U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton has come to Moscow on March 18 for a two-day visit. She will attend a meeting of the Middle East quartet comprising the United States, Russia, the UN and the EU, and also discuss strategic offensive weapons, the missile defense shield, Iran, Afghanistan, and other problems of bilateral concern.
During their many meetings since the end of 2009, Russian and U.S. officials avoided mentioning the issue of resetting bilateral relations. Nobody now expects President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to fulfill their messianic promises of foreign policy U-turns. Instead, the international community wants them to do something practical.
Obama, his Vice President Joe Biden and State Secretary Clinton are a huge improvement on their predecessors George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. But a change of names is not enough. The world no longer expects a messiah from the Untied States; Clinton and Obama are mere functionaries, and the reset button is only a metaphor that has not materialized.
President Obama has not scored any practical achievements in foreign policy, which is putting it mildly considering Israel's announcement of plans to build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem made during Joe Biden's recent visit. It will strengthen anti-American sentiment in the Middle East manifold, as Washington is only too well aware.
Recent developments in the United States have been quite unusual. U.S. General David Petraeus said on Wednesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was fomenting anti-American sentiment due to the perception of U.S. favoritism towards Israel.
Gen. Petraeus is head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.
In the past, only liberal critics of Israel's policy, but never Pentagon officials, were known to make such statements. But then, these sentiments of U.S. generals may not be followed by practical action.
Frankly speaking, Biden and Clinton have little foreign policy experience, as work in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not count for much. At least they have no experience needed for tackling such challenging problems. But this is not the biggest catch.
The United States has an endemic feature that seriously influences its foreign policy. That feature is Congress and its role in keeping afloat or sinking foreign policy. It grows exponentially at difficult economic and financial times, such as now.
Congress always bargains with the president over crucial bills. This time they concern the healthcare reform and climate change. It is rumored that some Democrats, who make up a majority in both houses, would vote for the radical health reforms if Obama pledged not to criticize Israel too much or take a pro-Palestinian stance.
At the same time, Republicans could agree to ratify a new strategic arms treaty with Russia if Obama increased spending on modernization of the U.S. nuclear and conventional forces.
The treaty is ready for signing but will not mean anything without ratification in Congress.
In short, Obama must either change Congress, or Congress will change him and his foreign policy. One way or another, something must change in the United States.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin)
