veebruar 1, 2008

USA presidendikandidaadid kõnelevad Venemaast

Kuigi tähed ennustavad praegu lõppvalimistel vastasseisu Clintoni ja McCaini vahel, ei saa täna veel lõplikult väita, et see ei või toimuda ka Obama ning Romney vahel. Hetkel on Obama tõusuteel ja Romney täht küll mitte lõplikult, kuid vaikselt langemas. Praegu esitlevad küsitlused McCaini kui ainsat kandidaati, kellel võiks olla eduvõimalusi nii Clintoni kui Obama vastu, kuid potentsiaalselt võib Romney olla demokraatidele isegi ohtlikum, sest siis kerkiksid tulipunkti mitte niivõrd välispoliitilised kui pigem majandusküsimused. Romney pluss seisneb siin ka selles, et ta saab distantseeruda ka praegusest administratsioonist. Giuliani väljalangemine viib võidule ilmselt McCaini.

Kõige huvitavam oleks kindlasti Obama ja McCaini vastasseis, see meenutaks Eesti kontekstis valikut T.H.Ilvese ja Arnold Rüütli vahel. Obama eristuks selgesti kui tulevikukandidaat, millele vastanduks 71-aastase McCaini sõjakangelase oreool koos minevikunostalgiaga. McCaini peamiseks toetajaks võiks olla Osama bin Laden, juhul kui ta korraldab mõne olulise rünnaku, mis tooks fookusesse terrorismivastase sõja.

Milliseks kujunevad presidendikandidaatide võimalikud välispoliitilised eelistused, saab rääkida inimeste põhjal, kes on koondunud või avaldanud toetust ühele või teisele presidendikandidaadile. Vabariiklaste hulgas on eliit alates H.Kissingerist ja G.Shultzist kuni neokonservatiivsete W.Kristoli ja R.Kaganiga koondunud McCaini taha, vähemus toetab Giulianit, teisi veel vähem. Demokraatide hulgas on toetajaid nii Clintonil kui Obamal (viimasel näiteks Z.Brzezinski ja terrorismiekspert R.Clarke, üldse tundub et J.Carteriga seotud persoonid eelistavad Obamat).

Mike Huckabee (Rep.)

… (On Iran) I am less hopeful that Russia will be helpful. Since Russia benefits from high energy prices, President Vladimir Putin has more incentives to keep energy markets jittery than to resolve the crisis with Iran. Russia also profits handsomely from selling weapons to Iran, mostly air defense systems intended to protect Iran from possible U.S. air strikes. I support going forward with the current plan to set up ten missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. Putin opposes an antimissile system in the former Soviet satellite states (even though we have offered to share the technology with the Russians) and our potential use of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for an attack on Iran.

We must remember that with the collapse of the Soviet Union came the revival of Russia, which has always had both imperialist ambitions and an inferiority complex vis-ą-vis the West. Tsarist history is a case study in the struggle between westernizers and Slavophiles. The push and pull will continue, bringing good days and bad in our relations with Russia. Overall, things will be better than during the Cold War because, much as we do not want another 9/11, Putin does not want another terrorist attack like the 2004 school siege in Beslan. But I see him for what he is: a staunch nationalist in a country that has no democratic tradition. He will do everything he can to reassert Russia’s power — militarily, economically, diplomatically.

Hillary Clinton (Dem.)

Statesmanship is also necessary to engage countries that are not adversaries but that are challenging the United States on many fronts. Russian President Vladimir Putin has thwarted a carefully crafted UN plan that would have put Kosovo on a belated path to independence, attempted to use energy as a political weapon against Russia’s neighbors and beyond, and tested the United States and Europe on a range of nonproliferation and arms reduction issues. Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics.

It is a mistake, however, to see Russia only as a threat. Putin has used Russia’s energy wealth to expand the Russian economy, so that more ordinary Russians are enjoying a rising standard of living. We need to engage Russia selectively on issues of high national importance, such as thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons in Russia and the former Soviet republics, and reaching a diplomatic solution in Kosovo. At the same time, we must make clear that our ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and regional interference.

John McCain (Rep.)

A decade and a half ago, the Russian people threw off the tyranny of communism and seemed determined to build a democracy and a free market and to join the West. Today, we see in Russia diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, efforts to bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas. We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia. We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia’s nuclear blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization’s doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible actor, internationally and domestically.

Rudy Giuliani (Rep.)

U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.

John Edwards (Dem.)

… And Russia is bullying its neighbors while openly defying the United States and Europe. /—-/
Russia presents a very different challenge. The situation in Russia is deteriorating, and democracy is on the wane. President Vladimir Putin has also initiated a worrisome pattern of bellicose rhetoric against the United States and has threatened to withdraw from arms control treaties. The presidential transition scheduled for next year will be a critical test of Russia’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Despite these concerns, Russia also offers substantial opportunities for the United States, both as an economic partner and as a stabilizing influence over other, more overtly hostile nations, such as Iran. Last year, in a Council on Foreign Relations task force I co-led with former Republican Congressman Jack Kemp, we concluded that the United States ought to initiate a new era of selective cooperation with Russia on particular issues, such as Iran, energy, and nuclear nonproliferation, while preserving our ability to disagree and push for change on other issues, such as our concerns about increasing authoritarianism in Russia and potential Russian-Chinese cooperation. Our most important goal is to draw Russia into the Western political mainstream through continued engagement and, when necessary, diplomatic and economic pressure.

Barack Obama (Dem.)

Although we must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability in Russia, we must work with the country in areas of common interest — above all, in making sure that nuclear weapons and material are secure. We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. All of this can be done while maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent. These steps will ultimately strengthen, not weaken, our security.