are many in this country who are pushing for America to distance itself from Russia because of some of the changes that President Putin recently announced. There’s recently been a letter of disapproval signed by 14 leaders throughout the world. To me, that’s exactly the wrong direction. Where are similar letters to the leadership of, for instance, Saudi Arabia or China that are far more oppressive than Russia ever was? That sort of thing is hypocritical. My view is that we need to be friends and partners with Russia in solving major problems and dealing with economic challenges. My observation is that we have not been clear and consistent with Russia for the past twelve years. Many of  the people that signed the disapproval letter were the same policy-makers during the Clinton era that caused Russia to distrust us. Although I do have the same concerns about Putin’s long-term goals as everyone, I believe that the way to get President Putin to listen to us and to work with us is not  to slap him in the face.         

- Overall, what is the prospective direction of US-Russia cooperation ? 

- For me, the outlook on the relationship is positive. For me, it is a goal that, in ten years, the US and Russia be full partners, improving the quality of life for the people in both countries. If we can just get past some of the cold-warriors that exist in both political parties, I think we can be successful.