Opinion - News Analysis   

Persisting myths about Russia-U.S. ties

Boris Makarenko

THE AGGRAVATION of the Iranian nuclear problem alongside the active preparations for the G8 summit makes one think about the long road covered by Russia-U.S. relations since their anti-terrorism honeymoon began in 2001. Do the two countries have a future together?

Political statements and expert commentaries on both sides of the ocean are not optimistic and are filled with mutual suspicions and accusations. Worse still, the complicated reality of bilateral relations is compounded by persisting myths.

The first level of myths concerns the "doves" and "hawks" in the United States. Washington and Moscow like to scrutinise differences in the views on Russia of "Old Dick" Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, of the aggressively anti-Russian Senate lobby led by John McCain, and the balanced position of the White House. The essence of the problem is: Russia is just small change when it comes to the internal political struggle in the U.S.

America has never had a Vice-President as active in foreign and domestic policy as Mr. Cheney. Bureaucratic logic forces the Secretary of State to protect her field (foreign policy) from the Vice-President, who, according to the logic of political life in America, should be nothing more than a figurehead. And the Russian issue is only one of many fields of inside struggle in the administration.

Mr. McCain's team started accumulating sleaze about Russia in 2000, hoping to use it in the struggle not against Russia, but against Democratic candidate Albert Gore, the partner of Viktor Chernomyrdin in the Russo-American commission on economic and technological cooperation. However, Republican candidate George Bush snatched the Russian card from Mr. McCain. Refusing to stop fighting for the White House office, the Senator is now applying it against the outgoing President, even though both are Republicans.

The second group of myths concerns "bad America and good Europe." This is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. Contradictions between the Old and New Worlds became a reality after the demise of the Soviet Union, as proved by the French-German opposition to the U.S. operation in Iraq. Moreover, Europe is more interested in constructive relations with Russia than with its overseas partner, the U.S.

There is also a difference between Old Europe and some new members of the European Union (Poland and the Baltic countries), which want to accumulate political capital by playing the pro-American tune (which irritates Paris and Berlin).

Playing on these contradictions is a logical occupation for Russian diplomacy, but it should see their true scale. There is a long list of issues on which Europe and America differ as much as a "good cop" differs from a "bad cop." This includes the issue of energy security. Europe did not cry out about the gas crisis in Ukraine, though it was more worried over Russia's stance than the U.S. Another issue concerns the critical view of Russia's internal problems, in particular the law on non-governmental organisations. Importantly, Europe is acting like a police officer and not as Russia's defence attorney.

What will we have if the multitude of these myths is laid to rest? Paradoxically, the answer is provided in the report, "Russia's Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do?" recently published by the Council on Foreign Relations. According to the authors of the report, the West, and in particular the U.S., should diversify their attitude to relations with Russia, opting for a method described as "selective cooperation."

The report goes too far in some ways and offers quite a few biased opinions, not to mention recommendations, but the general trend of future West-Russia relations is clear.

The U.S. will try to mount pressure on Russia by minimising its differences with Europe. For example, it may try to preserve the G7 within the G8, meaning that even though Russia remains a member of the club of industrialised nations, the U.S. will first come to terms with the G7 on ways to develop relations with Russia. Or it may call on Europe to coordinate a common stand on energy security and attitude to Russia's internal political development.

This stand, which is presented as pragmatic, is actually fraught with problems for the West.

First, the goal of attaining "the complete unity" of Europe and America for pressuring Russia is hardly attainable, because the Old World has taken a widely different stand on this issue.

Secondly, the Bush administration could go too far in spreading democracy. It may play the democracy card against Russia with excessive zeal, which may increase tensions.

Fortunately, there are signals of a different order, such as the pledge of the U.S. President to personally control Russia's WTO accession talks (contrary to the recommendations of the Defence Policy Board), which promise a positive solution to the problem.

Though chances for improvement in mutual relations are slim, the limits of deterioration have been clearly outlined. Russian and American diplomacy can act within the "corridor of possibilities," trying to build up trust and mutual understanding where possible. — RIA Novosti

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Turning outrage into applause
Common ground against Gyanendra
A terrorist organisation rises again
New American moves in Asia
Corrections and clarifications
A rancid relationship
Persisting myths about Russia-U.S. ties
Hope for patients of Alzheimer's disease
Sonia's resignation
She had no option
A mockery
Exploiting adversity
Water privatisation

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu