Looking Beyond The Reset

(This piece originally appeared on Russia Beyond the Headlines)

Sometimes political projects are like children.  You anxiously watch them; you worry about their future; you try to protect them from failure.  And then, boom, you realize that they are grown up and you have to figure out what is next in your life.

The much-discussed“reset” in U.S.-Russia relations appears to be one such project.  Announced by the Obama administration two years ago, the “reset” was carefully scrutinized by supporters and opponents alike.  Its ability to repair badly damaged U.S.-Russia relations was far from assured; its failures – both real and insinuated – were often deliberately blown out of proportion.  And then, all of sudden, the consensus is that we are already beyond “reset”, and a new, “post-reset” agenda for U.S.-Russia relations is needed.

The participants of the World Russian Forum -- a gathering of political analysts, business leaders, journalists and civil activists from the United States and Russia that takes place each spring in Washington, DC -- disagreed on many things.  But there was at least one point that kept all of them in agreement: the reset works. 

It is the reset that has to be credited with two major bilateral agreements: the new strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty (New START) and the civil nuclear cooperation agreement (the “123 Agreement").  For the United States, the reset also ensured Russia’s cooperation on Iran's nuclear program and Afghanistan, whereas for Russia, the reset paved way for significant improvements in its relations with NATO and some of its member states, Poland in particular. 

Equally important, the reset has changed the very tone of U.S.-Russia dialogue and created conditions for its further advancement.  As pointed out by Robert Legvold, a prominent Russia expert from Columbia University, the reset can be considered a success if only because there are now expectation of further progress in U.S.-Russia relations.  It is time now to view reset not as an end in itself, but, rather, as a mean to advance an agenda in U.S.-Russia relations for the next 10-15 years.

To create such an agenda won’t be easy.  The Cold War might be officially over, but fighting its ghosts is still a popular business on both sides.  Although the emotional disdain many folks in Moscow harbor towards the notorious Jackson-Vanik amendment is understandable, focusing too much attention on its repeal is a distraction: a relic of the past that long outlived its usefulness, the amendment, as it legally stands, is completely irrelevant.  Moreover, some analysts even argue that the emphasis on arms control – the principal topic of the Moscow-Washington dialog in the Cold War era and since – distorts and, ultimately, slows down U.S.-Russia relations by shifting attention and energy from other critical issues.  In this regard, it’s worth noting that the only think tank in Russia that is fully devoted to the topic of U.S.-Russia relations, the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies, specializes precisely in the area of arms control.  Russia would definitely benefit from developing additional, more diverse, intellectual resources to deal with the whole spectrum of relations.

Currently, two topics dominate the U.S.-Russia agenda: Russia’s accession to the WTO and the architecture of European anti-missile defense. 

While, again, Moscow’s frustration over the seemingly endless process of its WTO negotiations with Washington is understandable, the issue of the WTO accession, completely tactical in nature, should not deflect attention from a much more serious problem: the anemic state of U.S.-Russia economic and trade cooperation.  Any future strategic discussion must focus on what prevents both countries from investing in each other economies (beyond the current meager $7-8 billion per year) or diversifying their trade (beyond energy and metal industry sectors).  The importance of the economic component of U.S.-Russia relations is impossible to overestimate.  In fact, until and unless the relations are based on a solid economic foundation, there will always be a chance that a “bad” event throws them back to a “pre-reset” misery.

At the moment, the best candidate for such a “bad” event is a collapse of Russia-NATO negotiations over European missile defense.  True, the disagreements between the two sides are fundamental in nature.  Yet, it is also true that today no one expects the negotiating parties to agree on every minute, technical aspect of the future ABM system.  What is really needed is a political decision to cooperate, a decision that can be formulated in language that would be palatable to domestic hawks on both sides of the Atlantic.  This is doable, and this must be done, for the cost of not doing so will be too high for both countries to sustain.     

The difficulties in formulating the long-term cooperation agenda between Russia and the United States are also exacerbated by the uncertainty caused by approaching election season in both countries.  Inevitably, domestic concerns will consume both presidents gearing up for re-election, which will leave them with less time and desire to tackle complicated foreign policy issues.  And considering how much the current positive tone in the bilateral relationship relies on good personal rapport between Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, the question of what happens after 2012 can by itself put the brakes on the progress of any forward-looking deliberations.

And this highlights yet another shortcoming in the current structure of U.S.-Russia relations: its heavy reliance on the government-to-government contacts.  In order to ensure long-term stability in the relationship, the Russian-American dialog must be spread in all directions, starting at the very top and extending to business-to-business, civil society-to-civil society and person-to-person levels.  

Here, the topic of anti-Americanism in Russia and Russophobia in the United States can’t be ignored.  Both track their roots to the legacy of the Cold War and both have designated cheerleaders among hardliners at home.  Neither can be uprooted without a conscious, steady effort of enlightened elites.  Some recent developments give reason for cautious optimism in this area.  Addressing the participants of the World Russian Forum, Ambassador William Courtney – former U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia – presented the idea of creating a Russia Society, an organization with a stated goal of promoting understanding of Russia in the United States.  Equally promising is the creation -- by a group of liberally-minded Russian politicians and civil activists -- of a Center for U.S.-Russian Rapprochement, whose mission is to eradicate the rampant anti-Americanism penetrating the Russian society.

