This is one of the more pragmatic and thoughtful op-eds about the troubled US-Russian relationship that I've seen in some time. It's by an American Russia expert whose background is in non-proliferation (one of the few areas of security policy where no one was ever able to say "Russia doesn't matter anymore") and who, among other things, was once brave enough to go on a Russian TV talk show without a translator. I especially like the discussion of the differing "scripts" - conflicting narratives of events which bedevil the bilateral relationship:
Moscow Times
December 18, 2007
Saving the Relationship
By Rose Gottemoeller
After President Vladimir Putin said last month that Russia would not allow other countries "to poke their snotty noses into our affairs," we should face the fact that security relations with the West are in a shambles. Putin, who is fond of tough-guy slang, used the colorful phrase when he accused the United States of pushing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to decide against sending observers to the State Duma elections on Dec. 2. Never mind that the OSCE did not receive visas in time. In Putin's view, the United States must be behind the decision, and it should be told to get out of Russia's business.
Now Russia has suspended its obligations under the` Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The government-controlled television channel Rossia announced the news at exactly four minutes past midnight on Dec. 12. This issue had long been on the table. Putin first explicitly attacked the treaty in his February Munich speech, which criticized the United States for pushing the enlargement of NATO and making plans to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. According to Putin's script, the United States had for years failed to take into account Russian security concerns in Europe.
Washington of course has its own script, which stresses that Russia is included in Europe through the NATO-Russia Council and European Union organizations. The problem is that now the Kremlin team is fed up with these methods. From their perspective, when they raise an issue, the United States and Europe acknowledge it and then ignore them.
Read more...
5 comments:
"the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which is a global ban on missiles from 500 to 5,500 kilometers in range" - this statement is wrong and destroys the whole logic of the piece. The treaty is bilateral, not global. Development of rocket tecnology in last decades made these 'toys' affordable for many countries, some think for too many. This is quite selfexplanatory reason for latest Russia's moves.
Her Russian was/is embarassing.
Anon, I guess it's all relative. You don't often find American officials or academics confident enough in their Russian to use it on live TV (which I think still existed in Russia when I saw this show a few years ago), so I give her credit for that, at least.
depeditor, your point is well taken and sorry for not responding earlier. I haven't read the treaty closely (though one can do so here), but it seems that actions of third states should not be relevant to this bilateral treaty, and that the only justification for withdrawal is the following:
Art. XV, Section 2:
Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
I guess the you might point out the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, perhaps justifiably, as that treaty may well have similar language; unfortunately, reviewing the terms of that treaty and all of the associated documents is far beyond the capacity of my free time at the moment, so I can't say I have an opinion on that...
But looking at the INF Treaty in a vacuum (which of course is not entirely the right approach), there doesn't seem to be anything in there providing for a right of abrogation or withdrawal because of the actions or increased military capacities of other states.
You're right Lyndon, I will give her credit for that. Was she on Vremena? That's what I sort of remember. Но еслы б ее слава були нописаннии фонетичиски, то оны би звучилй примэрно вот так вот.
:-) Жуткие акценты многих видных русских спецов, которые совершенно не стесняются выступать на английском, оставим в для отдельного разговора... Впрочем, меня акценты никогда не раздражают, за искючением случаев когда становится невозможно понять что человек говорит.
I thought it was maybe Svoboda Slova, although now that I think about it she appeared with sort of a panel of a bunch of people debating a bunch of other people, and I think that was a format that Vremena used at times, or maybe it was some K Bar'eru-type show, but with less bombast and more debaters.
Post a Comment