Foreign Policy Blogs

Can the U.S. and Russia Get Along?

Source: Google images

Source: Google images

With the Russian presidential election behind us, and rather predictable western not-so- optimistic attitudes towards their results, one would expect a further cooling of U.S. -Russia relations. The Obama administration belated congratulation to the President-elect Putin and deepening of anti-Russian rhetoric in American political circles are just a few signs of general discontent and disappointment. However, the political cooling could prove to be temporary: while it is likely to intensify during the upcoming presidential election campaign in the United States, it may succumb to existing opportunities to exploit mutually beneficial cooperation.

After these elections, the U.S. and Russia still face the same old foreign policy issues: the missile defense shield in Europe, the UNSC resolution on Syria and nuclear developments in Iran. The divisions between the countries have not disappeared either: the President – elect Putin reiterated Russia’s unaddressed concerns regarding missile defense in Europe, his opposition to military intervention in Syria, and the preference for a diplomatic solution towards Iran’s nuclear issue. Although these divisions on international developments  curb the opportunities for establishing a ‘new matrix’ for U.S. and Russia relations, they do not eliminate them completely. For instance, bilateral cooperation on Afghanistan and the development of economic ties could become areas of productive and beneficial partnership for both sides.

A recent Russian offer to provide an airbase for the passage of U.S. troops and supplies to Afghanistan came at a critical time for the U.S., amid complicating relations with Afghanistan, unresolved transit issues with Pakistan, and the prospect of losing the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. If implemented, the passage through Russia could diminish U.S. dependence on Pakistan, but it will also give Russia an important stake and possible partnership status in Afghanistan – something Moscow has been looking for for a long time, and rightfully so: geographical location makes Russia the most likely recipient of post-war spillovers from Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal in 2014.

Likewise, Russia’s accession to the WTO gives Russia a pass to the world’s economic network and also carries potentials for economic gains for opportunistic U.S. businesses. Yet, further advancement of the U.S. -Russian economic cooperation will necessitate a review of old practices some of which have long lost their persuasive power. This is relevant to the revived debate on the Jackson-Vanik amendment in the U.S. Congress.

The amendment was enacted in 1974 by the U.S. Congress, and targeted countries with non-market economies or bad human rights violations. In order to exercise normal trade relations with the United Stated, Soviet leaders had to undertake few liberalization policies and allow free emigration for thousands of people.

Considering that Russia continues its compliance with free immigration principles and the fact that it also has been recognized as a market economy, the amendment seems groundless. Even more, Russian opposition leaders point out at the counter – ineffectiveness of the amendment. Not only does it not have necessary leverage to influence democracy and human rights promotion in Russia, it also enables the current regime to maintain the public perceptions of American hostility, and promote official propaganda. Instead, opposition leaders suggest that sanctions, mainly, assets freezes and travel bans, targeting specific individuals involved in corruption and criminal activities, could prove more efficient.

As anti-American rethoric might be lessening in Russia after election, the anti-Russian sentiment is gathering momentum in U.S.’ pre-election discussions via criticism of President Obama ‘reset’ policies and the undemocratic elections in Russia. Nevetheless, the window of opportunity for the U.S.-Russia economic and political cooperation is not completely illusionary. Certainly, the future of the ‘reset’ policies will depend on the outcome of the 2012 presidential election in the U.S as well as on who will represent the dominant forces in Russian and American political circles – security hawks or more liberal, economic-minded decision-makers. As for now, old methods and phobias prove themselves counter-productive for both sides.

 

Author

Ania Viver

Ania Viver is an editorial/research assistant at WorldAffairsJournal.org. She recently graduated with a masters degree from the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall, where she focused on Foreign Policy and the South Caucasus region. Prior to moving to the US from her native Russia, Ania worked for six years as a trilingual assistant to the regional coordinator on international programs.