US/Russia: ‘Resetting relations’…

US/RUSSIAN TALKS

From the desk of MD

PRESIDENT OBAMA has departed for Moscow for two days of talks with the Kremlin that some commentators argue could be a last chance to put US-Russia relations on a new, dynamic footing. The visit to Russia – the first by Mr. Obama – follows years of escalating tension during the Bush years over, among a plethora of issues that includes the Caucasus, NATO expansion, Kosovo and Iran. Both sides have increasingly resorted to unilateral actions aimed at marking out territory as “no-go” or “out-of-bounds” areas for the other side.

So, Russia’s invasion of Georgia last August, apparently mounted in defence of Georgia’s Ossetian minority has been seen by many as an attempt to humiliate the pro-Western President of Georgia and by scuppering Tbilisi’s ambitions to join NATO.

Yet, the United States continues to ponder and seek possible offers of NATO membership for the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia; talk which, often, infuriates the Kremlin. Also contentious is the stationing of the new missile defence transmitters by the US in the former Warsaw pact countries of Poland and the Czech Republic.

Russia’s anger was also made worse when the US humiliated Serbia, a Russian Balkan ally, by recognising and announcing the independence of breakaway Kosovo. It would seem from the outset, therefore, that President Obama has his work cut out in attempting to regain the goodwill and trust in the Kremlin that he seeks in restoring better and improved relations.

To complicate matters further, Mr. Obama’s official host and interlocutor for the first part of his two day visit is the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, but real power in the Kremlin remains very much in the hands of Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, whom he does not meet until the second day of talks.

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev speak to reporters at a joint press conference at the Kremlin Palace in Moscow on Monday 6 July, 2009. (Photo Credit: MISHA JAPARIDZE/AP)

The principal item for discussion, though, will be on the issue of nuclear arms control, as well as a transit deal that would allow US weapons to reach Afghanistan across Russian airspace. On this, at least, there does appear to be hope for optimism. Despite Mr. Putin’s bitter and well publicised resentment against American encroachment into Russia’s Caucasus “backyard”, or in how also he interprets Western strategy to exclude Russia from exerting influence in the Balkans by boxing in Serbia, the two powers do share a common interest in containing nuclear arms, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and by adhering to international treaties in controlling weapons. There appears to be consensus, too, in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan because of its continued threat to the stability of the world. Russia and its people is just as worried as America about Islamic extremism – possibly even more so, given that it governs a large, sometimes restive, Muslim population in the south of its territory.

 

IN EUROPE we must hope that the talks make ground, get somewhere, and open the way towards broader discussions within other areas of disagreement between the United States and Russia. Pointedly, as the slow pace of international recognition of Kosovo has shown, when Russia feels its interests are being ignored it can make life very complicated for the West. Negative rhetoric and political blocking measures, as was implemented by Russia during its recent energy dispute with the West, is another clear example of how Russia can act (quickly) when its interests are impugned upon.

 

WITH President Obama attempting to be constructive on the world stage, generally, Russia might not just be as bloody-minded as some have been envisaging. Both leaders agree that relations between the two countries have broken down and deteriorated in the last decade with Sergey Lavrov, Russian’s Foreign Minister, indicating Moscow’s belief that its relationship with Washington has become “too adversarial”. President Obama said that he and President Medvedev are encountering a “sense of drift” in governmental relations between their nations. Mr. Obama inists:

… We resolve to reset U.S.-Russian relations so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest.

 

ON MONDAY, 6 JULY, 2009, a preliminary agreement was made to reduce the world’s two largest nuclear stockpiles to as few as 1,500 warheads each. Mr. Obama and his Russian host went to great political efforts in pointing their arsenals toward the lowest levels of any US-Russia arms control agreement. The document signed by the two leaders is being touted as a guide for negotiators as the nations work towards a replacement pact for the START arms control agreement that expires in December. The agreement also commits the (updated) treaty to lower longer-range missiles for delivering nuclear warheads to between 500 and 1,100 in total. The limit for warheads would be no greater than 1,675 each. Dmitry Medvedev is reported as having called the agreement “a reasonable compromise”.

Estimates of current nuclear stockpiles vary but the U.S. based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that at the start of 2009 the United States has around 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear warheads and Russia around 2,790.

A statement released by the White House said that the new treaty “will include effective verification measures”. Definitively, Mr. Obama has said that the measures contained within the new treaty would be completed by the end of the year.

The statement, says:

… The new agreement will enhance the security of both the U.S. and Russia, as well as provide predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces.

In resetting badly damaged US-Russian relations, Moscow has also granted permission for the United States to transport arms across its southern territories and airspace into Afghanistan. This route has been longed-for by the U.S. for some considerable time: the White House says the deal will save the United States $133-million a year, by waiving transit fees and shortening flying time.

In addition, they also outlined other ways in how they could work together to help stabilise Afghanistan. Measures include increasing the assistance to the Afghan army and police and training extra counter-narcotics personnel. The joint collaborative welcomed the increasing international support for the upcoming Afghan elections in August, and were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the “common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking”.

In sensitive moves, the US and Russia promised to revive a joint commission in attempting to account for missing service members of both countries dating back to World War II. The commission, first created by the first President Bush and President Yeltsin in the early 1990s, was later downgraded by the Russians who became less participatory. The United States hopes that the Kremlin will now open some of their more sensitive archives to US researchers seeking details about missing American servicemen.

