| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Matters of Trust
// The price of the question
Talk about a “complex period” in Russian-American relations has become the common ground in those relations. Many observers, both in Moscow and Washington, get off to a false start as they tried to make sense of events. The take a problem – American missile defenses in Eastern Europe, energy security, Kosovo, Iran, developments in the CIS – and pick the opposing arguments to bits to see whose are most convincing. Many think that that is the way to find out who is showing good sense, who is dissembling and who is responsible for the current “complex period.”
While this is the only way to make a sober and impartial analysis, at first glance, it leads nowhere. It creates endless arguments among specialists, while midlevel officials engage in name-calling and the presidents maintain Olympic calm.
Finding the cause of the malaise in Russian-American relations in individual problems is important, but largely useless. It is much more important to understand the basis of bilateral disagreements.
That basis – the origin – is a fundamental crisis of trust in Russian-American relations, and it is growing every month. As a result, each side's view of the other becomes less adequate all the time. That is the root of all the current problems in relations between Moscow and Washington. In spite of all the diplomatic politeness, the Russian leadership deeply mistrusts America, seeing it as the center of “behind the scenes” enmity toward Russia. That is the origin of the conspiracy theory that has grown to become an obsession, and of the need to fight that conspiracy with all possible forces – not only official channels, but through movements like Nashi and television hosts who tell their gullible audiences about “the hand of Washington.” And in Washington, the “hand of Moscow” is seen more and more often in events that are undesirable for American interests, even in events where Moscow does not or cannot have a hand.
How can they reach an agreement on missile defenses in Europe under these circumstances? It looks impossible. Without trust, no amount of negotiation will make clear the motivations of the other side, why it is needed or whom it is needed against. Nor is collaboration possible. Military collaboration begins with trust between states, based on real, and not declarative, threats and challenges. Collaboration ends where trust ends. Then the opposing actions of the sides no longer look like a reaction to a common challenge, but like a challenge to each other.
Sergey Strokan
All the Article in Russian as of May 14, 2007
|
|
|
