Andranik Migranyan has published in these spaces a serious critique of the article by Dmitri Trenin and myself in the International Herald Tribune advocating a high-level U.S.-Russian strategic dialogue. I find myself in agreement with many of his observations about the current state of U.S.-Russian relations. But his narrow focus on the current state of relations only underscores the need for such a dialogue.
Migranyan's three arguments against a U.S.-Russian strategic dialogue are less than persuasive.
First, such a dialogue does not need to focus on a "troublesome third country" to succeed, as he argues. To be sure, that focus was critical to the spectacular success of the strategic dialogue the Nixon administration launched with China. But the U.S.-Indian strategic dialogue begun over a decade ago has not been focused on any single third country, and still it is reshaping the equilibrium in South Asia and the Indian Ocean and fostering cooperation on nuclear, counterterrorism and environmental issues. And the long history of U.S.-Israeli strategic dialogue and cooperation has not precluded American efforts to maintain constructive relations with key Arab countries opposed to Israel.
Second, U.S.-Israeli strategic cooperation belies the second of Migranyan's contentions--namely, that two countries can only have convergent strategic interests if they are roughly equal in resources and power. Anyone who has followed U.S.-Israeli relations over just the past few years would be hard put to argue that "the weaker one experiences a loss of sovereignty as a result of its smaller economic and military-political potential, and that negates the strategic character of the relationship," as Migranyan writes. Indeed, one key issue in the current debate over Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense is the extent to which the United States should defer to Israel's strategic choices.
Last, strategic cooperation requires considerable trust between two major powers, but that same level of trust is not necessary to launch a strategic dialogue, as Migranyan implies. Imagine the level of trust between Nixon and Mao when they first met. One key task of the dialogue is building the trust needed for closer strategic cooperation.
But the larger problem is that Migranyan misunderstands the goal of a strategic dialogue. It is not to eliminate all significant sources of tension between two major powers. That would be an impossible task. Relations between any two major powers is always a mix of cooperation and competition. Rather, a strategic dialogue seeks to expand the strategic opportunities of each country to advance its interests, while mitigating the consequences of the inevitable continuing differences. And, in that way, it seeks to alter perceptions of current issues in ways that foster greater cooperation now.
In broad terms, a strategic dialogue would address three issues: (1) each country's vision of where it wants to be in the long run; (2) the factors that will shape the global environment over the long run and the ways they will constrict or enlarge opportunities and facilitate or complicate each country's achievement of its goals; and (3) the possibility for strategic cooperation, given (1) and (2). In other words, is there sufficient overlap in goals and perceived challenges to justify extensive cooperation?
With regard to U.S.-Russian relations, one issue that Migranyan suggests makes strategic dialogue impossible in fact would figure large in any such discussion: the need to create sustainable balances of power in various parts of the world. Both the United States and Russia have a strategic interest in the nature of such balances all along Russia's periphery—in Europe; Southwest, Central/South, and Northeast Asia; and the Arctic.
To take one example: Migranyan suggests that Russian and Chinese interests converge "on the matter of containing Washington’s arrogant and unilateral foreign policy that attempts to dominate the world." Beyond questioning the accuracy of his characterization of U.S. foreign policy, the point is that he focuses narrowly on the current state of affairs. But will Russian and Chinese interests converge over the long run? Can Russia feel strategically comfortable with a country with which it shares a long border that has been historically contested (even if now fully demarcated)? With a country whose economy is four times, and population nine times, as large as Russia's, with the gap only likely to grow? With a country that could eventually replace Russia as Central Asia's leading commercial partner and seek to capture the resources of Siberia and the Russian Far East for its markets? I do not pretend to know how Russian leaders would answer, nor how they would assess the strategic implications of their answers for Russia's national interest. But I do presume American policy-makers would want to know the answers to such questions, just as Russian leaders presumably want to know U.S. thinking about China.
Comments
It is all well and good to talk about strategic dialogue and potential strategic cooperation, but these sound bites are meaningless when there exist acts on the ground in the form of economic, political and military containment. These acts would unsurprisingly convey the impression that the responsible party has already reached a conclusion regarding the strategic equation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, in those circumstances for two sides to engage in a dialogue in good faith. Genuine strategic dialogue would almost certainly be beneficial to both parties, as well as the larger audience. For those who wish to keep their eyes open, Russia has shown—both through a conscious change in its ideology and as a result of events out of its control—that it is ready to pursue a philosophy of wide-ranging cooperation. It is past time that the United States acted in accordance with its much trumpeted position that the Cold War book is closed and prepared the ground to sit down in good faith with Russia and with other players. There is a firm case to be made that failure to do so would most negatively impact the United States itself given that other players will most likely engage in such dialogue between themselves. Finally, it is worth noting that this would primarily be a test of whether the United States is a true democracy in which the interests of its citizens are first and foremost, or whether it is an oligarchy and plutocracy that ignores the interests of the constituency that gives it legitimacy in order to pursue the interests of a few.