#11
The Russia Journal
March 15-21, 2002
Editorial
Still the status quo

Recently the United States announced it would impose controversial tariffs on imports of steel, something sure to do damage to that sector of Russia’s economy. Soon after, Russia, in what may or may not be a tit-for-tat response, followed through on its threat to ban "Bush legs," the cheap American poultry imports that have been a part of many poorer people’s diet for years. Then, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. government has contingency plans to use nuclear weapons on a number of countries – including Russia. For many people in Russia, these events serve as an indication of the United States’ refusal to take Russian interests into account. This impression is made sharper in the context of talk by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin of a "partnership" in the "war on terrorism."

With all this talk of war – trade and otherwise – in the air, it is worthwhile to consider a few things. A sober consideration of the situation shows talk of betrayal and suddenly chilling relations between the two countries is unfounded and hyperbolic. In fact, what we are seeing is nothing more than business as usual.

First, Russia’s ban on U.S. chicken. The government claims that poultry bred in the United States does not meet health standards and may contain salmonella bacteria. Admittedly, American animal products are by and large packed with chemicals that many countries, including members of the European Union, have expressed concerns over. For example, turkeys bred on U.S. factory farms are so pumped full of hormones and so obese that they cannot mate on their own, making artificial insemination the only reproductive option. Salmonella, however, is another story, especially since Russia to date is the only country to seem terribly concerned about a possible epidemic brought about through diseased U.S. poultry – although, who knows, perhaps recent Russian claims to have detected the bacteria in U.S. poultry shipments may turn out to be true. But these claims smack of a justification for old-fashioned protectionism.

In fact, there is nothing especially noteworthy about the recent actions and reactions. Rhetoric aside, when major industries in a country are threatened, they defend themselves. Anything less would be surprising. Expecting the United States not to attempt to insulate its steel industry from competition when it is under threat would be naive in the extreme, especially considering that U.S. economic history is littered with a trail of strong protectionist measures – as anyone who was in the United States during its automobile wars with West Germany and Japan in the 1980s can attest. (Whether this jibes with Bush’s free-market rhetoric is another matter.)

As to the seemingly more serious matter of contingency plans, even the ones involving nuclear weapons, they are just that – contingencies. Every country has plans for military action in all sorts of locales and scenarios, even the most unlikely ones. Drawing up such plans is what military planners are paid to do. The United States probably has strategies gathering dust on some Pentagon shelf detailing hypothetical tank invasions of France and a marine assault on New Zealand. It would also be disingenuous in the extreme to argue that Russia has no corresponding set of plans.

The best thing to do in situations like the ones at hand is to calm down. Trade wars may be brewing, but this is a normal part of economic relations between states, not part of a concerted hostile foreign-policy effort on the part of the United States. As to some hypothetical U.S. military plans against Russia – the United States may be rattling sabers at a lot of countries at present, but Russia is not one of them.

BACK TO THE TOP    #198 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION