US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND THE MOSCOW-WASHINGTON LINE
Habibe Kader Ozdal
Journal of Turkish Weekly
ml
Nov 20 2008
Turkey
After the victory of Obama in US presidential elections, the attention
turned on the up-coming US policies over the world issues. While all
the newspapers were predominantly emphasizing Obama’s victory that
was liken a revolution, Moscow had witnessed a very consequential
speech of Medvedev. During his first nation-address since he took
over the presidency form Putin, Medvedev pointed out very important
issues on both domestic issues and foreign affairs.
First of all, Medvedev clearly stated that as a response to the US
missile defense deployment which are to build in Poland and Czech
Republic, Russia will deploy Iskander missile system in Kaliningrad
close to Poland border just to neutralize the US. However, this
project would come into existence as a response to the plan to place
the U.S. missile system in Eastern Europe.
The second point Medvedev pointed was on domestic politics of Russia.
According to Medvedev the term of presidency should be extended
from four to six years. But legal experts say the term extensions
would only apply to future presidents. On the other hand arguments
focus on that Medvedev was only paving the way for 12 more years of
Putin in the Kremlin. Moreover Russian lawmakers have approved the
second reading of a bill extending the presidential term from four
to six years last Friday. However the statement of Medvedev raised
the concerns of West on the democratisation of Russia.
Russia-US Relations
After the presidency election in the US, the relations between Russia
and the US had become one of the main issues on the agenda. First of
all, it should be mentioned that the arguments of McCain over Russia
were apparently more aggressive and Anti-Russian. On the other hand
president-elect Obama has been perceived more moderate in terms
of his statements. After the result of the election the US foreign
policy lines came to view. Since it is claimed that the priority will
be Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan but not the Russia on the
Obama’s foreign policy agenda, arguments focus on the probability
that US-Russia relations might stay behind.
Among with these issues, the US has sent a proposal on missile defence
system to Kremlin last week. The proposal might also aim to soften
Russia’s position on the US’ plan to deploy missile defence system
in Eastern Europe. However, according to Kremlin the proposal was
not satisfactory.
It is more probably that during Obama’s presidency White House and
Kremlin could step forward for disarmament. Especially Democrats’
perspective of missile defence system as costly and technologically
unproven, give hope for such a cooperation. The most obvious
expectation is the re-negotiation of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START1) that signed between the US and the Soviet Union in July 1992
and expires by the end of 2009. It would be appropriate to mention here
such a negotiation could be possible only conditionally. And it will
depend on the cancellation of US’ missile defence system in Eastern
Europe. Further more experts emphasize the need of reconsideration
of ex-agreements rather than accepting them as they are. [1]
It would be impetuous to expect dramatic changes in US-Russia relations
during Obama’s presidency. On the one hand, cooperation on reduction
of mass destruction and fights against terrorism is more possible. On
the other hand, the dissidence on South Osetia, Abhazia, Kosovo,
Iran, Iraq and the conflict on former Soviet Union republics will
probably continue since national interests are hardly to cross over
those issues.
The Triangle of Russia-US and the EU
One of the other issues needs to be considered during Obama’s
presidency is whether the US will change the perception within
the relations with the Central and Eastern European countries in
terms of NATO’s enlargement. The clash of interests over Ukraine is
obvious. Russia’s policy on Ukraine is being shaped by the factor
that mentioned country’s possible membership to NATO. In other words
Ukraine’s possible membership is the main determinant of Russia-Ukraine
relations. Ukraine as a member of NATO would not only be a lost region,
but also Russia will feel itself more surrounded by NATO.
Currently, it has been claimed that Obama led US will get closer
with the European Union. So that, Russia will stay behind. Evaluating
possible transatlantic cooperation brings the necessity to think about
Russia. Since the EU is not able to be a unified institution against
Russia, the mentioned cooperation could be premature. Furthermore,
especially Germany and France are more likely to support Russia
and to represent Russia’s interests within the EU. This was obvious
especially during the Georgian war in August 2008. From this stand
point, it is not likely for such a transatlantic ally that will be
constructed by the US and the EU to take steps without considering
Russia’s interests. On the other hand possible unwillingness of EU’s
to take part in anti-Russian pact could be explained with the EU
dependence on the Russian gas.
Recent Developments over Clash in Caucasus
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly established Russian
Federation faced with the power loss in Caucasus as was the case for
the other regions. Mentioned loss of power was to be substituted
by the US in the region. Indeed, US was relatively successful to
do so. However, the exchange of hegemonic power in favour of US
in Caucasus started to harass comparatively more powerful Russia
that benefited most from the 20th century dominant characteristic;
increasing energy prices. On of the most obvious picture of clash of
interests in Caucasus has been Georgian war in August.
Developments following war are also worthy mentioning. Azerbaijani
and Armenian leaders have met 14 later years in Moscow and signed a
proposal aiming the solution of the Karabagh issue. Russia’s position
as a ‘mediator’ can be evaluated as attempts to show that Russia is
also within the peaceful activities in the region. However, Medvedev
did not hesitate to emphasize during his first nation address that
‘Russia will not step back in Caucasus’.[2]
If Obama’s foreign policy focuses on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran this
would inevitably bring the change of power in favour of Russia in the
Caucasus. Furthermore considering recent peaceful developments, the
success depends on Turkey and Russia’s share of leadership and also
collectivisation of national interests as well as the initiatives in
the framework of stability of the regions countries.
As a consequence, it is necessarily important to read the reason of
Medvedev’s points that he stated during his first nation-address. The
reason why Medvedev mentioned to deploy missile defence system
in Kaliningrad to neutralize US missile defence system project in
Eastern Europe is mainly to give a signal to Obama that US should
not act without considering Russia’s interests. On the other hand as
mentioned above, considering that Democrats think that missile defence
system is costly and technologically unproven, recent developments
may occur in terms of US’ plan in Eastern Europe.
Since being in anti-Russian attempts and conflict with Russia should
not serve to the US interests, Obama term US foreign policy towards
Russia could be more moderate. It is important to bear in mind that
US can not feel in safe and save its national interests if cooperation
with Russia could not be achieved. Increasing crises and proliferation
provide not a secure but an unsecured international arena. This
may make it possible to bring this actor together and found common
grounds. On the other hand, pursuing more peaceful policies and
focusing on cooperation will reduce the need for proliferation and
increasing tension in global terms.