The US and Russian presidents are to meet each other on May 18-19 on the sidelines of the G8 summit in Camp David. It serves the purpose to have at least a cursory look at the background the historic event is going to take place against.
The Russia-USA relations have a long and instructive history that teaches that mutual understanding and constructive cooperation in different situations have always been fruitful for the both countries as well as for the whole world. Russia supported the 13 colonies in their struggle for independence. It was among the first to formally recognize the USA in 1807. Russia and the USA were on the same side in two world wars. The two states found ways to preserve peace in the times of the Cuban crisis and gradually realized the imperative of leaving the Cold war and arms race behind in favor of détente and cooperation. In 1991, after the USSR dismemberment, the path to becoming partners seemed to have no bumps. The Francis Fukuyama’s End of History matched well the intentions promulgated by the states’ leaders. The 9/11 tragedy took place on American soil, but it was seen as an equally tragic and dangerous development by Russia as well. By that time, Russia had already experienced multiple domestic terrorist attacks, and many Russians sympathized with the United States and extended their support to the American people and their government. President Vladimir Putin was among the first to call then President George Bush to express his support and readiness to help America in its fight against terror. He offered broad support for operations in Afghanistan that included intelligence sharing, opening Russian airspace to relief missions, taking part in search-and-rescue operations and arming anti-Taliban forces inside Afghanistan. In June 2001, five months after President George W. Bush had taken office, everybody said the personal chemistry was an important contribution to the improvement of the relationship. But as time went on, the differences of views on local conflicts, internal situation assessments, NATO’s extension to the East and the deployment of European missile defense component shifted the relationship to the brink of renewal of new cold war. The Obama tenure gave hope for changes. The missile defense European plans were altered, there was more understanding concerning Iran, the Russian territory started to be used as a transit point for US deliveries to Afghanistan. No doubt the new START Treaty, the 123 Agreement dealing with civilian nuclear cooperation and Russia's WTO accession as positive steps stemming from warmer relations. Still, no matter these obvious achievements, three years after the Obama administration called for a "reset" of relations with Russia the process has slowed down becoming a rather bumpy road. Reflecting the trend the leading Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said: "This is without question our number one geopolitical foe, they fight every cause for the world's worst actors, the idea that he has some more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," He added: “Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered”.
Open hostility expressed by US officials and politicians
It’s somehow has become forgotten by now but the word enemy (not exactly foe, but hostile indeed) has already used by an Obama assigned US official. The time was 2010 and the person was Walter Isaacson, then Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which runs the Voice of America (which is a State Department outlet), Radio Free Europe and other US international broadcasts. Isaacson was speaking at last week's 60th anniversary celebration for Radio Free Europe. "We can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our enemies" he said. "You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China is launching an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel with correspondents around the world.” The words were echoed widely n the international level, Mr. Isaacson explained those days he was sorry saying the word “enemies”, actually he meant…the forces opposing US troops in Afghanistan! The experience of being the head of CNN, Time magazine, the Aspen Institute, and an author of a number of well known books makes him a very thoughtful person, it’s hard to believe it was a slip of tongue.
Getting back to what we have today it’s an open secret that many of those who belong to Republican elite have expressed a negative attitude towards Russia before. By and large the same things have been said by former vice-president Cheney, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. One can recall numerous crude statements made by the former Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain who has been saying off and on for quite a long time that Russia is one of the US adversaries.
The criticism of Romney was echoed by a group of 43 Republican senators, who signed a letter on March 27, 2012 saying they would oppose any attempt to limit U.S. missile defense capabilities. Actually the list of senators and congressmen who have become hostile towards Russia goes on and on, extending to Republican Senator Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Russia even has ill-wishers amongst the Democrats. Hillary Clinton’s comments on the recent Russia’s State Duma and presidential elections were hardly friendly. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican. Senator Richard Durbin, the Senate's number two Democrat, denounced Russia on the Senate floor for selling arms to Syria. They are part of a bipartisan group of 17 senators who are urging the U.S. government to stop buying helicopters for the Afghan military from a Russian company, Rosoboronexport, that also exports weapons to Syria.
