#5
Battle for Russia's embattled NTV broadcaster heats up
MOSCOW, April 5 (AFP) -
The battle for Russia's only independent national television station, NTV,
heated up Thursday with the intervention of US media mogul Ted Turner as a
"white knight."
NTV is trying to fight off the takeover by state-controlled Gazprom which
liberals say threatens the future of free speech in Russia.
And the network warned Thursday that Gazprom may start releasing its own
version of "false NTV" news over the network's airwaves from one of the
television studies in Moscow's Ostankino centre.
Turner announced late Wednesday that he had reached agreement with NTV owner
Vladimir Guzinsky to acquire his stake in the television station, providing a
much needed cash injection for the heavily indebted network.
Turner did not mention the value of the transaction by Turner Ventures
International, an investment group that he heads, but the Washington Post put
it at 225 million dollars.
But Turner said the deal also needed the accord of Gazprom, which owns 46
percent of NTV and which installed a new board on Tuesday with the support of
a minority US shareholder who holds 4.5 percent of the station.
"We look forward with enthusiasm to finalizing an agreement with Gazprom and
Gazprom-Media that will ensure the ongoing independence of NTV," Turner said
in a statement.
"In earlier negotiations with Gazprom, we both agreed that no one party
should have control of NTV and we are pursuing that course," he said.
Representatives of both sides were scheduled to have talks Friday.
Turner will be acquiring Gusinsky's 49.5 percent stake in NTV, although 19
percent of this has been frozen by Russian courts because of a disputed
shares-for-debt deal between Gazprom and the heavily-endebted NTV holding
company Media-MOST.
Gusinsky is currently in Spain awaiting a court decision on a Russian
extradition request to face fraud charges.
Meanwhile in a sign of growing protest, a member of Gazprom-Media's board of
directors said he was resigning in disgust at Gazprom's strong-arm tactics
used to enforce the takeover.
He referred to pressure put on a court in Saratov, in Russia's Volga region,
to annul its ruling declaring Tuesday's shareholders' meeting unlawful.
"Gazprom-Media's PR campaign has collapsed," Anatoly Blinov, a lawyer, told
Izvestia newspaper, adding that the forcible takeover "could spark massive
acts of protest, not against what is done but how it is done."
In Moscow, some 400 NTV journalists and other staff kept up their
round-the-clock vigil at the Ostankino broadcasting centre in the north of
the Russian capital.
The NTV reporters refuse to accept Gazprom's sacking of their general
director, respected journalist Yevgeny Kiselyov, and say they will not obey
the new management. Gazprom appointed US financier Boris Jordan as new
station director.
They and liberal supporters, including former Soviet president Mikhail
Gorbachev, have branded the takeover as a bid to stifle freedom of expression
by silencing one of the Kremlin's most vocal critics.
Jordan said in an interview Thursday that he counted on reaching an amicable
agreement with the NTV staff.
"NTV staff are talking to us. The negotiations are tough but they are taking
place. And within time we can reach an accommodation with the journalists of
this television station," he told Izvestia.
For the second day running, NTV cancelled all programs other than hourly news
broadcasts, with viewers only granted a temporary relief the night before for
a European Championship soccer quarter-final match.
The station posted across the screen e-mail messages of support from some of
its 100 million viewers, scattered across the republics of the former Soviet
Union.
Back to the Top
#6
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
April 5, 2001
THE DEFENSE OF NTV
Several thoughts on the slogan "Hands off NTV!"
Author: Vitaly Tretiakov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, http://www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE CONFLICT OVER THE MEDIA-MOST HOLDING AND ITS MAJOR COMPONENT, THE NTV NETWORK, SEEMS TO BE APPROACHING ITS FINAL STAGE. NTV - ONCE A PRIVATE TV COMPANY LIKE MANY OTHERS IN RUSSIA - HAS ALL BUT BECOME AN OPPOSITION PARTY. IF IT IS DESTROYED, THIS WOULD BE A BLOW TO FREE SPEECH AND OPPOSITION IN RUSSIA.
Wishing NTV's journalists and executives lots of luck with their problems
Another scandal was sparked. I have written about the conflicts
over NTV before; I'm not going to repeat myself. Only two points
should be emphasized. Firstly, the Kremlin is playing against NTV for
political reasons (even though all financial complaints against the TV
network are well-founded). At the same time, it is not out to do away
with free speech in Russia. In fighting NTV, the Kremlin fights it as
a kind of opposition party - and Vladimir Gusinsky as its founder and
owner. Secondly - and unfortunately - NTV owners, executives, and some
journalists have done their best to alienate other journalists, who
mostly sympathized with NTV. Their constantly repeated and persistent
assurances - not entirely correct, to put it mildly - that NTV is the
most decent, the most professional, the most incorruptible, and the
boldest company in Russia, and the only free and independent media
company, and that anyone who doesn't share its opinions, or even
criticizes NTV, is an incompetent on the Kremlin's payroll - all these
assurances have finally had their effect.
All the same, it is impossible not to respond to the latest
developments, even though I believe we all have a moral duty not to
interfere.
And yet, it is impossible not to respond.
In my view, NTV is not something that must be destroyed. NTV is
not a problem for the state or the authorities.
Over the last two years, and particularly over the last two
months, NTV - once a private TV company like many others in Russia -
has all but become an opposition party, with an anti-government bias
typical of any opposition worth its salt. It is no coincidence, after
all, that proto-party Yabloko revives as a political force only when
it can rely on NTV airtime.
Because of that, the destruction of the NTV network in its
present form will damage freedom of speech in Russia, in two ways.
Firstly, the field of political competition among national networks
will be considerably reduced. Secondly, the NTV/Yabloko political
opposition party will be deprived of millions of viewers, and
therefore of influence.
The destruction of NTV in its present form will essentially mean
destruction of opposition in Russia (all opposition apart from the
Communists, who have a strong classic party to rely on). And it's not
good for the state to have the internal opposition destroyed. It means
that we should resist even those who may disagree with the views and
opinions of the opposition, but advocate democracy.
Only from this angle, therefore, all professional politicians can
support the slogan "Hands off NTV!" But all "honest and decent" people
have the right not to support the slogan. This is a matter of
political taste and preference.
What should NTV staff and journalists do?
(The following are not recommendations, just some thinking aloud,
for the benefit of readers.)
An individual may be decent and honest, but can't demand that
everyone behave identically.
Firstly, teamwork is great; but it doesn't mean people can't have
their own opinions.
Secondly, NTV owners and executives who are employees at the same
time are not exactly in an equal position with all the rest. Their
conditions are entirely different - some of them could easily resign
now and have enough money for the rest of their lives, while others
will struggle to make ends meet a month from now. Moreover, NTV likes
to say that all its journalists are TV stars. NTV is so fond of saying
this that it might even have convinced itself. But fame will help only
the truly famous. Many others will be left all alone with their
problems.
In general, there are four ways out of this situation.
First: Unanimous resignation. This would immediately create a
colossal problem for the government, and for the new NTV management.
In this case, NTV will be finished; but it will go down with all
guns blazing. It will become a legend, which is better in any case
than dull reality.
Second: Everyone stays on and continues working, showing that
enemies of free speech have come to the TV network. This is also a
worthy solution, one that implies real professionalism.
Third: Everyone stays on and feeds the conflict for propaganda
purposes. This is what a political opposition does, and this is what
NTV has started to do.
Fourth: Everyone comes to terms with the new management, but an
agreement is reached on principles of professional activities.
Moreover, these principles are made public. This would benefit all
media outlets; but it would be a professional solution, not political.
Although politics and journalism may overlap every now and then, they
are not absolutely identical.
On a personal level, I wish all NTV journalists victory and a
worthy solution to their dilemma.
Hands off NTV! I mean it, I really do. And as I see it, this
slogan applies to the new and old management teams alike.
Back to the Top
#7
Christian Science Monitor
April 6, 2001
Editorial
Chemical Arms Crossroads
Four years ago the world took a needed step toward greater peace and sanity.
Eighty-eight nations signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which called for
the destruction of all chemical weapons by 2012. Since then, the countries
joining the pact have swelled to 174.
The agency formed to monitor compliance with the agreement, the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, has conducted more than 850
inspections at 408 production and storage sites. Thousands of tons of the
weapons have been destroyed, including 7,000 tons of American chemical
ordnance. But that's only a quarter of the US total. It's a big and expensive
job.
And the biggest part of it resides in a country where bureaucratic sludge is
still plentiful but government money is in short supply - Russia.
Russia's arms depots hold 40,000 tons of chemical agents, shells, and
warheads. Under the convention, Russia was supposed to have eliminated 1
percent of its supply by last April. It missed the deadline.
The Putin government vows to move ahead this year, and has earmarked $105
million for the task. The full bill for destroying Russia's chemical weapons
is estimated to top $5 billion. Clearly, Moscow will need international help,
which has been slow in coming. The US had been ready to contribute $888
million, but Congress last fall froze those funds because, reportedly, many
members doubted that the expense fulfilled US national-security interests.
