On Sunday, the Washington Post published a series of short comments on what Barack Obama’s “first job” as President should be.  Most were from distinguished global leaders.  Some were from … um … others, like a former Seinfeld writer Peter Mehlman.  Not surprisingly, the comments evinced a broad range of priorities, from keeping Americans safe from WMD terror, to addressing the failing economy and global climate crisis, to reclaiming America’s mantle of moral leadership in the world.  I particularly appreciated Zbigniew Brzezinski’s focus on the “conflict-ridden” zone from Egypt to India.  He calls for a comprehensive approach to include 3 major priorities in that region:

1. A readiness to negotiate directly with Iran about its nuclear ambitions and both sides’ regional security concerns, without preconditions and without counterproductive threats of war (though we should keep the option of much more severe sanctions on the table).

2. A revised strategy for Afghanistan that would explore the possibility of local arrangements with various Taliban forces. If local Taliban leaders agree to expel al-Qaeda remnants, consider the possibility of a NATO drawdown in those regions.

3. An explicit U.S. diplomatic initiative defining the parameters of a fair Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly: no “right of return,” a genuinely shared Jerusalem, an Israeli return to the 1967 lines with equitable territorial exchanges, and a demilitarized Palestinian state, perhaps with U.S. peacekeepers.

With no bias whatsoever (they, like Brzezinski, are PSA Advisory Board members), I’d also call attention to Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean’s advice to address the WMD terror threat as priority one:

The highest priority for the Obama presidency must be securing nuclear weapons and materials to prevent them from falling into dangerous hands. The likelihood of nuclear terrorism might be low, but its impact would be devastating. Obama must make it a firm goal to secure all fissile materials before the end of his first term. If terrorists cannot gain access to weapons-grade material, they cannot build a nuclear device. Achieving this goal will require close cooperation and trade-offs with not only Russia but dozens of countries, but we can imagine no threat more dire.

The threat is bigger than terrorism: More nuclear-armed states means more risks to peace and stability. Obama will need to successfully conclude the six-party talks to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and start a direct dialogue with Iran. We can help by making deeper nuclear arms reductions, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and fulfilling the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — steps that would have a powerful, positive effect.

Lastly, to prove I’m not just in the business of reminding readers how great a group is represented by the lefthand column on the front page of the PSA website (I’m shameless, really), here’s my actual favorite bit of advice, which comes from British historian Alistair Horne:

Russia’s August attack on Georgia was nasty, brutish and excessive, but Washington fell into a carefully prepared bear trap for which the West and NATO were totally unprepared. Bad relations with Moscow are not one-way traffic; they go back to the days of President Clinton‘s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, with all her in-built prejudices against Russia. We rubbed the fallen Russians’ noses in the dirt. These are proud people, and it is hardly surprising that a considerable majority of them, of all ages, now support a strongman, Vladimir Putin, in his nationalist defiance of the West. We disregard the Russians’ current mood at our peril. To advance NATO into Russia’s backyard in Ukraine and Georgia was a provocative folly — and, given NATO’s current weakness, a meaningless gesture. More foolish still was the ringing of Russia with antiballistic missile sites. The United States could begin by scrapping those costly and possibly ineffectual missile sites in exchange for meaningful concessions and a restoration of Russian goodwill. As in World War II, Russia should be our ally, not a potential foe.

I think the US-Russia relationship is the common thread to all of these expert recommendations for Obama’s top foreign policy priorities.  There is no doubt that Russia is the key partner for WMD non-proliferation.  Without long-term Russian buy-in the US has no hope of secureing the most dangerous weapons, materials and experts from being bought, corrupted or stolen by terrorists.  But also it’s hard to imagine making significant progress in Iraq or Afghanistan without UN Security Council backing, and there Russia can be a major spoiler or a crucial ally.  Lastly, Russia is a member of the Middle East “quartet” with the US, the UN and the EU, and will be important to a negotiated settlement, especially if it involves Syria, once a Soviet (and more recently a Russian) client state.

Horne is absolutely right that the ball is in our court, despite Russia’s aggressive and ill-advised moves against Georgia and against western security and economic interests in the region.   The only way to reverse the ill effects of our policy abuse and neglect from the 1990s is to give Russia now what we never gave it then–a little respect, and the benefit of the doubt going forward.  If Obama offers Medvedev and Putin a meaningful olive branch, and we’re disappointed again, then it will be time for tougher rhetoric, but not before.  This is an area where I hope PSA can help generate a high-level consensus for smarter policies in the coming year.

Related posts:

1. Russia-NATO Missile Defense Cooperation
2. Russia: A Nuclear Security Leader?
3. Nuclear Security Summit Offers Unprecedented Opportunity
4. What to make out of Russia’s new doctrine
5. Obsession with Nuclear Deterrent Doesn’t Add Up