One of the enduring problems with Russian-American relations is a mainly negative approach. Russia and America know very well what the other side should not do. In Moscow’s opinion, Washington should not deploy its missile defense shield in Central Europe, not press ahead with NATO expansion to the East and not rearm the President Saakashvili of Georgia. Russia, from Washington’s point of view, should not meddle in the affairs of its neighbors, violate human rights at home or woo the dodgy regimes in Iran and Venezuela. But even if each side abided by the other’s wishes, relations would hardly be on an even keel. A relationship cannot be based solely on mutual bans and restrictions.
Even arms control is a manifestation of the same negative approach to bilateral relations. Of course, a breakthrough in strategic arms cuts would be an historic achievement, yet although such breakthroughs occurred during the Cold War, they failed to banish mutual suspicions or prevent new spirals in the confrontation.
Perhaps the time has come to create a new positive agenda for Russia and the U.S., but this will not happen as long as there are so many irritants. However, let us forget for a moment about Iran, Georgia, missile defense and NATO, and instead look at the two countries’ national priorities. What are the real worries of ordinary Russians and Americans? Certainly not the time frame of the deployment of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic or Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Rather, what matters are those concerns that weigh on their daily lives: unaffordable mortgages, the rising cost of education, environmental degradation and other such issues.
This is where Russia and the United States should seek common ground. Do we have any positive experience to share with Americans? Do we face questions to which Americans have already found answers? Can both sides benefit from exchanging insight? Can we draw new stakeholders into bilateral relations, going beyond the narrow framework of expert panels in Moscow and Washington, who are obsessed with the traditional security problems?
If Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama really want to bring about a sea change in relations, dialogue must involve a dramatically enlarged circle of participants. Apart from investing additional political capital, it is necessary to create a new framework to bring in educational institutions and municipalities, non-profit organizations and professional groups, local media and small businesses. The new agenda should involve not only the Foreign Ministry and the State Department, but also “non-core” ministries and agencies dealing with science, education, agriculture, energy, regional development and innovation.
Some may argue that the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission set up in the previous decade for these very purposes did not prevent deterioration of bilateral relations, and that the Commission was too bureaucratic and inefficient. However, things were still better with the Commission than after it. Furthermore, Russia is not what it was in the mid-1990s and a new version of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission would have a greater chance of success. Finally, the global economic crisis provides a powerful stimulus to cooperation. Why shouldn’t Vice President Biden and Prime Minister Putin try to improve on the performance of their predecessors?
Of course, the bureaucratic inertia that paralyzes any new initiative has not gone. That is why it is vital for the new Russian-American dialogue to include a public dimension. For all the twists and turns of Russia’s political development in the past decade, it now has more potential partners in the “third sector” (i.e. voluntary or non-profit organizations) in the United States.
They range from big corporate charitable funds to tiny single-issue NGOs, from associations of universities to community schools. Russia is changing before our eyes; these changes offer new mechanisms for fruitful interaction with the United States. Why not press these mechanisms into service today?
