Tweet
RUSSIA-US RELATIONS: NEITHER OBSTACLES NOR IMPETUS FOR DEVELOPMENT
RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 18 2005
Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council's international
affairs committee, for RIA Novosti
I think Vladimir Putin and George Bush will make an inventory of
Russia-US relations in Bratislava. The two countries cooperate in the
war on terror, in efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, drug trafficking, and AIDS, as well as in the
Middle East peace process.
They apparently need each other in these spheres, but declarations
are regrettably more frequent than joint actions. The results of the
actions that are taken often engender contradictions. For example,
the US military presence in Central Asia, though it has many positive
aspects, is limiting Russia's influence in the region. The presence
of American troops means that Moscow is no longer tackling problems
single-handed, which affects its formerly indisputable leadership in
the region. Russia does not support the war in Iraq, while the US
divides terrorists into "good" and "bad." As a result, the level of
bilateral relations is lower than is needed for effective
anti-terrorist efforts.
Russia-US interaction in preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is not impressive either. The idea of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty is to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states and the
proliferation of dual-purpose nuclear technologies. Prevention has
not worked so far, as North Korea's statement on its nuclear weapons
recently showed. And there is a battle of Russian and US interests
with regard to the provision of nuclear technologies to Iran.
The bilateral energy dialogue is so far limited to declarations,
though the US would like to diversify its crude market. But it wants
control over global resources even more.
So, there are no visible obstacles to the development of Russia-US
relations, but there is no clear impetus either. The coincidence of
interests and partnership are two different things. Russia and the US
are facing two questions: Should they change anything in their
relations? And if the answer is yes, then are they ready to do this?
Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush are expected to answer these questions in
Bratislava, the more so that their agenda is not limited by anything.
At least, President Bush did not say in his inauguration speech that
relations with Russia were deteriorating. Moscow is also talking
about promoting partnership. In other words, the key issue on the
Bratislava agenda will probably be the development of relations,
which both parties seem to want.
The contradictions between them are mostly concerned with the CIS and
stem from the fundamental differences in their world outlook. The top
Russian leaders call for creating a multipolar world, but Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice thinks such a world would be dangerous and
vulnerable. Russia is demonstrating its resolve to strengthen its
status as the regional power in the CIS, while the US is a global
power that is maneuvering between leadership and hegemony. US troops
are deployed in 120 countries, i.e., nearly everywhere, which is why
regionalism is not what Washington wants. This is the root of
contradictions on the amorphous territory of the CIS, whose unity is
unquestionable only geographically, for many reasons.
The American leadership is concerned about Russia's role in the
former Soviet countries, which engenders accusations of
authoritarianism, the inevitable imperial policy, and so on. But the
situation in the zones of frozen conflicts - Transdnestr, Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Karabakh - has taken a bad turn and Russia finds it
difficult to deal with it without the assistance of the global
community. On the other hand, the US and the EU cannot do anything
(other than destabilize situation) in the CIS without Russia either.
And the US administration is aware of this, despite its harsh
rhetoric.
Georgia is one of the stumbling blocks in Russia-US relations.
Knowing that some people in the Georgian administration would like to
use military force to settle the Abkhazian and South Ossetian
problems, Georgian troop training under the American Train and Equip
program is a source of concern for Moscow.
These and other contradictions will certainly be discussed in
Bratislava. The two presidents will spotlight the so-called nuclear
file of Iran and measures to stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear
weapons. Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush will undoubtedly exchange opinions on
the situation in the Middle East, including recent elections in
Palestine and Iraq, and discuss Russia's accession to the WTO.
Since the US has advanced a doctrine of bringing democracy to the
world, the two leaders will probably speak about Yukos, media freedom
and Russia's political reforms. The doctrine of bringing democracy to
the world is questionable, as formal democracy without liberal roots
cannot guarantee that a "democratic" but incompetent state will not
launch a war or harbor terrorists.
One more aspect can be added to Russia-US relations: cooperation in
emergency management, which is crucial in view of the recent tidal
wave in Southeast Asia.
On the whole, the US administration is continuing the policy of Mr.
Bush's first term, with a promise that it will be more flexible than
the one pursued by the previous administration that was dominated by
neo-conservatives.
In other words, America will gradually abandon the role of a global
dominator acting without any regard for the world community, and will
try to become a leader who respects the opinion of other states and
international institutes. If this promise comes true, the Russia-US
agenda will grow considerably.
In addition, the Kremlin hopes Mr. Bush will confirm his
participation in the celebrations of 60th anniversary of victory in
WWII in Moscow. This is important for our relations.
RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 18 2005
Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council's international
affairs committee, for RIA Novosti
I think Vladimir Putin and George Bush will make an inventory of
Russia-US relations in Bratislava. The two countries cooperate in the
war on terror, in efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, drug trafficking, and AIDS, as well as in the
Middle East peace process.
They apparently need each other in these spheres, but declarations
are regrettably more frequent than joint actions. The results of the
actions that are taken often engender contradictions. For example,
the US military presence in Central Asia, though it has many positive
aspects, is limiting Russia's influence in the region. The presence
of American troops means that Moscow is no longer tackling problems
single-handed, which affects its formerly indisputable leadership in
the region. Russia does not support the war in Iraq, while the US
divides terrorists into "good" and "bad." As a result, the level of
bilateral relations is lower than is needed for effective
anti-terrorist efforts.
Russia-US interaction in preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons is not impressive either. The idea of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty is to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states and the
proliferation of dual-purpose nuclear technologies. Prevention has
not worked so far, as North Korea's statement on its nuclear weapons
recently showed. And there is a battle of Russian and US interests
with regard to the provision of nuclear technologies to Iran.
The bilateral energy dialogue is so far limited to declarations,
though the US would like to diversify its crude market. But it wants
control over global resources even more.
So, there are no visible obstacles to the development of Russia-US
relations, but there is no clear impetus either. The coincidence of
interests and partnership are two different things. Russia and the US
are facing two questions: Should they change anything in their
relations? And if the answer is yes, then are they ready to do this?
Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush are expected to answer these questions in
Bratislava, the more so that their agenda is not limited by anything.
At least, President Bush did not say in his inauguration speech that
relations with Russia were deteriorating. Moscow is also talking
about promoting partnership. In other words, the key issue on the
Bratislava agenda will probably be the development of relations,
which both parties seem to want.
The contradictions between them are mostly concerned with the CIS and
stem from the fundamental differences in their world outlook. The top
Russian leaders call for creating a multipolar world, but Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice thinks such a world would be dangerous and
vulnerable. Russia is demonstrating its resolve to strengthen its
status as the regional power in the CIS, while the US is a global
power that is maneuvering between leadership and hegemony. US troops
are deployed in 120 countries, i.e., nearly everywhere, which is why
regionalism is not what Washington wants. This is the root of
contradictions on the amorphous territory of the CIS, whose unity is
unquestionable only geographically, for many reasons.
The American leadership is concerned about Russia's role in the
former Soviet countries, which engenders accusations of
authoritarianism, the inevitable imperial policy, and so on. But the
situation in the zones of frozen conflicts - Transdnestr, Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Karabakh - has taken a bad turn and Russia finds it
difficult to deal with it without the assistance of the global
community. On the other hand, the US and the EU cannot do anything
(other than destabilize situation) in the CIS without Russia either.
And the US administration is aware of this, despite its harsh
rhetoric.
Georgia is one of the stumbling blocks in Russia-US relations.
Knowing that some people in the Georgian administration would like to
use military force to settle the Abkhazian and South Ossetian
problems, Georgian troop training under the American Train and Equip
program is a source of concern for Moscow.
These and other contradictions will certainly be discussed in
Bratislava. The two presidents will spotlight the so-called nuclear
file of Iran and measures to stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear
weapons. Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush will undoubtedly exchange opinions on
the situation in the Middle East, including recent elections in
Palestine and Iraq, and discuss Russia's accession to the WTO.
Since the US has advanced a doctrine of bringing democracy to the
world, the two leaders will probably speak about Yukos, media freedom
and Russia's political reforms. The doctrine of bringing democracy to
the world is questionable, as formal democracy without liberal roots
cannot guarantee that a "democratic" but incompetent state will not
launch a war or harbor terrorists.
One more aspect can be added to Russia-US relations: cooperation in
emergency management, which is crucial in view of the recent tidal
wave in Southeast Asia.
On the whole, the US administration is continuing the policy of Mr.
Bush's first term, with a promise that it will be more flexible than
the one pursued by the previous administration that was dominated by
neo-conservatives.
In other words, America will gradually abandon the role of a global
dominator acting without any regard for the world community, and will
try to become a leader who respects the opinion of other states and
international institutes. If this promise comes true, the Russia-US
agenda will grow considerably.
In addition, the Kremlin hopes Mr. Bush will confirm his
participation in the celebrations of 60th anniversary of victory in
WWII in Moscow. This is important for our relations.