peacefare.net

GOP critique: Russia and Latin America

This is the fifth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.

Failure #7: A “Reset” With Russia That Has Compromised U.S. Interests & Values

The “reset” with Russia has certainly not brought great across the board benefits to the United States, but things were pretty bad between Washington and Moscow at the end of the Bush Administration, which had started in friendly enough fashion with George W. getting good vibes from Putin’s soul.  Bush 43 ended his administration with a Russian invasion of a country the president wanted to bring into NATO.  Neither our interests nor our values were well-served by that.  But there was nothing we could do, so he did nothing.

A reset was in order.  With Putin back in the presidency, it should be no surprise that it hasn’t gotten us far, but certainly it got us a bit more cooperation during Medvedev’s presidency on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan than we were getting in 2008.  The Russians are still being relatively helpful in the P5+1 talks with Iran and the “six-party” talks on and occasionally with North Korea.  Their cooperation has been vital to the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan.

The Republicans count as demerits for President Obama his abandonment of a missile defense system in Europe, without mentioning that a more modest (and more likely to function) system is being installed.  They also don’t like “New START,” which is an arms control treaty that has enabled the U.S. to reduce its nuclear arsenal.

I count both moves as pluses, though I admit readily that I don’t think any anti-missile system yet devised will actually work under wartime conditions.  Nor do I think Iran likely to deliver a nuclear weapon to Europe on a missile.  It would be much easier in a shipping container.

The fact that the Russians could, theoretically, increase their nuclear arsenal under New START is just an indication of how far behind the curve we’ve gotten in reducing our own arsenal and how easy it should be to go farther.  The Romneyites don’t see it that way, but six former Republican secretaries of state and George H. W. Bush backed New START.

The GOPers are keen on “hot mic” moments that allegedly show the President selling out America.  This is the foreign policy wonk version of birtherism.  In this instance, they are scandalized that he suggested to then Russian President Medvedev that the U.S. could be more flexible on missile defense after the November election.  The Republicans see this as “a telling moment of weakness.”  I see it as a statement of the screamingly obvious.  Neither party does deals with the Russians just before an election for some not-so-difficult to imagine reason.

More serious is the charge that President Obama has soft-pedaled Russia’s backsliding on democracy and human rights.  I think that is accurate.  The Administration sees value in the reset and does not want to put it at risk.  The arguments for targeted visa bans and asset freezes against human rights abusers are on the face of it strong.

The problems are in implementation:  if someone is mistreated in a Russian prison, are we going to hold Putin responsible?  The interior minister?  The prison warden?  The prison guards?  How are you going to decide about culpability for abuses committed ten thousand miles away?   And if the Russians retaliate for mistreatment of an American citizen in a Louisiana State penitentiary, what do we do then?  While many of the people involved may not care about visas and asset freezes, where would the tit-for-tat bans end up?

Russia has unquestionably been unhelpful on Syria, blocking UN resolutions and shipping arms to the Asad regime.  The Russians have also supported Hugo Chávez and used harsh rhetoric towards the United States.  But what Romney would do about these things is unclear.  His claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe is more likely to set the relationship with Moscow back than help us to get our way.

Failure #8: Emboldening The Castros, Chávez & Their Cohorts In Latin America

I’m having trouble picturing how the octogenarian Castros have been emboldened–to the contrary, they are edging towards market reforms.  Obama’s relaxation of travel and remittance restrictions has encouraged that evolution.  It would be foolhardy to predict the end of the Castro regime, but cautious opening of contacts is far more likely to bring good results than continuation of an embargo that has never achieved anything.

I’d have expected the Republicans to compliment Obama on getting the stalled trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved, but instead they complain that he waited three years while negotiating improvements to them that benefit U.S. industry.  Given the difficulty involved in getting these things ratified, it is unsurprising that President Obama doesn’t want to reach any new trade agreements in the region, or apparently anywhere else.

Hugo Chávez looms large for the Republicans. They view him as a strategic threat.  Obama thinks he has not “had a serious national security impact note on us.”  That Chávez is virulently anti-American there is no doubt.  But to suggest that he seriously hinders the fight against illicit drugs and terrorism, or that his relationship with Hizbollah is a threat we can’t abide, is to commit what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.”  We’ve got a lot bigger drug and terrorism challenges than those Venezuela is posing.

Except for Mexico, Obama has not paid a lot of attention to Latin America.  That’s because things are going relatively well there.  If Chávez goes down to defeat in the October 7 election and a peaceful transition takes place, it will be another big plus, one that will redound to Obama’s credit.  There are other possibilities, so I’d suggest the Administration focus on making that happen over all the other things the GOP is concerned about.