[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]
There are times when having a chatty White House official given to winging just about any topic before him can be entertaining, even positive. Such an official can be used purposefully to float trial balloons or to cagily suggest an openness to different approaches. However, it is seldom helpful in serious foreign affairs matters, particularly when such an official apparently is speaking or writing without coordination with White House policy makers.
Meet Joe Biden. Everyone knows that he drops gaffe after gaffe, so why should anyone take him seriously? The problem, in this instance, is that his most recent gaffe is focused on Russia – one of the world’s more paranoid nations. Even if literally everyone in the world knows not to take Biden seriously, there will always be an important element in the Russian leadership that believes that what he says really reflects true American policy.
There simply isn’t much wiggle room for gaffes when dealing with Russia. But why should anyone care?
The Russian issue is very simple. Russia is a member of the United Nations Security Council and, as such, has veto power over any and all Security Council resolutions. That veto, or a lack thereof, can mean success or failure for the United States on some of today’s most critical international issues.
Take North Korea. North Korea, the DPRK, has at least one nuclear weapon as well as delivery systems that will most certainly destabilize Asia and could conceivably threaten the United States. Russia has supported U.N. sanctions against North Korea since the DPRK exploded their first nuclear device in 2006. Early this month, Russia renewed its support for U.N. sanctions designed to halt North Korea’s efforts to expand its nuclear arsenal.
The inclination of Russia to support these critical sanctions is certainly based on the Russian national interests. However, this policy has been encouraged by the clearly more-friendly attitude of the new Obama administration, in contrast to the essentially hostile policies of the Bush years.
Will this inclination continue to be favorable in the face of Biden’s rhetoric? Just how much of it are the Russians prepared to overlook? And remember, when and if they turn against this sort of international cooperation that is so important to us on critical security issues, they always have their Security Council veto to use against us and any sanctions we might choose to propose against North Korea.
Iran is a bit different. There is no sixty year history of close ideological and international cooperation with Iran, as there was between the USSR and North Korea, so the Russians are not emotionally or historically bound in the same way to Iran as they are to the DPRK.
In December 2006, the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran, “blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.” Both Russia and China supported the resolution.
The United States is heavily involved in the Middle East today. We are fighting insurrections in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan while trying to figure out what to do next in Iran.
Russia has been traditionally involved for centuries in the area in question. Although they do not label it with the highest political importance of their “near abroad”, they have fought wars there, attempted coups, and supported their political allies while battling their foes. Today their involvement is based on commercial interests, arms sales, a threatening lack of security to their south and their desire to be considered a major world power.
With a history of American involvement in Iran to the detriment of Russian (Soviet) interests, they are not about to abdicate what they see as their historical role in Iran, even if that only means countering our interests.
If America and the West are going to deal successfully with Iran’s growing nuclear capability, it would be an infinitely simpler task with the involvement of a supportive Russia. That makes it extremely difficult to understand how the Obama administration would say, as Biden did, that “Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years”, in effect, writing them off.
If you want to infuriate the Russians and weaken their inclination to support, or at least not oppose, our goals in the Middle East, that’s a pretty good start.
Haviland Smith is a retired CIA Station Chief who worked primarily against the USSR in East and West Europe and the Middle East. He lives in Williston.
Rural Ruminations 