How can there be any doubt that the destruction of Russia's chemical arsenal
- thus ensuring some of it won't filter into the hands of terrorists - is in
the interest of the United States, to say nothing of the rest of the world?
The agency set up by the convention would check whether money given Russia
was effectively used. But that agency, disturbingly, has warned that its own
funding is falling short.
The Bush administration, which is reported to be reviewing its arms-control
options, and Congress should do more to make sure that the means are
available for this giant task.
Back to the Top
#8
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
April 5, 2001
PUTIN EMPHASIZES EUROPEAN OVER U.S. TIES. The state-of-the-nation speech President Vladimir Putin delivered on April 3 was noticeably short on foreign policy matters, but appears nevertheless to have fueled further
speculation that an important shift may be taking place in the Kremlin's
posture toward the outside world. Indeed, perhaps the most noteworthy
aspect of Putin's remarks in this regard was not what he said, but what he
did not. As numerous Russian and foreign commentators noted, the Russian
president did not mention the United States, or relations between
Washington and Moscow. The omission was undoubtedly intentional, suggesting
that the Kremlin is prepared to assume at least a posture that downgrades
ties with Washington as a response to the Bush administration's pointed
policy of deprioritizing relations with Russia. Putin underlined the point
further, moreover, by including a specific reference to Moscow's hopes of
drawing closer to Europe. His remarks suggest that Russian foreign policy
under Putin will continue a pattern of differentiating between the United
States and its NATO partners, thus permitting Moscow to continue pursuing
friendly relations with the "West" while simultaneously remaining
noncommittal with regard to Russian-U.S. ties.
None of this, of course, was explicit in Putin's remarks. But in the very
brief section of his speech devoted to foreign affairs, the Russian
president did speak of the importance Moscow is attaching to the future
strengthening and "normalizing of partnership relations with the European
Union." And he described a "course of integration with Europe" as "one of
the main directions" of Russian foreign policy. Putin's emphasis on ties
with Europe was all the more interesting because it represented the lone
reference in Putin's speech (Belarus being the only exception) to relations
with a specific foreign partner. That is, the speech not only included no
mention of the United States, but also made reference neither to Russia's
relations with China and India--Moscow's main Asian partners and a
cornerstone of its foreign policy--nor to the "Asian direction" in Russian
foreign policy overall. These omissions were also of interest, both because
the Kremlin has in recent years generally stressed the degree to which its
foreign policy is "balanced" between East and West, and because this week's
address comes in the run up to a Russian-Chinese summit meeting at which
Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin are expected to sign a lengthy
friendship treaty. Most analysts see closer relations between Moscow and
Beijing as a calculated response to their mutual troubled ties with
Washington.
A pronounced "Western" orientation in Putin's remarks was also evidenced by
the relatively large amount of attention he devoted to relations between
Russia and NATO. He did appear to suggest that Moscow is prepared to
continue mending fences with the Western alliance, but only on the
condition that NATO observe what Moscow claims are the conditions set out
in the 1997 agreement that established formal relations between the two
sides. Indeed, the Russian president used his brief foreign policy remarks
to restate earlier Russian charges--related to the alliance's air war
against Yugoslavia--that NATO had violated international norms by using
force without the authorization of the United Nations. "Our position,"
Putin said, "is clear: The only organization empowered to sanction the use
of force in international affairs is the UN Security Council." Putin's
remarks in this regard were certainly nothing new, but it is interesting
that this was one of the themes he chose to highlight in an address which
devoted such scant attention to foreign affairs.
In more general terms, Putin also pointed in his State-of-the-Nation
address to the new importance that economic considerations are being
accorded in the formulation of Russian foreign policy. That is a theme
Putin first highlighted during a well-publicized speech to Russian Foreign
Ministry personnel on January 26. On that occasion, he called for Russia's
diplomats to place greater emphasis on the promotion of Russia's economic
interests abroad, and said it was necessary to create operating conditions
for Russian firms overseas which are at least no worse than those which
foreign firms face in Russia (see the Monitor, January 28). Putin's remarks
this week followed similar lines. He said that Russian diplomacy should
"serve the interests of the Russian economy: to counter discrimination
against domestic producers; to guarantee the maintenance and optimal use of
Russian properties overseas (a comment presumably aimed primarily at the
CIS countries), and to accelerate work on Russia's entry into the WTO
(World Trade Organization) under acceptable conditions (Russian agencies,
Strana.ru, April 3; The Guardian, Izvestia, April 4).
