October 1 was probably the
official end of Obama’s Russian Reset Policy. The culmination of the
failure was September 18, when Moscow officially thanked Washington for $2.7
billion US dollars of aid spent in Russia for over 20 years and requested USAID
to pack and leave by October 1. Causes of this decision not mentioned in the
official letter, but publicly voiced by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
was USAID’s involvement in Russia’s internal affairs and attempt to influence
the election processes through funding non-governmental election monitoring
organizations. Putin went as far as accusing personally Secretary Clinton in
“encouraging “mercenary” Kremlin foes” by “setting the tone for some
opposition activists.” Kremlin is primarily annoyed by the election monitoring
NGO “Golos,” which is by and large the only significant independent
non-governmental organization left in Moscow, surviving and functioning through
American and European funding only. Earlier this year, Russian Duma adopted a
law that requires international non-governmental organizations to register as
foreign agents. Russian law-makers have been complaining about the sources of
funding of these organizations for years already.
The Reset Policy was viewed quite
skeptically from the very beginning. Skeptics and critics were everywhere - in
Washington, Moscow, and Europe, especially in the Central and Eastern Europe.
As it progressed (or regressed) some even joked that the policy was “moving
from “reset” to “regret.”” The Reset, formally launched in March 2009, was defined
by the State Department as the strategy to “cooperate in areas where we can
cooperate with Russia, in areas that serve American national interests… and
communicate clearly and honestly on the topics where the two governments don’t
agree.” The areas important for American national interests were many, with the
cooperation on Iran, in Afghanistan, and now Syria, signing of the new START
treaty and deployment of missile defense system in Central Europe in the top of
the list. Unfortunately, the Reset did not yield major results in any of these
areas. Yes, the START was signed, but many argue on how fair and beneficial it
was for the US; Washington held off the missile defense project in Poland, but
this compromise was not followed by the reciprocal actions from Moscow and what’s
worse, Warsaw launched discussions with France and Germany on developing its
own defense system independently from Washington. There was no progress in cooperation
on Iran and Afghanistan either.
If we look at the bigger picture,
Reset policy was an attempt to engage Russia (a defiant actor) in constructive
cooperation and negotiations through institutions (special NATO-Russia
Council), binding it to various international regimes and treaties (acceptance
to WTO, START), and showing that such cooperation can be fruitful and Russia
can actually get what it wants without creating energy crises or using hard
power (compromise on Polish missile defense). But it did not work. Was reset
unsuccessful only because White House was not ready to forget about permanent
human rights violations and civil society and media repressions, or because it kept repeating that US believes Georgian break-away territories are occupied by
Russia? Even though Moscow has always been too sensitive about its special “Sovereign
Democracy” and is not welcoming any comment or “humanitarian intervention” in
the areas which Kremlin considers as its internal affairs, Washington’s
moderate statements regarding Georgia, or financial support of the civil society
organizations in Russia are still peripheral issues, especially now that NATO
expansion has stopped for a long time, if not forever. Kremlin has simply made
its choice and betted on becoming an alternative pole of power through
establishing unclear and messy relationship with other defiant actors such as
China, Venezuela, Iran or Syria.
Now, what does that mean for the
US and the rest of the world? Moscow’s extravagant actions are clearly raising
security concerns among its immediate neighbors and in Europe. Countries with centuries of experience of dealing with Russia, are
facing old dilemma of bandwagoning (choice between US and Russia) or building
regional alliances to balance it. As we saw, as soon as Washington stepped back
on missile defense system, Warsaw started to question US’s reliability and immediately
started to look for alternatives in Paris and Berlin (US and Poland have
re-launched negotiations in the summer 2012 and now plan to develop the system
by 2018). Countries which depend on Russian energy resources are facing even
harder choices.
Of course, White House is not
going to respond on Russia’s latest provocation in the pre-election period, but
new administration will have to come up with an alternative to or simply a new reset
strategy. Having Putin back to Kremlin for another 10 years most probably, not
much of the change can be expected on Moscow’s side. But as we heard in Seoul
this year, Obama promised “more flexibility” after the elections. What may this “flexibility” mean is a good
question for us to discuss.
3 comments:
I think one must also consider the most recent results of the Georgian elections in the Administrations dealings with Russia. Not only does it seem like this administration was hoodwinked by the Russians, some of our "friends" in Russia's near-abroad seem to have felt some of the effect.
This is not to say that Georgian politics ride entirely on American Foreign Relations (correlation does not equal causation), but they may be related.
What will come out of Georgia's recent elections is not quite clear yet. The coalition which won the majority in the Parliament is not pro-Russian or "pro-Putin" (whatever that means). The Coalition's official program states that they will pursue the same pro-EU and pro-NATO foreign policy course, but at the same time will try to improve relations with Russia. What will they actually do is yet to be seen.
However, I agree that many countries in Russia's near-abroad are having second thoughts.
its nice post about the security thanks for providing such useful information actually there should be proper councling about the Security Course it provides a better security tricks along with to brighten someone's career.....
Post a Comment