Reset with Russia? Just Wait

Unlike previous tours to Europe and the Middle East, it was difficult for President Barack Obama to tame the Fierce Russian Bear simply through charming smile and sweet words and phrases. The Media focus on the strategic arms reduction talk, but issues like democracy and human rights are no less important, as eminent foreign policy experts have sent an open letter to the President as I mention in the last post. Also, it was the first time for President Obama to meet Prime Minister Vladimir Stalin Putin. Russian media response was cautious to Obama’s remark of reset (“Obama visit gets lukewarm welcome from Russian media”; Reuters; July 7, 2009).

Let me review some commentaries prior to the summit. The Economist argues that Obama must be tough to help empowerment of Russian citizens as ruling élites stoke anti-Americanism while enjoying opportunity to contact with the West. Also, the writer says that Obama must defend Georgia and Ukraine from Russian expansionism. Meanwhile, both the United States and Russia have common interests in cutting strategic nuclear weapons (“Welcome to Moscow”; Economist; July 2, 2009). On the other hand, hawks insist that new START must not sacrifice expansion of freedom in Russian neighbors (“Obama and Putin's Russia”; Wall Street Journal; July 6, 2009). Regarding missile defense and NATO expansion, Michael McFaul, Special Assistant to the President, said that the United States was going to define its national interests, not bargaining something (“Russia Presents Test for Obama”; Washington Post; July 5, 2009).

Quite interestingly, a journalist commented about anti-Americanism in the Kremlin, “For the last eight years they have been able to hide that fact by pretending it is really George W Bush that they did not like. Now they have to face an American president who is genuinely popular around the world. He terrifies them, and they still haven't figured out what they are going to do" (“Obama seeks thaw in US-Russia ties”; BBC News; 4 July 2009). Andrey Zolotov, Chief Editor of Russia Profile, pointed out that US-Russian economic ties are weak as raw material dependent Russian economy does not attract the United States. Therefore, the Russo-American relationship is predominated by geopolitics and national pride. Also, he said that the Obama effect would not work so dramatically to improve bilateral relations, because current downturn resulted from Clinton era diplomacy (“Russian Expert: Pressing 'Reset' May Not Suffice” NPR; July 5, 2009).

The most important issue of this summit was national security, particularly strategic arms reduction. In addition to the renewal of START, the war in Afghanistan and nuclear proliferation to Iran and North Korea were discussed. In the following video of Russia Today on July 7, Russian political analyst Victor Linnik comments that the timing of this summit is very good to improve bilateral relations.





While the reset has started in the strategic arms negotiation, gaps on missile defense remains unresolved. See another video of Russia Today below.





In the Spotlight of Russia Today on July 8, commentators expressed concerns with US missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and Czech against non-existent Iranian nuclear missile. In my view, what they said is not fair, because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserts his nuclear ambition, even though Iran has not developed the bomb yet. On the other hand, both Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow, and Andrey Zolotov, Chief Editor of Russia Profile, were impressed with Barack Obama’s speech at the New Economic School to emphasize mutual prosperity instead of zero-sum power game. See the video below.





BBC also reports this speech with moderate hope of resetting Russo-American relations (“Obama urges shift in Russia ties”; BBC News; 7 July 2009).

On the other hand, Joshua Keating, Web Editor of Foreign Policy, criticizes the cooperation deal with Russia on Afghanistan because the United States can choose other reliable partners like Kirgizstan and Uzbekistan (“Did Obama accomplish anything in Moscow?”; FP Passport; July 7, 2009).

The first meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Putin is a landmark of US-Russian diplomacy. It was something like a ceremonial salute for Obama to the most influential politician of Russia, and Putin recalled warm personal ties with George W. Bush despite clash of national interests between the United States and Russia (“Putin praises Bush hospitality during Obama visit”; Reuters; July 7, 2009).

Human rights and democracy issues were no less important than national security, because open letters were released to the public as I mentioned in the last post. Liberals criticize such actions, because they believe steadfast demand on human rights will damage the US-Russian partnership on the War on Terror (“The Latest Neocon Attack on Obama”; Huffington Post; July 2, 2009). President Obama was cautious to avoid criticizing Russia directly, as he requested Russian admission to pass US troops in its territory to attack terrorists in Afghanistan (“Obama, in Russia, praises democracy, blasts graft”; Reuters; July 7, 2009). Though modestly, Barack Obama invited opposition opinion leaders like Novaya Gazeta Newspaper and civil society representatives to advocate American involvement (“President Obama Reaches Out to Russian Opposition”; VOA News; 8 July 2009). At the meeting with Obama, Boris Nemtsov, head of pro-Western Solidarity party said, "Now Putin and Medvedev will realize that there is more than just them in the political arena. We demand free political competition." Among Russian civil societies, Yuri Dzhibladze, President of the Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, and Andrei Kortunov, head of the New Eurasia Foundation, expressed their high expectation for Obama (“Obama talks spur rights call by Russian activists”; Reuters; July 8, 2009).

Although strategic arms reduction attracted media and public attention, democracy in Russia is as important as security issues. Unlike previous tours to Europe and the Middle East, President Barack Obama was not apologetic to American foreign policy in the past. Still, Obama appears timidly cautious to address American ideals. I do not know whether President Obama read articles by Nile Gardiner, former advisor to Lady Thatcher. People in quest of freedom anticipate strong leadership of America, from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Iran, and around the world. I agree with Gardiner, and President Obama should be more assertive to help America’s allies and friends in the above counties.




For further reference, see this link.

Open Letters for President Obama to CHANGE His Russia Policy

Leading foreign policy experts and Senators sent their open letters to urge President Barack Obama to stand tough against Russia. On July 1, the Foreign Policy Initiative, a newly launched think tank led by Robert Kagan and William Kristol, urged President Obama to mention human rights and democracy in Russia in the forthcoming US-Russian Summit in Moscow ("Open Letter to President Obama on Democracy and Human Rights in Russia"; Foreign Policy Initiative; July 1, 2009).

About 40 signatories demanded that Obama be true to his conviction to freedom in the world famous Prague and Cairo speeches. Policy experts who signed this letter are concerned with retreat of political and economic freedom in Russia since Vladimir Putin became the President. At the end of the letter, signatories stressed that President Obama not reset the US-Russian relationship at the expense of Russian citizens and Russia’s neighbors.

The following day, influential senators, including John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, pressured the President not to withdraw the anti-missile defense plan in the negotiation with Russia to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). They argued that interests of the United States and allies must not be sacrificed (“Letter to President Obama from Senators Inhofe, Lieberman, Kyl, Nelson, McCain, Begich, Sessions, Johanns, Wicker, and Hatch”; July 2, 2009).

Both open letters are publicized in such a critical time. Quite recently, President Obama is criticized for his inaction to blame autocrats in Iran and Honduras. Signatories of both letters urge Barack Obama to act as the President of the United States.

Both letters sound somewhat similar to what is stated in the well known message for President-then Bill Clinton on Iraq. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) criticized Clinton’s inaction against Saddam Hussein. Now, Russia has reemerged as a new threat to symbolize the failure of Clinton era diplomacy.

Both letters have insignificant implications beyond the Russian issue, but to the whole US foreign policy. What is tested is not just President Obama’s competence in foreign policy, but his devotion to American ideals.

Don’t Miss the Forthcoming US-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Talk

Just before G8 Summit in L’Aquila in Italy from July 8 to 10, the United States and Russia will negotiate on strategic arms reduction from July 6 to 8 in Moscow (“Obama, Medvedev to talk nukes in July”; Press TV; 17 May 2009). Prior to the meeting between President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev, US and Russian officials discuss disarmament. See the video below by Russia Today.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of US Joint Chief of Staff, and General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, met in Moscow on June 26 to make preparations for the bilateral summit. Professor Mikhail Troitsky of Moscow State University of International Relations comments that both the United States and Russia want a landmark for mutual disarmament.


“Security talks can relaunch Russia-US relations”; June 26, 2009



“US is not intending to threaten Russia in any way – US top military official”; June 27, 2009



Anti-missile defense will be a key agenda in the negotiation. Yury Rogulev, director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation at Moscow State University, foresee that the talk will be tough.


“The AMD and START issues cannot be separated”; June 26, 2009



The United States and Russia agree that START Ⅰ must be renewed before it expires thus December. However, both sides disagree over US anti-missile defense system to be deployed in Poland and Czech. Will Obama withdraw the plan made by his predecessor George W. Bush, or not (“Will Obama shoot down Bush’s missile dreams during Moscow visit?”; Russia Today; July 1, 2009) ?

