Obama Good – Russia Relations 2NC

Obama Good – US-Russia Relations

Obama loss ends the reset – kills Medvedevs rapprochement

And then, in November, the presidential election in the United States will take place. Obama has about a 50-50 chance of losing it, and should this happen, the agenda and the dynamics of the Washington-Moscow dialogue for the foreseeable future will be defined not by Putin, but by the next U.S. president, a Republican. Incidentally, Mitt Romney, currently the leading Republican presidential candidate — and, therefore, the likeliest “new partner” for Putin – remarked recently that the “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations “has to end.” Of course, Obama may still get re-elected, but his ability to conduct the Russia policy he wants will be further limited by the expected loss of the Democratic majority in the Senate, something that the apologists of the “nothing-is-going-to change” approach seem to overlook. It is no secret that Obama invested heavily in his relationship with Medvedev – on the assumption that supporting Medvedev was a way to signal U.S. support for reforms in Russia and, of course, on the assumption that supporting Medvedev will improve his chances to be elected for the second term. Now, having been proven wrong, Obama will feel utterly uncomfortable in his communications with Putin. Making things even worse, Senate Republicans – most likely, in majority – will obstruct his every move vis-à-vis Russia, however benign. In 2008, Henry Kissinger perceptively observed that when Putin was president, “Russian policy … [was] … driven in a quest for a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice.” Regardless of whether Putin “trusts” or “mistrusts” the West, he has all the reasons to believe that his offer of strategic partnership to the United States had been rejected by anti-Russian policies of the Bush administration. What has Putin heard so far from the other side of the Atlantic that persuaded him that the U.S. now considers him a “new partner?” That he is not supposed to change Russia’s U.S. policy? Naturally, any speculations on the direction of Russian foreign policy during Putin’s third and, possibly, fourth presidential term are premature, yet the very notion that nothing will change because Medvedev’s past initiatives were implicitly or explicitly supported by Putin – which is impossible to know for sure – appears dangerously naïve. After all, Putin’s acquiescing to Medvedev’s decisions – or choosing not to veto them – doesn’t prove his endorsement of these decisions, much less a willingness to pursue them. If American presidents regularly throw away foreign policy initiatives of their predecessors, why should Putin not feel free to do the same?

Romney kills START which kills relations

Timothy Westmyer, MA Candidate at Georgetown, 11-22-2011, “Swing and Miss: Mitt Romney and New START,” Democracy Arsenal, http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/11/swing-and-miss-mitt-romney-and-new-start.html

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy message centers on his promise to “never, ever apologize.” That is unfortunate, because he owes the American public an apology for his false predictions on New START. The former Massachusetts governor took to The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page earlier this month to recycle complaints about New START he first aired in a July 2010 op-ed Fred Kaplan called the most “shabby,” “misleading,” and “thoroughly ignorant” editorial he has read in 35 years. Today, we can add one more modifier to that list: proven wrong. New START entered into force on February 5, 2011 and is already a success. Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, called the treaty a “bright spot in the U.S.-Russian relationship.” Russian cooperation with tougher sanctions on Iran and North Korea, overland transportation routes to Afghanistan, and cancelling the sale of advanced air defense systems to Iran are just some of the national security benefits made possible by the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. The U.S. military would beg to differ with Governor Romney’s view that President Obama got “virtually nothing in return” for New START. On-site inspections and data exchanges to verify New START have already begun. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, testified in favor of prompt ratification to restore the ability to monitor the Russian arsenal that was lost with the expiration of START I. A detailed picture of the Russian strategic force has since emerged – including viewing the new Russian RS-24 missile – which lets U.S. defense planners develop plans and budgets with a more accurate threat assessment. New START placed no major limitation on U.S. missile defense plans. Romney wrote that the treaty’s preamble was proof that Russian negotiators shackled U.S. flexibility on missile defense. The preamble merely highlights an obvious link between offensive and defense weapon systems. Even if Romney’s reading was correct, a treaty’s preamble is nonbinding. It has about as much legal obligation as a fortune cookie. The Obama administration is going full steam ahead with the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe. Initial tests in September successfully demonstrated that the infrastructure would be able to defend America’s allies in Europe from ballistic missile threats in the Middle East. Spain recently joined the Netherlands, Romania, Turkey and Poland as hosts for key elements of the system. This momentum should put to rest any concerns about restrained U.S. flexibility. Romney speculated that New START’s Bilateral Consultative Commission would use its “broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific references to missile defense.” Unsurprisingly there were no end-runs on missile defense at the commission’s inaugural meeting this spring. On the contrary, Gottemoeller suggests that the Treaty’s implementation has been a “pragmatic, business-like and positive” experience for all parties. The Russians are wary of future U.S. missile defense plans, but the Obama administration has initiated a dialogue over their concerns. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher visited Moscow earlier this month to reassure Russia that the system is not directed at the Russian nuclear deterrent. The missile defense system, Tauscher said, “would only chase the tail of a Russian ICBM or SLBM.” The new bipartisan consensus that nuclear weapons play a shrinking role in defense puts Governor Romney outside the foreign policy mainstream. In a 2007 op-ed by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn, these statesmen encourage leaders to eliminate Cold War era nuclear arsenals and prioritize efforts to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. In a major foreign policy speech he delivered last month, Romney remarkably overlooked the threat of nuclear terrorism. The next president must not turn the “reset” in U.S-Russian relations into a “relapse.” In a White Paper released last month, Romney doubled down on his mistaken predictions and promised, as president, to “review the implementation of New START” to “determine whether [it serves] the best interests and security of the United States.” Abandoning New START and future reductions would only encourage Russia to build new weapons, decreasing American security.

Directory: file -> fetch
fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!!
fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors
fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900
fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment
fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer
fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver
fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A
fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane
fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time
fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age

Download 1.5 Mb.

Share with your friends: