#6033
#8
strana.ru
January 18, 2002
Is a Bit of "Cold" Creeping Back into U.S.-
Russian Relations?
Just how telling is Time's selection for "Man of the Year" (Giuliani)
versus Itogi's (Putin)?
By Michael Hewitt
TIME recently named (now former) New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani "Man of the Year" for the way he inspired and led not only New Yorkers, but all Americans in recovering from September 11th. His leadership struck the necessary balance between resolve and compassion, and his ubiquitous press conferences and eulogies proved cathartic as the mayor managed to express the emotions everyone felt. Giuliani became the voice of Americans.
While initially appearing shaken, George W. Bush eventually collected himself - and his team - and succeeded in rallying the public in his own right. Bush used this support to assemble an eclectic international coalition against terrorism, which has since defeated a regime that harbored terrorists within its borders.
In doing so, the United States received cooperation from Pakistan and Central Asian nations. Whereas the alliance with President Musharaff of Pakistan had quid-pro-quo elements of debt relief and aid, cooperation with Russia appeared to be prompted by the desire to rout a common enemy, and a mutual desire to develop relations beyond a cold war framework. Russia's willingness to allow U.S. troops to stage in Central Asia - as well as its blessing of the mission - caused many to speculate on whether or not a transformation was taking place in traditional bilateral power relations.
Four months later, both Presidents Bush and Putin continue to enjoy high approval ratings. Whereas the American public has certainly warmed to Bush since September 11th, it is more difficult to see a similar correlation between Putin's current popularity and his handling of the war against terrorism, since he had already enjoyed broad popular support before 9/11. Nevertheless, these two men have been recognized in both of their countries for their leadership.
How will each of them use this wave of support for advancing their domestic agendas?
At the beginning of the military campaign, a Newsweek journalist suggested that perhaps for the first time, the United States needed the rest of the world more than it needed the United States. Since Russia could play the unique role of moderator between many nations considered "rogue states" by the U.S., and could significantly facillitate the American military offensive in Afghanistan by allowing U.S. troops to be stationed in Central Asia, Russia was - for a time, at least - forefront in the mind of U.S. foreign policymakers.
However, with the greater military campaign against the Taliban all but successfully concluded, how much validity does that statement still hold?
In attempting to address some of these questions, The Russian Observer spoke with Dr. Michael McFaul, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. McFaul noted that, "[Putin] enjoys high ratings and the [Russian] economic situation is fine. What is troubling for him is the relationship in general [with the United States]. What originally looked like a real strategic turning point and rapprochement has faded because of what America has or has not done."
McFaul focused on three issues that stand out as indicative of America's waning willingness to tread lightly on sensitive issues in lieu of Russia's support for the war in Afghanistan.
In December, the U.S. announced it was withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, thereby eliminating any possibility of amending it, as Russia would have preferred. In November, President Bush pledged that the U.S. would reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 warheads. However, in the Pentagon's recently released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department outlines its plans to store, rather than destroy warheads from disassembled missiles. Finally, since the military campaign aimed at driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan has all but concluded, Russia will soon expect the U.S. to begin removing troops from Central Asia. Instead of making ovations aimed at withdrawing troops, the U.S. is seeking to expand their deployment in Central Asia, particularly in Kyrgyzstan.
Such actions would seem to refute the notion that the United States needs Russia more than Russia needs the United States. At the very least, it indicates that the Bush administration believes that it does not presently need to appease Russia in hopes of gaining further support in the war against terrorism.
"Neither side really needs the other right now," said McFaul. "There was a moment when the U.S. needed Russia's blessing to station troops in Uzbekistan, but that has passed. It was nice for the U.S. to have that blessing, but had Russia not been receptive, it is not as if the U.S. would not have found other ways to conduct the campaign. In reality, Russia didn't really supply all that much to the effort."
Despite the recent decisions taken by the United States on arms control issues, Russia did receive support from the West in the form of moderated criticism of the war in Chechnya. In the early days of the military efforts in Afghanistan, the United States and other nations that had previously been critical of the way Russia has conducted the war in Chechnya began to refer to the Chechen fighters as terrorists, thus placing them in the same camp as Al-Qaeda. This redefining of the Chechen fighters freed Putin from some sources of international opposition to the war.
In some respects, Putin appears to be much better positioned than Bush for capitalizing on his broad support in the year to come. The Russian president is presiding over an economy that - although still relatively wobbly - is showing healthy growth. His main source of criticism - the war in Chechnya - has been muffled, as it has been successfully respun as part of the global effort against terrorism.
Nevertheless, Putin still faces significant domestic obstacles, first and foremost the reform of the military. Commenting on this issue, McFaul stated that, "military reform is the main point on the agenda". With the State Duma well under Putin's control, "the military establishment is the main source of opposition. They are against reform and opposed to pro-American overtures. But Putin can't push forward with reform too aggressively, because he still needs the military on his side in Chechnya".
Back to the Top Next Article
- Back to the Top -