M.D. NALAPAT
With the same
confidence that allowed the junior senator from Illinois to launch a campaign
for the presidency of the United States, Barack Obama has decided to
"reset" U.S.-Russian relations, banking on the forward-looking vision
he shares with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev.
For the U.S.
president this has been a high-risk operation, given the undercurrent of
suspicion toward Russia within the U.S. strategic community as well as the
citizenry. But the benefits are clear. The securing of transit rights through
Russian territory and airspace for U.S. military materiel to Afghanistan, as
agreed Monday, will reduce Washington's current dependence on Pakistan.
A further
warming of ties also may encourage the Moscow-leaning former Afghan Northern
Alliance groups to stop sulking and participate in the war against the Taliban.
Leaving this struggle to the ethnic Pashtun groups alone would be a mistake
that could cost Afghan President Hamid Karzai at least one-fifth -- if not
one-third -- of his country. The Taliban has to be rooted out of both Pakistan
and Afghanistan if the region is to have a chance at rapid social and economic
development.
NATO's
substantial outsourcing of Afghan strategy to the Pakistan army has resulted in
the neglect of former elements of the Northern Alliance, despite the group's
experience in fighting the Taliban. This should be rectified through
reconciliation between the former anti-Taliban fighters and NATO, a process
that the Obama-Medvedev initiative begun in Moscow on Monday could accelerate.
However, it may
be a mistake to involve Moscow in training Afghan police, as has been suggested
by the U.S. side. Just as the U.S. coalition with Britain aroused memories of
British colonial domination in Iraq, any insertion of Russian forces into
Afghanistan could spark similar memories -- giving the Taliban the lever they
need to sell their war against modern civilization as the protection of Afghan
freedom. Any Russian training of Afghans might be better done in Central Asia
rather than within Afghanistan.
The warming of
ties with the United States will give Moscow elbow room with Beijing, which
until now has had a monopoly over major-country strategic engagement with
Russia, because of the chill in its relations with the United States. While
Beijing has emerged as the alternative pole for those capitals wishing to keep
away from or even challenge the West -- such as Iran and Venezuela -- the
Chinese Communist Party has combined this with a vigorous policy of engagement
with the United States and the European Union.
This dual track
has been visible in North Korea, where the Chinese rein has prevented a robust
response to Pyongyang's continuing ratcheting up of the threat level in the
peninsula. Thus far, apart from words, China seems to have taken very little
effective action to bring North Korea into compliance with the rest of the
international order.
In the case of
Russia -- as has been true with India -- any warming of ties with Washington
would be unwelcome news for Beijing, which would like to see other capitals do
the heavy lifting against the West, while it adopts a policy of deepening
engagement with the United States and the European Union.
The ideal
situation for China would be for Russia to fall into the Iran trap and behave
in such a manner as to make the United States and European Union shy away from
collaboration. Tehran has paid a very heavy price for the isolation this policy
has caused, being forced to import even refined petroleum products as a
consequence of sanctions. Its international banking operations have been
stunted for the same reason.
Fortunately, the
Obama-Medvedev initiative has succeeded in pulling Russia back from this trap,
although within the bureaucracy there are elements that are comfortable only
with confrontation, no matter what the economic and social cost. It would be
wrong to separate Medvedev from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, however. There
is no way the Russian president could have made the progress he has with his
U.S. counterpart without Putin's acquiescence.
Unlike 1992-97,
when the United States failed to follow through on its promise of a full
partnership, focusing mostly on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and
their delivery systems, this time around the United States needs to show that
it is serious about broadening the areas of cooperation.
Obama's courage
in moving away from the past indicates that a future that includes a
U.S.-Russia partnership has a chance. Although battered, Russia is still one of
the most significant global players, and its goodwill would help maintain
stability in Europe and a balance of power in Asia. This is the reality that
apparently led Obama to play Russian roulette. The bullet seems to have been
missed and the point made: that Russia is an equal, worthy of U.S. friendship.
-(M.D. Nalapat is
vice chairman of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO peace chair and
professor of geopolitics at Manipal University.)
No comments:
Post a Comment