Martin Sieff: “Obama’s refusal to meet Putin is unfortunate”

Interview by Anna Demchenko, Washington

Yesterday it was reported that U.S. President Barack Obama canceled the appointment with his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Washington says that the situation is connected not only with Edward Snowden, but also other issues. Problems of the missile defense system and human rights are acute as well. Vestnik Kavkaza interviewed the chief analyst on global affairs of The Globalist Magazine, Martin Sieff.

-     Please could you comment on Obama’s refusal to come to Russia?

-    The president’s decision was no surprise in the circumstances, but I do believe it was unfortunate. During the Cold War the U. S. and the Soviet Union maintained the rhythm of superpowers’ relations, bilateral summit meetings. Russia and the U. S. have maintained this pattern in the Cold War era. Neither side allowed in the past, going from one side to the other, in both directions, to intervene or interfere in any way with this rhythm of bilateral cooperation and relations. I think this sets a very disturbing precedent that the president seems to be persuaded to take this action. It’s good that he is going to St.-Petersburg, it’s good that he and President Putin will meet in St.-Petersburg, but I think this was an unfortunate and negative decision for the President of the U. S. not to go to Moscow.

-    Why do you think so?

-    Because there has been a mark of deterioration in the U. S. – Russian relations. There is no underlined fundamental reason why this should be so. There was a misperception on both sides of the relationship – in Moscow and Washington. But it would clearly have long-term serious consequences in the continuous. After 9/11, after the terrorist attack of September 2001, President Putin immediately offered aid and support to the U. S. The then president of the U. S. George W. Bush established very good personal, as well as working, relationship, and both countries succeeded. It’s very important that President Obama and President Putin re-established a much more positive tone, but we are going in a more negative direction.

-    Please could you comment on the recent trend and tendencies in the Russian – American relations?

-    It’s inevitable in the superpower relations that the superpowers have a conflict or a disagreement, and the disagreements need to be understood in correct context and managed. The significant disagreement between the U. S. and Russia: the U. S. is angry that Putin has allowed Edward Snowden to stay in Russia, Russia is angry at the U. S. because the Congress passed the notorious Magnitsky bill. Then, the U. S. is angry at Russia because of the known law of non-governmental organizations, NGOs. Neither of these issues should reflect fundamental interests of either Russia or the U. S., but they have created an atmosphere in which more fundamental areas of cooperation, such as strategic arms negotiations and the war against extreme Islamist terrorism which is a major concern for both Russia and the U. S., are being overlapped. They have, of course, a significant different in opinions of what should be done to Syria. They should really be much more serious to sustain the dialogue between the U. S. and Russia on the Syrian issue alone, apart from other issues of disagreement. And I think in the U. S. there is a lack of understanding of the importance of bilateral relationship with Russia. It is crucially important. And in Russia there is anger at this. And the fact that the U. S. does not take Russia sufficiently seriously is misconceived in Russia as a fundamental offense. Also, in Washington we do have pressure groups on specific issues such as human rights to watch Russia. Watch is magnified in the American media. And this misread in Russia is reflecting a fundamental hostility or distrust of Russia by the U. S. government and people. And these issues need to be straightened. They need much more hands-on strait dialogue on both sides. Unfortunately, we do not see that at the moment.

-    And please could you comment on the tendencies in relations between the U. S. and the countries of the South Caucasus, namely, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia?

-    I have only comments on more general trends without specific details. This is a crucially important and complex area. And I think that the U. S. is overcommitted in Georgia, and, given the internal conflicts and potential instability in Georgia, there is a great danger in Georgia in particular, that conflicts within Georgia which owed to be extremely local manageable conflicts could easily spill over and become major issues of contention between Moscow and Washington. And that should not better the situation. That should not be allowed to happen. That alone is a major reason why President Obama and President Putin need to sit down and think of the President’s decision not to go to Russia, the U. S. President’s decision not to visit Moscow. It’s a serious mistake. In Azerbaijan and Armenia there is another situation: the U. S. increasingly supports Azerbaijan, while Russia continues to strongly support Armenia which of course is an ally in the CSTO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. And again this position is not going to change, but the U. S. and Russia, the two nuclear superpowers, need to be ready to talk to each other about these issues. President Obama has just successfully established a very productive bilateral dialogue with the President of China. As we saw at the California Summit, the President needs to recognize that relations with Russia are at least as important, and I would even say – more important, than the bilateral relationship with China. I think this is very unfortunate in the American perspective that the U. S. policymakers think of focusing only on one major issue, though they can speak of other issues. They recognize the importance of the bilateral relationship – in the U. S. and in China, but they have failed to remember that the bilateral relationship between the U. S. and Russia is at least as important, and I would say more important.