Public Diplomacy
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 14 Aug 2020
by Edward Lozansky (link to original)
An open letter published in Politico from 103 well-known experts calling for a review of U.S-Russian relations turned out to be quite timely, especially in the context of a rapidly unfolding geopolitical roller coaster race shaped by the renewed actions of the Cold War era.
The authors began by acknowledging that these relations have reached an impasse and that the risk of military confrontation is quite real. They also stated, “Meanwhile, the great challenges to peace and our well-being that demand U.S.-Russia cooperation, including the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change, go unattended.”
This is true, but at the same time, the authors put all the blame for the sad state of affairs on Russia, which, “...interferes in our domestic politics to exacerbate divisions and tarnish our democratic reputation.”
It is clear that, at present, this kind of introduction may be mandatory in order to avoid appearing on the "list of Putin's puppets" calling for a "strategic dialogue with Moscow".
Still, this is not the best invitation to a serious conversation.
Another problem for me is that some of the signatories are my friends and colleagues. I hope they don't take my criticism as a personal insult.
First of all, in order to really start any kind of trusting dialogue, it must be recognized that, while Russia is definitely not an angel, America must share the blame for a new round of the Cold War, which Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev seemed to have ended.
First, let's look at the results of U.S. operations in the Near East and North Africa to "build democracy" and change regimes. Is this what the authors meant by America's "global leadership role" and the world order they helped build?
Repeating the standard list of violations of international law by Russia, which Washington used to impose an avalanche of sanctions, the authors ignore the opinions of well-known Western experts who refute many of these accusations. Take, for example, hacking the servers of the Democratic National Committee by Russians. Former National Security Agency Director Bill Binney proved that data from these servers were downloaded to a flash drive, but not hacked from outside. In addition, since no one disputes the authenticity of the content of the stolen materials published later on the WikiLeaks site, it is likely that the culprit was an insider — a whistleblower who wanted to expose the mega-corrupt practices that exist in the DNC.
As for the Skripal poisoning, there is a long list of experts, such as former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who spent a lot of time studying the case and pointed to possible other, non-Russian, perpetrators. A recent investigation by the Austrian government led to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, all these facts were largely ignored by the authors. Nevertheless, they should be commended for at least recognizing the danger and calling for some concrete actions, such as signing the New START treaty, starting a phase of discussions on arms control and maintaining the Open Skies Treaty.
They could go much further in this regard by including cooperation in New Silk Road infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Near East, where the Arab and African world have long called for reconstruction and long-term development planning for their region. Space exploration and the extraction of the resources of the moon and Mars also provides a fruitful field for creative discovery. This thesis is brilliantly confirmed by the NASA project "Artemis," for which the agency constantly calls for international partnership. The Arctic is an important territory that both the Russians and Chinese intend to develop with the help of the Eastern Development Strategy and the Polar Silk Road. All these and many other projects could be implemented with America’s help.
The quality of thinking required to achieve these goals requires the United States to abandon grandiose unipolar ambitions in favor of genuine national interests. Constructive thinking should be based not so much on Cold War era deterrence or balance of power diplomacy as on mutual interests and beneficial cooperation.
The letter to Politico caused wide discussion in America among supporters and opponents of dialogue with Russia, but there has been no reaction from the Russian Federation yet. At the same time, in the absence of a dialogue between the two governments, it is important to at least start such a dialogue among experts within the framework of public diplomacy. From my point of view, the Russian Academy of Sciences could become a focal point for establishing such a dialogue, since its numerous institutions employ a large number of qualified experts in various fields who are able to conduct a dialogue at a high professional level.
Ironic as it may sound, it is the COVID-19 pandemic that has sparked a surge in important online discussions that do not require travel, visas, or, just as importantly, money. The only thing that is needed is an understanding of the importance of such a dialogue and dedication to the cause.
The authors began by acknowledging that these relations have reached an impasse and that the risk of military confrontation is quite real. They also stated, “Meanwhile, the great challenges to peace and our well-being that demand U.S.-Russia cooperation, including the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change, go unattended.”
This is true, but at the same time, the authors put all the blame for the sad state of affairs on Russia, which, “...interferes in our domestic politics to exacerbate divisions and tarnish our democratic reputation.”
It is clear that, at present, this kind of introduction may be mandatory in order to avoid appearing on the "list of Putin's puppets" calling for a "strategic dialogue with Moscow".
Still, this is not the best invitation to a serious conversation.
Another problem for me is that some of the signatories are my friends and colleagues. I hope they don't take my criticism as a personal insult.
First of all, in order to really start any kind of trusting dialogue, it must be recognized that, while Russia is definitely not an angel, America must share the blame for a new round of the Cold War, which Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev seemed to have ended.
First, let's look at the results of U.S. operations in the Near East and North Africa to "build democracy" and change regimes. Is this what the authors meant by America's "global leadership role" and the world order they helped build?
Repeating the standard list of violations of international law by Russia, which Washington used to impose an avalanche of sanctions, the authors ignore the opinions of well-known Western experts who refute many of these accusations. Take, for example, hacking the servers of the Democratic National Committee by Russians. Former National Security Agency Director Bill Binney proved that data from these servers were downloaded to a flash drive, but not hacked from outside. In addition, since no one disputes the authenticity of the content of the stolen materials published later on the WikiLeaks site, it is likely that the culprit was an insider — a whistleblower who wanted to expose the mega-corrupt practices that exist in the DNC.
As for the Skripal poisoning, there is a long list of experts, such as former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who spent a lot of time studying the case and pointed to possible other, non-Russian, perpetrators. A recent investigation by the Austrian government led to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, all these facts were largely ignored by the authors. Nevertheless, they should be commended for at least recognizing the danger and calling for some concrete actions, such as signing the New START treaty, starting a phase of discussions on arms control and maintaining the Open Skies Treaty.
They could go much further in this regard by including cooperation in New Silk Road infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe and the Near East, where the Arab and African world have long called for reconstruction and long-term development planning for their region. Space exploration and the extraction of the resources of the moon and Mars also provides a fruitful field for creative discovery. This thesis is brilliantly confirmed by the NASA project "Artemis," for which the agency constantly calls for international partnership. The Arctic is an important territory that both the Russians and Chinese intend to develop with the help of the Eastern Development Strategy and the Polar Silk Road. All these and many other projects could be implemented with America’s help.
The quality of thinking required to achieve these goals requires the United States to abandon grandiose unipolar ambitions in favor of genuine national interests. Constructive thinking should be based not so much on Cold War era deterrence or balance of power diplomacy as on mutual interests and beneficial cooperation.
The letter to Politico caused wide discussion in America among supporters and opponents of dialogue with Russia, but there has been no reaction from the Russian Federation yet. At the same time, in the absence of a dialogue between the two governments, it is important to at least start such a dialogue among experts within the framework of public diplomacy. From my point of view, the Russian Academy of Sciences could become a focal point for establishing such a dialogue, since its numerous institutions employ a large number of qualified experts in various fields who are able to conduct a dialogue at a high professional level.
Ironic as it may sound, it is the COVID-19 pandemic that has sparked a surge in important online discussions that do not require travel, visas, or, just as importantly, money. The only thing that is needed is an understanding of the importance of such a dialogue and dedication to the cause.
Previous article![]( "Federal Involvement in US Cities: Different Priorities?")
Next article![]( "Fil-Ams: Kamala Harris Pick Sealed Trump’s Shellacking")