While there is little doubt that Moscow is making a genuine push for a
major upgrade in its relations with the European Union, it seems unlikely
that the Kremlin's intent to downgrade ties with the United States is as
serious as might be suggested by Putin's April 3 speech. Indeed, Moscow has
made clear repeatedly since the Bush administration came to power that it
is anxious to establish contacts with the new administration and that it
hopes to resume negotiations on arms control and other important issues.
And despite the rebuff that the Kremlin has thus far received from
Washington, there is little reason to believe that Moscow will deviate too
far from this path. This is because, on the one hand, it is obviously in
Moscow's interests to have cooperative relations with the United States.
But it is also because the Kremlin appears determined to appear before
Europe as a "reasonable" and pragmatic partner, and to put on the Bush
administration the onus for deteriorating Russian-U.S. ties. It seems
likely that Moscow hopes in that way to exploit concerns within the EU over
the more confrontational policies that the current U.S. administration has
adopted on a number of fronts, and to turn these concerns to Moscow's
advantage.
Back to the Top
#9
DUMA FIGURES COMMENT ON ABSENCE OF EVALUATION OF RUSSIAN-U.S. RELATIONS
IN PUTIN'S MESSAGE
MOSCOW. April 4 (Interfax) - Duma members have offered different
explanations for the absence of an assessment of the state of Russian-
American relations in President Vladimir Putin's message to the Federal
Assembly.
"Silence is a statement in itself," Vladimir Lukin, deputy speaker
representing the Yabloko party, told Interfax on Wednesday.
He said that the foreign policy priorities named in the message are
related primarily to CIS and European countries. "Though I am an expert
in U.S. studies, I recognize that relations [with the CIS and Europe]
have priority over ties with the United States," he said. On the other
hand, in order for Russia's relations with the CIS and European
countries to develop "more or less normally, a decent constructive
relationship with the United States is necessary," he said.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the vice speaker representing the Liberal
Democratic Party, in a Wednesday interview with Interfax accounted for
the absence of a description of Russian-U.S. relations primarily to the
fact that the U.S. stance still remains unclear for Russia.
America has not yet decided whether it is going to embark on the
road of the cold war "and this will be one situation or it will try to
build a normal relationship with us and this will be another situation,"
Zhirinovsky said.
I his opinion, the American attitude will become clear by the
summer, he said.
Speaker of the State Duma Gennady Seleznyov believes that
President Vladimir Putin in his address to the Federal Assembly quite
consciously omitted the topic of Russian-US relations.
"We don't understand the policy of President Bush towards Russia
yet, as his administration has behaved very inconsistently," Seleznyov
said in an interview with Interfax.
At the same time, Seleznyov said he is confident that "the U.S. is
interested in a normal development of cooperation, just like we are."
Andrei Kokoshin, a prominent representative of the Fatherland All
Russia faction, said in an interview with Interfax that he approves of
the fact that Putin said nothing about Russian-U.S. relations in his
address to the Federal Assembly.
Kokoshin noted that the main priorities of Russia's foreign policy
are now relations with the CIS countries and the European Union.
At the same time, he stressed that Russian-U.S. relations at the
moment "leave much to be desired and it will take time to seriously sort
them out."
Kokoshin noted that the Russian Foreign Ministry expresses "certain
cautious optimism" about Russian-U.S. relations. However, the new U.S.
administration "has recently taken a number of actions and made a number
of statements that were unpleasant for our country," he said.
Nikolai Ryzhkov, an independent Duma deputy and former prime
minister of Russia, believes that Putin consciously omitted this topic
in his message. "I think he did not want to court Americans and bow to
them, but going at them will involve too much trouble," the deputy said.
He noted that Russia still "greatly depends on the West not only
economically, but also politically, particularly on the U.S., which
today actually rules the world," he noted in an interview with Interfax.
Alexei Mitrofanov, a prominent representative of the Liberal
Democratic Party, believes that the president was absolutely right not
to mention Russian-U.S. relations in his address to the Federal
Assembly.
Mitrofanov noted in an interview with Interfax that "since the
times of Gromyko [a former Soviet minister of foreign affairs] it is
believed that three-fourths of our foreign policy is concerned with U.S.
relations. It is totally wrong and it should not be this way today. The
less attention we give to Russian-U.S. relations and the more attention
we give to relations with our countries, the better it will be for us,"
Mitrofanov said.
He believes that if the Russian administration keeps emphasizing
Russian-U.S. relations, then by doing so it will "exalt the U.S. and
indirectly stress that it really is the number one country in the
world."
Back to the Top
#10
Eskpert
No. 13
April 2001
CONTINENTAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Russia emphasizes the European direction in its foreign policy
Author: Yevgeny Verlin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
EUROPE UNDERSTANDS RUSSIA'S PROBLEMS AND THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSITION. THE UNITED STATES, AS A NATION, CANNOT HAVE THIS AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING. HENCE THE ATTEMPTS TO CUT THE KNOT WITH A SINGLE STROKE; HENCE THE DRAMATIC SHIFTS FROM ROMANTIC EXPECTATIONS TO MILITARY SOLUTIONS AND BACK AGAIN.
Moscow has a chance to show some dignity. To be more exact, more
dignity than Washington with its new administration has been
displaying. What with all the scandalous rhetoric from the White
House, Pentagon, and other American institutions, Russia can
diplomatically retreat and determine its own position in this
inexorably-changing world, a position appropriate to its capacities
and interests.
It certainly seems that this is what the Russian president is
doing. His "asymmetric" verbal response was revealed in the episodes
with the spy scandal, the US decision to expel Russian diplomats, the
detention of Pavel Borodin, and so on. "Everything will be all right,"
is the underlying motive of Vladimir Putin's infrequent and crisp
statements on relations with the United States.
Moscow's clear reluctance to over-dramatize certain situations
(including the meeting of Maskhadov's emissary with officials of the
State Department) raises hopes that there will not be another Cold
War.
If the US is really out to drive Russia into a corner, Russia has
some room for maneuver. Actually, this "room" is a rather large
continent called Europe.
George W. Bush started off by strengthening his own "CIS". His
first summit and first trip abroad were to Canada and Mexico, US
partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Putin has been doing approximately the same thing. He emphasizes
improving contacts with neighbors on the post-Soviet territory,
Europe, and Asian partners (Korea, China, Vietnam, Iran, and Japan).
In every given episode Russia's motives are different. On the
whole, however, its actions are based on the dominance of specific
(but sometimes all too pragmatic) economic interests and
considerations of national security all along its state borders.
The US says it has invested about $50 billion in Russian reforms
and democracy throughout the 1990s, with nothing to show for it.
Moreover, it does not even know exactly how the money was spent. These
accusations are not entirely unfounced. On the other hand, who could
really expect to change Russia in such a short time, after 70 years of
communist rule? West Germany invested much more money over the same
period in East Germany, a country much smaller and initially more
advanced than Russia, and no one knows how much more money will have
to be poured into it.
Unlike the United States, Europe understands Russia better - or
at least honestly tries. Apart from our common "European" past, some
other factors play a role here as well. They include a better
awareness of the problem of separatism and its dangers, a better
understanding of the problems of transition and the difficulties of
overcoming the legacy of totalitarianism, etc.
The United States, as a nation, cannot have this awareness and
understanding. Hence the attempts to cut the knot with a single
stroke; hence the dramatic shifts from romantic expectations to
military solutions and back again. As an individual and as a
politician, Bush is the product of the American provinces, a kind of
"red belt" in the United States. He will have to master the art of
shaping his policy (with regard to Russia in this case) on the basis
of correct evaluation of the situation - not reflexes and emotions.
In any case, Moscow cannot become a strategic partner of the
United States in the near future. US interest in Russia is ascribed
solely to our capacity to pose a threat, direct or indirect, to the
US.
Given this situation, Russia is shifting toward Europe in its
foreign policy. Putin's meeting with European Union leaders in
Stockholm confirms it.
The new EU-Russia agenda includes implementing the Cooperation
and Partnership Agreement, dialogue in the energy sector, dialogue on
defense and security issues, support for Russia in its aim to join the
World Trade Organization, the TACIS program, assistance in the Kursk
salvage operation, handling spent nuclear fuel, and many other
projects and programs. All this shows that Russia and the European
Union have actually found the areas where their interests coincide,
and are therefore prepared to move toward strategic partnership
relations.
All this is taking place against the background of the US
reducing even the minimal amount of assistance to Russia, which
Washington itself considered of paramount importance for its own
national security only recently (assistance in providing safe storage
for nuclear waste, and employment for specialists in the nuclear
energy sector, to prevent them from seeking jobs in North Korea,
Libya, etc).
Europe needs Russian reforms and modernization more than the US
has ever needed them, because Russia is closer to Europe. At the same
time, Russia is more important for Europe. Europe needs Russian
natural resources and energy. The problems of Russia and other post-
Soviet states pose a more serious threat to Europe than to the United
States, because Europe cannot isolate itself from Russia by iron
curtains or missile defense systems.
It is only natural that our reaction of "isolation" from the
United States should be based on our own self-sufficiency. This does
not mean creating a multi-polar world in the form we believed possible
in the mid-1990s. We cannot form our own center in the foreseeable
future. Perhaps we are better off without it. At the same time, going
out of our way to assist the appearance of centers antagonistic to the
US would be counter-productive. The West disapproves; which creates
serious obstacles for us in obtaining investment, technologies, and so
on.