Yet another long-overdue move that Russia should make to improve its relationship with the United States is to begin promoting its interests in Washington using professional lobbyists.  A functional pro-Russian lobby could be able to insulate U.S.-Russia relations from frequently changing political configuration in Washington, be it at the White House or in Congress.  At the very least, Russia must show to its American partners that it understands the rules of the game that is being played in Washington.  Wins will follow.         

Comments

[Michael Averko]

Hi Eugene,

In DC, there was a recent World Islamic Forum which John McCain attended.

https://www.2011usislamicforum.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=reg.info&page=Agenda&event_id=2030

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SIsl&showFullAbstract=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnEQQa1anfk

On the other hand, I recall McCain having declined an invitation to attend a previous World Russia Forum (WRF).

It's considered important to reach out to one constituency unlike another. My favorite Adrian Karatnycky piece which touches on this point:

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/opinion/karatnycky.html

Concerning the third posted link in this note showing RT coverage of the aforementioned DC based World Islamic Forum: did RT give any coverage of the recent WRF?

Constructive criticism notes RT doing a half hour show on global anti-Jewish sentiment (a worthy subject), while (to my knowledge) not doing a similar show on anti-Russian biases, which comparatively speaking aren't so well known.

Several years ago, A Russian government involved PR operation announced the hiring of the former BBC employed Angus Roxburgh. Upon being hired, Roxburgh was quoted as saying that in the post-Yeltsin era, Russia has drifted away from a freer media situation, which needed to change. IMO, that's not an accurate sound bite commentary worthy for the Russian government to promote.

In short, I'm wary of hiring some of the established professionals out there. Meantime, there're effective options exhibiting considerable ability in sync with Russia's interests - which haven't been given much if any opportunity.

Best,

Mike

[Eugene Ivanov]

Mike,

Thanks for the links: I've completely missed the WIF. Well, the program and the list of participants are very impressive.

I'm in no mood to defned RT for what it covers or doesn't. However, when speaking about professional lobbyists, it WAS NOT -- no way! -- RT that I had in mind. The Podesta Group, the Gephardt Group -- something along these lines instead.

Best,
Eugene

[Michael Averko]

Every bit helps Eugene.

The best of options have yet to be appropriately utilized. Like I said, the star system isn't always the best route.

There's a technical and relatively objective way of making such an evaluation. I sense this isn't encouraged because it stands to challenge an existing status quo - deemed as beneficial to some.

[Igor]

Hi,Eugene

It is not without a reason that you return to this "reset" topic again & again, isn't it?

As I do too - and probably, the reason is the same. Namely, that it is good that R-U relations changed in tone, but it is high time they begin to change in the essence - **if there ever was an intention to do that from American side **. I am actually afraid, that "a political decision to cooperate" will not be enough. Perhaps, the reason is a fear that increased cooperation will make Russian economy stronger. I am not sure if it is just a "capitalism" or a cultural trait of Americans (Anglo-Saxons) in general – on occasion, I did observe that in business negotiations at least some American/Australian businessmen were more willing to loose money than to let the other side to benefit even in the slightest in a (supposedly “mutually beneficial”) business deal.

As for the ways to improve the “real” relations I believe (as it seems you do) that the most effective way is to simplify tourist visa regime. Again – if anyone in US actually wants - or ever wanted - to improve the “understanding” between the two cultures.

Cheers

[Eugene Ivanov]

Hi Igor,

First, speaking of reasons. Formally, my first post was a rapid response to the WRF -- and also my way of thanking Ed Lozansky for inviting me and letting speak on a panel. The second, current, post was a result of a mutual agreement between my RBTH editor and myself that the subject of "reset" needs to be discussed again.

That said, I do believe -- as you seem to as well -- that the reset and the life after reset is THE MOST important thing happening now between the US and RF.

I didn't mean to say -- even if it might look this way -- that a political declaration is enough to solve the problem of European AMD. The differences in positions are so huge that a FULL MILITARY decision won't be found any time soon, if ever. What does one have to do then, especially when SOME decision must be taken this year? One way is to say: no we can't -- and then perhaps go back to a pre-reset era. The second way -- that's what I call a political decision -- is to find a temporary compromise allowing both side to "declare victory" and continue negotiations.

As for the rest of your concerns, sure, they are very real -- and we will have to operate (perhaps forever) in the "half-full/half empty" space. Let's just not leave this glass completely empty!

Cheers,
Eugene

[Igor]

Thanks for the clarification, Eugene :)

The "military" question can be easily resolved "by precedent" - eg. using Caribbean crisis template - "you install/dismantle missiles in Turkey (and elsewhere), we install/dismantle them on Cuba". Americans should feel that they are winning anyway, because for now (unfortunately) there is no ideological objections to their spreading of the "democracy under duress".

As for the other part (economic cooperation) - I could never understand - how one can feel proud of winning a competition not because he/she/the country was better & smarter, but because they purposely withheld the information or just lied. Cultural differences? :)

Cheers