How Russia Viewed the Bush Presidency - Term Paper Example

How Russia Viewed the Bush Precidency? Introduction Bush administration’s ambitious foreign policy goals to reshape the world following the September11 terrorist attacks combined with a strong ideological bias led to strained relations with Russia. Bushs excessively self-assured belief that he could achieve his objectives regardless of all other considerations turned into an arrogant attitude toward his global partners. In addition, his open disregard for international law and his reliance on military made a bad situation even worse.1 President Vladimir Putin’s position was clear right from the beginning that main criterion in assessing the situation in Iraq should be the weapons inspectors findings, which must be presented to the United Nations Security Council. Russia, along with France and China, believed that the U.N. Resolution 1441 that created a new tough inspections regime, would be necessary for the United 1.1. Russia’s support to the coalition against terror Russia had joined the coalition against terror, promising to share intelligence and offering political support to the US president. President Putin promised to increase the supply of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Russia had supplied the Northern Alliance with arms to be used in Afghanistan against Taliban. He also offered to open Russian airspace to US airplanes for humanitarian flights, and to participate in search and rescue operations. When the leaders of the Central Asian States offered bases to the coalition for the attack against Afghanistan, Putin announced that he had approved the offer. However, it is important that there were vast differences between the two countries in their perception of terrorism. In Russia the origins of the terrorist threat lay in the weakness of the state. Political instability, poverty and inequality in Russia in the 1990s provided a fertile climate for radical groups to attract followers and for foreign Islamic networks to penetrate the country. Russia and the United States are also dealing with different enemies. The United States’ chief enemy in the war against terrorism is al-Qaeda. In Russia, however, the terrorist threat originates primarily in Chechnya. 1.2. American forces in Iraq and Afghnaistan: how Russia views it? Russia seemed to get very little benefit from its cooperation with the coalition against terrorism. As a realist and a pragmatist, Putin understood that Russia would become irrelevant if it did not cooperate in the coalition against terrorism, but he also believed that knowledge of the difficulties of fighting in Afghanistan, the intelligence that Russia had been gathering and its relationship with the Northern Alliance were assets that would contribute to Russia’s status and make Russia a valuable U.S. ally. 2.1. Post 9/11 relations between Russia and the US: promises followed by disappointments The United States and Russia had vastly different ideas about the nature and scope of the war on terror. The relations between Russia and the USA, fraught with suspicion, mistrust, accusations and counter-accusations have marred their solidarity in the war on terrorism. In the initial phase of the US led war in Iraq, Russia sided with France and Germany in spite of its economic interests in Iraq. Another thorny issue dates back to 1974 when Jackson-Vanick Amendment was introduced to restricts US from engaging in permanent normal trade relations with Russia, despite Bush administration pledges that the amendment would be repealed2. Fighting global terrorism and mutual interest of the two countries in global energy resources are considred to be two main pillars of US-Russian relations after the post September 11 attacks. The credibility of this foundation, however, has continuously eroded over disagreements between Moscow and Washington over concrete anti-terror policies as well as Bush administration’s perception that Russia drifted toward authoritarianism. On the other hand, the so-called Putinists, the hardcore prgagmatists who take day-to-day foreign policy decisions in Moscow could only cooperate with the United States on terrorism if it met Russias strategic interests, like in Afghanistan. 2.2. Russian government’s Afghan dilema After September 11, U.S. officials needed Russias permission to use bases in former Soviet Central Asia, near Afghanistan. That war has overwhelmed the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Russian political class, though, maintaining the rhetoric of partnership and cooperation with the United States at the official level, has remained split over the geopolitical implications of the war on terror. The Russian political analysts have argued that fighting global terror in partnership with USA cannot serve Russian geopolitical interest3. Russias military seems to be especially suspicious of U.S. designs in the post-Soviet geopolitical space and inteerst. Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin has repeatedly criticsed presence of US troops in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia as part of Washinngon’s Afghan campaign.General Kvashnin stated to the Interfax-AVN military news agency: "it is one thing when a country is fighting terrorism on its own territory and some other countries assist them. But it is quite another thing when, under the guise of fighting international terror, some countries are in fact trying to get involved in the internal affairs of the nation they are meant to be helping.”4 The pragmatist heavy weights in Moscow are suspicious that the United States is trying to expand its influence for control of Central Asias oil and natural gas reserves, as well the regions pipeline network, all in the name of war on terror. 3.1. Deepening cracks in the strategic alliance over diffrences in values An increasingly authoritarian Russia is not particularly interested in advancing democracy, especially if it interferes with opportunities to make money. In a strange post-Cold War role reversal, it is now the United States that seeks to export its ideology, while the Russians just want to do business and assert economic strength. Putin’s presidency, from what appears from stories of nepotism and political favours coming out from Russia, in essence, are stories of transfer of property from so-called oligarchs to friends of Putin. These developments are akin to much of Russia’s past, then the Soviet Union. This proved detrimental, not only for Russias democracy and Russian capitalism, but also for relationship outside world, United States of America in particular. The strategic alliance that Bush administration supposed to have formed with Vladimir Putin suffered a series of setbacks following suppression of independent media, rule of selective justice, assaults on representatives of big business, and "neo-imperialism" in dealing with Russias neighbors in post-Soviet Eurasia. Thre is a growing concern amongst some American politicains in Washington that the allies and partners on the war on terror are supposed to share the same values. The partnership between the countries was expected to be based on not only on the commonality of interests but also on the commonality of values. Only hours after the first American missiles landed on Iraqi territory, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a public declaration, condemning the onset of the US invasion as a “great political error” and the Mult-National Forces must respect the national sovereignty international law and that such action can only be sanctioned the UN Security Council.5 3.2. Russian energy resources: challenge to the American hegemony in the West Experts on Russian foreign policy believe that it is profit and not ideology that drives Moscows relations with US. Oil and gas generate 70 percent of the countrys income. The boom in Russian energy sector is changing the face of Moscow’s foreign policy paradigm. Russias vast reserves of oil and gas are powering the economy to levels not seen since its dramatic post-communist collapse. As a result business success is changing foreign policy. President Bush’s controversial missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic, both being former Soviet Union bloc countries and now the NATO members, has angered Russia to the extent that it has serious repercussion on the so called US-Russia strategic alliance. Moscow has warned that it may target any such sites in Eastern Europe with its own missiles. Referring to the East European missile defense system by the US, President Putin lashed out against Washington that, "one states rule has overstepped its national borders in all areas, in economics, politics and the humanitarian sphere, and is trying to force itself on other states”6. Conclusion The US and Russian foreign policy are based on the strong Russian perception that the US has no regard for the interests or status of Russia. The second round of NATO enlargement, for example, which extended NATO membership to the Baltic States, provided further fuel to the Russian belief that the US is prepared to ignore Russian security perceptions and Russian interests. The relationship between Russia and U.S. during Bush administration highlights just how low relations between the two countries had sunk. President Bush came to office talking tough on Russia and the war in Chechnya. But soon after the 9/11 attacks the nature and tenor of relationship between the two countries underwent a dramatic change. At one moment back in 2001, President Bush embraced Putin as a “strong-willed person, very straight forward and trustworthy.” Putin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov had agreed in principle that Russia would support U.N. peacekeepers under U.S. command in Iraq which was the first positive step in building a unified strategy in Iraq. President Putin made it clear from the beginning that Russia would support the American war on terror if it was approved by the UN Security Council. Bibliography Cohen, A., “Russian Peacekeepers for Iraq? Bush and Putin at Camp David”. National Review Online. 26 September 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/cohen/cohen200309260911.asp Feifer, G., “Russian Foreign Policy Hints at New Cold War”. National Public Radio. 5 March 2007. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7678352 Kelmen, M., “US Warily Eyes Thorny Relationship with Russia”. National Public Radio. 9 March 2007. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7800622 Lukyanov, F., United States Lost Russia and everything Else”. Russia in Global Affairs. 15 October 2008. http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/engsmi/1231.html Mankoff, J. “Restoring Russian Support for the War on Terror”, History News Network. 11 June 20036. http://hnn.us/articles/30203.html Saunders, Paul, B., “The US and Russia After Iraq: Rebuilding a Relationship”, Policy Review. Hoover Institution. No. 119, June and July 2003. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3448651.html Torbakov, Igor. “Russia and the War on Terror: Not a Trusted US Ally”, The Jamestown Foundation. Terrorism Monitor, Vol. 2, Issue, 1. 5 May 2005. http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=434 Read More