[ad_1]
Published
July 16, 2018 12:16:34
The US and Russian Presidents meet in Finland for their first one-on-one conversation. Do many hang on to this meeting? In theory, a lot. In practice, not so much
That the meeting takes place is a cause for satisfaction, but this should be tempered by caution. This does not underestimate the importance of relations between the United States and Russia. On the contrary, international stability and security depend very much on how these two countries perceive and interact.
The arsenals of the United States and Russia represent about 93% of the world's nuclear weapons. No progress towards nuclear disarmament is possible without their active cooperation. The future security of Europe and the prospect of resolving all the destructive conflicts that have hit much of the Middle East and regions of Europe and Asia are also at stake.
But the sad reality is that, three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the promise of a constructive relationship between the two former rivals of the Cold War has borne little or no fruit.
In April, Mr. Trump declared that the relationship with Russia was "worse now than it ever was". includes the Cold War ", a sentiment widely shared by Russian leaders and officials.
Why not expect much from the meeting
Of the many obstacles, the most egregious is Mr. Trump's own worldview and his diplomacy.
In many speeches and tweets before and since his election, Mr. Trump has not concealed his desire to begin a dialogue with the leaders of the countries that the previous US administrations have either but Trump's notion of dialogue is largely based on leaders who develop the kind of personal chemistry that drives them to negotiate and reach an agreement. these agreements should have a commercial dimension that contributes to "making America even more beautiful".
On the other hand, a coherent strategy must aim at establishing a new framework that is sensitive to and the grievances of both parties. It must address not only the military and economic aspects but also the cultural and psychological aspects of the relationship.
It is important to note that such a strategy must rebalance both NATO's and Europe's relations with Russia. It must also address the many intractable problems that have resulted in a succession of crises and an endless bleeding. In conflicts such as Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Afghanistan, to name a few, US-Russian consultation and coordination can make the difference. Mr. Trump has shown little interest in developing such a strategy
The likely consequence is that any understanding reached at the top will be limited in scope, open to conflicting interpretations of one side or the other. other, and difficult to implement, especially on the American side where any hint of compromise will be widely seen with deep distrust.
Anti-Russian sentiment rises in the United States
This is the second, perhaps more troubling, weakness of Mr. Trump's bargaining position. His meeting with Mr. Putin comes at a time when anti-Russian sentiment is rising in the United States, which is now bordering on hysteria. Moscow's presumed interference in the 2016 US presidential election is an important driving force. This has greatly concerned the FBI and other branches of the US intelligence community, at least since July 2016.
The allegations eventually led to the appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller as advisor to investigate a possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The Mueller investigation has already indicted former Trump campaign president Paul Manafort, and obtained the confession of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for making the false statements to the FBI.
extracts guilty pleas from Rick Gates, former partner of Manafort, George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign advisor, and other badociates, who became co-operating witnesses.
In February, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities. On the eve of the Trump-Putin summit, he accused 12 other Russian military intelligence officers of computer attacks aimed at undermining the Democratic Party. The political intention behind the schedule of the indictment could not be more obvious.
Coupled with other congressional investigations, some ongoing, talk of the "threat of Russia" has reached frenzied levels. Powerful forces are at work
. The anti-Russia campaign, although strongly encouraged by Democrats traumatized by the electoral loss of 2016, has strong bipartisan support. For largely electoral reasons, many Republicans want to mitigate the negative impact of the campaign on Trump's presidency. Yet both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly last July for a bill giving Congress the power to block any White House effort to weaken sanctions against Russia.
Added to that, some of the highest officials in the administration Jim Mattis, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and John Bolton, National Security Advisor, have some well-established credentials.
Then there is the influential role of the media and think tanks. the visceral antipathy of the public towards Russia, and in particular Mr Putin, which severely limits Mr Trump's room for maneuver.
The actions tell us more than the words
Given these constraints, the idea that he might be able to conclude a "big market" Russian American is virtual fantasy.
Here, Mr. Trump's actions since taking office tell us more than his words.
In March, the State Department announced the sale to Ukraine of anti-tank missiles, a step considered highly provocative by Russia.
In April, new sanctions were imposed on 24 Russians, hitting some of Putin's closest allies, in punishment for Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 elections and other "activities" malicious "
. documents issued by the US administration: the National Security Strategy last December, soon followed by the 2018 National Defense Strategy and the Nuclear Posture Review of 2018.
The Message from All three are clear: countering the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China is now at the center of US policy.
To this end, the US military is ready to face its adversaries through the range of conflicts. , the Indo-Pacific or the Middle East. The modernization of conventional and nuclear forces has become a priority. In simple terms, the three documents bring us back to the spirit of the Cold War rather than the notion of a renewed dialogue with Russia.
The problem with Mr. Trump, then, is not his wish for a more constructive exchange between the United States and Russia. Rather, it is a political environment that is deeply hostile to such an enterprise, which does not mean that Mr. Trump himself is flawless. His political alliances at home, his choice of high lieutenants, his chaotic rhetoric and the blatant contradiction between his words and deeds are not really helpful.
Trump's troubling inadequacies and the dangerous tendencies of the US security establishment should be enough to provoke a serious rethinking policy on the part of US allies, especially Australia. As Europeans are discovering it, echoing obediently to Washington's policies and statements is doing little to serve the interests of allies.
While Australia is not a major player in US-Russian tensions or the future of NATO, we can do this, especially in the way we manage our relations with Russia. We could easily open new channels of communication, engage in cooperative, educational, cultural and sporting projects, and explore opportunities for multilateral engagement.
The question is whether the political clbad in Australia is capable of this kind of independent thinking and political innovation. In the absence of political leadership, it may be time for civil society in Australia – as in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and especially the United States – to play a more active role in the world. public.
When the public in many countries views the world as increasingly dangerous and seeks more effective forms of global governance, educational, professional, cultural and even religious organizations and businesses can do much to spread the word. information, foster informed public debate and help develop new policy directions.
Joseph Camilleri is Professor Emeritus of International Relations at La Trobe University. This piece originally appeared on The Conversation.
Topics:
world politics,
Government and politics,
United States,
Russian Federation,
Finland
Source link
