Eurasianet Organization
April 20 2005
TENSION SEEPS BACK INTO US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
Ariel Cohen 4/20/05
A EurasiaNet commentary
The Bush administration’s desire to promote the globalization of
democratic values is fueling tension in the United States’ relationship
with Russia, a country that has experienced a dramatic erosion of
its geopolitical influence over the past 18 months.
Following a meeting in Moscow on April 20, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Russian President Vladimir Putin both expressed
satisfaction about the current state of bilateral relations. Despite
their positive assessments, strains in the US-Russian relationship
are readily evident.
Prior to meeting Putin, Rice voiced criticism of Russia’s
democratization record, specifically citing the fact that the Russian
government maintains a stranglehold on television outlets in the
country. “There should be more independent media so that people can
debate and make decisions about the future of Russia, democratic
Russia, together,” Rice said during an interview broadcast by Ekho
Moskvy radio. The secretary of state also suggested that Russia’s
executive branch under Putin had accumulated excessive power at the
expense of Russia’s other branches of government.
While critical of the Russian government, Rice emphasized that
Washington and Moscow remained strategic partners, adding that the
United States sought to build a “constructive, friendly relationship”
with Moscow. The apparent US desire not to fully alienate Russia is
rooted in geopolitical pragmatism. An antagonistic Moscow could greatly
complicate a number of important international issues, including the
global threat posed by radical Islam and nuclear non-proliferation.
Rice insisted insist during the Ekho Moskvy interview that the United
States does not seek to replace Russia as the key power in the Caucasus
and Central Asia – two areas that have traditionally sat well within
Russia’s sphere of influence. However, recent actions indicate that
Russian officials are extremely wary of American intentions.
One indicator of Russia’s concern is reflected in Moscow’s changing
stance toward the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe. OSCE election monitors were highly visible in recent
elections in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. and the group’s reports on election flaws
played a background role in fueling revolutions in all three states.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Russia now wants
the OSCE to focus more on security, and it has adopted a cantankerous
stance on several budgetary issues.
While US and Russian officials strive to preserve the veneer of a
cooperative spirit, experts on both sides are far blunter in their
criticisms, and more willing to use confrontational rhetoric. Debates
during conferences on regional issues are now sometimes flavored with
a touch of Cold-War era hostility. Such debates occurred in February
in the Georgian capital Tbilisi during a conference called The South
Caucasus in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities.
During the three-day meeting, sponsored by the Georgian Foundation
for Strategic and International Studies, Stephen Sestanovich, a former
top US diplomat during the Clinton administration who is currently a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, courted controversy
when he suggested that the concept of the Caucasus lying within the
“post-Soviet space” was outdated. Instead, he advocated that the
Caucasus ought to be identified simply as part of Europe, a change
that could help to subtly weaken Russia’s traditional high-profile
role in the region.
S. Frederick Starr, the chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute
at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies,
appeared to criticize Russia’s stance on the region’s so-called “frozen
conflicts,” involving Georgia’s separatist territories of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia, along with Nagorno-Karabakh. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].”Conflict resolution failed not only
due to intransigence of the sides and insincere policies of regional
powers, but also because the efforts of good and tenacious people in
international organizations to settle the conflicts have failed,” Starr
said. He went on to suggest that if Russia does not respect territorial
integrity of South Caucasus states – Georgia, in particular — then
the West should “open up” issues relating to the Northern Caucasus
for discussion, including self-determination for Chechens.
Vyacheslav Nikonov, a pro-Putin political scientist and the president
of the Politika Foundation in Moscow, staunchly defended the Russian
record in the Caucasus, adding that Russia intended to remain an
influential player in the Caucasus. Russia “is on the rise and its
power will increase, whether you like it or not,” he said. The fact
that millions of ethnic Armenians, Azeris and Georgians live in Russia
grants Moscow a right to take an active interest in South Caucasus
affairs, Nikonov maintained.
Yevgeny Kozhokin, the director of the Russian Institute of Strategic
Studies, suggested that the United States and Russia should pursue
“big issues,” such as the growing geopolitical influence of China
and international terrorism, and Washington could leave “small fry”
regional issues, such as the future political status of South Ossetia,
for Moscow and Tbilisi to resolve exclusively.
Vladimir Socor, a senior fellow at the Washington, DC,-based Jamestown
Foundation, said relying on Russia to work out its differences with
Georgia on South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be a mistake. Socor
assailed Russia for its failure to fulfill security commitments
made during the OSCE’s Istanbul summit in 1999. He said political
settlements to the two conflicts would remain elusive unless new
peace-keeping and negotiating frameworks were established. “Existing
frameworks for negotiations are relics of another era before the
expansion of the EU and NATO,” Socor said “The UN mission in Abkhazia
helps put an undeserved international gloss on the Russian framework
designed to perpetuate secession and the occupation of Abkhazia.”
Editor’s Note: Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in
Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security at the
Heritage Foundation, and Editor and co-author of Eurasia in Balance:
US and the Regional Power Shift (Ashgate, 2005, forthcoming).