Senator Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said at a hearing on the Russia trade bill that the White House is to expect a tough battle over legislation to boost trade ties with Russia because of Moscow's human rights record and foreign policy, especially its support for Syrian government. In the middle of March four leading senators: Democrat Ben Cardin, independent Joseph Lieberman, Republicans John McCain and Roger Wicker sent a letter to Senators Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, the Chairman and Ranking Member respectively of the Senate Finance Committee, concerning the lifting of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia. The letter said the notorious Jackson-Venik amendment could be abolished only in case the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is in force. It would freeze American bank accounts and deny U.S. visas to “corrupt” officials and “human rights violators” around the world, meaning Russia at first place.
Now, that’s what politicians say, especially the right wing once, who insist they serve and protect the interests of ordinary Americans. What about trying to look at Russia stepping into the shoes of a US common man on the street and make the obvious factors be taken into account?
Russia being a foe and the interests of common Americans
A failure to repeal the Jackson-Venik amendment and approve "permanent normal trade relations" (PNTR), would deny American companies the market-opening benefits of Russia joining the WTO. It is detrimental to the United States. It’s not detrimental to Russia. In the middle of March a coalition of 173 U.S. companies and business groups released a letter urging lawmakers to support the measure. "Without PNTR, U.S. companies and their employees will be left behind our competitors in this growing and profitable market," the letter said. Obviously it’s the US companies who will be at a disadvantage vis-a-vis other countries’ companies doing business in Russia. So, broader economic cooperation with it means working places in the USA at the time they are needed most of all. It’s a working place a common American is worried about, not having in force obsolete amendments that don’t change anything in the US favor.
The U.S. hardly has a real alternative (without damaging its own interests) to developing energy cooperation with Russia. It’s a critically important market for the United States, which consumes over 20 percent of the world’s energy and has a shortage of domestic energy supplies. Russia is the world's largest producer of hydrocarbons; the United States is the world's largest consumer. A great power finding new strength with the world’s largest energy supplies, Russia can be a valuable partner (or a spoiler) of US policies in Eurasia and other regions. Denying Russia the right to pursue its energy interests is sure to come with large political and economic costs. Economically it may lead to the isolation of American companies from developing important energy fields and energy relations abroad. No way this situation development may serve the interests of common people in the USA.
Most Americans may not know (or just don’t think about) that Russia has provided U.S. and NATO troop’s air and land corridors to Afghanistan (the Northern Distribution Network). It provides most of the cargo required to conduct military operations against the Taliban. In the most difficult times, exacerbated by worsening relations with Pakistan, Russia has offered NATO access to an airfield in Ulyanovsk to help ease the strain of resupplying embattled NATO forces in Afghanistan. It’s obvious there is no way the USA can tackle the Afghanistan problem without Russia’s active support. Should GOP candidate win the presidential election, he’d better listen to experts (I mean real experts, not war mongers and Tea party gung-ho hawks) and see clearly if there is an alternative to Russia-USA cooperation on a broad range of security issues. Let him think about those common Americans who’d pay dearly in Afghanistan in case the reset is over and hostility era sets in. Talking about Average Joe, let’s not forget compelling facts: over 70 percent of the American people are weary of war and want President Obama to exit Afghanistan as soon as possible. This holds true for most Republicans and an even larger number of independents. What’s more 51 percent of the American people have a “favorable” view of Russia and only 3 percent deem it an “arch enemy.”
Of course Russia has solid ground to justify its security concerns and question U.S. intentions and policies as undermining its legitimate interests. It has roots in the American support for the color revolutions, which that many view as directed at undermining the country’s political stability. Russia sees obvious lack of appreciation of its foreign policy interests, for instance the war against Serbia or “waves” of NATO expansion without any sensible justification of the need to do so, the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty, the invasion of Iraq in fragrant violation of international law and plans to deploy elements of national missile defense in the immediate vicinity of its European borders, military presence in Central Asia, blocking development of Russia’s energy infrastructure and pushing Moscow to adopt Western-style “democratization”. It’s just a short list of factors that cloud prospects for bilateral relations. These approaches don’t match the reality of today. It’s a long tome Russia has ceased to be a defeated party at the end of the Cold War. It’s a growing power with increasing international clout, rising economy and military potential. Its current imperatives are of a state-building nature.
