Over the past few weeks
After the collapse of communism and disintegration of the Soviet Union two distinct schools emerged in America in terms of shaping Russia policy. One, which may conveniently be dubbed “Pro”, advocated furthering Russia’s integration into the West by granting it hefty economic aid to help it switch to market economy and speed up its entry into NATO. The second, by the same token to be named “Contra”, continued to look on new Russia as a country that was, at best, no longer capable of swaying geopolitical developments and therefore whose interests could be ignored, and at worst, a prospective enemy to be kept in a weakened state and every way “contained.”
Interestingly, the two schools include individuals both on the left and on the right of U.S. politics, but as far as influence on the powers-that-be goes, the “Pro” lot have, until recently, been far outnumbered by the “Contras.” Thus, until recently apart from university professors, think tank experts, lawyers and businessmen, there were among the “Pro” people a mere handful of congressmen and prominent politicians and journalists. Those with the most political weight were Patrick Buchanan and Paul Weyrich, well known ideologues on the far right flank of the Republican Party. Weyrich had a direct access to the Bush Sr. Oval Office, but his lobbying of Russia’s speedy integration into the West was cut short by none other than Condoleezza Rice, or so Paul himself believed.
The “Contra” school is assumed to be dominated by the neoconservatives but this is not a whole story. True, under George Bush Jr., when U.S.-Russia relations were only marginally better than in the Soviet times, Bush, until his first election in 2000 a virtual stranger to international affairs, was greatly influenced by the neocons, including the most influential one Vice President Dick Cheney. However, besides neocons, tough policy toward Russia is also favored by numerous former Clinton Administration officials, East European and Baltic ethnic groups, military-industrial complex lobbyists, certain human rights organizations, and most of the U.S. media, both conservative and liberal, like Wall Street Journal and Washington Post.
The “Contra” reasoning is as follows: given that the Russian treasury gets most of its revenue from selling energy resources, Russia must be prevented from turning into an energy superpower. To that end consumers of Russian oil and gas, above all in Europe, should be led to believe that Russia is an unreliable supplier, while oil-and-gas-rich Central Asian countries are insistently advised to build pipelines bypassing Russia. To lend the process maximum efficiency, all talk of deficient democracy in the region is to be confined strictly to Russia while turning a blind eye to the sorry plight of democracy under authoritarian regimes in Central Asia.
In terms of isolating and containing Russia, they pin their hopes on NATO enlargement. Accordingly, first Bill Clinton, and later George Bush Jr. had to break the promise not to expand NATO, which George Bush Sr. had given to Mikhail Gorbachev. A special role in this context has been reserved for Georgia and Ukraine. The former is to ensure the safety of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, and possibly also of some future bypasses. With 80 percent of Russian gas for Europe going through its territory, Ukraine is well set to make Russia’s life difficult, which is what it does with gusto at the slightest opportunity. Russia was perfectly justified in discontinuing gas supplies after Ukraine’s failure to pay for them while indulging in massive theft of transit gas for Europe, yet that was described in the West as “bullying” neighbor countries and use of energy resources for political ends.
The Bush reign was to culminate in the accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO. This would have finalized the process of isolating Russia, only it was not to be. Moreover, the United States is now struggling with countless problems accumulated in the eight years of Bush’s presidency, unarguably one of the worst in American history. The country is going through a global financial crisis, it is weighed down by an astronomical national debt, and an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is nowhere in sight. Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions, and the situation in Pakistan, a country with a nuclear arsenal, is bordering on the chaotic.
Under the circumstances it would be reckless, to say the least, to persist in the short-sighted policy of confrontation with Russia, and Obama apparently sees this only too clearly. Improving relations with Russia, dubbed “resetting,” has become a major foreign-policy priority for him. He has pressed into service some really heavy artillery in the persons of Vice President Joe Biden, State Secretary Hillary Clinton, three ex-secretaries of state – George Schultz, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, Senator Sam Nunn, and numerous others. As Senator Nunn rightly observed, “we are in a state of racing between cooperation and catastrophe, but with the leadership of Obama and Medvedev our chances of cooperation are reasonably high.”
It should be noted that in Russia these issues are not nearly as busily discussed, particularly at the NGO level, as they should be. This weakens Russia’s position, as the American public is not getting objective information, it does not understand where Russia’s interests lie and what compromises it would be prepared to make, while the U.S. media focus chiefly on the negative side.
The leaders of the Russian community in the United States intend to improve the situation through “people’s diplomacy,” by organizing the World Russia Forum scheduled for 27 April in Washington, in the U.S. Senate auditorium. Anyone with good ideas and suggestions can take part in the Forum by attending or by sending their proposals or questions to: Russia@RussiaHouse.org. Prominent American and Russian politicians and experts who will be present at the Forum will answer some of the most interesting questions. For further information about the Forum visit www.RussiaHouse.org/wrf
