Towards a Biden-Putin Commission

When Senators Obama and Biden are sworn in next week, they will face immediate challenges ranging from the need to pass a new economic stimulus plan, responding to the Gaza war, implementing a new Iraq/Afghanistan policy, etc., with perhaps the most important being to lower the public's expectations for a quick turnaround. Indeed, with the gravity of issues at stake in Obama's first 100 days, I suspect Russia and U.S./Russian relations will not make the top of the chart, despite even the recent gas crisis. But while President Obama's plate will certainly be overflowing, this also presents a unique opportunity for VP Biden to begin executing less glamorous campaign promises, particularly in foreign relations. One of the most pressing is America's relationship with Russia.

American Russia scholars, including the Obama campaign's own Michael McFaul have identified numerous fields where increased cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is not only wise, but indispensable to protect America's strategic interests. They range from cooperation on nuclear weapons, to Iran, the European missile defense shield, exploitation/exploration/militarization of outer space, the Arctic, the environment, energy cooperation, the War on Terror, democracy building, and trade/financial cooperation. The Bush administration's record on these issues vis-a-vis Russia is spotty.

Sen. Biden's March 2008 article in the WSJ best summarized the last eight years of American foreign policy towards Russia:

Ever since President Bush infamously gazed into Mr. Putin's soul in 2001, Washington has used photo opportunities as a proxy for a serious Russia policy. The administration has airbrushed Russian belligerence and rebuffed some sensible Kremlin proposals, such as legally-binding extensions to arms control treaties. There has been little clarity on what the U.S. and Russia expect of each other.

The importance of improving U.S./Russia relations cannot be understated. While there are reasons to be mistrustful of political developments in Russia, most commentators agree that Russia and the U.S. have vested interests in avoiding further antagonism. For this reason, the U.S. has maintained public dialogue with Russia open even in moments of crisis. For instance, on the heels of Russia's Georgia war, top U.S. brass met with Russian generals to discuss security and related issues. Even in an election cycle which saw the Georgia war politicized, and under an administration which had little to lose by further alienating Russia, pragmatism trumped politics.

What form should U.S./Russia cooperation take in the Obama administration? And what is in it for Russia? I agree with several other commentators (and here, Lord Boyce speaking before the Select Committee on the EU at the House of Lords) that America can boost its lagging relations with Russia by reestablishing the famous Gore-Chernomyrdin talks in the form of a Biden-Putin Commission. A Biden-Putin Commission has several advantages over the current form of dialogue.

First, a Biden-Putin Commission would serve as a perfect opening chapter for Obama's campaign blueprint of engaging adversaries while aggressively defending American interests. America has always had vibrant diplomatic relations with Russia--from the 1930s with American Ambassador Joseph Davies, to the height of the Cold War, and throughout the transition period. High-level talks are old hat for U.S. and Russia; they carry none of the political baggage Obama faced when discussing diplomatic talks with adversaries such as Iran without preconditions on the campaign trail. If successful, Biden-Putin talks can thus serve as a roadmap for future dialogue with other nations. Second, the commission has the potential to actually change substantive policy. Russia's influence in the aforementioned areas of cooperation is significant; America does need Russian help, especially with Iran and arms sales. Russia on the other hand needs America to recognize it as a rational partner and to reincorporate it into the global community (read: to reverse the capital flight after the Georgia war and to resume the WTO accession process). More fundamentally, Russia (hard hit by the financial crisis, despite denying the damage) needs America to acknowledge it as an equal partner. This alone gives the new administration much leverage.

The commission would also arguably deflate Putin and Medvedev's recent wave of anti-American rhetoric. From Putin's point of view, this may militate against the commission. As noted by Russian historian Boris Kagarlitsky here and elsewhere, Bush's ambivalence towards Russia has played into Putin's hand domestically. How will Putin view Biden, and will he agree to the talks? Russians know Biden as a staunch but reasonable Russia critic. Biden's rhetoric on Russia gives Putin a sufficient measure of protection at home. With Bush gone and a new negotiator across the table, Putin loses no face in participating in the talks and revisiting anew many of the thorny issues of the past eight years. Still, is there sufficient pressure on Russia to participate?

As Stephen Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, Russia will emerge from the current financial crisis weaker and more inclined to work with the West:

Many Russian commentators have said that if the goal is to keep a hard-hit Russian economy in the international mainstream, adjustments in Russian foreign policy are likely to follow as well. They do not predict a complete change of direction, but a less confrontational, less ideological, more prudent, more resource-constrained approach to relations with the West. The need for such adjustments is particularly obvious where resources are concerned.

Russia's desire to be treated as an equal in the global economy, to gain a seat at Obama's proverbial table, presents an opportunity not seen since the collapse of the USSR. The prospect for a new Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission to support cooperation in the areas of space, energy, high-tech, business development, defense, the environment and the like dwarfs any other prospective development between the U.S. and Russia. Yet it is not without critics.

For instance, by June 1995, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission also encompassed America's efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons from Russia; despite agreements with the U.S., Russia continued selling weapons and nuclear technology to Iran. Critics also argued that the high-profile commission detracted from established low-level diplomatic efforts, stifling conventional channels of negotiation. When the commission was effectively dissolved in 1998 with Chernomyrdin's dismissal by Yeltsin, few could point to actual policy achievements. The Biden-Putin Commission can be successful and avoid these pitfalls of its predecessor.

To begin with, Putin is no Chernomyrdin. Next, even among the critics of the prior commission, few doubted the efficacy of regular face-to-face meetings in establishing goodwill and garnering popular support for U.S./Russia cooperation. If nothing else, the goodwill manifested itself in greater business ties between the two former foes. The U.S. led the world in foreign direct investment in Russia and the CIS states in the 1990s. If nothing else, the Biden-Putin Commission can discharge the pent-up anger and distrust on both sides, galvanize popular opinion towards cooperation, and renew investment in Russia.

Comments

[PrincipiaChamp]

Exceptional concept, and I believe Biden's talents in foreign affairs should not be shelved. I can only hope that your thoughts are also being considered in the new administration. Dialogue dampens fear...Biden has always been a decent and approachable individual, tactfully reaching his goals without giving away the farm; as VP he would carry more weight.

[limejunction]

Boris Mamlyuk, you would appease Putin. The dictator who:
1. Invaded Georgia because Georgia wants NATO membership and provides a route for independent pipelines.
2. Murdered a formed KGB collegue and critic using Pollonium to draw out the suffering and thumb their criminal noses at British law. And then made the killer a member of the Duma.
3. Makes Russia the most dangerous nation in the world to be a reporter, 72 dead including those who covered allegations the FSB bombed Moscow apartment buildings to ensure Putin’s election.
4. Changed the constitution so that Putin can be Dictator for Life and recently developed legislation that makes it treason to speak against the government.
5. Killed or neutered all political opposition.
6. Stopped gas to Europe because of a dispute with Ukraine.
7. Openly threatens independent nations if they seek NATO membership or adopt missile defenses, none of which are a threat to Russia.
Russia is a far greater threat than Iran could ever pretend to be. The world has many murderous meglomaniacs but only one has nuclear weapons, petro-power and occupies the largest nation on earth. Russia are being taught to hero worship their dictator. If you want evidence, listen to Russian TV talk about the “Father Savior, Putin.”
Our tasks are to support dissent, ensure western capital does not return, develop other sources for the raw commodities Russia provides, and provide a forward defense for Europe until Russians realize what Putin has done and stop him.

[dgr]

Another neocon who only is satisfied when Russia is bankrupt and starving. The author of this article has something valuable to say. It is time for an era of cooperation with the Russian people. Stop pretending that Russia is an evil empire and that Putin is the devil. We are tired of hearing groundless accusations from neocons.

[SparkyDash]

"The commission would also arguably deflate Putin and Medvedev's recent wave of anti-American rhetoric."

Wonderful article, Mr. Mamlyuk, and well-thought argument for such a commission. I don't think I am alone in expressing concern over Russia's somewhat cavalier rhetoric of late. I don't pretend to know a lot about foreign policy, but I understand when someone...or some country...desires attention, for whatever obvious or ulterior motive. He, she, or it will find a way..good or bad.. to get attention. In my industry, we have a committee which works to find ways of building positive relations with our gentle adversaries. It is surprising how far respect and open conversation goes in deflating anger, fear, and ill feelings. Biden knows foreign policy. Bravo on your piece.

[LizM]

First off, may I say how refreshing it is to read a blog like this at the Huffington Post by someone who understands who the Vice President-elect is and what he brings to this new administration.

Like many foreign policy issues over the last eight years, US-Russia relations have been neglected or, worse, incompetently managed. With Biden as the new President's top foreign policy advisor, this sad state of affairs is destined to change.

Thanks for this very enlightening post!