YELTSIN AND CLINTON: A CASE STUDY IN POLITICAL FRIENDSHIP

The thesis argues that Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, and Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically elected leader of post-Soviet Russia, have engaged in a political friendship. During the two presidencies, there are three main categories of events that highlight the relationship of the two leaders: those related to the economy, e.g., Russia’s economic trouble and its aspiration to join the G-7; to the military, e.g., the war in Kosovo and the enlargement of NATO; and to internal politics, e.g., the internal challenges to Yeltsin and Clinton re-election. I have leveraged recently declassified transcripts from the National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) of conversations between two leaders alongside other first-hand sources. Additionally, the thesis refers to books from close collaborators, news stories from the time, and academic articles related to friendship, politics, and social studies in general. To provide further context, the thesis offers a short overview of how both men grew up and their early political careers. To assess whether Clinton and Yeltsin were engaged in a political friendship in a structured way, I use Yuri van Hoef’s model,1 and its five key-components: (1) affect, (2) grant project, (3) altruistic reciprocity, (4) moral obligation, and (5) equality. After some limitations of the framework are described, I add a different perspective on the model based on behaviour and context. The thesis is a case study of various relevant events, the actions of the two leaders and other important political actors, and of the conversations between Yeltsin and Clinton and their examination through the each of the key-components of the model. To answer the research question, the outcome of each examination is pulled into one holistic argument, which claims that Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton were indeed engaged in a political friendship throughout their political and personal relationship. The analyses show that four of the key-components strongly favour the research question. The last key-component, ‘equality,’ does not support the hypothesis but also does not provide strong evidence against it. Lastly, the thesis provides a short overview of future avenues for research and highlights the limitations of the current work.