New US foreign policy could be misunderstood

The past three weeks have been extremely rich in US statements on its updated policy for the post-Soviet space.

President 
Barack Obama on 6 July paid a visit to Moscow. To counterbalance that trip
 and demonstrate that the US pays no less importance to other countries in
 the region, top US officials also hit the diplomatic circuit.


Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg visited the Armenian capital
 on 11 July with new proposals on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. State Secretary Hillary Clinton on 15 July set out a foreign policy programme at
 the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Vice president Joe Biden
on 21 July and 23 July went to Kiev and Tbilisi.


Here are some excerpts from their addresses:


Barack Obama in Moscow on 7 July said that "America cannot and should not 
seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we 
presume to choose which party or individual should run a country ... State 
sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all
 states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the 
right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies."


Hillary Clinton in Washington on 15 July explained that "Our approach to 
foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It 
does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers, or a 20th 
century balance of power strategy ... Smart power translates into specific 
policy approaches in five areas. First, we intend to update and create
 vehicles for co-operation with our partners. Second, we will pursue
 principled engagement with those who disagree with us. Third, we will 
elevate development as a core pillar of American power. Fourth, we will
 integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas. And fifth, we
 will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic
 strength and the power of our example ... The architecture of cooperation
 we seek to build will advance all these goals, using our power not to 
dominate or divide but to solve problems."



Joe Biden in Kiev on 21 July said that "President Obama and I have stated
 clearly that if you choose to be part of Euro-Atlantic integration - which 
I believe you have - that we strongly support that. We do not recognise -
 and I want to reiterate this - any sphere of influence. We do not 
recognise anyone else's right to dictate to you or any other country what
 alliances you will seek to belong to or what relationships you, bilateral
 relationships, you have."

The new US approach to the world is being shaped before our eyes. Its 
pillars may be described as follows: 
the "concert of powers" of the 19th century and the "balance of power" of
 the 20th century are no longer acceptable in global politics. The
 establishment of "spheres of influence" of some major power at the expense
 of other states is also not to be tolerated.

The 21st century should 
become a century of "multi-partnerships" for the solution of global 
problems. Every country capable of transformation in line with the 
realities and needs of the 21st century is a potential partner.


The US will end "democratisation at gunpoint" - the responsibility for the
 promotion of democratic values rests with the leadership and population of
 any given country. States are sovereign in domestic and foreign
 policy and their path of development.


But the US retains the role of "supervisor" of the universal principles
 and freedoms of the world. As a leading world actor, it will defend such 
ideals wherever they come under threat. 
The US still claims a role as world leader and promoter of democracy.

But
 individual states are burdened with greater responsibility for their own 
future. Their political systems must be built on consensus and compromise.
 There is no more division into "our sons of bitches" and "not our sons of
 bitches." All states are equal, free to make their own decisions but
 responsible for their own actions.


The US leaders spiced up the new policy model with local flavour on their tour.

In Russia, emphasis was made on its potential role in solution of
 global problems - problems with human rights abuses in Russia were hardly
 touched upon. In Ukraine, Mr Biden voiced alarm at the disintegration of
 government. In Georgia, he stressed absence of territorial integrity.
 Armenia and Azerbaijan were firmly invited to leave bilateral problems in 
the past and contribute to regional stability.



Two good cops? 


The updated US approach largely matches the EU's new Eastern Partnership
policy (EaP).

The foreign minister of Sweden, the current EU presidency,
 published an article on the EaP in The Moscow Times entitled "A 'Reset' Button for Europe's
 Backyard" at the same time as Mr Biden's visit to Kiev.



"The Eastern Partnership is not an answer to all the problems and
 difficulties that the six partners are facing. Nevertheless, it does 
represent a clear commitment by the EU to lend its political and economic
 support to their transition and reform - a process that should bring
 prosperity and stability to the whole region," he said.


The EU has adopted the "reset" rhetoric of the US and the US has adopted
 an EU-type approach. Previously, the EU and the US used the same language
 on transformation of former Soviet states but used different methods. The 
EU was the "soft power" player while the US did not flinch from a tougher
 approach.

But there is one point where the US and the EU have always shared a common position, in denying claims for spheres of influence by any country in this region. With "resetting" relationship with Russia, this issue was emphasised during the recent visits.

With regards to the rest of the post-Soviet states, the new approach is aimed at putting more responsibility on national governments for the future development of the region.

With such a position the US is coming closer to the EU. Instead of the "good cop, bad cop" routine, we may see two good cops. Not compelling, but assisting. Not ordering, but encouraging post-Soviet leaders to push through reforms.

Is the change in US approach good or bad? For now, questions outnumber answers. How far is the US going to depart from its old role of the global
 protagonist of democracy? How will target countries accept the new model?
 What will the US do if/when the new policy flops?


A recent appeal by
 prominent experts from Eastern Europe says regional governments will not 
be able to implement reforms without active US support. Russian experts
 have also encouraged the US not to reduce Russia relations to economic
 pragmatism, overlooking the grave situation in the field of human rights
in the country.



Indeed, post-Soviet leaders are prone to misunderstand the new
 softly-softly approach. They live in a different ideology, where 
compromise is taken for weakness or incapacity to compete for influence. 
It is hard to take responsibility for one's own future in a region where 
there are no independent courts, corruption flourishes and the press - 
even if it is free - cannot effectively impact the political scene.


In order to understand such a new approach, these countries would already have to have reached a certain maturity in dealing with their political, ethnic
 and socio-cultural problems. But this is not the case. They need strong
 support from the outside. There is an evident mismatch between the US and EU on the one hand and the post-Soviet states on the other. Reality
 collides with hopes for future transformation.



Visions for future


There are optimistic and pessimistic scenarios on the horizon. This part of the world may become safer and more free if the new US rhetoric is backed by well-thought out policies and mechanisms for implementation and 
if the target countries understand the strategy correctly.

But if the rhetoric is empty and/or misunderstandings take root, we may see a growth
in tension. The call to take responsibility for one's own actions could be 
seen as a withdrawal of US support. The call to look to the future could
 be seen as absolution for past since and a free hand to violate democratic
 principles. Target countries could begin testing the new approach for its
 durability.


It's too soon to say which way it will go. But the optimistic scenario requires open and
 uninterrupted US dialogue with the EU and their partners, an honest assessment of threats and means and an active engagement of target countries in
 policy-making and implementation. The near future will show the vector of development.

The writer is a research fellow at the EU-Russia Centre in Brussels.