Talking about crucial arms control issues and the necessity to make further progress let’s remember Ronald Reagan, the late US President the American neoconservatives admire so much. He’s policy was to boost the US military potential, the President started the Star Wars and 600-ships navy programs etc. But many even in the USA forget that at the same time he deemed the elimination of nuclear weapons a vital U.S. security goal. In 1987 he signed a treaty with the USSR to eliminate an entire category of missiles (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty). He, the hero of US Right Wing politicians, was the one who set the stage for subsequent arms control agreements with Russia. He found that hostility towards Russia was not in the US interests. Any American knows Ronald Reagan started from ranks to become president. He was a conservative minded common man making it to the top.
The two sides have great potential to build foundations for a future partnership in all spheres. Dealing with the threat of terrorism, for instance. If the two states don’t cooperate it may obtain a nuclear dimension. Expanding NATO doesn’t answer the interest of common Americans in any way, unlike the cooperation with Russia in countering the threat of radical Islamists, be it in Chechnya, Afghanistan or the Middle East. The two nations are doomed to cooperate in security affairs. It has great potential in case it’s done on equal terms. It would thus behoove Washington to act in consultation with Moscow than loose a lot by saying Russia a US foe. The disagreements over big issues like NATO expansion and missile defense are compensated by Russia's progressive integration into the world community over recent years. It has become a member of the G8, the Council of Europe, it has finally joined the World Trade Organization, it’s a member of the BRICS – an organization becoming increasingly influential globally, it’s membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and East Asia Forum. Certainly Russia is not the one to snap to attention and say “Yes, Sir!” (or “Yes, Ma’am!” in case Hillary Clinton blatantly intervenes into Russia’s internal affairs) anytime Washington tells others what to do or starts pontificating on the issues like human rights (against the backdrop of Abu Ghraib, CIA secret jails or the feats by the servicemen like Staff Sgt. R.Bales shooting civilians in Afghanistan to name just a few).
The “Foe’ concept and future choices
What Romney has said is not just pre-election rhetoric, he is not alone at this point. The hostility towards Russia is spread among the US political elite, and Romney is only voicing the mood around him. Politician's statements tell us about the electorate at which they are aimed at. The remarks were tested in the appropriate focus groups and cleared by the political consultants, no way such an experienced person would allow himself off-the-cuff remarks. He says what a substantial part of the U.S. voters believe. Does it really serve the US interest? None other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, certainly not a great admirer of Russia, bluntly stated that not only Romney’s, but the other GOP candidates’ foreign policy statements, are an intellectual embarrassment. “They are shallow, ignorant and totally detached from any serious policy choices,” – he said.
US President Barack Obama made concrete the agenda for his meeting with newly-elected President Vladimir Putin scheduled to take place on the sidelines of the Group of Eight meeting at Camp David at the end of May. Apparently, there will be a “reset of the reset button”. In an interview on the Ekho Moskvy radio station on January 26, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described the current U.S.-Russian relations as “unambiguous partnership” and stressed that the rivalry between Russia and the United States on some issues was not a dominant feature of their relationship, and the parties had a fairly broad, positive agenda. Sergei Ryabkov said that such a summit would be “extremely useful” for relations between the two countries and would, perhaps, serve as a catalyst for resolving a number of problems. Meeting President Obama in March 2012 at the Seoul security summit Russia President Medvedev said in the last three years Russian-US relations were the best they had been in decades, despite differing views on the success of the “reset” in relations. That’s hardly what the foes or enemies say. There is a good chance Russia and the USA effectively engage in handling the burning issues of today in the interests of common people of both countries or plunge in “foe concept” making the world a much more dire place to live in than what we have today.
