Three men in a boat

Discussion and comment about the USA's new foreign policy have taken top spot in the foreign media in the past fortnight, after of course the international crisis. The new US administration is showing itself ready to reinvigorate dialogue with Russia on nuclear disarmament and cooperation on Afghanistan, expressing a desire to take greater account of the opinion of its partners in Europe on world and European security issues and declaring the need for a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear programme through direct dialogue with Tehran. And overall it is acting in tune with the realities of a mono-polar world without claiming absolute infallibility, as the last administration did. 

Recently President Barack Obama called for an 80-per-cent reduction in the nuclear potential of the USA and Russia to the level of 1,000 warheads each. The White House intends to involve Russia in the nuclear weapons reduction process on the basis of legally binding documents - the first should be a treaty to replace START 1. This treaty, signed by the USSR and US presidents, Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush respectively, back in 1991, expires on 5 December. This would be progress as the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) signed in May 2002 envisages a reduction in the nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 warheads in each country. 

There is no doubting the seriousness of the new administration's intent.

As before, Washington's plans to base elements of a missile defence system in eastern Europe stand in the way of concluding a new treaty to replace START 1. Moscow thinks that a reduction in offensive potential should not be accompanied by improvements in defence systems, such as the anti-missile defence system. But Washington has a flexible approach to this. Judging from the initial statements of the representatives of the new US administration, Barack Obama's team doubt the effectiveness of the project which the previous administration drove through. At the January hearings in the Senate defence committee, deputy defence secretaries William Lynn and Michele Flournoy said with one voice that the case for spending $4bn on building a radar system in the Czech Republic and placing an anti-missile system in Poland during a world crisis was not convincing.

Another issue that could bring the two capitals closer together is Afghanistan. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has already set out Washington's new military priorities, saying that the highest priority, which has been Iraq for several years, shifts to Afghanistan. Mr Gates said that the USA's priority in Afghanistan is the fight against the drugs threat and terrorism, which is why the new president intends to put "the stress on Afghanistan" and on tackling problems "on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border". It should also be taken into account that at present the only safe and reliable route for NATO troops to Afghanistan is via Russia.

The significance of the Afghan topic for the USA should not be underestimated. The USA's current interests in the country are not only in the fight against drugs trafficking and terrorism. Many experts are right to think that the presence in Afghanistan allows the White House to tackle several important issues at once: to monitor nuclear Pakistan and India and the energy-producing countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and, most important of all, to neutralize the growing influence of China in a region that is becoming a geopolitical centre and concentration of power over Europe and Asia.

This is why Washington gave so much importance to the recent visit to Moscow of a US State Department delegation, which resolved the question of the transit of American non-military cargo via Russia to Afghanistan. The Russian government has taken a decision to support the international forces in boosting security in Afghanistan through the rail transit of non-military, mainly humanitarian cargo. This is the first step signalling the new American administration's readiness for cooperation. This cargo is to be transported via Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan into Afghanistan.

At the same time, Russia's actions can be interpreted as a test of the reliability of the fresh faced President Obama. It looks as though Moscow is not the only examiner here. In response to his peace-loving statements, Barack Obama has received a whole bouquet of "gifts" from the East: North Korea has again threatened the South with "inevitable" war and begun to prepare new intercontinental missile tests; Iran has given the USA a "space surprise" by launching the Safar-2 rocket; while Russia has stepped up attempts to take control of the air base at Manas airport near Bishkek which the Americans are using at present to send cargo to Afghanistan. If this does happen, the USA will be left with Russian railways as the only option for freight transport to Afghanistan. So Russia could derive substantial economic benefit as well as political dividends.

At the same time, it has to be said that the conciliatory trends in American-Russian relations have been warmly supported by the EU's leading countries, especially Germany, France and Italy, which are clearly ahead of Washington in their attempts to build bridges for effective cooperation with Moscow on a wide range of issues - from trade and investment to energy and European security.

The rapprochement between Washington and Moscow and possible inclusion of the EU in the process will set qualitatively new objectives for Baku. Now more than ever, security, sustainable development and the resolution of other pressing problems facing Azerbaijan will depend on coherent, active foreign policy work in three areas - America, Russia and the European Union. We should propose to these three leading world players a new agenda for cooperation in the security, political, economic and humanitarian spheres which takes account both of our interests and of the priorities and initiatives of the USA, Russia and the European Union.