Last July, on his way home from a trip to Ukraine and Georgia, Vice-President Joe Biden gave an interview with the Wall Street Journal. The interview, in which Biden described how Russia is weak, and how the U.S. “vastly underestimate(s) the hand that we hold” was widely understood in the U.S. as another gaffe by the gaffe-prone Biden. Biden’s remarks only qualify as a gaffe if we use Mike Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.
In that interview Biden, perhaps inadvertently, revealed quite a bit about how the Obama administration, not inaccurately, views Russia. It is difficult to look at Russia and not see, as Biden did, the declining influence, even in the former Soviet Union. The failure, for example, of any post-Soviet state to join Russia in recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states following the Russia Georgia war is strong evidence of this. The former Soviet countries of Central Asia where the rising economic, and political, power of China at the expense of Russia cannot be ignored, is another example of this phenomenon. Similarly, while the global economic crisis did not lead to the abject collapse of Russia, it has certainly reduced Russia’s economic power in recent months.
Additionally, in a period where the UN and EU issued a number of high profile reports, the recent UN Human Development Report on Russia was a little overshadowed, but it offers a demographic argument that supports Biden’s essential thesis that Russia is confronting a broad and serious decline.
All of this may bring satisfaction to many who fear a powerful Russia and the havoc in could reek in its neighborhood, but it does not make crafting Russia policy, or turning the reset button into some kind of reality, particularly easy. Russia’s decreased ability to influence international politics does not mean that the US has a clear path to do what it wants in the region. Russian influence and power may be waning but it is still a force with which to be reckoned, particularly in the former Soviet Union.
The Obama administration’s relations with Russia are still a work in progress, but there is some reason to be encouraged, and some suggestions that Biden’s views lie at the core of the administration’s views as well. Thus far, the administration has avoided trading off anything important to the US, such as support for Georgia or recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The administration has conceded things to Russia that they either they did not have, such as a realistic chance of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, or things they did not want, such as missile defense in Eastern Europe. This reflects the understanding of relative power of the two countries suggested by Biden’s comments.
This cannot yet, however, be described as a fully successful strategy because it is not yet clear what the US has received in return. Cooperation with Russia on sanctions for Iran, which has been the administration’s major public goal with regards to Russia, seems increasingly unlikely. Similarly, calls for more openness and democracy in Russia, like those made by Secretary of State Clinton in Kazan this week seem little more than pro forma at this point.
The less discussed issue is, not surprisingly, Afghanistan. Russian cooperation and support for U.S. and NATO efforts in Afghanistan will be extremely valuable. Perhaps while hopes for cooperation with Russia on Iran seem more distant every day, the U.S. has changed its focus with Russia to cooperation on Afghanistan. Continuing to allow U.S. planes to use Russian airspace and encouraging Central Asian countries to support the U.S. effort are among the ways Russia can be supportive of this effort. The support Russia can provide to the Afghanistan effort is, in this respect, significantly more concrete than with regards to Iran where Russian leverage may not be what we would like to think it is.
If the Obama administration is going to commit to an even larger war in Afghanistan, which is likely to occur and even more likely to be a mistake, it would be foolish to do it without an understanding from Russia. Perhaps this, not the more dubious hopes for Iran, have been driving the reset all along.
More on these topics:
Abkhazia, Afghanistan, Central Asia, China, Georgia, Georgia Russia War, Iran, Joe Biden, Kazan, Mike Kinsley, Missile Defense, NATO, Obama administration, Russia, South Ossetia, Ukraine, UN, Vice-President Biden, Wall Street Journal
Majid Saatchi says:
Soldiers don’t concern themselves with politics; we leave that to the politicians. There are times, though, when a soldier makes an exception. Like all American troops who have been deployed to Iraq, I went to serve my country and to help bring peace and democracy to the Middle East. I’m a doctor from Kansas and a colonel in the Army Reserve, and I served for a year in Ashraf, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.
Of all the places I’ve been in Iraq, Ashraf was probably the most peaceful. It was established 23 years ago by a group of Iranian dissidents, all members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, who want to see democracy return to their homeland. They fled Iran shortly after the 1979 revolution because they opposed the theocratic state that had been established. Thousands of their friends had been slaughtered by the ruling ayatollahs’ henchmen.
In the middle of the desert, they turned a dry wasteland into an oasis. They built schools and hospitals, shopping areas, and places for sports and recreation and concerts. Even Iranian students who had gone to America to further their education returned to Ashraf.
And the Iraqi people befriended them.
After the US-led invasion in 2003, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran turned over their weapons to coalition forces and submitted to months of investigation - to prove that they were not terrorists and only wanted to live in peace.
The more I saw, the more I began to like the people of Ashraf. They are committed to the goals of democracy and a free Iran. Indeed, I learned that it was the People’s Mujahedin that first divulged the nuclear buildup within Iran, alerting the world to the danger the mullahs in Tehran posed.
Ashraf has been protected by an agreement with the United States under the Fourth Geneva Convention. But the pending withdrawal of US troops has left the area in a kind of no-man’s land.
Iraqi forces now control their own country, which is fine for most situations. But the Iraqi leadership is growing closer to Tehran, which wants Ashraf closed and its people sent back to Iran - to an ill fate one can only imagine.
On July 28, Iraqi police and military forces stormed Ashraf at the behest of Tehran. Eleven residents were killed, 500 wounded, and 36 were held hostage for 71 days.
And where were the American protectors? From the video clips I watched, they stood by and observed, doing little to stop the carnage.
The Obama administration criticized Iraqi security forces and their brutal attitude, but this is not enough. Iraqi forces still occupy parts of Ashraf. The lives of 3,400 people who trusted the United States are on the line. Knowing of their need for medical care, I have volunteered to go and provide medical assistance to the wounded in Ashraf.
I am sad for the people of Ashraf and angered by the American inaction. It was an embarrassing moment for me as a doctor, a soldier, a humanitarian, and above all as an American.
The nation I serve made a commitment to protect these people. While I was there, I carried out that mission. The Obama administration must find a way to honor that commitment, especially now. It is obvious that the winds of change are blowing across Iran. The fundamentalist mullahs in Tehran know that they are in trouble with their own people. The president needs to act now.
Dr. Gary Morsch is an Army Reserve colonel.