Can We Save the "Reset"?
Published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 15 August 2011
by Edward Dmitrievich Lozansky (link to original)
(Russia) on 15 August 2011
by Edward Dmitrievich Lozansky (link to original)
Translated from
by Justin Lo.
Edited by Janie Boschma.
Announced with great fanfare by President Obama, the policy of the “reset” of relations with Russia after a sharp deterioration in the days of George W. Bush is going through tough times. Unfortunately, even the most enthusiastic supporters of this policy now recognize that it is on the verge of collapse, despite the fact that it marked a number of major achievements.
Although formally the President determined the foreign policy, Congress here had its own role in the matter, and in the best of circumstances it isn't possible to find more than a dozen of legislators who are using, if not good, then in any case neutral expressions in addressing Russia. The rhetoric of the many hearings and resolutions in Congress is strikingly similar to the one that was in vogue during the Soviet era or under George Bush Jr. It's quite strange, because Russia, with all its shortcomings it is now very good for America in many ways.
One explanation may be the desire of Republicans to neutralize any of Obama’s achievements, of which the “reset” is one of the most important, even in the reckoning of his political opponents. However, the rhetoric of the administration, though it is more moderate and pragmatic, does not turn into real deeds very often. Moscow's proposal for a common European security architecture and a joint missile defense were rejected by Washington. On the other hand, the so-called politics of the pipelines has not lost its significance. What sort of serious and long-lasting partnership may be involved, when there is in the structure of the U.S. State Department a sufficiently high-leveled post called the “Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”? The task of this officer is to ensure that oil and gas flows as much as possible from the former Soviet Union to the final consumers of Europe and the rest of the parts of the world while going around Russian territory, thus depriving the Russian budget from one of its most important sources of revenue.
Europe finds itself under constant pressure from Washington, which calls for reducing its dependence on Russian energy supplies, to limit both Moscow’s economic and political influence. The example of Russian pressure on Ukraine and Belarus during a brief shut-off of gas supplies through these countries and Western and Central Europe is used as a justification. Any fair observer would agree that these interruptions were not for political gain, but were brought about by the failure of these two countries to pay the market price under contracts signed by them.
Nevertheless, when Russia offered, in an effort to avoid such crises in the future, to build “North” and “South” flows — gas pipelines that would go around the transit-mediating countries — this idea stirred up colossal resistance from the U.S. and Poland, who called these projects a new variant of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Obama is not even in the position to fulfill such a symbolic gesture of goodwill, like the removal of Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, though Russia has already long complied with all the requirements for this condition. According to the American Bar and numerous experts, including one of the key sponsors of this amendment, Richard Perle, the U.S. president has a constitutional right to do so without addressing Congress.
The American policy of promoting democracy and human rights in Russia is also ambiguous. Of course, that situation in Russia is far from ideal and sincere and selfless assistance to America to improve the situation could be useful. However, this concern is losing all credibility as countries with no less obvious, and perhaps even more serious, problems are spared from Washington’s criticism — as long as they cooperate in the framework of the aforementioned "politics of the pipelines."
I'm not even talking about a country like Saudi Arabia, which is considered one of the most important U.S. allies, although it is no secret that the country is one of the centers of terrorist financing. I do not remember anything in the last few hearings in Congress or in the decisive actions of the White House in connection to the violation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or — so forgive me, Lord — in Georgia. Should we assume that in these countries there are no humanitarian problems or that they are free from criticism, because they could be important levers to reduce Russian influence in the former Soviet Union, or possibly, for other geopolitical ends?
While the arguments regarding the “reset” continue, an economic and financial tsunami threatens the world, and even security problems are far from resolved. No matter what awaits us in the future, America can no longer claim its full and autocratic dominance in the world. So now, in the face of new global threats, America needs friends, partners and allies more than ever. Looking around, I do not foresee a stronger country than Russia to play this role, but, understandably, on mutually-beneficial terms. Therefore, we should look for new ideas to sustain and expand the areas for “reset,” instead of letting its many detractors ruin it.
Although formally the President determined the foreign policy, Congress here had its own role in the matter, and in the best of circumstances it isn't possible to find more than a dozen of legislators who are using, if not good, then in any case neutral expressions in addressing Russia. The rhetoric of the many hearings and resolutions in Congress is strikingly similar to the one that was in vogue during the Soviet era or under George Bush Jr. It's quite strange, because Russia, with all its shortcomings it is now very good for America in many ways.
One explanation may be the desire of Republicans to neutralize any of Obama’s achievements, of which the “reset” is one of the most important, even in the reckoning of his political opponents. However, the rhetoric of the administration, though it is more moderate and pragmatic, does not turn into real deeds very often. Moscow's proposal for a common European security architecture and a joint missile defense were rejected by Washington. On the other hand, the so-called politics of the pipelines has not lost its significance. What sort of serious and long-lasting partnership may be involved, when there is in the structure of the U.S. State Department a sufficiently high-leveled post called the “Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy”? The task of this officer is to ensure that oil and gas flows as much as possible from the former Soviet Union to the final consumers of Europe and the rest of the parts of the world while going around Russian territory, thus depriving the Russian budget from one of its most important sources of revenue.
Europe finds itself under constant pressure from Washington, which calls for reducing its dependence on Russian energy supplies, to limit both Moscow’s economic and political influence. The example of Russian pressure on Ukraine and Belarus during a brief shut-off of gas supplies through these countries and Western and Central Europe is used as a justification. Any fair observer would agree that these interruptions were not for political gain, but were brought about by the failure of these two countries to pay the market price under contracts signed by them.
Nevertheless, when Russia offered, in an effort to avoid such crises in the future, to build “North” and “South” flows — gas pipelines that would go around the transit-mediating countries — this idea stirred up colossal resistance from the U.S. and Poland, who called these projects a new variant of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Obama is not even in the position to fulfill such a symbolic gesture of goodwill, like the removal of Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, though Russia has already long complied with all the requirements for this condition. According to the American Bar and numerous experts, including one of the key sponsors of this amendment, Richard Perle, the U.S. president has a constitutional right to do so without addressing Congress.
The American policy of promoting democracy and human rights in Russia is also ambiguous. Of course, that situation in Russia is far from ideal and sincere and selfless assistance to America to improve the situation could be useful. However, this concern is losing all credibility as countries with no less obvious, and perhaps even more serious, problems are spared from Washington’s criticism — as long as they cooperate in the framework of the aforementioned "politics of the pipelines."
I'm not even talking about a country like Saudi Arabia, which is considered one of the most important U.S. allies, although it is no secret that the country is one of the centers of terrorist financing. I do not remember anything in the last few hearings in Congress or in the decisive actions of the White House in connection to the violation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or — so forgive me, Lord — in Georgia. Should we assume that in these countries there are no humanitarian problems or that they are free from criticism, because they could be important levers to reduce Russian influence in the former Soviet Union, or possibly, for other geopolitical ends?
While the arguments regarding the “reset” continue, an economic and financial tsunami threatens the world, and even security problems are far from resolved. No matter what awaits us in the future, America can no longer claim its full and autocratic dominance in the world. So now, in the face of new global threats, America needs friends, partners and allies more than ever. Looking around, I do not foresee a stronger country than Russia to play this role, but, understandably, on mutually-beneficial terms. Therefore, we should look for new ideas to sustain and expand the areas for “reset,” instead of letting its many detractors ruin it.
Next article![]( "We're Drawing Blood")