Jahangir's World Times First Comprehensive Magazine for students/teachers of competitive exams and general readers as well.
There were certain key policy interests that brought change in the US stance towards Russia under Obama Administration.
The epic rivalry between the US and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) spanning four decades was one of the most critical phases in international politics. Naturally, it formed the basis of US-Russia relations since the dissolution of the USSR as the bitterness caused by the cold war experiences never faded and is reflected through the policies of both states towards each other for past two decades. Their relations remain essentially strained for obvious reasons and the differences are generally fanned by the propagandists.
It was for the first time in two decades, when a conciliatory approach towards Russia was adopted by the US when in an act of reconciliation, the Obama Administration opted for policy initiatives to ‘reset’ relations with Russia. The concept was introduced by the US Vice President, Joe Biden, in 2009. In support of his concept of ‘resetting’ US-Russia equation, he stated: ‘The last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and the members of [NATO]. It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.’ The policy though was criticised by a number of political leaders and policy analysts both in Washington and Moscow, the Obama Administration managed to reconcile relation ship with Russia easing the decades’ long strain in relations between the two states.
Precisely, the ‘reset’ policy appeared to be a two-pronged strategy based on coalition and engagement. The coalition was aimed at developing consensus leading to a partnership between the US and Russian leadership on a number of bilateral and critical international security issues, including US agenda in Afghanistan and the UN sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, the ‘engagement’ implied involving Russia in strategic security and nuclear arms reduction dialogue. The policy in a nutshell was nothing new in entirety as the US is known to have used similar policy tools with other states as well in different eras. The policy yielded desired results as the negotiations between the US and Russia were successful and the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), formally called as Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, was signed between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010. The Treaty entered into force in 2011.
The signing of New START, however; is considered the cornerstone of US-Russia relations by the Obama Administration and one of the major foreign policy achievements of the US under Obama. Alongside nuclear arms reduction agreements, the US has backed Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which Russia has sought for almost two decades. In addition to this, Obama Administration was considering the revival of trade relations with Russia. A plan was reported to have been under discussion to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in order to end the cold war era trade restrictions which would pave the way for normalisation of trade relations with Russia. The US also fetched Russia’s support for its Afghan agenda and managed to reach a consensus on the issue of UN sanctions on Iran, however; the Russian stance on Syria still is a cause of concern in the US policy making circles which the US attempted to settle through negotiations.
Now what have come as a blow to these developments are the remarks by the Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Talking to CNN, in March this year, Romney called Russia ‘without question our [the US] number one geopolitical foe.’ He further elaborated ‘I am saying in terms of geopolitical opponent, the nation which lines up with the world’s worst actors.’ Earlier, the Romney campaign laid out ‘a strategy to discourage aggressive or expansionist behaviour on the part of Russia and encourage democratic political and economic reform.’ Later, in a July 2012 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, while criticising the Obama administration’s Russian relations, Romney included Russia in a list of nations he would stand up to if elected in November.
Romney’s statement, however, appeased the sections in the US which still carry anti-Russian approach and not only consolidated anti-Americanism in Moscow but also attested the skepticism of certain policy makers and propagandists in Russia. On the other hand, Romney’s foreign policy stance towards Russia has raised questions and concerns about the future of the policy of ‘reset’ in circles that favour pro-Russia policies.
Are the developments took place under the ‘reset’ irreversible? How beneficial ‘reset’ is in the long run? Would Russia under Putin be following the terms the US has tried to set for their bilateral ties? To the dismay of many answers to these questions are not largely in affirmative. Now, with Vladimir Putin as president, Romney’s policy stance would only stoke the bitterness that was defused during Medvedev’s reign. Although, during Medvedev’s presidency, Vladimir Putin was in a position to influence Russia’s policy towards the US, he is expected to be more critical of the US from now on. In addition to this, Romney’s success in presidential elections, November this year, may lead to an explosion in military spend in the US and Russia.
In view of the expected reversal in US-Russia relations, the two countries are required to show restraint towards each other and avoid any rhetoric leading to anti-Russian or Anti-American opinion in both the states.