These days, there is only a "capitalist commonwealth" around the
world, in the form of military-political and economic alliances and
unions. Whether critics like it or not, it is stable because it is
based on fundamental values and on effective economic principles. All
attempts to form alternative geopolitical alliances are mostly based
on mutual recognition of the rules of international communication with
a special emphasis on resistance to "international dictatorship" (that
means "American" of course). From this point of view, all these
alliances are strictly temporary.
For example, although the importance of our contacts with China
understood and recognized, cooperation with China won't earn us even a
tenth of what we may gain from cooperation with the West. Neither
Russia nor China are investors on the global market, and our economic
contacts are mostly restricted to bartering our raw materials for
their cheap commodities. Arms sales to China are a vital component of
our strategic partnership, but the long-term advantages and
disadvantages remain unclear as yet.
Beijing's current geopolitical stratagem may be described as
follows: "Rely on the North [strategic alliance with Russia - Aut.],
neutralize the West [remove sources of animosity and tension in India
and Central Asia], and expand into the East and the South [which can
mean both economic and military expansion]." For Russia, it may be
phrased as follows - rely on the West [build up relations with Europe,
the main source of investment], neutralize the East [remove the
existing and potential threats from Asian neighbors], and expand into
the South [restore positions on post-Soviet territory].
If Russia is aware of its true national interests, this will help
it formulate a basis of relations with the United States - no longer a
relationship between equals, but one which must be made mutually
beneficial.
The present situation - in which Moscow and Washington are no
longer friends, but not yet opponents - is not irreversible.
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)
Back to the Top
#11
Russia: U.S. Considers Defense Policy Reorientation
By Frank T. Csongos
The U.S. Defense Department is undertaking a comprehensive military review
aimed at meeting post-Cold War challenges around the globe. One proposal
reportedly under consideration would reorient the focus of U.S. military
involvement from Europe to the Pacific. The new strategy is still being
formulated and to be presented to President George W. Bush. Our Washington
correspondent Frank T. Csongos reports.
Washington, 5 April 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The administration of President George
W. Bush says it is assessing American military doctrine and the weapons
systems needed to protect U.S. interests around the globe.
U.S. officials say the review is under way at the Defense Department. One key
proposal said to be under consideration is reorienting the focus of U.S.
military involvement from Europe to the Pacific.
Advocates of this policy say that with the collapse of the Soviet Union a
decade ago, Europe no longer faces a Cold War-type military threat. They say
China -- with the world's largest population and a potentially huge economic
market -- represents the greatest opportunity and challenge to America for
the next 50 years.
Officials are reluctant to discuss publicly the specifics of the military
review. But at a briefing this week the Defense Department's chief spokesman
Admiral Craig Quigley provided the following perspective:
"The Pacific is very important. I mean, If you just look at the Pacific
Command's area of responsibility, it is our largest unified command in the
U.S. Department of Defense. You've got dozens of countries in that part of
the world. We have very strong economic ties to that part of the world. Some
of our strongest friends and allies in the world are in the Pacific region.
So it's a very important part of the world to us."
Officials say Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's closely guarded study of
military policy will guide the administration as it seeks to fulfill Bush's
campaign pledge to improve the quality of the U.S. armed forces.
Andrew Marshall, the veteran Defense Department official running the
strategic review, reportedly made the following key points to Rumsfeld:
The Pacific Ocean is the most likely theater of major U.S. military
operations. China is becoming more powerful and Russia less so. This would
require a reorientation of a half-century-old defense policy that focused on
keeping the peace in Europe and deterring the Soviet Union.
Operating more effectively in the Pacific will require an additional emphasis
on long-range power projection. That means greater attention to airlift
capacity of troops and firepower.
Huge aircraft carriers are expensive and vulnerable. One alternative would be
to start designing a new, smaller carrier that is less vulnerable to missiles.
President Bush told a joint session of the U.S. Congress in February that
America must disregard as no longer relevant Cold War military doctrines.
Bush repeated his call for developing a missile defense system aimed at rogue
nations such as Iraq and North Korea and possibly Iran. Both Russia and China
oppose the idea.
Edward McCord is a professor of history and international affairs at George
Washington University in Washington. He told RFE/RL that the Bush
administration believes the threat to America comes from Asia, and is acting
accordingly. "They want to have some kind of focus, and if it's an enemy,
that actually is more beneficial also for policy reasons, I think -- to have
somebody that you can point to as a threat in some ways. And China is seen as
a threat, you know, both strategically and economically."
