‘McObama’ and Russia

In the first presidential debate John McCain and Barack Obama went to great lengths to show how each is different from the other and that voters have a real choice in this election. Well they certainly disagree on some domestic issues, but when it comes to foreign policy - particularly Russia - it was “business as usual”.

It looked like a bidding war - “who can be more anti-Russia?” McCain repeated his usual tripe (“I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.”) and Obama appeared to struggle to keep upping the ante (“…a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability…”). Until I can be convinced otherwise the world will get at least another four years of arrogant use of force, disrespect of the law and self-serving lectures from Washington.

What is obvious to me is that Russia is important in this campaign, but for the wrong reason. It is the best way to show who is a foreign policy hawk on the cheap. Russia has been turned into a whipping boy to hide the fact that Washington has over-reached itself and is not a positive force for change in the world. It also demonstrates that American foreign policy will remain what is today - neocon to the core.

It is a pity, though not surprising, neither candidate was prepared to diverge from the official script when it came to the issue of Georgia. Not for a nanosecond was there any doubting who started the war in South Ossetia. Russia was repeatedly called the aggressor. Both candidates show they have little sense of moral responsibility – but that is part and parcel of American foreign policy these days. McCain remained in the realm of abhorrent delusion when praising the Georgian President “Misha” Saakashvili, calling him “a great young president”. Misha should stand trial at The Hague for war crimes.

Another issue both agree on is NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Never once were Russia’s security interests mentioned. But then again, American policy works under the assumption that only the US and it allies have foreign policy interests. Those who claim to have their own and differing foreign policy interests are branded as enemies and threats to be dealt with. And it was Obama’s following statement that I found disturbing (because he claims to be the candidate of real change): “It is absolutely important that we have a unified alliance and that we explain to the Russians that you cannot be a 21st-century superpower, or power, and act like a 20th-century dictatorship”. Isn’t he paraphrasing Condi Rice? Of course he is and this is what is worrying. Every world Obama uttered in this sentence applies to the US and its appendages like NATO.

I find it truly regrettable the candidate of change says “we have to explain to the Russians”. Why is the candidate of change continuing the same foreign policy rhetoric of failure? Washington always says “once we explain – over and over again - the righteousness of our policy others will agree with us”. This is rubbish. This is only a stratagem demonstrating that Washington refuses (because of its so-called high moral authority) to listen to anyone. Well, Russia is talking and talking a lot, but Washington can’t accept a plurality of views. I can’t think of a bigger debasement of free expression and democracy.

Everything McCain and Obama said about Russia, its neighborhood, security and energy policy is out of touch with geopolitical reality. For McCain, Russia is an easy way to show his amazingly outdated views of the world and America’s role. As far as Obama is concerned, I am disappointed that he sees the need to get along by going along.

Irrespective of who wins the election, I eagerly wait to see the next president of the US sit down with Dmitry Medvedev. He will have to – and eat a lot of chow in the process.

US presidential elections long ago had little to do with democracy. Now they are about PR-hype and show business. Come January the 44th president of the United States will have to acknowledge the reality of Russia. It is a reality that will be in his face. My sense is that the silliness of American politics and the overbearing sense of democracy will blink first.