Meanwhile, conservatives in the United States are concerned that the Obama administration is too hasty to start the nuclear negotiation with Russia, as the team has not reviewed its own nuclear and defense policy sufficiently (“U.S. and Russia Push Arms-Control Talks Forward”; Wall Street Journal; June 2, 2009).


Don’t miss the Obama-Medvedev Summit in Moscow. Other issues, including Iran, North Korea, and the War on Terror are also discussed between the Big 2.

The Iran Test: Ex-Advisor to Lady Thatcher Questions Apologist Speeches at Prague and Cairo

See the above video of C-Span. Senator John McCain gives a tributary speech to Neda Agha-Soltan who was brutally shot by Iranian police when she attended a democracy movement on the street in Tehran. Despite mounting pressure across the United States and overseas, President Barack Obama is still obsessed with the past CIA coup d’état to topple Mohammed Mossadegh and too hesitant to assume leadership to act against Iran. Supposed to be Kantian leaders of Europe, such as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, are more active to support Iranian resistance.

It is almost six month since the inauguration. I mark the famous words by Vice President Joseph Biden, and I regard this crisis as the most critical test for President Obama. The media across the world bowed down and praised President Obama’s speeches at Prague and Cairo to repent for arrogant global strategies of past presidents. Current crises cannot be managed through such apologist appeals of populism, and the world needs a strong superpower to defeat threats to our liberal world order. North Korea is just a test for a crisis management skill, but Iran is beyond this. It is a real test for Barack Obama’s moral leadership on the global stage and his loyalty to American values. Conservatives have been questioning them ever since his wife Michelle’s extremely well known remark of For the first time, I feel proud of my country.

The Washington Post discussed Obama’s leadership credential over the Iranian Crisis, and quoted pro-con commentaries by experts (“Iran Unrest Reveals Split in U.S. on Its Role Abroad”; Washington Post; June 23, 2009). Among them, I am impressed with one by Nile Gardiner, Former Foreign Policy Researcher for ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Gardiner says "It's almost as if the president lacks confidence in the greatness of his own nation. He seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of." This is what I have been feeling exactly since the Prague and the Cairo speeches.

Currently, Nile Gardiner is the Director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. Gardiner criticizes President Obama’s apologism in his articles. He points out “The world today is considerably more dangerous than it was in the days of the Bush Administration, and the Obama White House has nothing to show for its weak-kneed efforts. The brutal truth is that the United States is increasingly viewed as a soft touch by its enemies, increasingly jeered rather than feared.” However, Gardiner insists that it is not too late for Obama to change Carter-styled diplomacy (“Barack Obama should stop apologising for America”; Daily Telegraph; 3 June 2009). In another article, Gardiner lists problematic apologies, and said “American leadership is not a popularity contest, nor should it be an exercise in self-loathing. Rather, it is about taking tough positions that will be met with hostility in many parts of the globe. Above all, it demands the assertive projection of American power, both to secure the homeland and to protect America's allies” (“Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower”; Heritage Memo; June 2, 200).

Mark Hyman, Commentator of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, comments much more bitterly, and he says that Obama’s foreign policy comes from spiritual influence of his childhood mentor, Pastor Wright, notorious anti-white agitator (“Jeremiah Wright Foreign Policy”; American Spectator; June 26, 2009).

The global public has marked the words by Joseph Biden. Now, it is time to mark the words by Nile Gardiner. The media and global liberals love to see President Obama apologize for and humiliate America. The Iran crisis tells us how dangerous that sort of populism is. Will the President transform himself from Barack Carter Obama into Barack Truman Obama?



See the following video comments by Nile Gardiner.

Fox New 5; June 16, 2009
Fox Business; June 17, 2009

The Yekaterinburg Summit and the Failure of the Clintonian Attempt to Tame Russia and China

Watch the above video broadcasted by a new TV network founded in Russia in the post Soviet era (Mega-deals and security to link China and Russia”; Russia Today; June 17, 2009). This company, named Russia Today, provides Russian viewpoints in English for the global public, just as Al Jazeera presents Arab standpoints.

At the BRICs Summit at Yekaterinburg, Russia and China praised unprecedentedly good bilateral relations these days, and signed trade deals to expand economic cooperation. Quite importantly, they insisted that their dependence on the dollar be lowered, and more national currencies be used in international business. Clearly, Russia and China expressed their solid determination to confront the West in the economy.

