THE UNITED States and Russia continue to have an indispensable relationship because of their geographical scale and military power, even if their relative power has changed substantially since the end of the cold war. President Barack Obama’s attempt to put their relations on a new footing during his visit to Moscow this week was only partially successful, mainly because of uncertainty about Iran.
But the agreement to reduce their nuclear warheads and missile delivery systems by one-third and to work together on Afghanistan and other international issues shows they have a mutual interest in political co-operation despite continuing tensions between them.
These were hinted at in a sceptical response by Russian leaders and media to Mr Obama’s speech in Moscow yesterday, in which he emphasised US democratic values and the rule of law and cautioned Russia against violating the borders of Ukraine and Georgia. His accompanying warning against any return to 20th century notions of the balance of power, spheres of influence and winning and losing, as in the cold war period, did not go down well given Russian fears that it is being surrounded by new Nato allies in its near abroad.
The resulting suspicious attitude towards Mr Obama’s plea that the US-Russian relationship should be “reset” will be clarified as his policy towards Iran evolves. His expressed desire to prevent that state developing nuclear weapons may require him to seek United Nations sanctions against it. Russia is unlikely to support that if the US anti-missile system planned for the Czech Republic and Poland remains in place, notwithstanding US assurances that it is not directed against them. Alternative plans being considered, including a complete freeze on the system, could help convince the Russians that this is so. But a great deal will depend on what happens in Iran, where the nuclear energy programme has widespread public support.
Mr Obama deserves real credit for his long-standing commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and his readiness to invoke it as president. This adds credibility to such incremental agreements, as to his policy on Iran. But it also demands consistency in his dealings with other nuclear states such as North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan, as well as with the Chinese, British and French which first developed them after the US and the USSR. Many of their leaders, not to mention many of Mr Obama’s own partners in government, do not share his desire for a nuclear-free world but continue to believe in deterrence.
And a significant layer of his conservative opponents in the US are waiting to label him as another weak and naive Democratic president like Jimmy Carter who will be outmanoeuvred by foreign powers. As with his domestic programmes on healthcare and the economy, difficult foreign policy issues like Iran and Russia are now coming centre stage and are demanding effective action. They will be also be in the foreground at the Group of Eight summit in Italy today and tomorrow.