US-Russia relations: A new beginning?
THE US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for the first time on 6th March following a decision on 5th March by NATO to resume relations between NATO and Russia. It broke off after the Georgia-Russia conflict in August 2008. Political observers believe under the Obama administration, the relation between the two powers would improve because both need each other for resolution of many global and regional issues such as, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, Iran issue, NATO-Russia relations, energy security and climate change. The confrontation between them leads to global instability because the UN, in particular the Security Council in charge of maintenance of international peace and security, is unable to take a united action because of the disagreement of veto-carrying members including Russia. Why did US relations cool so much?
Observers believe the Bush administration could not shed the Cold War mentality and wanted to poke in the "Russian eyes" at every possible opportunity. The former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, despite her PhD degree on Russia's communism, is believed to have a confrontational view on US-Russia relations. In 2002, Bush angered Moscow in abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. Washington and Moscow signed the treaty to slow down the nuclear arms race. The ABM Treaty barred both superpowers from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles and from building the foundation for such a defense. The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense. The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path towards a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race as each tried to balance its counterpart's action. While abrogating the treaty, President George W. Bush, issued a short written statement the day the treaty expired. In it he noted that the treaty was "now behind us" and he reiterated his commitment to deploy missile defenses "as soon as possible" to protect against "growing missile threats." Next came the expansion of Nato, contrary to an agreement between Washington and Russia that Nato's expansion would not disadvantage Moscow. After that the Bush administration proposed deployment of anti-missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, to the annoyance of Russia. The deployment of missile defence base in Poland appears to be an attempt to chip away at Russia's influence in the region. Russia is angered because Russia knows very well that the deployment of the missile defence system in these countries is meant for Russia and not for Iran's missiles. It seems that the US, with its allies, wants to encircle Russia to keep it "within the box." Finally, the US and its allies supported Georgia in its conflict with Russia and recognized Kosovo as a new state and angered Russia. Russia in retaliatory measures recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, breakaway parts of Georgia as new states. New Beginning:
All these irritations noted above need to be ironed out. Now the broad question lies whether Washington and Moscow want to act as partners or as competitors. It is reported that President Obama proposed the US would not proceed with missile defence shield installations in Poland and Czech Republic if Russia helps in stopping Iran develop inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM). If there were no Iranian ICBM, the argument runs, there would be no need for missile defence in Europe. Russia has so far been reluctant to impose further sanctions on Iran for nuclear programmes. The US wants Russia not to cooperate with Iran on nuclear programme and not to sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran. On Afghanistan, the US has proposed an international conference. Hillary Clinton recently signalled that Russia and Iran would be invited to the conference on how to deal with increasing instability posed by resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. The US suspects Russia of being instrumental in getting the government of Kyrgystan to threaten to close the US airbase (Manas) which is the major air hub supporting the Nato supply line into Afghanistan. It is reported that Russia indicated it will allow non-lethal cargo access through its territory but details have to be worked out. The question is whether or when Ukraine and Georgia will become Nato members. Russia opposes membership of either whereas they were given a promise in principle by the US-led Nato. In recent days former Soviet President Gorbachev said that a kind of federal union with Russia may take place in future with Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan to stabilize this part of the world. President Obama may not want to press the membership proposal too hard, given the volatility of the region including the differences of opinion among some Nato states on the membership within Ukraine and Georgia. Both sides have an interest in further reducing their strategic nuclear stockpiles. It is estimated that the US has 6,000 operational warheads while Russia has 5,670. The deadline of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) runs out in December. Furthermore there is talk of reducing missile warheads down towards 1,000 each and they are due by a previous agreement to a maximum of 2,200 deployed warheads by 2012. Russia not only wants deployed warheads but also stored warheads (which the US has done) to be counted and for delivery vehicles (rockets, bombers and submarines) to be reduced as well. The Middle East issues will be subject of cooperation between them. On Palestinian-Israel issue, Hillary Clinton has committed to a two-state solution and Russia seems to agree. But for a comprehensive peace both Syria and Iran should come on board and Russia may help in the matter. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is sending positive signals to both Syria and Iran. The Obama administration's readiness to engage Russia is a sign of hard-headed realism. The history of diplomacy makes amply clear that longstanding rivalries usually require engagementoften at the highest levelsto reach resolution. After eight years of dangerous bunker mentality in Washington, Obama's plans for engaging friends and adversaries alike offers the best hope for cleaning up the woeful mess that has been left behind by the Bush administration. Furthermore, President Obama is expected to meet President Medvedev on 2nd April in London where they will be attending the G-20 economic summit. Both the Presidents may further carry forward the bilateral talks on sidelines of the summit, commenced by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The author is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments