Friday, 3 July 2009
Vladimir Belaeff, President, Global Society Institute, Inc., San Francisco, CA
Even before the vote of November 2008, a cult of personality has been evolving around Barack Obama. After his election, this cult of president Obama reached new heights, although it now seems to be abating. This wave of uncritical adulation may be understandable within the United States -Obama is indeed a historical figure for America. Also, considering the unfortunate qualities of his predecessor, it is quite reasonable that an articulate, intelligent, sophisticated and thinking president - capable of correctly pronouncing the word "nuclear" - enjoys a charisma somewhat reminiscent of John Kennedy. And so, even trivial actions by Obama are hurriedly qualified as "historic."
It is premature to make definitive assessments of a president who is only six months into his term in office. And it is a hyperbole to apply the qualifier "historic" to Obama's actions so far in American international relations.
Understandably, the dire circumstances of the domestic economic crisis have been the major focus of president Obama's attention (as they well must), so one should not demand much in terms of fresh international initiatives.
Regarding Russia, there is a growing perception that the much ballyhooed "reset" in relations with United States is a PR gimmick, borrowed directly from the vocabulary of American electoral campaigns. The shrill, confrontational and undignified invectives of the past secretary of state have been toned down, but substantive change in actions is yet to be seen. Again, allowance must be made for the new Washington administration's short time in office, and for the distractions of a difficult domestic economic situation.
Obama's trip to Moscow will of course include several major photo-ops, and will be accompanied by many verbal and non-verbal symbols. One can also expect several political faux-pas, which are typical of most American high-level visits, usually and regrettably ill-advised and even clueless about the realities of Russian public opinion. The "Sherpas" will have prepared one or several declarations for a ceremonial signature, and these declarations will be more or less significant to the parties (keeping in mind that genuine treaties binding on the United States require congressional ratification - a process which is slow and often fruitless). For example, like the "reset" button, the proposal for mutual deep cuts in nuclear weapons articulated by president Obama is perceived by specialists as yet another utopian goal, made apparently for PR reasons and impossible to truly achieve, if the worldwide configuration of the weapons of mass destruction is taken into account.
The regrettable reality is that Russia and the United States remain engaged in only a few (albeit important) of the many policy sectors where positive collaboration would be beneficial to both countries. The causes of this situation and the ways to overcome it are outside the scope of the present note. Obviously some dialogue is better than none at all, and Obama's visit to Russia is desirable, but one should not cultivate great expectations regarding its usefulness or productivity. The visit at best should set the stage for a continuation of dialogue and perhaps a process of improving relations in small steps.
Before "historic" results are achieved, there needs to be a genuine paradigm change for the relationship, particularly in America. Since 1986 such a paradigm shift has evidently been taking place within Russia, but one does not see much evidence of a matching change in the policy apparatus of the United States. This situation leads to complications, as the two countries in many instances appear to be speaking past each other. One hopes that president Obama's first visit to Russia, rather than attempting to be "historic," will initiate the gradual alignment of relationship paradigms.
This comment first appeared as part of the weekly Russia Profile Experts Panel.