McCord says he does not believe that such a policy is realistic. First, he
argues, the U.S. does not face the same kind of military threat that it did
during the Cold War. And on the economic front, he says, Japan is more of
threat than China. "I don't think China's either our strategic partner or our
strategic competitor. I don't think those are actually useful terms."
McCord says that it would be a mistake if the Bush administration decides to
focus so negatively on China. He says this would confirm the worst fears of
the Chinese that the U.S. is trying to keep their country from achieving its
economic and strategic potential. He said the Chinese would view the American
attitude this way: "We realize that China is a danger to us, a threat to us
because they're getting powerful. We don't want anybody else powerful in the
world, except ourselves, and that we'll do anything we can to keep them back."
"The Wall Street Journal," an influential American newspaper specializing in
business affairs, reported 3 April that Bush now finds himself in the awkward
position of how best to deal with China.
The newspaper said that on one side stand strong national security advocates.
In the other are advocates of improved business relations with China.
The first group, says the newspaper, views China as an expansionist power
with a growing military and a resolve to eclipse American influence.
To the Beijing-friendly business lobby, it says, China is a lucrative market
and manufacturing site, and just as important, a country where economic
progress is making old security worries obsolete.
The tension between the United States and China over an American
reconnaissance plane stranded on a Chinese runway, and the fate of its
24-member crew, has underscored the fragility of Sino-American relations. It
is yet to be seen which camp, if any, the Bush administration will embrace.
(Washington correspondent Andrew F. Tully contributed to this report)
Back to the Top
#12
Financial Times (UK)
5 April 2001
[for personal use only]
Kosovo, the west's Chechnya.
By YURI LUZHKOV
The writer is mayor of Moscow
Two years have passed since Nato launched its military operation against
Yugoslavia. Under the guise of protecting Kosovar Albanians, Nato inflicted
an exemplary punishment of bombings and blockades. Rarely were dissenting
voices allowed to intrude on western public opinion.
At that time, I called Kosovo another Chechnya. I see now that if I erred it
was in being over-optimistic. In 1999 there were already signs of Kosovo's
"Chechenisation". There was mass hostage-taking along ethnic lines and there
was religious intolerance - the Kosovo Liberation Army was even forcing
Catholic Albanians to leave. Serbian monasteries were destroyed and priests
were kidnapped.
Almost all the Serbian population has now been expelled from the region of
Kosovo. Almost all the historical monuments have been ruined. We profess
shock at the destruction of Buddhas in Afghanistan but we have allowed
history to be destroyed in the very centre of Europe.
Why is this cultural destruction occurring? Because it does not suit the
Kosovars to have evidence exposing them as relatively recent arrivals in this
land. In much the same way, Chechen rebels regularly destroy evidence that
the plains of Chechnya were settled by the Cossacks of the north Caucasus.
Macedonia is now becoming the victim of the very Albanians whom, until
recently, it had supported under pressure from Nato. Out of Nato's bombs a
cancer has grown and it continues to spread. Some people in Nato must have
thought the Albanians could be easily pacified. Their attitude must have
been: they already have a state, Albania - let them annex to it all the
territories where Albanians have settled. They must also have thought: they
have military forces - let them have the terrorists of the KLA as well. That
will culminate in a Greater Albania. True, it will be big and bloody - but it
will still meet the legal norms making it admissible to the United Nations.
That attitude is wrong - it will not be the end. Many rebellious Albanians
will never settle for a peaceful life. Their country is the poorest in
Europe. Driven by political or economic forces, they will spread across the
continent, forming a network of desperate sellers of arms and drugs. As a
result, Europe will encounter its own clash of civilisations: a majority
operating by 21st-century legal and ethical standards will confront a
minority with far more ancient standards and yet with modern arms at their
disposal.
To avoid a new battle of Poitiers, or of Vienna, Europe should analyse the
situation in Pristina. In doing so, it may find Russia's sad experience in
Chechnya to be of considerable help. The war in Chechnya began when some
former Russian leaders thought a tank regiment could solve a local failure in
their nation-building. With Kosovo, Nato thought a bombing campaign could rid
them of one Serbian leader. An insignificant aim was pursued with enough
force to shatter the calm of an entire region and leave thousands of dead and
injured.
The Kosovars have taken the Chechen experience into account - and reproduced
it diligently. In Chechnya, the mono-ethnic path was clear by the end of the
Soviet period. A significant portion of the non-Chechen population was forced
out before the revolution led by Djohar Dudaev. This greatly assisted the
second, outright separatist stage.
