On Stage

Twice this week. First on a panel entitled "Russia and its Neighbors," the next night on Obama's foreign policy after the mid-terms. It was fun, and it all prepared me for a phone call this afternoon from a newspaper on the START treaty and where it's headed in the U.S. Senate, why, and why it matters. On the Russia panel I talked about how things had progressively deteriorated between the U.S. and Russia since the end of the Cold War but how the "reset" actually has been getting off the ground a little in the past year. I did not forget to warn of the strategic and ideological limits to the further development of the relationship characterized right now by a fair amount of pragmatism on both sides. On the U.S. panel the next night, having been asked to focus on the "war" part of current U.S. foreign policy, I argued that continuity dominates in Obama's campaign against Al Qaida and similar groups, including the legal issues surrounding the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere. It's easier to promise change as a candidate than to deliver it as commander-in-chief with the buck stopping on your desk. Anything that works in Obama's foreign policy, one questioner wanted to know? Well, there's the "reset." Then, the same day, the junior Senator from Arizona indicated the Republicans may want to deny the president this success also. Voting to ratify the new START treaty, one of the tangible positive results of the "reset" so far, might not be opportune for the lame-duck Congress, he said. Of course, with more Republicans in the new Senate next year, it's going to be even tougher. Most Republicans seem to be fighting tooth and nail against the notion--it looms pretty large these days--that today's U.S. is not your 1990s hyperpower anymore. Cutting the Pentagon's budget? Well, that would just be confirmation of a U.S. in decline, and so we can't have that; instead we need to increase the defense budget beyond what the Pentagon itself asks for. But don't ask us how to pay for it! START would be sensible policy even for a hegemonic U.S.. It does, of course, involve cutting the nuclear arsenal. This is unacceptable for a Republican right terribly anxious about possibly no longer being the undisputed number one in the world. But the president is not giving up yet. In an op-ed after the mid-terms (in Dutch) I said that given the difficult situation of the country, there are ample reasons for everyone in Washington to look for ways to collaborate. There's lots of human and material potential being wasted (not to mention time). START ratification would be a good place to, eh, start, but I would not put a lot of money on it.