Foreign Policy Issues for the Coming Months

The key issues that will dominate Russia's foreign relations agenda are the approaching EU-Russia summit and the continuing negotiations on Kosovo's independence. Both issues appear to be in various degrees of gridlock.

Russia continues to oppose the plan of Marti Ahtisaari that virtually does not account for the opinion of Serbia on the issue of independence of its province, Kosovo. Russia insists that resolution 1244 regarding Kosovo, in particular the guarantees it must provide to the Serbian minority such as an opportunity to safely return to their homes, has not been implemented fully. In recent Security Council hearings, the majority of the Western partners have supported the notion that resolution 1244 has been satisfied and the situation in Kosovo has improved. Yet, Russia has go as far as saying any attempts by the US to force a vote on Kosovo's independence in the Security Council will see a Russian veto, a sign that negotiations will drag longer. The UN Security Council has sent a commission into Kosovo to investigate in detail the situation. The outlook for a successful resolution of the Kosovo issue in the near months is unlikely.

With regard to the EU, Kommersant reports that:

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson set a grim tone three days before the talks in Luxembourg by saying that EU-Russia relations were at their lowest point since the Cold War. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his counterparts in the EU had to play down this pessimistic rhetoric.

European Union officials said on Monday they hoped to resolve a dispute holding up a partnership agreement with Russia before a summit next month.

After new talks with in Luxembourg, Russia stressed its desire to conclude the new pact to cover energy, trade, economic cooperation and human rights.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said after the talks that the parties had reached some progress in settling the dispute, but there was still a lot to be done.

Analyze This!

The saddest part of the story that happened during the two “Other Russia” demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg is the realization that Russia has, is, and most likely will have an image problem in foreign press. The Economist has been comparing Russia’s OMON-style demonstration dispersement to Robert Mugabe’s efforts in Zimbabwe.

It is clearly no longer a case of misunderstanding on the part of the foreign press. One can blame the disdain for Russia’s external policies on the aspect of a “resurging empire” syndrome. However, such logic fails when Russian internal events are being hammered in influential newspapers.

Russia’s internal policies have not brought much positive adjustments to Russia’s image abroad. There is no real need felt in the Kremlin that the image should be improved; investments are flying at a high pace, key European leaders are listening in to Russia’s opinion on key global issues, so is the US. However, Russia is exploiting its current “buzz” status. It may exploit it to a point when the West develops a solid unifying position on Russia, and the Kremlin would be pushed in a corner; from there on history will continue to repeat itself.

Russia has a very clear duty of ensuring that its internal actions be monitored with a positive attitude in the foreign press. This must be done not for the sake of “reporting to a vassal”, but for the sake of promoting a “goodwill” image, the image that will serve Russia well in the future. Goodwill garners respect on the international arena; so do commodities and other “fixed” assets of a country some might say. True, but when these resources are used to resolve conflicting situations, they usually result in a “win-lose” scenario. Creating a “win-win” scenario in the press requires a country’s solid reputation based on its goodwill intentions.

It is perfectly fine for Russia’s MPs to complain and demand that the US not interfere into Russia’s internal affairs, by attempting to sponsor NGOs and support some sort of a liberal rag-tag opposition group. However, this will not mean that Russia’s efforts internally will not be analyzed and highly scrutinized externally. If not the US government, a publication in the Economist, or the New York Times does just as much damage. Damage to the flow of investments, damage to the multi-billion dollar corporations that are tied to Kremlin Inc, damage to the way millions of Russians are viewed when they visit foreign countries, damage to the effectiveness of Russia’s attempts to regain a prominent position in future global decision-making processes.

There is no getting away from the fact that before making the decision the Russian administration made on its actions against “Other Russia” it should have scrutinized how those actions will impact Russia’s future.