Clinton's agenda for Russia trip reflects improving
but fragile relationship
By Mary Beth Sheridan and Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 18, 2010;
A09
MOSCOW -- A year after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
presented a mock "reset" button to Russia's foreign minister, the two nuclear giants have
significantly improved their tattered relationship, making progress on
U.S. priorities such as Iran and Afghanistan and closing in on a major arms-control
agreement, officials from both countries say.
But it has not been easy. As Clinton arrives here Thursday morning for a
two-day visit, her agenda reflects the continuing fragility of the new
partnership and lingering tensions between the former Cold War foes.
Clinton plans to discuss negotiations on a replacement for the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which have dragged on beyond the pact's
expiration in December. She also will talk about possible new sanctions
against Iran, an idea that Russia has tentatively accepted but in a
milder form than that pushed by the United States and European allies.
The two nations will also review their cooperation with regard to
Afghanistan. A Russian agreement to allow the U.S. military to fly
troops and equipment over Russian territory is beginning to bear fruit,
after months of red tape.
"I think the past year has been successful," said Mikhail Margelov,
chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of the
Russian parliament. That's particularly true, he said, if "we keep in
mind what the level of bilateral relations was when Obama came to power.
It was less than zero."
Relations became strained over the George W. Bush administration's
support for democracy movements in former Soviet republics and plans for
an ambitious missile-defense system. The Russian invasion of Georgia in
August 2008 produced a deep chill.
In early 2009, 38 percent of Russians had a "very good or generally
good" attitude toward the United States, according to a poll by Russia's
Levada Center cited by the news agency Interfax. By early this year,
the figure was 54 percent, with the number of people reporting a
negative attitude tumbling from 49 percent to 31 percent.
Clinton is traveling to Moscow primarily for a meeting of the Quartet, a
diplomatic grouping of the United States, Russia, the European Union
and the United Nations that is mediating efforts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But she will tackle major
U.S.-Russia issues in talks with President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Russia's attitude toward sanctions against Iran illustrates the promise
and uncertainty of the new partnership. During the negotiations on three
previous U.N. Security Council resolutions penalizing Iran for its
nuclear program, Russia was the key skeptic, dragging out the talks. But
this time around, it has dropped its objections to sanctions, after
months of persuasion by U.S. officials and continued Iranian defiance of
international concern over its nuclear facilities.
"We now have a shared diagnostic of the problem," said a senior U.S.
administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to
discuss the matter frankly. "We're in negotiations on the substance of
that [sanctions language] now. We're not arguing over whether there
should be sanctions or not."
Still, the Russian support has its limits. A Russian official familiar
with the issue said his government does not back broad economic
sanctions and instead supports targeted penalties to curb
nuclear-weapons proliferation. And although the U.S. government is
pressing for a Security Council vote soon, "we still believe we have a
window of opportunity to engage with Iran diplomatically, before
sanctions," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Stephen Sestanovich, a Russia expert at the Council on Foreign
Relations, said the case is "a really good example of how the
administration has taken the relationship further than before. You've
got the Russian president saying rather stiff things to Iran in public.
But you also have most of his subordinates walking it back. And I think
it's completely up for grabs what's the result."
Negotiations on the new nuclear-arms treaty illustrate the continued
wariness in the relationship. In July, during a summit with Medvedev,
President Obama declared that an agreement "will be completed this year"
to replace the expiring START.
But the talks have dragged on, with "a thousand catches" emerging in
recent weeks, according to a senior Pentagon official, James Miller, who
testified before Congress on Tuesday.
Some U.S. analysts accuse the Russians of bringing up last-minute
objections as a negotiating tactic. The Russians note that they were
ready to start renegotiating the treaty years before it expired but that
the Bush administration was in no hurry.
A latest complication in the talks is a flap over missile defense.
Russian authorities have long worried that the United States could get
the upper hand as a nuclear power because of its more advanced
missile-shield programs. The Kremlin was relieved last year when Obama
scrapped Bush's plan for a long-range missile defense system based in
Europe, substituting a design featuring shorter-range missiles.
But when Romania recently announced that it would host elements of the
new missile shield, the Russians cried foul. The Obama administration
had largely persuaded the Russian side to leave the issue out of the
START talks, but suddenly it was back on the table, officials said.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, said
the clash was over trust, rather than the fundamentals of the missile
defense system.
"The way the Obama administration disclosed it, without advance notice
to the Russian Federation, that unfortunately contributes to mistrust. .
. . Psychologically, it was an unhappy move," he said.
A U.S. official familiar with the matter said the Russian government had
been briefed for months about the new system but was not told which
countries would host the components. He said the U.S. government was not
going to "ask permission" from Russia on where to install it. But he
acknowledged that the two sides could have done a better job of
consulting.
Analysts say dealing with Russia is particularly fraught because its
political and military elites are divided over how close the country
should get to the United States.
"I think they are still in the sort of show-me posture. They're waiting,
or believe the returns are still out on how serious the United States
is about this," said James F. Collins, a former U.S. ambassador to
Moscow who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
© 2010 The
Washington Post Company