Russian-Western Relations: Courting the Bear
		
		
		By Eric Walberg
		ccu.org, November 19, 2008
		
 
A flurry of meetings last week — in Nice, Brussels and Sharm 
		El-Sheikh — show the changing face of Russian-Western relations, says 
		Eric Walberg
 
Russia ’s struggle to become a respected player in 
		world affairs moved forward tentatively this past week with a 
		Russian-European Union summit in Nice. Participants said Friday that the 
		meeting underlined improved relations. The European trade commissioner, 
		Catherine Ashton, said talk had been “robust, but very open. Presidents 
		Sarkozy, Barroso and Medvedev were very direct with each other in the 
		spirit of having a dialogue.” European Commission President José Manuel 
		Barroso, using rather “robust” diplomatic language, ridiculed the 
		Russian threat to station missiles in Kaliningrad, made just hours after 
		Obama had won the US presidential election last week: “If we start with 
		the idea that there are missiles on one side or the other, we come back 
		to the Cold War rhetoric which is, I would even say, stupid.” 
 
		President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who was host of the Nice meeting 
		between Russia and the 27 member-nations as EU president, helped 
		Medvedev back off. He made it clear that the US should reconsider its 
		missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic . “Between now 
		and then,” referring to talks on a new security architecture for Europe 
		— a Russian proposal — to be held by the Organisation for Security and 
		Cooperation in Europe , which includes the US and Russia , next June, 
		“please no more talk of anti-missile protection systems,” Sarkozy said. 
		The deployment of a missile defense system “would bring nothing to 
		security in Europe .” The Russian leader welcomed Sarkozy’s conciliatory 
		approach, saying that all countries “should refrain from unilateral 
		steps” before discussions on European security take place. “If we share 
		one home, we should get together and make agreements with one another,” 
		meaning the Russians will not follow through with their threat if the US 
		agrees to a “Zero Option” with regards missiles in Europe . 
 
		Although he holds the rotating presidency of the EU, Sarkozy was 
		actually moving beyond his official mandate, since the bloc has little 
		power over defense matters. The Czechs, who take over the EU presidency 
		in January, and Poles were furious with Sarkozy. “We hope that the 
		project will continue,” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said 
		after meeting his Czech counterpart Karel Schwarzenberg. Polish Prime 
		Minister Donald Tusk huffed Thursday that Russia was not part of the 
		plan. “The anti-missile shield is the subject of contracts between 
		Poland and the United States , and other countries are not — and will 
		not — be participants in these negotiations.” Alexandr Vondra, the Czech 
		deputy prime minister, said he was “surprised” by Sarkozy’s comments, 
		which, he said, contradicted French statements at the NATO meeting in 
		Bucharest, and exceeded Sarkozy’s purview as EU president. “There was 
		nothing in the EU mandate to talk about missile defense.” 
 
This 
		is a fine example of Sarkozy at his hyperactive best, one where he used 
		his antennae well, sensing the shifting weather patterns and attempting 
		to divert a needless and destructive storm, which, he would no doubt add 
		in his own defence, would hit the Poles and Czechs even harder than the 
		rest of Europe . This whole episode shows the weakness of the EU: 
		pipsqueaks are vaulted into the diplomatic big leagues and can pursue 
		petty grudges which leave the EU helpless to pursue a sensible agenda. 
		French president Jacques Chirac was undermined in 2003 by these 
		parvenues who slavishly hung on every lie coming out of the US 
		concerning Iraqi WMDs, preventing a strong European resistance to the 
		criminal invasion of Iraq . Good for the Sark .
 
The French 
		leader’s nod to the Russian proposal for a new European security 
		structure also elicited jibes. The Euro fans of America and foes of 
		Russia see the Russian president’s proposals as a direct attempt to 
		undermine NATO. And so what? This senseless Cold War relict merely 
		raises hackles and sticks its imperial nose where it doesn’t belong. The 
		EU and Russia are already working together on peacekeeping — through the 
		UN — as seen with the current EUFOR mission in Chad , which includes 320 
		Russians. Who needs NATO to police the world? Good for Medvedev. 
 
		Overriding squawks from Lithuania , Europeans also agreed Monday to 
		resume talks with the Russians on a longterm EU-Russia pact on the 
		economy, energy and security matters. Negotiations were suspended after 
		the Russian war with Georgia in August, but since then the financial 
		crisis has underlined the need for rapprochement. “We don’t need a Cold 
		War. We need cool heads,” said Barroso. Even Russophobe German 
		Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “I think it is better to talk with each 
		other than about each other.” 
 
While Russian and European 
		leaders were extending olive branches to each other in Nice, their 
		foreign ministers were chattering at a NATO meeting in Brussels about 
		their latest pet project — putting pressure on Turkey to deploy 
		permanent NATO navy forces in the Black Sea and the Bosphorus, one of 
		the most strategic waterways of the world and located in Turkish 
		territorial waters. Turkey is rightly concerned that such move would 
		violate the 1936 Montreux Convention, which limits the total weight of 
		the warships that a country which does not border the Black Sea can 
		deploy to 45,000 tons, and eventually harm its sovereign rights over the 
		straits, not to mention its booming economic ties with Russia. Turkey 
		has long opposed the deployment of NATO navy forces on the Black Sea, 
		saying the region is perfectly safe and the Black Sea countries’ joint 
		patrol missions are more than sufficient.
 
But these Euro and 
		NATO intrigues are far less important that the behind-the-scenes 
		activities now going on in US conference rooms, where president-elect 
		Barack Obama’s political plans for accommodating Russia are now in high 
		gear. Relations with Russia are the cornerstone to the empire’s success 
		during Obama’s presidency. The world, certainly Europe and NATO, is now 
		holding its breath, waiting to see what Obama will do about the missiles 
		and the Georgians, with the ball firmly in his court. 
 
		Unfortunately, he can’t hit it back for another two months. In the 
		meantime, the discredited Bush regime is doing its best to dig potholes 
		in the court and make Obama’s task doubly hard. A fine example took 
		place last weekend in Sharm El-Sheikh , Egypt , with yet another of the 
		pointless meetings that Bush has sent his beloved Condoleezza Rice on. 
		It took barely an hour for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to 
		dismiss the supposedly new set of proposals she brought concerning START 
		(Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and missile defense. “The current US 
		proposals are insufficient because the Bush administration is seeking to 
		make the decision [on the deployment of the missile shield] 
		irreversible,” a Russian source said. Lavrov insisted that any new 
		discussions on the European missile shield should involve Russia , the 
		US and the EU and must be based on respect for common interests rather 
		than on a unilateral decision made by Washington . But absolutely no one 
		is fooled by Bush anymore as his 76 per cent disapproval ratings show. 
		If anything, such tired attempts at covering the empire’s tracks merely 
		give Obama more food for thought.
 
The tone Obama sets in 
		relations with Russia will be vital to the success of his presidency. 
		Medvedev, like Obama, is still an open book. In his state of the union 
		address the same day as Obama’s stunning victory, Medvedev revealed 
		ambitious plans to strengthen Russian democracy, condemning state 
		interference in elections, mass media, civil society and the economy — 
		all of which gives birth to corruption in the bureaucracy. He proposed 
		that those parties falling below the 7 per cent threshold in 
		parliamentary elections, yet reaching more than 5 per cent, should be 
		represented with at least one or two deputies in the State Duma, 
		increasing diversity, that only elected deputies should become governors 
		of Russia’s regions or members of the Federation Council, and that local 
		governments and non-governmental organisations have greater say in the 
		legislative process. He called for less state control of the media: 
		“Freedom of speech should be secured by technological innovation. 
		Experience shows that it is practically useless to ‘try to persuade’ 
		bureaucrats to leave mass media alone. One should not try to persuade, 
		but extend as broadly as possible the space for the Internet and digital 
		television.”
 
If Obama wants to make any progress in the empire’s 
		affairs abroad, be it in Afghanistan , Europe , Iraq , Iran , he will 
		have to wrestle the Cold Warrior Washington establishment into 
		submission and make peace with Russia . This will have the truly 
		wonderful side-effect of strengthening Medvedev’s hand in his own 
		struggle with statist authoritarians. 
 
This is the way for 
		America to encourage democracy around the world — by refraining from 
		threatening other countries and interfering in their affairs. If 
		American is not perceived as a threat by Russia, constantly intriguing 
		and pushing its European allies into “stupid” Cold War stand-offs, 
		Russia will be able to continue its halting, democractic transformation.
		
***
Why the concern with Russia ? 
		Well, it has not a few trumps up its sleeve which Obama would be wise 
		to note: 
* the perennial steel-fist-in-velvet-glove Russian gas 
		supplies to Europe, now strengthened by Gazprom’s Southstream pipeline 
		plans which look set to scuttle the anti-Russian Nabucco pipeline plan. 
		The latter will hardly be feasible given the economic meltdown emanating 
		from the US and infecting the entire world. The Russian hold on European 
		gas supplies looks very secure.
* its continued nuclear energy 
		cooperation with Iran. If the US expects to see any conciliatory move 
		from Iran it will have to take Russia into account.
		* its control over the fastest and cheapest transit routes for NATO 
		military supplies to Afghanistan . They just happen to be the rail and 
		air links through Russia and former Soviet Central Asia. Already, Russia 
		has signalled it will not necessarily be so hospitable to NATO use of 
		these precious routes.
* the overriding US object in the near future: 
		stablising Iraq . The next few years in Iraq will be troubled, to say 
		the least, and Russian cooperation with the West will be vital.
		* cooperation in dealing with the international financial crisis and 
		threatening world recession. The Russian economy has rapidly integrated 
		into the world economy during the past two decades, for better or worse, 
		bringing with it Russian mafia, liberal use of offshore banking and 
		other dubious western inventions. This means it is an important part of 
		any solution.
 
The Russian hold on gas supplies to Europe is 
		nothing to worry about. The Russians have always been reliable partners, 
		from WWII on, as long as the West plays ball and doesn’t push them too 
		hard. Measured, stable diplomacy is all they ask. Iran threatens no one, 
		despite hysterical Israeli rhetoric, and will no doubt go on Obama’s 
		backburner, despite whispers in his ear from the Zionists in his camp. 
		Since Afghanistan and dealing with the world depression are the 
		centrepins of Obama’s foreign policy, he would be very foolish to 
		provoke the Russians needlessly on high profile but meaningless issues 
		like the missiles and expanded NATO membership.
		Eric Walberg can be reached at
		
		www.geocities.com/walberg2002/
		
      
      
      
      Fair Use
      Notice
      This site contains copyrighted material the
      use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
      owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
      understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
      democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
      constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
      in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
      Section 107, the material on this site is
      distributed without profit to those
      who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
      for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
      If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
      your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
      copyright owner.