RUSSIA, CLINTON AND AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY - January 4, 2009

To welcome President-Elect Barack Obama to the world stage,

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the deployment of nuclear-capable missiles on NATO’s borders for the first time since

the Cold War. Russia has been incensed by U.S. plans for a missile-defense installation in Poland and the Czech Republic. Although the United States has stressed to Russia that the missile defense is

directed at states such as Iran, Russian leaders continue to argue

that it threatens their national security.

Many commentators have stated that this latest action was a

deliberate attempt by Russia to test Obama’s mettle.  While the President-Elect remains tight-lipped on his positioning to continue or abandon missile defense plans in Central Europe, he has announced

his appointment of Hilary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State.  Distracted by pressing domestic issues and ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia anticipates Obama to delegate the U.S-Russia relationship to Clinton.  “Obama will not play a big role for us. He will

be more focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is a big chance

that she [Clinton] will determine Russia policy,” commented Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. 

With Clinton guiding Obama, Russia anticipates more flexibility on issues like missile defense and an unhurried approach towards NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. Are these expectations realistic?

On the subject of missile defense, Clinton has criticized the Bush administration's "obsessive" focus on "expensive and unproven missile defense technology.” She sided with Russian objections to President Bush's decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and has at various times voted for and against funding for the missile defense program (New York Sun Editorial, Shield Activated, New York Sun, June 21, 2006). During her 2000 campaign for Senate, she said that she supported financing research on the missile defense system, but did not explicitly endorse its deployment (New York Times, Clinton and Lazio Differ on School Aid, Social Security and Tax Cuts, New York Times, Nov. 5, 2000). 

Although these statements indicate a higher likelihood that Clinton will disavow the installation of missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, her objections to this technology have been premised on its being experimental and unproven. On December 5, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) performed a successful intercept test of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense interceptor. The GMD interceptor destroyed an incoming ballistic missile, demonstrating the ability of this type of technology to work successfully.  Going forward, Clinton will likely support further development of missile defense technology, and choose to delay the installation of the defenses rather than reject them entirely. The determining factor for Clinton on the ABM plan will be U.S. defense spending – which is likely to undergo substantial reviews due to the economic recession.

The pace at which America develops and deploys this type of technology will also depend on acceptable appeasements Clinton will extend to Russia and Western European countries. It is well recognized that the majority of Western European countries remain skeptical of the planned U.S. missile defense program, and some have taken this opposition to the next level by objecting to an extension of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. By contrast, Eastern European countries have openly pushed for missile defense installations, the presence of American troops on their borders, and NATO membership for both Georgia and Ukraine. Russia decidedly opposes the further expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and has boldly painted America as a supercilious aggressor should the missile defense plan move forward.

Concerning the extension of NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine, Clinton has unequivocally sided with Eastern European countries and against Russia. Her support is “based on the need to send a positive signal to Tbilisi and Kyiv to encourage them to stay on track with their positive reforms as well as to send a signal of our concern to Moscow about the future security of these countries” (Statement by Hillary Clinton, April 18, 2008).

An area of commonality for Clinton and Russia is on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Clinton has repeatedly called for further reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and has supported the EU in its appeal for the United States to review its position and participate in joint endeavors to re-ratify the ban. On this issue Clinton may attempt to reconstruct ties with Russia and Western European states who would be incensed by the continuance of plans to install missile defenses in Eastern Europe. For those EU nations that oppose an extension of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine, she is expected to step-up criticism of Russia's failures in human rights and democratization, a move which will certainly be welcomed by all EU nations.

Another carrot Clinton will have at her disposal with regards to Russia is WTO membership.  America has thwarted Russia’s attempts to gain entrance into the WTO for nearly a decade, but Clinton views this carrot as a means of positively impacting Russia’s trade policies – which are dubious at best. Russia is approaching Clinton’s nomination with a mixture of pessimism and optimism – believing that she will adopt her husband’s “in your face” reality of the diminished geopolitical strength and importance of Russia, while recognizing that through her there might be an opportunity to stop the AMB plan.

Fundamentally, direct use of force with Russia is not a realistic option for the U.S.  Until Russian leaders begin to move away from the nationalistic idioms that portray America as the instigator of the global economic crisis, the new cold war, and the spread of terrorism, relations will remain challenging regardless of who is Secretary of State.

Clinton recognizes that while it is important to have good relationships with our allies, it is even more imperative to have good ‘working’ relations with our enemies. In the Senate Armed Services Committee in September, Clinton advocated for improved relations with Russia for our allies safety as well as our own. Her future diplomatic endeavors might be foreshadowed by a statement she made during that hearing, “I think [The United States] ought to be able to hold competing thoughts in our mind at the same time. Is Russia acting more aggressive? Are they more intent upon pursuing their own interests as they define them territorially, economically, politically? Of course they are. I don’t know why anybody’s surprised about that. But therefore, rather than seeking to isolate them, which I think is not a smart proposal; we need to be much more strategic.”

Stephanie Kimball

----------------------
Author of the article holds B.A. degree in Political Science from the University of California Davis. For the last 9 years she has been working as a Legislative Director for several Republican Assembly members in the State of California.
----------------------