The aim of this research paper is to compare and contrast the gradual shift in America’s diplomatic position over the past 20 years with respect to two countries that matter a lot to its foreign policy, Russia and China. Both countries are huge in size and population, had experienced strained relations with the US during the Cold War and as of today, are considered immensely important to the US economy, with China ranking ahead among the top three trading partners of the United States.
This research would seek to identify the transformation through key events in the past two decades, and use it as a basis to understand how US foreign policy has evolved in recent few years.
Today, Russia is considered the successor state of the USSR, America’s arch rival during the Cold War. Although, following the historical break-up of the Union, the country is unlikely to regain its superpower status, it would continue to hold center-stage in European and Asian geo-politics (CATO Institute, 2010). During the Cold War era, the USSR had demonstrated its capability in matching America’s power projection in different arenas: military maneuvers, the Space race and external influence on other countries.
According to the admission of key policy-makers in Washington, even the break-up of the Soviet Union did little damage to the towering legacy of a formidable superpower in the mindset of American intelligentsia (Merry, 2005, p.123).
Although, present-day Russia is a shadow of its USSR legacy, it still commands huge importance in US diplomatic circles; the voice of Russia is taken seriously and it’s not just in the US – no country in the world can afford to be strategically misaligned to Russia’s interests. The road ahead for the US lies in fostering good relations with its erstwhile arch-rival (Merry, 2005, p.124).
Basically, managing America’s diplomatic goodwill with Russia translates into seeking harmonious, stable relations, thereby undoing the bitter legacy of the Cold War. This can be a challenge in the face of several issues of international importance in which both countries find themselves at loggerheads, and lack adequate trust of each other’s intentions (Roskin & Berry, 2004, p.134).
One of the conflicting issues is Russia’s existing influence in Europe, particularly among countries like Poland and Ukraine which were formerly in the Soviet Bloc, but ever since the dissolution of the Iron Curtain, have been shifting their loyalty to the pro-West faction represented by the NATO, which is a bloc led by the United States.
America’s assertion of military supremacy in the NATO bloc, especially its “Missile shield” program for several Eastern European countries, is viewed as a direct threat by Russia which, as a legacy of the Cold War, continues to view these countries as its own backyard.
Another conflicting issue is Iran. The United States has officially maintained a belligerent position on that country, given its hostile relationship with Israel, a strategic US ally, and its growing ambition to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Russia, in contrast, enjoys warm and cordial relations with Iran. Much to the chagrin of the United States, Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons and equipment that contribute to its modernization needs.
These include air defense systems, advanced fighters, multipurpose destroyers, submarines and antiship cruise missiles (Roskin & Berry, 2004, p.141). As Russia’s leaders continue to sense America’s discomfort with Iran, they build bridges with that country to weaken America’s influence in an important geopolitical region. It also acts as a bulwark against any unwanted American aggression in Russia’s backyard.
Therefore, the present diplomatic relationship between the United States and Russia can be described as a swing balance where each superpower tries to protect its own national interest by stacking up issues of discomfort against the other, an activity which bears resemblence of diplomatic harmony.
In comparison to Russia, China was never seen as a natural adversary to the United States, although, its Communist leanings were always a matter of concern (Medeiros, 2009, p.102). The Communism legacy can be only described as a past excuse to express distrust for China; today, it is long over as the country makes bold strides towards building a full-fledged Capitalist economy. Historically, China had pursued a policy of non-intervention in matters of America’s dealing with other countries, with the notable exception of Taiwan.
Unlike Russia, however, China today poses a serious challenge to American diplomacy in the post Cold War era (Medeiros, 2009, p.102). With dazzling rates of economic growth, growing military prowess and expanding influence on its neighborhood, the US cannot afford to see China in an adversarial role.
Instead, the onus is on America to treat China as an important ally, and accommodate its needs and demands with changing expectations and global norms. That can only be possible when America reciprocates China’s policy of non-intervention which is not only the latter’s diplomatic intent, but a strong characteristic of Chinese civilization, values which are seen as positive and significant by the Asian community (Medeiros, 2009, p.103).
However, America does interfere a lot in China’s internal matters. The political movement for Tibet’s independence has the largest organized political support in the United States, and not just among celebrities and the Hollywood elite. China’s record on human rights is often subject to criticism in the White House.
However, with the emergence of Barack Obama as President, there has been somewhat a softening of US’s erstwhile belligerent stance on several issues of importance to China. Today, America has regained deft diplomacy to deal with China, building greater appreciation for the finer way of life in the Sinic civilization, and partnering with the country, treating it as a valuable economic ally, while not viewing it as a direct threat to its international interests (Medeiros, 2009, p.103).
China has been calling upon several emerging countries including Russia, India and the European Union (EU) to build what it calls a multi-polar world rather than a uni-polar world dominated by America (Medeiros, 2009, p.103). To understand America’s stance on this issue, it can be seen that Barack Obama recently used the exact phrase “multipolar world” to describe America’s transitional phase relationship with China.
Clearly, in a changing world, America’s unilateral dominance is of little practical value. The United States official diplomatic position, now, is to engage and collaborate with China on a range of issues including politics, the war on Islamic terrorism, economic stability, the environment and Climate issues and other issues, which have to be resolved peacefully.
In conclusion, to compare and contrast America’s present diplomatic position with Russia and China, it can be appreciated that while it continues to view the former as an adversary with whom it has to be cautious in dealing with global issues, the latter is seen as a valuable partner.
This difference can be appreciated in the light of the huge disparity in trade relations between the United States and China, and the United States and Russia. A large number of American businesses’ interests is closely aligned with that of China, compared to Russia. This affects the diplomatic relationship with the two countries at different levels.
References
CATO Institute (2010). CATO Handbook for Policymakers. Washington DC: CATO Institute.
Medeiros, E.S. (2009). China’s International Behavior: Activism, Opportunity and Diversification. New York, NY: Rand Corporation.
Merry, R.W. (2005). Sands of Empire: Missionary Zeal, American Foreign Policy, and the Hazards of Global Ambition. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Roskin, M.J., & Berry, N.O. (2004). The New World of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Prentice-Hall.