Russia Move Into Forefront of US Election
In every U.S. presidential election since World War II, foreign policy has been one of the most crucial and difficult issues to understand, handle and deliver to the voters. Managing and countering the rise and influence of the Soviet Union and maintaining American commitments and interest abroad regularly dominated the intra- and inter-party discussion in Congress and the White House for nearly five decades.
Considering the depth and breadth of issues that are on the agenda of every U.S. President, there is simply no substitute for experience when dealing with any foreign policy issue that touches American interests – no matter how much one’s ability to adjudicate and perceive can be touted as a way to deal with the challenges of the decades to come. Those Presidents who had to learn on the job found their learning curve as steep as the America athletes’ chance to overtake China in the gold medal count in Beijing.
The same is always true when discussing foreign policy of other countries, especially those that remained historically and militarily dominant in Eurasia. Today’s international scene is not dissimilar from exactly 100 years ago, when the British Empire found itself to be a slowly weakening hegemon in the face of several major challenges – resurgent and aggressive Germany, still-powerful and evolving Russia, ever-present and North Africa-dominating France, as well as a benign America, whose economic might already threatened to overtake England’s.
America today faces both “active” and “friendly” international competition from states like Russia, China, India and the European Union. In every 2008 foreign policy campaign conversation held till Aug. 7, China, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, EU and NATO dominated the discussion - obviously, not without a reason, since America has vested interests and actual commitments in or to these countries and regions.
One country that received much less attention was Russia, and today, the entire U.S. power calculus towards Moscow has changed, perhaps irrevocably. Since so much debate has already produced varying ideas of what to do next in the U.S.-Russia relationship, it is important to keep in mind that Russia today is perfectly satisfied to be at the top of the U.S. foreign policy agenda and the American presidential race.
This issue pushed one presidential candidate into the spotlight while temporarily shoving another one in the corner. Russian actions in Georgia forced the candidates’ perceptions out in the open, determining which one had a firm idea of what to do next and which one had to adjust his understanding and perception of the American interest in this crisis.
When reading Russian media today, it is not difficult to see the same type of consensus about America’s support for Georgia as the one depicted by the U.S. media in its description of Russian military actions – lack of relative objectivity and the portrayal of the other side as guilty of all sins. This suits Russian political establishment just fine – while American politicians have not begun to debate in earnest what took place in Georgia on account that Congress is still in its August recess.
By the time our elected officials return to Washington, in order to take up a much-needed debate, the conflict would be over on the ground, with Russia presenting a fait accompli to the representatives and senators who will belatedly start their deliberations.
This obviously excludes Senators McCain, Obama, Biden, Lieberman and Graham, who were seeking to resolve the conflict from the start. Russian media today ignores congressional threats never to graduate Russia from the Jackson Vanik Clause - a Cold War legislation that still bars wider trade with the Russian Federation. Russia has effectively asserted itself over Georgia, a country it long perceived to be a thorn in its side, while sending a not-so subtle message to other former Soviet Republics that gravitate towards the West and especially America.
And Washington’s tepid response to Russian armor, followed by an even more demure European response, indicated to Russia that America’s commitments across the former USSR may not- and will not- be followed by actual forceful actions. After all, were not American military kicked out of Uzbekistan, reducing the Pentagon’s capability to effectively manage the situation in Afghanistan? And with at least two more frozen secessionist conflicts – in Moldova (Transdnistrea region) and Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh region) – whose initiators gravitate towards Russia, Moscow has a an opportunity to extent its influence even further without incurring a direct American response due to the gravity of our commitments in other parts of the world.
Russian media today is highly critical of Georgia and its president, while taking such criticism further to the doorsteps of the White House. Russia can and will produce adequate responses to American policies in Eastern Europe, or else its Putin-Medvedev duo will lose face with their countrymen. While the dust has not settled in this conflict, and while debate on what to do about U.S.-Russia commercial ties has not yet taken place, it is clear that Russia made sure it moved to the top of the foreign affairs agenda of the two candidates - Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.
Sen. McCain quickly seized an opportunity to generate a robust discussion on what U.S. response to Russia should be. And while as a candidate he has no real power over the actual American policy, he has many years of experience as a senator to allow him great weight and influence in such a discussion. McCain stood head and shoulders above his entire campaign entourage in denouncing Russian actions and calling for the secession of hostilities.
Sen. Obama, on the other hand, initially presented his powerful surrogates- Sen. Joe Biden, General Wesley Clark and Gov. Bill Richardson – to articulate Obama’s position and solutions. Naturally, their ideas did not differ much from McCain’s, though they urged greater caution in dealings with Moscow.
McCain seized the initiative in a true foreign policy crisis that threatened American commitments and interest to other former Soviet states such as Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia. Had Sen. Obama not been on vacation, he might have been able to go toe-to-toe with his rival in this policy debate. But he wasn’t able to be in front of the cameras right away and he was not the one talking to Americans directly at a press conference – his aides were.
This does not mean that he had no desire or the will to do the same - but the American public perceived McCain stronger and more experienced on this issue, which recently translated in McCain’s bump in the polls.
This presidential election is as much about perceptions as it is about actual policy positions. This year, the American public is very sensitive to how and why it perceives both candidates. And while it was easier for Sen. Obama to talk about U.S. relations with China or India- since those relations have not undergone a fast and uncontrolled evolution – discussion about Russia and American commitments to democracy in the former Soviet space have been dealt an August surprise.
The relations between these countries will no longer get back to the same tone of Aug. 6th - not without serious compromises that may make each side to be perceived as weaker in the eyes of another. In light of this change, Sen. Obama's statements that judgment is more important than experience no longer carry the same weight.
The next president needs experience to handle rapidly changing Eurasian power calculus- the change that was spearheaded by Russia on August 7. Sen. Obama may have no choice but to select a vice president who has vast experience in foreign policy – such as Biden or former Sen. Sam Nunn. And while such VP selection is still an open debate, choosing others for the sake of Democratic Party unity may give Sen. McCain an additional tool to criticize Sen. Obama’s lack of foresight at a time when America faces challenges outside of the more-“comfortable” debate on Iraq, Iran or China.
Like most of the world, Russia was and still is fascinated by Sen. Obama’s historical run for the White House. Russia perceives Sen. McCain to be more bellicose and confrontational towards Moscow, while its political elites appreciate his relative consistency in opinion towards Russia.
While its too early to tell how the American political establishment will debate new Russian actions, it is clear that this conflict generated perceptions that Sen. McCain can be more effective in defending America’s interests and its allies. Russia moved to the top of the US foreign policy agenda, and it's not ceding that position any time soon.