The joint press conference by President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and President Hu Jing Tao of China illustrates that Clintonian attempt to incorporate both new capitalist nations has ended in failure. Instead of becoming good citizens of Western-led liberal framework of global political economy, Russia and China decided to challenge us and establish their own order in their economic zone.

The dollar standard is founded on the trust to political and military power of the United States, and this is beyond economic rationalism. Both Russia and China are building up their armed forces rapidly to rival against the West, and expand their influence in their neighborhood. Such dangerous opponents are posing another challenge to us. What’s next?

At this stage, Russia and China cannot afford to make their currencies alternatives to US dollar. According to US Department of Treasury, both giants are dependent on the fortunes of US dollar debt (“Alternatives to the Dollar? Not So Fast”; Reuters Blog Commentaries; June 15, 2009).

Also, BRICs nations have mutual disagreements from the economy to security (“BRIC plotters stage a farce”; Asia Times; June 20, 2009). Apparently, Brazil and India are not interested in defying our regime, and they do not build up their military power so rapidly as Russia and China do.

Powerful enough or not, Russia and China declared their desire to dissemble an Anglo-American liberal order of the Bretton Woods System, and transform the global economy into a regime that reflects their authoritarian statist ideology. Economists are liable to talk of their emergence solely in terms of the market economy, and dismiss political threats posed by their ambition. But any economic policy is politically designed. Therefore, I regard their will to challenge us critical to global security.

The Yekaterinburg Summit is a landmark to show that the Clintonian attempt to incorporate Russia and China into our global economy was shattered. How can we deal with their ambition to challenge our preeminence in the world? What happens if we appease them? They may not be strong enough at this stage, but it is their will to overturn our preeminence that matters.　History has not ended, but it has started again.

Senator McCain Delivers an IRON CURTAIN SPEECH on Iran

In view of President Barack Cater Obama’s inaction against bloody turmoil in Iran, Senator Sir John Winston McCain has given an Iron Curtain Speech to deal with the repressive clerical regime. Even though EU leaders and the US Congress condemned Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Obama is still reluctant to pressure the notorious regime in Tehran.

Just as Sir Winston Churchill urged reluctant Americans to stand firmly against Soviet expansionism after World War Ⅱ in the famous Iron Curtain Speech, Senator McCain criticized the President, I do not believe that the president is taking the leadership that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom, and free elections are one of those fundamentals (“John McCain: President Obama not showing 'leadership'”; Politico; June 17, 2009 and the video).

As I mentioned in the previous post, Barack Obama’s dull response to current violence in Iran reminds me of that of Jimmy Cater in 1979. I have argued again and again that the loss of Iran has imposed a tremendous cost to US foreign policy. Had Iran been a friendly and reliable ally to the West, 9-11 would not have happened and Saddam Hussein could not have pursued a stupidly megalomaniac dream of becoming a Gamal Abdel Nasser. Ever since the United States and Britain demanded Stalin to withdraw the Read Army from northern Iran when World War Ⅱ ended, Iran had been a buffer against Soviet expansionism to the Gulf. Historically and geopolitically, Iran has been such an important strategic keystone in the Middle East.

This is why I argue John McCain’s Churchillian comment vital to prevail our freedom, and to help fellow Iranians. As far as this issue is concerned, There is no liberal America, or conservative America. There is no white America, or black America, but there is the United States of America. Yes, that’s right Mr. President, but are you really loyal to what you said in public?

Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfovitz says that both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush stayed neutral at first, when anti-government riots broke out in the Philippines in 1986 and in the Soviet Union in 1991. However, both presidents decided to endorse the civic power for democracy in the end (“'No Comment' Is Not an Option”; Washington Post; June 19, 2009). As Wolfovitz argues in this column, those interventions were of considerable help to strengthen America’s soft power.

Remember that Harry Truman had become a real global statesman only when he accepted the Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill. It seems to me that Barack Carter Obama is not interested in becoming none of leaders like Truman, Reagan, and Bush Sr. Our fellows in the Middle East, don’t expect so much to current US President. Maybe General David Petraeus is a real savior for you. Don’t give up your Hope for the Change.

Unenthusiastic to Real Democracy in Iran: Exploring the Stupidity of the Cairo Speech

Iran is in messy turmoil after the presidential election on June 12. This indicates that things have not improved since the revolution. Iran has been a bête noire in the global community as a terrorist sponsor and a nuclear megalomania. Apparently, Iran has been more poorly governed under corrupt current theocracy than it had been under the shah. Despite this, President Barack Obama apologized for CIA intervention to topple Prime Minister-then Mohammed Mosaddeq in the world famous Cairo Speech.

