*Editor's Note: The following interview, which appeared in the September 1, 2003 issue of Izvestia, is used with the permission of the publisher.

U.S. Librarian of Congress James Billington, one of America's leading Russia experts, who together with Dmitry Likhachev founded the Open World Program, will come to Moscow in September. He will participate in the Bibliobraz All-Russian festival of school libraries. On the eve of a new academic year, Dr. Billington spoke with Izvestiya correspondent Andrei Lebedev about what historically unites the U.S. and Russia, about the importance of culture in solving political issues, and the role of books and the Internet in present-day life — knowledge in a broad sense of the word.

The Open World Program was founded in 1999 to give young emerging Russian political leaders an opportunity to experience firsthand the U.S. democratic process and the everyday life of Americans. Soon thereafter, representatives of other professional communities began participating in the program. Russians go to the U.S. in small groups for ten days. They stay with American host families in different U.S. towns and visit companies and institutions that are of professional interest to them.

...So far, about 7,000 Russians have participated. In 2002 alone more than 2,600 people visited the U.S. under the Open World Program. In March, Congress added a new perspective to the program — Russian cultural leaders will now also have an opportunity to come to the U.S. to exchange experiences with their U.S. counterparts.

Q: Dr. Billington, are you satisfied with the way your project is developing?

A: We think that Open World is more than just a successful project. This is not tourism, visits of Soviet officials or general examination of the nation's living conditions. When I speak with the program's participants, I see that they are going deeper into specific practical and even technical issues. This is particularly true of the [Open World] rule of law program, which really meets the needs of our Russian friends from the judicial and legal communities.

Q: How else have your guests changed over the four years?

A: Russia is undergoing significant changes — a new generation is appearing that is beginning to play an increasingly important role in state development. Their interest in the activities of nongovernmental organizations — civil society components — is growing. They are also keen to know more about the relationship between federal and local authorities — key facets of federalism.

In fact, I would like to point to a more general feature — the openness and enthusiasm on the part of both the guests and their American hosts. Not only the Russians are affected by the program. The program participants' explanations about how things are done in Russia receive extensive coverage in the U.S. media. This deeply affects my countrymen and it is very important, since the Western media has the tendency to report more on the country's problems — corruption, crimes and so forth — than on its achievements and the new generation of Russians.

Q: Why did you decide to expand the program to include cultural leaders? Why not other leaders?

A: A peculiar feature of the democratic process is that, both in the U.S. and in other nations with developed democracy, representatives of the media and cultural leaders play an important role in leading the country. This is especially true in relation to Russia. They [cultural leaders] influence Russian history directly; by means of moral authority, which in a democratic society is transformed into political authority; and through participating in establishing moral values, which become the basis for political life. I think Russians are becoming aware that the nation must be led not by a political caste, but by society, which is supported by its moral and cultural resources.

Because culture plays a leading role in Russia, its great variety should be used to make society more open, where cultural institutions survive not only due to state subsidies, but also through relationships with civic structures (in particular, with support from private corporations and charity donations). I think the idea of culture acting as a moral guide for the public corresponds to Russian traditions.

Q: Does the same relate to religion?

A: Public institutions will be more stable and effective if they base themselves on the joint efforts of representatives of various beliefs. Russia has a deep confessional basis for that — first of all, the Orthodox Church, but also the Islamic religion, as well as a number of other non-Orthodox confessions — Judaism, Buddhism and so forth. The democratic process aims to retain religious beliefs as a source of people's strength for everyone — not only for believers — and at the same time, to maintain the separation of the church from the state (which is, by the way, stipulated in the American and Russian constitutions), watching carefully to make sure that religion is not involved in directly supporting a political position. I think it would be a big mistake to give equal weight to religion and politics, or to say that the church and state would strengthen each other if linked.

Q: Do you let religious leaders participate in Open World?

A: Candidates' religion is not a factor for us when we form the groups. We welcome a variety — our program's participants represent various ethnic groups, religions and political views. I don't see why a priest or a mullah should not participate in the program, but Open World does not give a special status to clergymen, or any other social group.

Q: You founded Open World in cooperation with Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. If you had a chance to choose a partner in Russia today, who would it be?

A: It is unlikely that another Likhachev exists. He was unique. Academician Likhachev is a combination of great Russian traditions and the cosmopolitism of the new open world. During my last meeting with him, he talked absorbedly about his idea of creating a university of a new type, whose facilities would be located in various countries along the Baltic Sea: in Helsinki, Stockholm, Copenhagen, St. Petersburg and the Baltic states. In a sense, present-day Russia has many young Likhachevs who see no contradiction between Russia's cultural traditions and its ability to be open to the world.

