28 April 2009
Experts Say Cooperation Between U.S., Russia Is an Imperative
Change in tone needs to be followed by concrete action, State’s Burns says
Washington — Experts from the United States and Russia who are in Washington for the annual World Russia Forum see closer U.S.-Russian relations as less an option than an imperative if issues ranging from nuclear nonproliferation to energy security are to be addressed effectively.
“While the challenges are complex and demanding, it is vital to get U.S.-Russian relations right,” said U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns, a keynote presenter at the April 27–28 forum.
Burns highlighted three points. First, “Russia matters” as the only nuclear power with an arsenal comparable to the United States’, the largest producer of hydrocarbons, and an influential voice in multilateral forums on such issues as Iran and North Korea. Second, Russia has undergone “rapid, deeply rooted, and … irreversible change” characterized by a high level of interconnectivity and a people now accustomed to such personal freedoms as the right to own property and express individual viewpoints. Third, Burns said, is that the U.S. approach to Russia will be “premised on constructive engagement — not talking for talking’s sake.”
Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, followed a panel that included: former U.S. ambassador to Russia and to the United Nations Thomas Pickering; Robert McFarlane, a former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan; Sergey Rogov, director of the Institute for the USA and Canadian Studies within the Russian Academy of Science; and other leading U.S. and Russian scholars.
“We are now at the beginning of the beginning” of a new relationship, Pickering said. He pointed out that the last few months have shown that the two countries can work cooperatively on nuclear nonproliferation, ratification of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, weapons of mass destruction containment and broader issues of anti-terrorism.
President Obama will travel to Moscow in early July at the invitation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The meeting is expected to produce a framework to allow the two sides to conclude a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty by the end of 2009. The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) is set to expire December 5.
Several of the speakers, including Rogov, said an agreement that cuts warheads to 1,500 and delivery vehicles to 700–800 would not be unrealistic. Delivery vehicles include strategic bombers, nuclear submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Burns said that when Obama and Medvedev met at the London G20 Financial Summit in April, they reaffirmed their support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and their hope to finalize agreements by July on reducing weapons-grade plutonium and other weapons-grade nuclear material.
Burns described Russia as “a pivotal actor” in engaging Iran to ensure it does not acquire a nuclear weapon. On that issue, he reiterated Obama’s support for Russia’s proposed international fuel center for countries that forego uranium-enrichment capabilities.
Rogov said Russia will not agree to regime change in Iran and North Korea but would be a partner with the United States in trying to keep these countries free of nuclear weapons. He acknowledged a “change in mood and … expectation,” adding that U.S.-Russian cooperation is critical to “prevent the collapse” of the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The experts also felt that the two countries can expand cooperation in promoting stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Burns described as “significant” Russia’s agreement on the transit of equipment to Afghanistan. And he said that U.S. attendance in March at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference reflected “our commitment to work with Russia and our Central Asian partners” to address issues of narcotics and extremism in the region.
McFarlane highlighted energy issues and the huge Russian reserves of liquefied natural gas that are relatively close to U.S. markets as natural areas for bilateral cooperation. He described the last eight years as a period when the United States was dismissive of Russian concerns and where opportunities for greater bilateral cooperation were squandered.
“We can get a lot of mileage in repealing the Jackson-Vanik amendment,” Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the forum. The amendment, which was passed 30 years ago to withhold trade preferences from Russia to force the Soviet Union to permit freer emigration, has had little effect on trade. Rather, experts say, the amendment is more like a thorn in Russia’s side that serves no purpose. More important, experts say, are Russian measures to bring its trade practices up to global standards that would permit the country’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Burns said the United States believes that Russia’s entry in the WTO, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will help deepen its integration in the global economy and help it diversify its economy away from dependence on oil and gas exports. The 30-nation OECD brings together nations committed to democracy and a free-market economy.
“The United States and Russia matter to one another, and how well or how poorly we manage our relationship matters enormously to the rest of the world,” Burns said.
What foreign affairs decisions should President Obama consider? Comment on America.gov's blog.
