MOSCOW, March 9 (UPI) -- Paradoxically, while Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart, President George W. Bush are very friendly to each other, Russia-U.S. bilateral relations remain highly fragile.
There are several reasons for this situation. One of them is that since the end of the Cold War the United States has been trying to assert itself as the only superpower in a uni-polar world. Building partnership in an asymmetrical world is a difficult albeit not impossible task, especially if the two countries have identical security and economic interests.
Their security interests coincided with the emergence of the common enemy -- terrorism -- after Sept. 11, 2001. But the mechanism of cooperation in the fight against it has not yet been established. The Russia-U.S. partnership rests on declarations, on meetings and good relations of the two presidents, but there are no joint institutions, which would be solving common problems day in and day out. Neither the American, nor Russian bureaucracy displays much interest in this.
There are also other factors, which stand in the way of bilateral partnership. Unfortunately, Russia and America are still in the mutually assured destruction, or MAD, situation. Our nuclear forces are designed for war against each other by 95 percent. But can the two countries be allies, and even partners, if they are ready to destroy each other in a matter of 30 minutes?
Another obstacle to cooperation is a deep arms control crisis. Little is remaining of arms control due to the fact that it used to be a unique feature of Soviet-U.S. rivalry. The two roughly equal enemies required special rules of the game, which were embodied in arms control agreements.
One more reason for the instability of our relations is that strategic partnership cannot be reliable unless it rests on an economic foundation. Despite the budding investment process, the economy does not yet help stabilize Russia-U.S. relations. Sino-American contacts are much more solid despite a host of ideological and military contradictions. Our bilateral relations are doomed to remain fragile and vulnerable to political crises and regional conflicts until the two countries put them on a sound economic foundation.
Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear arms above all, is another sphere where America and Russia should be together, if only by virtue of common sense and egotism. Yet, America is not worried at all that Israel has developed "the bomb in the basement", or that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons as well.
India is regarded as a certain counterweight to China. But we will then have a trilateral arms race. This is a source of concern for Russia, because a U.S. ABM challenge and Indian nuclear arms buildup may provoke China into a fast upgrading of its nuclear armaments. In some 10 to 15 years China may match Russia in nuclear arms. This is not what the Kremlin wants, and it seems that the White House does not need it in a long-term perspective, either.
Or take another example -- Iran and North Korea, both of which make Washington very nervous. Russia is much calmer in this respect. We do not welcome any violations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but we are not going to use the big stick. The Kremlin favors a completely different approach.
The reason here is not nuclear weapons per se. What matters is that the United States could not resist the temptation of a uni-polar world. This strategy has no room for Iran or North Korea, like it did not have any for Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and so they became U.S. foes. If they go nuclear, it will be hard to contain them. But today the situation in Iraq presents such horrendous problems that the United States' great power momentum has almost run out. America simply cannot afford power confrontation with Iran or North Korea.
How to break this vicious circle of outstanding problems? Maybe it is time to discuss them in real earnest. Both Russia and the United States should agree in principle on what they want, and where they can cooperate.
We are witnessing Washington's failure to streamline the uni-polar world. What comes next? Chaos? It does not look attractive in the least, all the more so near the Russian borders, where the game without rules is being played. We need international rules of the game, which alone can provide the key to the solution of emerging problems.
But Moscow's continuous statements to this effect are not buttressed by effective action in this direction. Does Russia lack political and economic influence to have such rules drafted and asserted? Or is it affected by the consensus, which is taking shape in the West as regards its conduct? The West is unhappy about Russia on two grounds: first, Moscow is allegedly resuming its neo-imperial policy, primarily, in the former Soviet republics; second, it is alleged to be curtailing democratic reforms in favor of an authoritarian regime.
Quite often, when Russia tries to defend its economic interests, for instance, by establishing fair gas prices, and refusing to subsidize its neighbors, there is a global outcry. The Western media and public qualify such attempts as manifestations of imperial, authoritarian trends. This is a very dangerous approach, which is detrimental to the West as well. It is being reflected in the current campaign to discredit Russia as the G8 rotating president.
The Bush administration has found itself in a huge predicament. The crusade for democracy in the Middle East bears out that when authoritarian regimes grow feeble and allow elections, the race is won by Islamists with their anti-Western and anti-American views. In effect, it is Washington's policy that provokes this anti-American wave. Events in Tehran 25 years ago were a prelude to the current developments in a number of Muslim countries.
It is clear that it does not make much sense for Bush to go for confrontation with Russia. In this difficult situation the U.S. administration does not follow in the wake of anti-Russian attitudes. Moreover, it is trying to neutralize them. Washington may change its position, but chances are slim, because America is seriously worried about China, which can become its geopolitical rival in the 21st century. It is not worth parting with old partners in the confrontation with a new rival.
--
(Sergey Rogov is director of the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences and an RAS corresponding member. This article is reprinted by permission of the RIA Novosti news agency.)
---
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