 

DESPITE all the optimistic rhetoric, many obstacles remain, before a new disarmament treaty incorporating the leaders’ pledges can be signed in December.

Russia itself has threatened to walk away from a deal unless the United States “shows restraint” on a proposal, currently under review, to erect a missile defence system in central Europe.

Unable to find a breakthrough on the issue, Mr. Obama said talks to find a compromise would continue but insisted that the shield was directed at rogue regimes such as Iran and represented no threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Russia has frequently said that warheads located in Poland, directly aimed at them, is intimidating and threatening to Russian citizens.

Sergei Mironov, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said:

… I believe this is against Russia.

… This is a direct threat not only to our country’s national security but a threat to the territorial integrity and existence of our country.

For the US, retaining a tough position on areas of contention, Mr. Obama risks provoking Mr. Putin by condemning Russia’s actions in Georgia, where Moscow remains in breach of a ceasefire, brokered by the European Union, that ended last year’s war. Before arriving for talks, Mr. Obama said:

… I reiterated my firm belief that Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.

Broadcasts have been dominated by images of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister, and further evidence that Mr. Putin remains the most powerful figure in Russia. Mr. Obama has tried to supplant him by forging a close personal relationship with Mr. Medvedev. Although Washington considers him the more liberal of the ruling duumvirate, Mr. Medvedev has deviated little on foreign policy from the anti-American course set by the prime minister.

 

ON TUESDAY, 07 July 2009, the Obama team worked drastically in reshaping US relations with a sceptical Russia. Mr. Obama said the two countries are not “destined to be antagonists”. Speaking in the Russian capital to graduates of the New Economic School, but hoping his message would extend in reaching the whole nation, Mr. Obama said:

 … The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game. Progress must be shared.

Obama used his speech to further define his view of the US’s place in the world and, specifically, to argue that his country shares compelling interests with Russia:

… Let me be clear: America wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia.

Before leaving for Russia, President Obama said that Putin “has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new.” After his meeting, today, with the Russian leader, Mr. Obama is reputed as being ‘very convinced that the prime minister is a man of today and he’s got his eyes firmly on the future.’ Obama and Putin shared concerns about terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which appears to be forming the basis for a good relationship, moving forward.

In his speech, Obama said the interests of Russia and the United States generally coincides in five key areas: halting the spread of nuclear weapons, confronting violent extremists, ensuring economic prosperity, advancing the rights of people and fostering cooperation without jeopardising sovereignty.

In an attempt to balance the speech, in reflecting the reality of the situation, Mr. Obama also sprinkled in challenges to Russia on its own soil, particularly within the area of democracy. U.S. officials are wary of Russia’s increasingly hard-line stand on dissent:

… By no means is America perfect … Independent media have exposed corruption at all levels of business and government. Competitive elections allow us to change course … If our democracy did not advance those rights, I as a person of African ancestry wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less a president.

Obama, standing by his reforming agenda since being elected to office, said that the United States will not try to impose any kind of government on another country. But, he argued for democratic values “because they are moral, and also because they work.”

On Georgia and Ukraine – two nations that have sought NATO membership to the chagrin of neighbouring Russia – President Obama tried a diplomatic touch. He defended the steps nations must take before joining the alliance, adding:

… NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

Whilst the U.S. and Russia have plenty of significant differences, President Obama suggested that one of the biggest problems is fixable: deeply rooted and harmful assumptions from another era:

… There is the 20^th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another.

Dismissing that as inaccurate, the American President said that a genuine resetting of relations between the countries must go beyond the governments and include a ‘partnership between peoples’.

On the economy, Obama prodded nations to follow the rule of law.

… People everywhere should have the right to do business or get an education without paying a bribe.

… That is not an American idea or a Russian idea; that’s how people and countries will succeed in the 21st century.

 

POLITICALLY CORRECT

PRESIDENT OBAMA hoped to change minds and attitudes with a speech that Washington had billed in advance as a pillar of his foreign policy – on the same level, some say, with his call for a nuclear-free world while in Prague, or his outreach campaign to the Muslim world in a speech in Cairo.

In comparison, though, the reaction Mr. Obama has received along with muted media coverage, whilst in Russia, is in sharp contrast to the rapturous receptions he received in Cairo and Prague. Whilst addressing his audience, largely comprising graduating students, his tone and rhetoric was certainly one of being classed politically correct. His dialogue often addressing democracy and free elections is alien to Russian society. Russia, of course, has none of these.

The matter of democracy is closely monitored because the U.S. has watched warily as Russia’s control on dissent and the press has only stiffened in recent years. The country is considered one of the most dangerous places for investigative journalists to work and report.

Mr. Obama also had what the White House characterised as a “good meeting” with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. He went on, again, to meet with President Medvedev at the Kremlin, to take part in a summit of U.S. and Russian business leaders; and met with a diverse collection of civil society leaders from both countries – health experts, environmentalists, reporters, human rights advocates – who will be holding their own summit to re-engage bilateral cooperation.

 

Appendage(s):

• Slideshow:

… The goal of the U.S.-Russia summit is to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and boost cooperation.

Slideshow -- click icon

 

 

 

 

 

 

© Mark Dowe 2009: all rights protected

mark.dowe@googlemail.com, Twitter: MarkDowe2009