Zee Beam News

//Celebrating 200 Years of Not Getting Along
November 20, 2007 - Russia Profile by Paul Abelsky - In the two centuries that Russia and the United States have maintained diplomatic ties, this year is likely to go down as one of the more unsettling periods in the bilateral relationship. The events of the past 12 months have been seen by many as a harbinger of growing rivalry and mutual apprehension, as numerous disputes have continued to erode a frayed partnership in strategic global affairs. Even against the background of festivities marking the 200th anniversary on both sides of the ocean, the talk in recent months has focused more on the future of arms treaties and diplomatic discord on issues ranging from Iran and Kosovo to democracy promotion and access of election observers to Russia’s parliamentary vote in December. Still, numerous cultural exchanges and conferences have celebrated the longevity of the U.S.-Russian relationship. The range of this year’s events was itself a testament to the enduring curiosity between the two countries and the depth of the existing ties. Symbolic gestures abounded—from a small photography exhibit at the American Center in Novosibirsk and a historic exhibit of American art at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow to a July visit of U.S. Navy vessels to Vladivostok and the opening in November of St. Petersburg’s Days of Culture in New York. But mounting diplomatic strains lurked behind expressions of sympathy and generosity. In the year of a momentous anniversary, the two powers are closer than ever to ditching strategic arms treaties that have been the bulwark of stability during and in the aftermath of the Cold War. Still, during an August speech at Spaso House, the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Moscow, U.S. Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-Indiana) urged both countries to take a longer term view of the situation. “We have disagreements over energy security, democracy, human rights, Iran, Kosovo, Georgia, and Moldova, just to name a few items frequently in the headlines. We even disagree about previously well-accepted foundations of stability, like the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty,” he said. “While acknowledging divergent views on many issues, we cannot afford to succumb to pessimism. The United States and Russia have too much at stake and too many common interests to allow our relationship to drift toward conflict.” Repairing relations poses an ever greater challenge as the two countries’ geopolitical interests continue to diverge. Wielding veto power in the UN Security Council, Russia is blocking stricter sanctions on Iran and a partition of Kosovo and Serbia. The impending expiration of a key nuclear arms accord and the threatened future of a treaty restricting conventional forces in Europe have continued to fuel the unease. With the U.S. commitment to proceed with the deployment of the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, Russia has felt emboldened to carve out an increasingly assertive foreign policy course. In the waning months of the Bush presidency, however, Iran has emerged as the keystone of U.S. initiatives abroad. And Russia has plunged into the fray with forceful maneuvers aimed at bolstering its standing in the Middle East and positioning itself as a resurgent world power. President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tehran in October, the first such trip by a Soviet or Russian head of state in 60 years, captured international attention at a time when the Iranian leadership has closed off most channels of communication with the West. The threat of further sanctions against Iran along with Russia’s contribution to its uranium enrichment program, have put added strain on U.S.-Russian relations. The week before Putin’s visit saw some of the most intense diplomatic exchanges in recent months between Russia and its chief international partners. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were in Moscow for urgent consultations on U.S. missile defenses in Europe and a host of other issues. Bookending their visit were French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first trip to Moscow and President Vladimir Putin’s session with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Wiesbaden. “There is very little the international community can do to pressure Iran,” said Georgy Mirsky, senior research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. “Putin may have delivered a mild message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but it’s clear that Iran is intent on following through on its ambition to develop a nuclear program.” The October meetings with U.S. officials were stipulated in the accords reached during Putin’s July summit with U.S. President George W. Bush in Maine. A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry described the focus of the talks as “strategic stability,” and no issue is more destabilizing from the Russian viewpoint than the possibility of U.S. anti-ballistic missile facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. The consultations fell far short of a breakthrough, but they showed the visiting side that Russia is resolute in opposing the U.S. program, which extends close to Russian borders. “The outcome of the talks is that Russia has got up from its knees and is openly questioning the wisdom and purpose of American installations,” said Anatoly Utkin, an expert at the USA and Canada Institute in Moscow. “Seeing that in all likelihood the defenses are ultimately directed against Russia, Putin warned that Russia will have to abandon important bilateral treaties signed with the United States.” The “two plus two” format for the consultations included talks between defense and foreign ministers on both sides. Speaking at a joint press conference during the meetings, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov outlined two principal objections to the U.S. plans. “The first problem is that we differ in our assessment of the threat of missile proliferation, which is the target of the global system of anti-missile defense,” he said. “We have agreed that experts will focus on working out a common understanding of the present threats. And the second problem is that for the joint work of Russian and American specialists to become more effective, it is necessary to ‘freeze’ the plans for the deployment of the new installations in Europe.” The growing dispute has put in doubt cooperation in other crucial areas of strategic military cooperation. At a later meeting with Rice and Gates, Putin suggested scrapping the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which helped eliminate medium-range nuclear and conventional missiles in Europe. The Russian side has also continued to threaten a withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty if it is not ratified by NATO. Putin harshly questioned the threat assessment implied in the U.S. plan, suggesting that any unilateral moves by the American side could further disrupt the more immediate security initiatives between the two countries. “The one point I would like to make is that we hope that you will not push ahead with your prior agreements with Eastern European countries while this complex negotiating process continues,” he said. “After all, we could decide some day to put missile defense systems on the moon, but if we concentrate solely on carrying out our own plans we could end up losing the opportunity for reaching an agreement.” The U.S. side has tried to counter Russian suspicions by introducing a program for a new “Joint Regional Missile Defense Architecture,” which would attempt to draw Russia into a broader anti-missile system with NATO and the United States aimed at protecting all of Europe. The partnership envisions closer coordination in designing and operating the defenses. Utkin notes, however, that Russia would remain hesitant to support a proposal that includes installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. Following Russia’s strategic retreat from Eastern Europe, the U.S. attempt to move into the area makes it seem like a particular threat. A proposed defense shield that spans a radar station in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland has drawn little more than apprehension and protests from Moscow. “In a way, Russia left this area for the sake of the Americans, and now there is a chance they will target us from sites located there,” Utkin said. “What these talks have achieved is a clearer sense of where the opposing sides stand.” U.S.-Russian relations may still be defined by a mix of mutual fear and respect, but a shared sense of disappointment has made future cooperation more problematic. This year has provided a symbolic marker in a complex evolving partnership that will surely outlast the present-day crises. But it has not prompted the nations to steer toward a broader compromise on the thorniest matters that beset the relationship. And if public opinion surveys are any indication, signs of enmity extend beyond high-profile encounters. According to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) in August, the United States registered the most negative reaction. Nearly a quarter of the respondents predict U.S.-Russian relations during the next 10-15 years will be “tense and hostile.”