Strangely enough, while President Obama denounce legitimate sponsorship for anti-communist coup d’état, he shows no enthusiasm to endorse current democratic rally against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Let me review the history of Iran. During the Anglo Iranian Oil Dispute from 1952 to 1953, Mosaddeq tried to associate Iran with the Soviet Union. In Cold War power politics, what he did was unacceptable. Once Iran had fallen into communists’ hand, security the whole area around the Persian Gulf would have been extremely fragile. The United States was right to endorse Britain to block red expansionism. Remember that America always represented conscience of global citizens when aligned itself with Sir Winston Churchill who was the Prime Minister then for the second time. A provincial lawyer from the Mid West, Harry Truman had become a global statesman when he accepted the Iron Curtain Speech by Churchill (Can Obama the Savior deliver such a great speech?). Also, nationalism uproar in the Middle East needed to be curtailed. Saddam Hussein was inspired by Gamar Abdel Nasser in the Suez Crisis. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he identified himself with Nasser who nationalized British controlled Suez Canal. Mosaddeq could have provoked dangerous nationalism as Nasser did.

Until the economic crisis in the late 1970s, Iran had been enjoying modernization under the shah. It is utterly wrong to say that the coup d’état has led Iran to anti-Western. During the Pahlavi era, numerous Iranians gladly enrolled colleges in the United States. Those who were educated in the United States and other Western nations occupied top positions in the government, the military, and the business. Contrary to what Obama said in the Cairo Speech, this is a proof of widespread pro-Americanism in Iran in those days.

Regarding Obama's remark on Iran in the worldwide-praised Cairo Speech, Charles Krauthammer, a columnist of the Washington Post, criticizes that the President blames the US side unfairly (“Obama Hovers From on High”; Washington Post; June 12, 2009). Barack Obama may be a Wilsonian idealist as Robert Kagan says (“Woodrow Wilson's Heir”; Washington Post; June 7, 2009), but his idealism undermines US diplomacy if he has no confidence in Americaness. Krauthammer argues that American involvement in the coup d’état to overthrow democratically elected Mosaddeq gives no excuse for Iran to take hostage at the US embassy in 1979 and sponsor terrorists. I agree with him. In the column, Krauthammer points out that President Obama is extremely biased to favor Islamic radicals on the Islam-Western clash in the Cairo Speech. This is a vital point to understand the speech that the media bow down and praise.

Prior to the presidential election, Foreign Policy published a special edition on the web, and foretold corruption and confusion associated with it. Karim Sadjapour, Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said this election was a rivalry between Tehran and the rest. Without credible polls, it was difficult predict the result, and global media tended to dismiss rural opinions. In the end, Sadjapour said that unelected mullahs decide the winner, which would make the result controversial as it happened in 2000 US election over Florida votes (“Why Iran '09 Could Be Like Florida '00”; Foreign Policy, June 2009). Cameron Abadi, Writer for German journals Die Zeit and Spiegel International, compares current election with the revolution to oust the shah in 1979. Whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir Hossein Mousavi, the winner would face tremendous opposition resistance, because this election reflects clashes between conservatives and reformists ("Iran's New Revolution"; Foreign Policy June 2009).

If this is a prelude to another revolution in Iran, should the United States intervene? Remember that President-then Jimmy Carter did nothing to stop radical mullahs during the revolution in 1979, and America has lost Iran since then. William Kristol wonders why President Obama is so reluctant to use America’s soft power if he is truly loyal to his conviction for democracy (“Kristol: Where's the Soft Power?”; Weekly Standard Blog; June 14, 2009). Jimmy Carter failed to endorse well-educated and pro-Western generals to stand against mad and anti-Western mullahs. People know the outcome of it. Will Barack Carter Obama fail to endorse democratic Iranians and allow mad mullahs to rule this country continually?

Senator John McCain urges President Obama to speak out corrupt and fraud election (“Obama refuses to 'meddle' in Iran”; BBC News; 17 June 2009). Yes, this is how American soft power should be used.

Those who were moved to listen to oracles of the Cairo Speech by the Savior must think again, and the Iranian Crisis is a real opportunity to judge the young and brilliant president. He is tested now. Will Barack Carter Obama repeat the same error committed by James Earl Carter?