By Peter Lavelle
For years Russian-U.S. relations have been on the rocks. Megaphone diplomacy on both sides was considered the norm and benefited neither side. That is why U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public relations stunt of "resetting" this bilateral relationship is important to consider.
The makeshift button Clinton presented to the media and pressed together with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov read "reset" in English, but in Russian it was rendered as "reload." Not the best way to restart things.
The lost-in-translation part was put aside with kind words and high hopes. However, this linguistic error could be very telling, depending on how the next few months pan out.
Clinton's enthusiasm to recast the Russia-U.S. relationship says a lot about how the Bush administration got Russia wrong. The Bush people always wanted it to appear they reached out to Russia, but at about every possible juncture the Russians saw it differently.
Few remember that it was then President Vladimir Putin who first called George W. Bush after the 9/ll attacks - pledging support against the terrorists who attacked the United States. While Putin didn't like it, he didn't object to the U.S. military stationing a "temporary" base in Kyrgyzstan promoting Bush's "war on terror."
Putin didn't like it when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, but there was nothing Russia could do to stop it.
Putin didn't like Western funding of overtly anti-Russian "coloured revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia. But that was something Russia could do about. The more the United States tried to undermine Russia's neighbourhood to promote Washington's geopolitical interests, the more Moscow defended what it saw as its legitimate security interests.
Washington started this competition, not Russia. And because of geography, history and Washington's bad habit of not following through on so-called commitments to friends and allies, Russia has been given a new hearing in its neighbourhood.
The U.S. government is very close to its energy companies and has pressed hard to promote their interests in the energy-rich, post-Soviet space. At the same time, many in the West claim that Russia is using energy as a political weapon.
It is not amiss on the Russian side that mainstream media presents Western companies as merely looking for profit, while Russian companies only seek geopolitical advantage. As far as Moscow is concerned, this is a clear double standard. Russia's embrace of capitalism and the profit motive is genuine and scares the heck out its Western competitors.
The Bush people pushed hard to continue NATO's expansion eastwards. Russia strenuously objects to this. Russia cannot veto any country from joining a political, economic and military bloc, but it can and does speak out about its own security interests.
NATO does not present itself as a foe of Russia's; however it does not accept Moscow's self-defined security interests. This is a red line that Moscow will not compromise on.
Then there is the issue of security architecture. Obama has waffled on Bush's hard-line commitment to anti-missile defence in Europe. For Russia this is an existential threat. Any country - large or small - would rightfully be concerned if a new and modern military system was based close to its border. Given all the broken promises and smiles coming from the United States regarding Russia for almost 20 years, it's understandable that Russians want more than good intentions from their American counterparts.
Georgia's pre-emptive war against South Ossetia last August remains a very sour issue in Russia. America funded and trained Saakashvili's military. The same military killed Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
The trust level Russia has toward the new American administration is limited, to say the least. As long as the U.S. continues its military engagement of Georgia and promotes Tbilisi's NATO aspirations, the more likely it is that Moscow will view Washington with apprehension.
What will happen? Will it be the "re-set" or "reload" button? We still really don't know.
It seems to me that the new administration in Washington still doesn't see Russia to be all that important - it is deemed as a problematic country only to be dealt with. But all the same there is the recognition that not much can be done on many global issues without Russia's engagement and help.
Viewed from the Potomac, Russia remains a bridesmaid. This is a huge mistake inherited not from the George Bush administration - look further back to Bill Clinton's time in office to understand this.
I must admit I remain sceptical. I have no doubt there was an obvious and embarrassing translation error made when Clinton gave the button to Lavrov. But I can't but help sense that the same tried and failed policies toward Russia remain in play. The "reload" translation is somehow not serendipity.
For almost 20 years, Republican, Democratic, Republican - and now again Democratic administrations have continued the same ritual. They all believe that they only have to explain why the United States never threatens the world and that everyone should agree with it. And they believe Russia should not question this proposition.
Yet Russia is not interested in diplomatic PR, it seeks reliable partners. Partnership is the button that needs to be pressed.
Peter Lavelle is the host of Russia Today's weekly analysis programme ‘In Context'
No comments:
Post a Comment