Russia wants a return to the post-9/11 status quo?

28 September 2008, 0148 EDT

This is truly a fascinating bit of rhetoric from the Russians:

Russia called Saturday for a revival of the global anti-terrorism coalition that formed after Sept. 11, 2001 but started to unravel with what it called the subsequent domination by a single power — a veiled reference to the United States.

“The solidarity of the international community fostered on the wave of struggle against terrorism turned out to be somehow `privatized’,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the U.N. General Assembly’s annual ministerial meeting.

Lavrov cited the U.S. invasion of Iraq “under the false pretext of fight on terror and nuclear arms proliferation” and questions of excessive use of force against civilians in counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan.

And he said the recent crisis over Georgia’s breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia proved again that “it is impossible or even disastrous to try to resolve the existing problems in the blindfolds of the unipolar world.”

I imagine John Ikenberry would have a lot to say about the fact that the Russians are now positioning themselves as the champions of the liberal international order. At one level, statements like Lavrov’s should be read as a rhetorical bid; Moscow hopes to capture the moral high ground after being pummeled in the propaganda war with Georgia.

But the period Lavrov invoked was one in which US-Russian relations were in very good shape, and in which, I am told, the Russians were very willing to cooperate–not only on the “war on terror,” but also on the Partnership for Peace.

Obama, who currently has to be considered the leading candidate for US president, himself calls for the US to embrace a more multilateral foreign policy, to consult more frequent with other countries about relevant policy objectives, and even to seek shared ground with Russia if it can be found, could the Russians be sending their own signals–albeit with requisite digs at US policy–that they’re interested in playing ball?

Aspects of Lavrov’s critique, after all, match Obama’s own assessment of Bush Administration foreign policy; while McCain’s speeches and policy positions seem fully in accord with Neo conservativism 3.0, McCain also has instincts in the direction of traditional Republican establishment foreign policy. It will be interesting to find out if Lavrov’s signals amount to more than cheap talk.

Dan Nexon

Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.

He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.

He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.