The Russian president does not make deals. He makes contracts. Or not, depending on the circumstances. Deals are made by businessmen, entrepreneurs, or, as they used to say in the old days, putting into this word not the kindest feelings, businessmen. The owner of a factory, hotel, or retail store would not have been called a businessman then, they would probably have respectfully said “master.” A businessman is more likely someone who makes money in an unknown way, in general, a scammer.
Unlike the word “businessman,” the word “deal” can sound quite neutral: conclude a deal, terminate a deal, “go to a deal,” as practicing lawyers say. It is often found in the Civil Code in the meaning of a legitimate agreement. It’s a normal word, but it’s also used with a negative connotation. Let’s remember: make a deal with conscience. In terms of meaning, it is not so far from the word “collusion”.
The situation is quite different in English, in which the word deal is completely neutral. The expression it’s a deal just means “agreed.” And when, in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt, fighting for the White House, offered his fellow citizens a New Deal, he had nothing dubious in mind. But this slogan was translated into Russian not as “New deal”, but as “New Deal”, although it would be more accurate to say “New agreement”. English, to a much greater extent than ours, is saturated with the concepts of commerce, as well as the terminology of Anglo-Saxon “common law”, which is very different from the law of continental European countries, and this must be taken into account, including in negotiations. Therefore, the offer of a deal to our country should not be perceived as something inappropriate, even if the taste of this word is not the most pleasant.
The importance of semantics should not be overestimated, but it should not be underestimated either, because it is an important source of information about how people of a different cultural code think. It is clear that there are important differences between the transaction and the contract. A deal belongs to the business world, and an international agreement belongs to the public law sphere. But it’s not just that. When it comes to a deal, it is self-evident who makes it and is responsible for its execution. Everything is more complicated with the treaties between the two states. Concluding the OSV-2 Treaty with Carter in 1979, Brezhnev assumed that the Supreme Soviet of the USSR would ratify it automatically. He and his advisers probably believed that the U.S. Senate, after some discussion, would confirm Carter’s signature and the position of his administration. When this did not happen, Moscow was outraged and asked the question: what is the value of the US president’s signature? It seems that few people in our country knew that in the American version the English word government (“government” from the verb to govern – “to govern”) covers both the executive and legislative branches. Accordingly, the expression branches of government does not mean “branches of government”, but different “branches of government”, whose representatives jointly govern the country. Therefore, the deputies of the US Congress do not understand their powers quite the same way as the deputies of the European parliaments, not to mention the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
It is quite normal that MPs sometimes refuse to ratify an international treaty signed by the President. The parliament may take a different position than the president, who often belongs to a different party than the parliamentary majority. And even among the deputies from his party, the president cannot always count on unanimous support. However, in the United States, with its rigid two-party system, this problem is more acute than in other countries. Even if the president’s party controls one or both houses of Congress when he is elected, it is very likely that the parliamentary majority will change in the midterm elections held in the middle of the four-year presidential term. It’s usually insignificant, but the main thing is to get a majority of at least one or two votes. The US political system strives for a balanced distribution of powers. At the same time, the refusal to ratify a particular treaty is not necessarily caused by considerations of principle. We can also talk about purely inter-party games. Therefore, the risk of non-ratification of an international treaty involving the United States is particularly high.
But that’s not all. According to the US Constitution, the judiciary is also part of the government. At the same time, Americans strongly emphasize that their judges, including those appointed by the president, are independent of the other two branches of government, and say that in a certain sense they are superior to the president, Congress, and the authorities of individual states. Moreover, unlike judges from other countries, American judges consider themselves entitled to consider claims by American citizens and companies against foreign governments and are convinced that their decisions should be enforced by these states, whereas the US government (attention!) It is obliged to enforce their decisions by all legal means. We have a claim to the supremacy of American courts around the world, which Russia has already faced. This is a very convenient situation for both the president and the US Congress. They say, what can we do if our independent court has made such a decision? We may not be happy with this decision, but we are obliged to comply with it (including imposing sanctions against foreign countries), otherwise we will become offenders with all the consequences that follow from this.
But how independent are American courts really of the federal and state authorities? This is a difficult question. Of course, even today, “telephone law” in the United States is an infrequent phenomenon and is strongly condemned by society. Again, albeit to a lesser extent than before, there are many decent people among American judges. But they receive both their salaries and the “social package” from the executive branch, which relies on the decisions of legislators. And as you know, whoever treats a girl, he dances her. But it’s not just that. Like congressmen and ministers of various levels, American judges belong to the top of the national or regional elite. They graduated from the same universities, along with the children of other important people, their children study there, which helps to maintain good connections, they hold shares in the same companies and are members of the same closed elite clubs. And who knows what they’re talking about in the quiet of their offices and on the golf courses? Are all American judges able to resist an unobtrusive request from somewhere above to help their native state to rein in another state, which, moreover, as everyone knows, deserves nothing else? I dare say that this system is more effective than the Soviet “telephone law”.
In short, the refusal of the American side to ratify an international treaty, the desire to frame it with devaluing reservations or, under a far-fetched pretext, godlessly delay its execution (as was the case with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) is not necessarily caused by flaws, treachery or malicious intent of specific people with whom the Russian leadership has to deal. The problem lies in the very political system of the United States, which is focused on ensuring that, if necessary, the authorities in power give up their obligations as comfortably as possible.
We can go even further and point to deep cultural differences that explain why it can be so difficult for us to find common ground with Americans, including in international negotiations. Perhaps most vividly, this is manifested in the fact that in English it is impossible to express the difference between the concepts of “truth” and “truth.” Look in the dictionary and you will see that both of these words are translated into English with one word – truth! This is also the case in other Western European languages that I am familiar with. The difference between “truth” and “truth” can be explained to their speakers, but only on their fingers. In English, along with the German word truth, there is a Latin or French word verity (the same root as “verification” and even “faith”), but judging by dictionaries, it is a synonym for the word truth.
The relationship between these two concepts is one of the main problems of Russian philosophy and culture in general. It is clear to any thinking Russian person without any humanitarian education that “truth” is what it really is, this is the essence of things, whereas “truth” is how each of us understands this truth. It is no coincidence that in Russia they have long said: everyone has their own truth, and in principle we try to understand someone else’s truth.
The American believes that if he sees something this way and not otherwise, this is what we call the truth. He is often simply not interested in a different vision of the problem. Bearing in mind the inherent sense of superiority among Americans in relation to other nations, we can say that this view of the world creates, to put it mildly, considerable problems in communication, including interstate.
Negotiations are a very difficult business. But maybe taking into account the underlying causes of mutual misunderstanding will help them lead more successfully than it has happened in our history. And since the US president is offering Russia a deal, it must be remembered that a deal is not a favor that one side does to the other. It presupposes their equality and mutual benefit, which is implied by law and is ensured by the success of the parties in various spheres of life and not invented by propagandists, but by the real situation in the world.