Q: In your book entitled The Face of Russia, you have drawn the conclusion that at least in terms of culture, our nation has the following peculiar feature — having inventively remade things borrowed from abroad (for example, Byzantine icon paintings), Russia brings them to a fundamentally new level and then rejects them. In 1999 you had concerns that the same might happen to the attitude of Russians toward democracy. What do you think now?

A: I have just finished a new book entitled Russia in Search of Itself (I sent the manuscript to a U.S. publishing house. It is being translated into Russian and I hope that the book will be released in the U.S. and Russia simultaneously — probably in about six months). When working on the book, I used a great number of articles — not only those published in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but also Internet-based papers, roundtable reports and materials from all over the country. These materials gave me a solid basis for hope. Russia is leaving the period of structural dishonesty built into the system, with which citizens dealt. I wouldn't say it is discovering a democratic process or the institutions of open society and free entrepreneurship — Russia is restoring its rich experience in these areas.

The creation of a constitutional state — where the law rules and where democracy and a sound economy can function under moderately regulated and fair conditions without being put under tight state control — is an art rather than a science.

This is why I draw a parallel to icon painting. Russian painters who worked in the period between Rublev and Dionisiy took the Byzantine manner of painting and remade it, reaching a fundamentally new level. Your country is now in a creative phase of adapting existing experience, but there is still the risk of ruining it. The good sign is that you have already made great progress despite all difficulties and that the creative adaptation is being done without rejecting foreign models. This is where the Open World Program can be of help. Perhaps we don't even know now which of its elements will be of best use to Russia. There are interesting parallels between our countries. These are two multiethnic civilizations, each occupying a whole continent, and two branches of European culture that are building a federalism-based model of democracy.

One of the Internet projects developed by the U.S. Library of Congress, in cooperation with the Russian State Library, is the online Russian-American library "Meeting of Frontiers" (http://frontiers.loc.gov). It narrates in Russian and English about parallels in the histories of the two nations. It contains unique materials: rare books, manuscripts, photos and drawings dedicated to the lives of little-known settlements; explorers' maps; and other historical documents.

Q: President Reagan, who described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire," appointed you to your current post. Later you accompanied him on his visit to Moscow. Have you met with the other residents of the White House?

A: I frequently meet with various decision makers in Washington, including members of Congress and other political leaders. We mainly talk about Russian culture and share impressions about the Open World Program and developments in Russia. It is very encouraging that all the people I meet view the cultural side of Russian life to be important and educational from a political point of view.

The annual budget of the U.S. Library of Congress is close to $450 million, which includes funds for the maintenance of the Congressional Research Service — the world's largest think tank; a department dedicated to providing literature to the blind and disabled; and other divisions of the Library. The Library contains 126 million items. Websites created with the Library's participation recorded over 3 billion guests last year.

Q: If you were the director of a Russian village library, what would you spend the main portion of subsidies on: purchasing new books or a PC with an Internet connection?

A: I don't think I should have to choose. It is necessary to have a few great books and reference materials oriented toward families and family values, in a broad sense of the word. At the same time, it is necessary to have access to the Internet to receive accurate information. Yes, there is a lot of trash on the Internet: violent video games, indecent pictures and illiterate chat rooms. But the Internet removes distance and makes it possible to discuss issues that are of interest to everyone and to learn about foreign cultures. Russia has a great literary culture and is now forming an interesting Internet culture.

But we also need the third element — a librarian who will navigate the sea of knowledge. He/she must defend the openness of information and its availability to readers. Democracy will not work without one. If there is no free access to cultural values in such a rich country as Russia, you will risk aggravating the disparity and losing a chance to develop real self-government. So, if there are an insufficient number of books or lines of access to the Internet, find a librarian who will fight for that on behalf of his/her community at all levels, and involve the local population. We have discovered that in the past, when a new settlement was being formed in the U.S., they would first of all build a house of worship (a church, a chapel or a synagogue), a school and certainly a library in the center of town, which would then become the place for public meetings. People who shared the aspiration to discover the truth attended libraries to find the best way to govern. Libraries should be viewed as the central and most authoritative institution. A library and a librarian are not a luxury, but a necessity.

Published by The PBN Company for the Open World Leadership Center, whose Open World Program has hosted nearly 9,000 citizens from Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan since its inception in 1999. The Center is an independent legislative branch agency that works cooperatively with the U.S. Department of State and other U.S. executive and judicial branch agencies. For additional information, please visit the Open World Leadership Center's website at www.openworld.gov or contact the office at +1 202-707-8943.