If Henry Kissinger is up to some secret negotiations dramatic results are bound to follow. Usually good for the US and the rest of the world: like the end of the Vietnam war, transforming China from worst enemy to best trading partner, and ending hostilities between Israel and Egypt. What can we expect now?
Russia has been steadily antagonised by withholding their WTO membership for no valid reasons, promoting NATO expansion while Russia is not invited they have no choice but regard NATO as a hostile organisation, prod neighbours like Georgia to physically attack Russian soldiers. Not the best trust building policies. But what should be done?
I think the best approach will be to hug the bear so hard it will find it hard not to respond. Let me explain:
1. That's the approach the US used successfully in post-war Germany and Japan, that was the approach used successfully by the brilliant Nixon-Kissinger team towards communist China. (I wonder how the US would have managed in a world where the worlds most powerful economies were hostile).
2. The mindless foreign policy of the Bush administration has successfully alienated the US from most of the civilized world and has left the current administration with almost no alternative than try and repair the eroded trust (which ultimately may be a good thing: nothing wrong with consistently positive foreign policy for a change).
3. Siemens (from Germany) is developing nuclear cooperation with Russia, Areva (from France) with China, Iran is sending a satellite in space with Russian help and Russo-Chinese and Russo-Indian military cooperation (not without their own problems) is developing. It looks like Joe Biden is on his way to start repairing the damage done by the Bush administration in alienating the Europeans. The alternative will be an undesirable anti-American Euro-Russo alliance (or even worse Euro-Russo-Chinese or Indian alliance. Unlikely because of the the importance of the US for these countries that will neutralize their interest in anti US arrangements. Possible US protectionism though could make that option more viable.
That's why I think Afghanistan is the smallest American foreign policy problem. I regret to be cynical but who cares about that illiterate mountain people and a bunch of smelly Taliban with flea infested beards. No one! Just cut of their sources of international currency and they will literally have no money to travel abroad to cause trouble. (If you really care about the Afghan people think about how to offer them better livelihood than growing poppies for the Taliban instead of how to send more troops that might be cheaper and more effective).
So I suggest:
1. Get Russia into the WTO, NATO and the EU which will lead to better transparency and trust. Keeping them out gives the government the excuse to brake international norms.
2. Get the Russian army into Afghanistan (if they are to share the fruits of democracy they should share the responsibilities too).
3. Increase academic exchange between the two countries for two reasons:
a) that may actually benefit the US in the flow of technology and b) that will increase understanding and good will between the two countries and make it more difficult for the ruling elites to resort to war mongering and scare tactics.
c)send government funded consultants to help improve Russian economy (no one want's to fight on a full belly:)
Well, as with most things, we'll just have to wait and see how things turn out. Quite interesting and nice post.
ReplyDeleteNamaste.
Nice articles... Peace from Indonesia..
ReplyDeleteVery nice overview.
ReplyDeleteI got got your site link to here from TPM Cafe.
Here is a link to the Biden speech in Munich for your reading pleasure.
2009 Munich Security Conference
After reading that, you'll no doubt note that you are pretty much on the same wavelength as the forth coming US foreign policy agenda of the Obama administration.
Cheers . . .
Dog_Knows @ Silly as it Seems
That's flattering. But then truth must be the same otherwise it wouldn't be credible. To a certain extent Bush left the useful legacy of having tried and failed with the unilateral approach to international problems. Now the path is clear for cooperation as no one in their right mind wont advocate unilateral and coercive foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteReally agree with your positive comments on Russia. It is lame to see us possibly slipping into "colder" relations because of the ineptitude of the Bush administration. and you make a really good point - what is Russia supposed to do when they have been pushed aside like a bag of rotten potatoes, and Putin's not the type to be dishonored, seems like a man with pride. I never thought of that though - do they want to fight in Afghanistan?
ReplyDeleteAnd on Afghanistan, i think it is ridiculous that we are now trying to fight the Taliban there. im sorry, but wtf. we're the ones that are giving them a reason to be, by being an occupying force.
its so frustrating.
It's hard to state such an opinion since I am not fighting in Afghanistan nor responsible for sending troops there, but I believe America is responsible for helping the region getting rid of the Taliban partly because the CIA may be responsible for helping create them:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Russian President Medvedev promises full cooperation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newsweek.com/id/183615
Hey Wizard,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Kissinger is a great diplomat; and he is the living proof that diplomacy can work.
It is amazing how Japan turned from enemy to one of the most important allies - it was a very well done job (on both parts: the US and Japan).
