Dear David,

Attached is the article I mentioned in an earlier message for your consideration. My partners and I prepared this article about US policy towards Russia under a President McCain, Clinton or Obama about a month ago for our Russian friends and colleagues in government, business and media. We have since updated it after Senator Clinton suspended her campaign last Saturday.

The basic premise of the article is that Russian commentators have exhaustively analyzed campaign rhetoric, the background of their advisors on Russia, etc, to conclude that McCain is a threat and that Obama, while not perfect, is more acceptable. We pose the argument that history is a better guide than campaign rhetoric and cite examples of presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, that took strong positions on Russia related issues (arms, democracy, civil liberties, etc.) during political campaigns, but when in office demonstrated reason, good judgment and an ability to work with their Russian counterparts during crises and other critical moments in the US-Russia relationship. This scenario is likely to continue under an Obama or McCain administration.

Tom

--------

RST International
www.rstinternational.com

U.S. POLICY ON RUSSIA AFTER BUSH
History is a better guide than campaign rhetoric

In a recent major campaign speech on foreign policy, the presumptive Republican candidate for President of the United States, John McCain, rejected the unilateralist foreign policy of President George Bush, and pledged that a McCain Administration would return to a multilateral approach to address the international challenges of the 21st century. Russia and other countries of the world should welcome this fundamental change in US foreign policy. However, in the same speech, McCain said Russia should be kicked out of the G-8 for bad behavior.

A few weeks later, Senator McCain announced that, as president, he would immediately engage the Russian Federation in nuclear disarmament talks and, in a policy departure from the Bush Administration, replace verification requirements in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires in 2009. Is this the same candidate who only weeks before called for Russia’s ouster from the G-8?

Is John McCain using strident campaign rhetoric to build support among the foreign policy hawks of the Republican Party? Or did he announce what would be the McCain Doctrine on U.S. policy with the Russian Federation? Who is the real John McCain? Russian and foreign commentators have tried to answer these questions about McCain and to divine the likely positions of the presumptive nominee Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, on U.S. policy towards Russia. The candidate’s speeches, background of the candidate’s advisors on Russia and foreign policy and foreign policy experience have been thoroughly dissected to find clues.

While several plausible scenarios have emerged, the fact is that history has repeatedly shown that the analysts were generally wrong about the incoming U.S. president. The presidential candidate most critical of Russia has often become a strategic partner on controlling nuclear proliferation, fighting international terrorism or improving trade. But history is not the only factor. Every incoming U.S. president inherits a policy infrastructure of international agreements and treaties, collaborative policy initiatives, as well as the dynamics of the relationship between the outgoing U.S. president and the Russian leader. Any incoming U.S. president who ignores these realities would do so at his or her own political risk, despite their campaign’s rhetoric on Russia.

During the Cold War, there wasn’t a Republican or Democratic presidential candidate that did not take a hard-line stance toward the Soviet Union. But this didn’t stop John Kennedy from starting secret discussions with Nikita Khrushchev after the US and the USSR barely averted a nuclear war over Soviet missile deployments to Cuba that led to the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963. Nor did it dissuade Richard Nixon from making his bold diplomatic initiative to visit Moscow in 1972 to hold a summit with Leonid Brezhnev and inaugurate the period of détente that reduced tensions and promoted greater cooperation between the US and the USSR.

In the post-Soviet period, Russia’s political ideology changed, but the political rhetoric of US presidential candidates was often similar to the Cold War period. In the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign, candidate George W. Bush said Russia was in danger of reverting back to the days of the USSR under former KGB officer Vladimir Putin. But after his first summit meeting with President Putin, he said that he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw someone he could trust.

McCain or Obama will inherit a policy framework of treaties and agreements that were initiated by prior American presidents and have played a significant role in defining the U.S.-Russia relationship. From the WTO accession negotiations to the Nunn-Lugar programs to reprocess weapons grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear power plants to the International Space Station, among others, these policy initiatives are part of the fabric in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Even at the lowest points of the often caustic debate between the US and Russia about placing anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe or expanding NATO into Ukraine and Georgia, these important policy initiatives have remained intact.

In early April George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin held their last official meeting, which produced the U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration, a non-binding agreement that sets out a plan for the bilateral relations of both countries. This agreement will be the policy framework for the relationship between the incoming President Medvedev and President Bush until early 2009 and the arrival of the new U.S. president. During this period, the U.S. and Russia could reach accommodations on the U.S. missile plan and other contentious issues and give the incoming U.S. President a significantly different situation on several key issues in the U.S.-Russia relationship to start his or her term in office.

While campaign rhetoric mostly targets U.S. voters, some of the presidential candidate’s policy positions are worth noting. Both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to exchange a unilateral approach to foreign relations for a multilateral approach that could have significant impacts on U.S. foreign policy. The next U.S. president would be more likely to work within the framework of the United Nations and other existing international treaties and organizations to build support for policies and to address disputes. Russia would likely be a key member of any US initiatives on Iran, North Korea and nuclear proliferation.

Promoting democracy will continue to be official U.S. policy. However, no matter who is the next U.S. president, U.S. policy will likely be modified to undo reputation damage to America’s image in the years following the start of the war in Iraq. Obama has acknowledged that the U.S. must be more flexible in its approach to policymaking with emerging economies and democracies, as well as countries where the US has serious concerns, such as Iran and North Korea.

Senator McCain’s approach is reminiscent of the Bush Administration, but with a major concession to the importance of multilateralism. He has proposed to create a League of Democracies, a multi-national coalition, that can harness the vast influence of more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.” While McCain’s rhetoric on Russia remains tough, he underscores the importance of the U.S. “to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.” Issues of common interest to Russia and the United States, such as managing international terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change, are more likely to generate cooperation, rather than confrontation.

Let’s not forget that the US-Russia Strategic Framework Agreement is also about preserving the multi-billion dollar economic and business engagement between Russia and the United States. The Russian economy is one of the fastest growing in the world. The U.S. has been a strong advocate for Russia to accede into the WTO. The U.S. business and investment community is actively investing and partnering with Russian business in industry, consumer goods and services. While on a smaller scale, Russian investment in the US steel sector, for example, has been a welcome development for this struggling industry sector. The U.S. business community will lobby the next presidential administration for policies to expand economic opportunities in Russia.

A key factor in the U.S. policy toward Russia will be the relationship between President Medvedev and the next U.S. President. The chemistry between the incoming Russian and American political leaders will make a significant difference between a foreign policy of cooperation and healthy competition versus confrontation. History has given us plenty of examples of the “good chemistry” relationship, such as Bush and Putin, Clinton and Yeltsin and Bush I and Gorbachev. If modern history is our guide, the next U.S. president, despite the tone of his/her campaign rhetoric, will likely follow in the footsteps of their predecessors in dealing with President Medvedev.

Predicting the next U.S. president’s policies on Russia is at best a guessing game. The presidential campaign is a different reality from the world facing an incoming president after the oath of office has been administered. The momentary memory lapse of a presidential candidate who is unable to pronounce President Medvedev’s name in a televised debate is less important than if the U.S. and Russian leaders are able to address the challenges of the US-Russia relationship in the 21st century with sound judgment, and with an awareness of the consequences for failing to meet this responsibility.

Leonid Sevastianov, Jonathan Russin and Tom Thomson are principals of RST International, LLC, an international business and strategic communications consultancy.