The same has happened in Kosovo: Serbs were already being squeezed out during
the peaceful times under Tito. But Kosovo has never belonged to the
Albanians. Indeed, Tito invited many of them as part of his plan to create a
Balkan federation.
It seems that now nobody is ready to resist the Kosovar brigands. At least
when Yevgeny Primakov was prime minister of Russia, he turned his aircraft
around in mid-flight, abandoning a trip to the US, to protest against the
bombardment. But soon after that, Russia was not even prepared to insist on
its own sector of control in Kosovo, which would have saved some of the Serb
population from exile.
With Serbia humiliated and Russia "contained", Nato alone must now answer for
the Kosovo settlement. Perhaps that is why it has suddenly remembered the
existence of the Yugoslav national army, which it was accusing of all
possible sins just two years ago.
The Yugoslavs can bring real force to bear. Their motherland is at stake and
they alone must save it. There can be no hope of relying on a transatlantic
uncle.
Russia has lived through this situation. Israel has also lived through it.
Now it is the turn of Yugoslavia. The rest of Europe must understand. As in
medieval times, the question is not one of comfort but of survival.
Back to the Top
#13
Washington Post
April 5, 2001
[for personal use only]
Insulting Russia
By Richard Cohen
Here we go again. The Chinese, like the Japanese before them, are feeling in
dire need of an apology from Washington. The Japanese wanted one for the
appalling sinking of their fishing trawler by an American submarine, and now
the Chinese want one for their failed bump-and-run on a U.S. spy plane. One
apology was demanded for our negligence while another is being demanded for
their negligence. The Orient, as it used to be called, can really seem
inscrutable.
On the other hand, the United States can really seem arrogant. If the two
accidents have anything in common it is the sense you get that both Japan and
China approach America with something of a chip on their shoulder. They
recognize they are dealing with a superpower -- and they don't much like it.
You can understand. It's not just that Japan was once a superpower itself or
that China sees itself as virtually synonymous with civilization. It is also
that both countries feel they have to put up with what might be termed pushy
American behavior. Never mind that examples of that sort of behavior are
rare; the fact remains that it takes very little for either nation to get its
back up. Think, for a moment, how we would react if a Chinese spy plane
collided with one of ours and had to make an emergency landing at LaGuardia
-- about the only way to get in nowadays. I shudder at the thought.
But the Bush administration has proceeded thus far as if feelings should play
no role in foreign policy. Of course nations are not people, and in
international relations, self-interest is supposedly all. Yet the Chinese
really do get furious at being treated as less than an equal by the United
States, and Japan really does get hurt when it is taken for granted.
What's true for these countries is doubly true for Russia. China, at least,
is a country on the ascent. It is richer, more powerful and becoming more
engaged with the world. Russia, however, simply ain't what it used to be. Not
only is the old Soviet (or czarist) empire gone but so are the economy, the
military and even, on a given day, the ability to heat the schools.
Such a country might suffer from excessive, exaggerated pride. Such a country
might insist on a respect it can no longer simply earn. Such a country might
seethe at being disrespected, not just because it was once held in awe but
because the disrespect is not a calculated slight but a true reflection of
reality.
And yet the Bush administration has treated Russia with calculated disdain.
It signaled right at the start that it was in no hurry for the president to
meet with -- or even talk to -- Vladimir Putin. Since then, it has done some
blunt talking. Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's deeply conservative political
commissar (deputy defense secretary), characterized Russian arms sales to
Iran this way: "These people seem to be willing to sell anything to anyone
for money."
Wolfowitz is not necessarily wrong. His content is fine. His tone is
something else again. It's dismissive. But Russia remains a nuclear power and
a vast country. Why insult it? Why rub its nose in its shabbiness, its
impotence?
It's always possible that Russia might respond with humility and gratitude
and thank the United States for forcing it to come to terms with reality. On
the other hand, there is just the remotest chance it will get its back up,
brush itself off, puff itself up and try to reclaim some of its lost glory.
One way to do that is to tell George W. Bush to shove off.
Bush is right on the substance of how he's dealing with the Russians. He is
wrong, though, on his approach -- the atmospherics. He seems aloof,
contemptuous (the TV sneer) and he talks as if America's interests will
always be paramount -- and too bad if you don't like it.
No one much likes this approach -- not the Europeans when it comes to global
warming, not the South Koreans when it comes to how to deal with the North,
not the Russians when it comes to missile defense and not, as we just
learned, the Chinese when it comes to spy planes poking around their
neighborhood. It turns out the Orient is not that inscrutable after all. Like
anywhere else, a little respect goes a long way.
Back to the Top
