The Reset Gains Substance

Hillary Clinton’s visit to Moscow was the next important step in the process that has come to be called “the reset,” which is now entering the phase of concrete action. The agenda that the U.S. secretary of state brought to Moscow gives reason to believe that President Barack Obama seriously intends to move away from the political objectives of the previous administration. He obviously gets personal credit for not being afraid to approach that objective necessity — he didn’t get the country in the best of shape. And that opens the door to a review of both domestic and foreign policy. If the young Nobel Peace Prize laureate has enough political strength and courage, Washington may find in Moscow a reliable partner, and perhaps, an ally. Particularly since Russia has an interest in that — it needs to continue modernizing.

It’s really starting to look like the new U.S. administration understands that an equal partnership with Russia could lessen the damage from the previous administration’s political legacy, both at home and abroad. After all, the “peace without justice” established after the Cold War — and it’s not just Russia that’s to blame — doesn’t come close to a full-fledged peace. The situation over the past decade looks more like a fragile truce. It’s never too late to fix shared mistakes. And today there really is a chance for a long-term strategic partnership between Moscow and Washington. Our political leaders should actively work toward this alliance and not demand unilateral concessions. Russia shouldn’t see an enemy in the United States, and the United States shouldn’t suspect every Russian foreign policy decision to be anti-American.

Of course, we live in a practical age. They say there’s no such thing as a selfless politician. And that’s true. But I think collaboration between Russia and the United States to achieve the interests of each is mutually beneficial. Besides, walking together doesn’t necessarily mean it must be done in an embrace. But walk together we must, because there are many problems in the world that affect both sides and which neither the United States nor Russia are strong enough to settle alone. I’m not supporting the recently fashionable theory about some U.S. “weakness.” But it’s impossible to ignore the growing strength of other players in world politics and economics. Certain contradictions will arise between Moscow and Washington. But, as Clinton showed on her visit, both sides intend to remove those contradictions. For example, it’s clear that Moscow doesn’t see sanctions as an effective way to reach agreement. Attitudes on this are also changing in the United States. In any event, Clinton announced in Moscow that sanctions could be avoided and that her country would prefer that Iran works with the world community in the P5-plus-one format. It’s important to note that with the Iranian problem, we are brought together by a shared desire to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. But Washington’s and Moscow’s differences over Georgia remain. The United States does not plan to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Nonetheless, I’m certain that Clinton’s visit will give new momentum to the renewal of our relations. One of the important issues is a joint missile defense system. Remember that Russia was first to propose a joint system, when it offered to include Russian radar stations in Armavir and in the Azeri city of Gabala. There’s a desire on both sides to reach agreement. And if they succeed, starting a joint project could, for example, change Europe’s muted attitude toward President Dmitry Medvedev’s initiative on a comprehensive European security pact. Joint work will also improve Russia’s attitude toward NATO. And the sides intend to continue discussing the missile defense issue. That was the promising result of Clinton’s meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The United States and Russia will look together for alternatives to placing missile defense components in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Strategic-weapons reduction understandably occupies an important place in Clinton’s negotiating playbook. This importance, experts believe, stems in part from Russia and the United States’ practically equal positions. Russia has a special status in strategic nuclear arms-reduction talks and an interest in maintaining that status. Everything connected to strategic arms reduction has fundamental political and strategic significance for Russia. It’s the bridgehead for advancing on all other security fronts. There’s nothing about those fronts, by the way, that would prevent the United States’ initiative to expand NATO into former Soviet countries, at least in the foreseeable future.

Clinton and Lavrov’s attention to the effective work of a Russian-U.S. commission, created by the presidents, is also important. The point of this work is to substantiate the reset of relations with a specific and pressing agenda: from fighting terrorism to cooperating in space.

The tone both sides took also offers hope that the reset will not fail. In part, the visit to Moscow by Michael McFaul, who oversees civil society matters in the commission, to meet with Vladislav Surkov, first deputy head of the presidential administration, showed that he followed his president’s words, “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside.”

Mikhail Margelov is chairman of the International Affairs Committee in the Federation Council.