Social evolution, revolutionary change, and contemporary globalization dynamics

Social evolution to rapid revolutionary change and contemporary globalization dynamics: Emphasizing the contributions of economic, and political process to societal change

Should the U.S. trade with Russia?

The Cold War ended long ago but trade restrictions still exist between the U.S. And the former communist superpower of Russia. In an effort to liberalize trade, the U.S. has been easing some of these restrictions. Recently, the Senate Finance Committee passed a trade bill that could double U.S. exports to Russia at a time when the U.S. economy is particularly strapped and in need of rectifying the trade imbalance that exists between itself and the rest of the world overall. Declining U.S. exports have been linked to sluggish job growth. U.S. exports to Russia currently hover around $9 billion dollars, a figure which some analysts estimate could double if the trade bill passes ("U.S. okays trade with Russia," The Korea Herald, 2012).

However, although Russia and the U.S. are no longer locked in a political standoff, significant political differences remain between the two nations. Russia's human rights violations, "its threats against U.S. missile defenses in Europe, its failure to protect intellectual property rights, its discrimination against U.S. agricultural products and most recently its support for the Assad government in Syria" have all strained relations ("U.S. okays trade with Russia," The Korea Herald, 2012).

One frequently-cited argument in favor of liberalizing trade is that trade alliances can facilitate cooperation and good will. The more economically dependent Russia remains on the U.S., the more apt it is to respond to U.S. pressures for change. And it is impossible to reap the full benefits of the bill if the U.S. waits for relations to improve on their own. "Enacting permanent trade status is necessary if U.S. businesses are to benefit from the lowering of trade barriers that will take place when Russia enters the World Trade Organization next month" ("U.S. okays trade with Russia," The Korea Herald, 2012). American workers could lose a valuable opportunity if the bill is not passed. Russia would be able to trade with the other members of the WTO with which it has completely normalized relations. Both business and farm interests in the U.S. stand to benefit, and they have been vocal supporters of the bill.

Although Congress has been hotly criticized for dragging its feet on stimulating the economy, there are strong currents of dissent in many quarters regarding the trade bill. "The bill only advanced to a committee" after legislation "that imposes sanctions such as visa denials and asset freezes on Russian government officials involved in human rights violations" was passed in conjunction ("U.S. okays trade with Russia," The Korea Herald, 2012). Another suggested amendment stated that the liberalization would not go into effect until Russia stopped supplying arms to Syria. In a manner unusual for the present Congress, debate is not split purely on partisan grounds -- some Republican supporters of free trade see the trade bill's passage as necessary; other Republicans remain angered about the human rights issues and oppose the bill in its current form.

Russian analysts note that many of the objections that have been raised, regarding Russia's actions, fail to take into consideration the many cultural differences between the U.S. And its former chief adversary. It is essential to look upon the world foreign policy situation with Russian eyes, a Russia that feels threatened by its perceived loss of political capital in the international sphere. "The real reason that Russia is resisting strong international action against the Assad regime is that it fears the spread of Islamic radicalism and the erosion of its superpower status in a world where Western nations are increasingly undertaking unilateral military interventions" notes analyst Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, in a recent editorial to the New York Times (Pukhov 2012).

Although Russia's support for Syria is often attributed to economic reasons, such as the desire to continue to sell arms to the Middle Eastern nation, "since 2005, Russian defense contracts with Syria have amounted to only about $5.5 billion -- mostly to modernize Syria's air force and air defenses" (Pukhov 2012). Commercially, Syria is not significant to the Russian economy in terms of arms sales and Russia does not sell its most powerful weapons to Syria, in an effort to maintain a fragile peace with the U.S. And Israel. Russia has a common fear with most of the world -- fear of political instability in the region. It does not want to lose its last client nation and the removal of the Assad regime would be a profound loss of face. Thus the depth of Russia's relationship with Syria, its defenders state, is exaggerated