The US has said it is 'extremely disappointed' following Russia's
decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden, the latest in a long list of
unresolved conflicts. Is this the start of a new ice age for US-Russia
relations? Russia's decision to grant the former US intelligence
operative and whistle-blower Edward Snowden a year's asylum has led to a
storm of criticism in the United States. The lead headline in the
Friday (02.08.2013) edition of The New York Times spoke of a 'defiant
Russia,' while Republican Senator John McCain called it a 'slap in the
face of every American.' Other senators called for a boycott of the 2014
Winter Olympics in Sochi and demanded that the next G20 summit,
scheduled to be held in St. Petersburg in early September, be moved to
another country. The White House, meanwhile, expressed its 'extreme
disappointment' for the record. The uproar is illuminating, said Cory
Welt, associate director of the Elliott School of International Affairs
at George Washington University (GWU) in the US capital. 'A lot of rage
and exaggerated emotion has been expressed, in Congress in particular,'
said Welt. 'I'm still hopeful that this will be a temporary fallout and
we'll be able to get back to addressing real issues soon.' It could take
some time until both countries are able to get back down to business.
Too many emotions are in the game when Russia comes up in discussion in
Washington. The Snowden case has driven the frustration level with
President Barack Obama and Congress to new heights. After all, the
political crowd in the US capital has already struggled with
disappointed expectations in joint efforts by both countries to resolve
the Syrian civil war and the Iran conflict. Disappointment - and not
only in Snowden case The Snowden case is indicative of a difficult
relationship that the freshly-elected Obama in 2009 had wanted to reset
with a 'new beginning.' At the time, Obama was pursuing the best of
intentions, similar to his far-reaching offers of cooperation to China
and the Arab world. But his outstretched hand was not grasped by any of
the three. Obama has invested much time and political capital in
trying to improve Russian-American relations, but the results have been
meager. And not just in the case of Syria and Iran: with nuclear
disarmament, human rights and other important issues, the US and Russia
are farther apart than they have been for quite some time. Is it wise to
reduce the remaining communication channels and threaten the
cancellation of the St. Petersburg summit? Matthew Rojansky, director of
the Washington-based Kennan Institute, thinks Obama should still travel
to Russia, 'even if he doesn't expect that [President Vladimir] Putin
will send Snowden back to the United States, will fundamentally change
his perspective on Syria, will agree to a new nuclear arms agreement, or
any of the things which are a top priority for Obama and the United
States right now.' Under pressure Obama is not really alone in his
decision, as Putin's snub has put the US president under additional
pressure. A massive resistance has been brewing against the surveillance
programs made public by Snowden. Respected newspapers, like The New
York Times, have criticized the 'extremely aggressive pursuit' of
informants that has strained the relationship between the government and
the public. Nevertheless: many observers feel the president should keep
the door to the Kremlin open and maintain the diplomatic channels.
Otherwise, Rojansky told DW, the uneasy relationship will continue. 'One
provocation is followed by another, and [then there's] a kind of
failure of competent management, a failure to apply even very basic
tools of effective crisis management because there is not an effective
dialogue there. The key is to see engagement with Moscow not as a reward
for Moscow doing what Washington wants it to do, but as a strategy
which serves America's national interests in the first place.' Is Putin
provoking a new ice age? The chilling of the US-Russia relationship was
already apparent last year, as Putin began his third term as president.
His re-election was preceded by violent protests by the Russian
opposition, signaling that he would have to fight to maintain his power.
Putin still holds a grudge against the US for its support of the
protest movement. Putin has used foreign policy to bolster national
solidarity and thereby solidify his own power. His political scope is
much narrower than it appears from the outside. The fact that, despite
his position of weakness on the political stage, he manages to still
look so remarkable and make Obama seem like a rather unfortunate figure,
can be chalked up to Putin's instincts and his wealth of experience, as
well as Obama's own weakness. Secondary importance Washington, of
course, is preparing for the time after Putin. Until then, however, it
must come to terms with the current circumstances, which include the
fact that Russia is losing its significance as a partner for the US.
'This is a relationship which inevitably will be of secondary importance
to primary national interests. If we care about preventing terrorism,
the Russians are at least a secondary player on that issue, no matter
what,' said Rojansky, adding that this applies to all policy fields that
are in the highest national interest for the US. 'We should not expect
to rely on Russia as a stable partner,' agreed GWU's Welt, adding that
the US should always expect surprises. 'But that doesn't mean that we
should respond with rage and indignation.'
No comments:
Post a Comment