By Sharon Tennison
The first serious presidential meetings between Presidents Obama and Medvedev (and Prime Minister Putin) have ended. IMHO, the meetings were as constructive as they could have been under the circumstances. Fortunately, President Obama is a good listener as well as an exceptional orator; he asked questions and listened more intently than had his predecessor. These three men undoubtedly understand each other and each country's perspective better than a week ago.
Given President Obama’s limited experience with Russia, face-to-face meetings were particularly important. A couple years back, his foreign policy advisor was quite frank in admitting, "We have no experience with Russia, we have concentrated on other countries. We need to hear from you and others what is really going on there." Following his inauguration, there was no time to focus on Russia. To be sure, Russia has been an irritant during this period, but not a potential disaster as other key countries and the financial meltdown have been.
However, he had done his homework by the time he arrived in Moscow. Most importantly, he listened, remembered, and reflected on what he had heard. This was critical for the Russians, who feel that their positions are never heard or taken seriously.
Obama is a perceptive man and one who has been part of an "underdog community" for much of his life. Indeed, shoving individuals, groups or nations into corners doesn't seem to be his inclination. Nor is intentionally misconstruing and brow beating others to get his way.
I believe what we will see from Obama is a gradual but perceptible change in tone toward Russia; one that reflects an understanding that this is a nation with a harsh history and security needs of which we must be cognizant and act accordingly.
However, even if he understands the need for a shift in the U.S.-Russia policy, how does Obama handle coming home to neocon politicos intent on preserving today’s ill will and status quo toward Russia?
He faces a mountain of carefully-constructed and heavily-engrained anti-Russia stereotypes which, over the past ten years, have become embedded in America’s consciousness. They were hammered in by U.S. mainstream media in conjunction with the former administration. Leading up to the summit, most journalists in key news outlets were vicious. They stooped to new lows to vilify Medvedev and Putin in sleazily-written copy, instead of offering serious news coverage to readers.
Why? Did they hope to derail a constructive outcome of the meetings between these heads of state? If so, who could possibly profit from that? Who is setting the tone for these journalists? Surely they aren't writing such irresponsible tripe of their own volition.
To the point, what does Obama do if he understands that the world is too small and precariously balanced to ignore Russia's security concerns? By the way, we would have the same concerns if the shoe were on the other foot. How does he go against manufactured national perceptions that he is weak if in fact he tries to rebuild the US-Russia relationship?
Fortunately, history affords him a powerful example: President Reagan went against his closest advisors and other “men in gray suits,” when he opened his mind to Mikhail Gorbachev, when some 20,000 Soviet missiles were pointed at American cities.
President Obama should take counsel from Reagan's bold efforts, especially his courage to start a rapprochement that destroyed the feared Soviet system, which threatened America to the core.
We should hope and pray that Obama stands up to naysayers in the media, his advisors, both political parties and whatever “higher forces” that may exist – and follows what his natural instincts and sharpened observations tell him is right concerning tomorrow’s Russia policy.
Thank you for this thoughtful article! Gives me hope...
Posted by: Rami Schandall | July 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM