WILL RICE ENGAGE RUSSIA - OR SNUB IT?
RIA Novosti
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Pyotr Goncharov). MOSCOW (by columnist Angela Charlton for RIA Novosti) - For Russians, news of George W. Bush's inauguration paled in importance beside Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as his secretary of state. Russian optimism about her tenure is surprisingly widespread, and misplaced.
The future of US-Russian relations hinges on Rice, a Russian speaker and Russia watcher and Bush's interpreter of foreign affairs. Yet Rice is more of a Kremlinologist than a Russophile. Her Russia policies are likely to reflect the unforgiving realism she applies to U.S. activity worldwide, and the tougher postures of Bush and Vladimir Putin in their second terms.
In 2000, both Russia and the United States were entering an exciting and uncertain era, each with a new president stunningly unlike his predecessor. Russia was still emerging from an economic crisis, and America was diving toward recession. Bush and Putin were novices on the world stage. Their early-term insecurity helped them forge a personal bond at their first meeting in 2001, and a strategic one after September 11th later that year.
Today, the insecurity is gone, but so is the atmosphere of friendly collaboration. The summit between Bush and Putin in Slovakia next month will little resemble their soul-sharing exchange in Slovenia in 2001.
Bush has weathered terrorist attacks and waged two wars despite the disapproval of most of the world, and enjoys solid domestic support. Putin is the unassailable leader of a major oil economy. His government is paying off foreign debts ahead of schedule even as the U.S. government burrows deeper into the red. Both leaders are ever more certain of their missions and less likely to yield to outside pressure. Despite their cordial personal relationship, both men -- indeed both countries -- appear to need each other less and less.
This gives Rice and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov little room for ambitious cooperation, or for any big new bilateral ideas at all. That seems to suit both diplomats fine.
Rice doesn't hide her contempt for Putin's recent electoral restrictions. That won't make him change his mind. Cold War instincts and post-Cold War disappointments mean that Western criticism of Putin's policies only cements Russians' faith in their leader. Any concessions to Western concern, on elections or Yukos or Chechnya, would further anger many Russian voters. Already, plenty of Russians mistakenly blame advice from Western economists for the painful reform of social benefits that prompted nationwide protests this month.
Putin's popularity, too, has suffered because of this reform, and he will remember this as he considers his legacy beyond 2008. Putin's first term was marked by what his compatriots considered major concessions to the West, especially accepting NATO and EU expansion and the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty. In his second term, Putin's concern for his political future may push him toward nationalist measures that uphold Russia's global reputation, and away from compromise on Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Afghanistan.
Rice may respond in kind, gradually excluding Russia from international negotiations and seeking to isolate Moscow instead of campaigning for reform. Rice's Russia background and personal closeness to Bush mean she will use fewer mediators and need less preparation for talks with Moscow. This could mean more quiet, quick dealmaking and fewer loud diplomatic spats, as many Russian observers hope.
Yet at her confirmation hearings, Rice showed that her Russia background doesn't blind her to the country's faults. Her criticism of Russia and its political direction was partly for domestic benefit, to soothe critics of Putin frustrated by Bush's silence on Chechnya and other questionable Russian endeavors. But it could suggest she plans to snub Russia, engaging it only on such issues as nuclear nonproliferation where U.S. security is at stake.
Despite her personal investment in Russia, Rice may choose to concentrate instead on Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere on Russia's periphery. U.S. support of democracy movements nearby may have little effect on Putin's politics, but it would reflect the evolution of the US-Russian dialogue from heated, sometimes fruitful exchange toward a careful, wary distance
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