The Bush administration was too reactive (which is never good); and so they alienated those who preferred to engage in conversations and negotiations first (prior to engaging in wars). I also believe that the mistake done by the Bush administration was not taking the time to study how their allies are and think (I don't wish to say that they knew, and yet decided to ignore it) - Europeans, for example, take pride in diplomacy (due to its history), so they prefer to talk, talk, talk first and then make war if (and only if) utterly necessary.
But this would have taken too much time. And time was something that the Bush administration was not willing to invest.
I care about the Afghans; I care about them so much that the solution for their well-being is to bring down the Talibans. Period.
Wizard, bringing Russia into the NATO, WTO and the EU will never lead to better transparency ("Glasnost" is a word that was obliterated by Putin and his peeps). Russia could never enter the EU unless they stop being an oligarchy; besides their latest actions towards Ukraine/Europe (Gas issue) proved that they are not ready to be part of an European united Community.
And have we asked ourselves "Does Russia really want to be part of these organisations?"...sometimes I come to think that they don't.
Does Russia really want US' help?
Your article shows well how intricate diplomatic relations are in today's world. Which offers your readers a more broad view into the esoteric political universe.
Nothing is black or white, nothing is a straight line, and what it seems to be may not be.
Cheers
Wow, Max, that's some comment. Yes I agree. Still I believe engagement in the EU, WTO etc could be beneficial. Look at it China is a member of the WTO but not Russia, Russian is in G8 but not China what's the logic of that?
ReplyDeleteYes Russia is ruled by oligarchy but so is Ukraine, Georgia and what can I say EU's bitter pill Bulgaria.
Cuba's isolation on the other hand didn't do anything to curb communism there on the contrary I believe it helped ossify it further, but it looks that will change too.
I'll chime in. I agree, with some restraint on both arguments. Isolation is certainly not the solution to the Russia Question; it merely fuels their un-defendable giant-landmass paranoia by promoting a sense of being surrounded. Yet encirclement is exactly the strategy that the West must pursue as long as Russia continues to go down this burgeoning reckless path. People like to point to the US-/lead/ invasion of Iraq as unilateral action, but compared to Russia's latest adventure into (internationally recognized) sovereign territory of Georgia, "Bush's War" was a relatively multipolar feat.
ReplyDeleteNATO has spent the past decade and a half soul-searching for renewed purpose? It's got one! Actually many, but paramount to the European theatre is energy security. It's easy for Germany to turn a blind eye to Russian energy blackmail in Eastern Europe when it's primary supply is drawn from a second source (the northern line), is that sustainable energy security for German interests, let alone the rest of Europe? Until the Russian government matures away from such collaterally damaging tactics, it's going to find itself very much encircled by the aggregation of its smaller neighbors defending their own security interests (and sponsored by US/Western European backing).
Regarding engagement, however, the West would very much benefit by reversing its political cold-shouldering of Russian actions, while simultaneously presenting a strong and unified concert of assertiveness. There's no reason why Russia should be allowed to believe its own national interests trump those of its weaker neighbors simply because its leaders are living in some long imperial past. As long as it does so, these countries will continue to seek security within the Western Alliance. The trick is to gradually make Russia see what it too stands to gain from entering the fold, or at least cease seeing it as an encroaching threat.
The problem is that this is an unreasonable expectation of a country whose national psyche is historically entrenched in xenophobic paranoia; and a ruling elite that traditionally preys on this fear in order to maintain power and pursue its own interests. What Russia as a country really needs, if it hopes to truly embrace the interconnecting global space, is an Organge Revolution of its own. Liberal democracy has 'failed' her before, however, and Mother Russia will continue to be defiant towards that end as long as that memory persists. What must be done, then, is to supplant the memory of a weakened Russia toying with liberal reforms at the behest of predatory foreign powers, with a renewed and sincere effort at sharing the benefits of the liberal world order while treating Russia as an able and desirable equal in that order.
Ultimately none of that might be possible. The legacy of the Russian Empire is still very much intertwined in the Russian Federation, and it might take a couple (lesser) 'cold war'-like scenarios of Western-induced encirclement and collapse to shake free yet more republics out of the republic-rich Federation; and thus create more 'central asias' and 'caucasuses' to be later incorporated into tomorrow's incarnations of the EU and related collective security structures. Free of its imperial relics, and reduced to the territorial size of an 'average' functioning Eurasian nation-state (albeit larger than most), Russia could perhaps finally find itself a national identity more befitting its socio-economic potential. Russia needs a diet.