Упрощенная HTML-версия
http://interaffairs.ru
Author : Armen Oganesyan
Editor-in-Chief of International Affairs
THE QUESTION may seem odd, since there is too
much known about the new U.S. Ambassador John
Tefft, and then, too, among diplomatic circles he is
remembered for his work as minister counsellor in
Moscow in the late 1990s. However, the political sit-
uation in which John Tefft is now in Moscow will
perhaps force him to show some other qualities of
diplomacy, revealing new facets of his personality. If
that does not happen, then his mission is unlikely to
succeed.
Tefft is a diplomat of wide-ranging activities. Despite his age, he nonetheless belongs to the new
generation of employees of the State Department, to which also belongs his predecessor, Mr.
McFaul. This galaxy of diplomats adheres to the doctrine of "democracy promotion" through
intensive work with the opposition and civil society. At some point in the past, Jack Matlock, a
former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, gave a remarkable appraisal of this most ideologized
generation of diplomats.
Other American critics have called the new style of U.S. diplomacy "Wilsonism in boots." It is
known that President Woodrow Wilson was an advocate of a world "democratic revolution"
and, in our time, the neo-conservatives and a whole array of eminent Democrats have imparted
to the Wilson doctrine a more forceful, coercive character - hence the term.
However, the current situation in Russia leaves no room for "democracy export": the stronger
the pressure on Russia, the higher its use of the sanctions instrument, the higher President Putin's
rating and the greater the discontent of ordinary Russians with Washington's policy.
Although Tefft apparently also takes into account the unsuccessful public diplomacy campaign
of the previous ambassador McFaul, all of these factors combined narrow the corridor for the
realization of his image as the organizer of "colored revolutions."
Another hobbyhorse of Mr. Ambassador: to make wide use of U.S. funds for the implementation
of his goals - is also hardly realizable in Russian conditions. Thus, the impact on political
processes and civil society institutions will inevitably be limited in terms of financial support.
However, the main constraint on Mr. Ambassador's freedom of maneuver is the current state
of Russian-American relations - the worst since the Cold War.
Recently, the American diplomat etched himself in the memory of Russian television viewers as
an active supporter, if not to say a participant of Maidan.
But it is not in the Russian tradition to receive a guest with an unfriendly air. Since the first part
of the task, as formulated by Mr. Tefft, is to promote the interests of the United States and
evokes no doubts, I would like to wish that the second point of his program - informing Wash-
ington about Russia's position - should equal the first in zeal and quality.
Who Are You, Mr. Tefft?