| |
A neo-con in the romantic pragmatist's
court
By Peter Lavelle
MOSCOW - After months of tough words, traded
accusations and barbs, US President George Bush is
expected to meet his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in St
Petersburg as part of the city's 300th birthday
anniversary on June 1.
Three hundred years ago,
Peter the Great founded the city as part of his plan to
modernize Russia and turn it to the West. Three years
ago, a man from that same city found himself catapulted
into the Kremlin with a mandate to salvage Russia from
the upheavals of post-communism disintegration. After
September 11, 2001, this man boldly announced that
Russia would once again look to become part of the West.
Now, in three weeks' time, Bush will attempt to explain
to Putin what it means to be modern and part of the West
- at least in his eyes.
The good news about the
upcoming mini-summit is the fact that it will be held at
all, considering recent US-Russia squabbles. The long
and meandering road US-Russian relations have taken
since September 11 is in need of some very sober
re-assessment. Putin and Bush rushed into a new
relationship like two lovers who had decided to elope
without considering the consequences of their actions.
On Bush's part, the relationship was a small component
of carrying out his messianic vision of good conquering
evil throughout the world. For Putin, hitching up with a
very powerful partner bent on destroying international
terrorist groups was a convenient cover for a failed
policy in Chechnya and assisted Russia's return to
global respectability.
Then the real world
showed up and spoiled the love-in. Russia and the US
have a number of shared interests, but they also have
some extremely prickly differences, most of which are
over conflicting geopolitical interests generated in
part by ideological differences. In the wake of the
US-led war against Iraq, the mini-summit will finally
demonstrate to the star-struck couple that their
elopement was a marriage between an American "neo-con"
and a Russian "romantic pragmatist" in search of
different destinies. An odd combination, but there is no
reason such a relationship could not be made to succeed.
Uncomfortable marriages, as many of us can attest, can
last a very long time.
The get-together will
inevitably be declared an official success, taking into
account the vagueness that unites the visions of the new
world order held by both heads of state. This
ideological odd couple will agree to disagree on a
number of policy issues, but will laud the importance of
the bilateral relationship for building a mutually
beneficial future. Due to shared interests, neither side
has much room in which to do otherwise.
Both
Moscow and Washington are intensely interested in
national security, and with good reason. Bush's vision
of a righteous new world order is in fact creating
multiple new enemies for the US. For its part, Putin's
Russia has few real friends in the world, not to mention
a number of enemies within the country itself. Fear of
enemies - real, imagined or in the making - pulls both
countries together. Fear transcends any political
ideology.
The very real danger of loose nukes
and other weapons of mass destruction also gives the
awkward couple a reason to make a re-assessed
relationship work as well. (Though both are loath to
admit it - the US more than Russia - the new world of
uncertainty is partly the result of the almost half a
century of mutual confrontation between the countries
that created most of these weapons in the first place.)
No two countries know more about the need to secure
them, and even have them destroyed.
Bilateral
energy relations and trade are also compelling reasons
for the US and Russia to recast their recently troubled
relationship, all the more so because strengthened
business contacts can help soften the impact of
state-to-state political disagreements, like over the
issue of Iraq over the past few months. These areas of
cooperation - and there are more - are a testament to
the fact that a neo-conservative and a romantic
pragmatist can work together. Ideology is of limited
importance when specific and mutually beneficial issues
are considered. It is on issues like these that the
"new-new bilateral relationship" should be based. After
September 11, US-Russia relations lunged into a realm of
unreasonable expectations that could not be realized due
to differing interests in the world, and even
ideological approaches. It is better to bring the
relationship to a more pragmatic level.
In
the end, Putin's romantic pragmatism will prevail
over Bush's neo-conservatism. Putin will bend and
accept Bush's agenda in areas that do not significantly
impact negatively on Russia's interests. The proper
definition of "international terrorism" will probably never be
agreed on, though it will always carry emotional and
rhetorical weight. Though Bush, for better or worse, has
a vision for the world - even for the destiny of mankind
- his geopolitical agenda is open-ended and open to
conflicting interests. Putin has a much more specific
and circumspect agenda. His primary concern is Russia's
interests. His romantic pragmatism puts Russia first,
while retaining the flexibility to move in a swiftly
changing world more and more controlled by the United
States.
This is where neo-conservatism and
romantic pragmatism meet and can find a common ground -
at least when it comes to finding Russia's place in the
world. Bush's America may have no need for France, but
it cannot realistically ignore Russia for long, and
Russia certainly does not want to be ignored by America
either. Both countries have reasons to maintain a
strained relationship instead of continuing threats of
an impending and confrontational divorce that would be
in the longer-term interests of neither party.
It is quite appropriate that Bush and Putin are
meeting in St Petersburg. It is a city of emotion and is
known for its extreme ideological rigidity. It is also a
city of sophistication, and has a forward-looking
heritage. The Bush-Putin encounter will demonstrate a
little of both qualities. Bush and Putin are on a
mission, though each in his own way. There is no better
place to meet to hash out what a mutually beneficial,
though by no means easy, relationship will be all about.
Peter Lavelle is a Moscow-based
analyst and author of the weekly e-newsletter Untimely
Thoughts.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
