#9
Newsday
June 28, 2001
Bush Provides a New Meaning To the Phrase 'Innocent Abroad'
By James Klurfeld
IF YOU you had doubts about President George W. Bush's readiness to conduct
this nation's foreign policy, the extensive interview he gave to Peggy Noonan
in The Wall Street Journal the other day was not encouraging.
Noonan, a former Ronald Reagan speechwriter, was in the Oval Office to
interview the president about a book she is writing on her former boss, but
Bush talked to her about his recent trip to Europe, especially his meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. One of his more revealing comments
came on the subject of NATO expansion to include not only the Baltic states
that border Russia but also the possibility that Russia itself one day might
become part of NATO.
Bush said Russia in NATO would be "interesting" and that part of him thought,
"Why not?" though "I haven't thought about the nuance of it." Hello? "Haven't
thought about the nuance of it?" The president of the United States is
talking about one of the most important and controversial shifts in foreign
policy of the last 50 years but off-handedly admits that he has not really
thought through all the consequences of that action-which is what the nuances
are? Now, of course, we shouldn't be surprised that Bush doesn't understand
the nuances of a foreign-policy issue because he doesn't have much background
in foreign policy, has never traveled to Russia and has never exhibited much
curiosity about world events. Let his advisers take care of the nuances.
But in the Noonan interview Bush tried to make it sound as if he sized up
Putin and told him what would be be right for his country. He just doesn't
get all the nuances.
But nuances count. If NATO votes to bring in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia,
how will that affect internal Russian politics and Putin's standing there?
Having lost the Cold War and status as a super power, how will the Russian
people feel when the victorious alliance extends its military reach to their
nation's borders? You also have to wonder if Bush recalls that it was his
father's administration that made a commitment to then Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev that NATO would not extend its military forces into former Warsaw
Pact countries, let alone parts of the USSR, in exchange for a peaceful
reunification of Germany and an orderly Soviet exit from Eastern Europe. Does
Bush have any appreciation for the sense of betrayal here? And here's another
nuance: How will NATO conduct its affairs with Russia as a member state? How
would that affect, for instance, the situation in the Balkans where Russia's
historic interest in aiding the Slavic populations is by no means
coincidental with NATO's attempts to protect the non-Slavic populations?
Also, if Bush has a vision for a new NATO, one that is not a military
alliance but a political grouping, shouldn't the concept have been outlined
before the overtures to extend the military umbrella to the Baltic states
were made? Under Article 5 of the NATO charter, an attack on one member must
be treated as an attack on all. That means that NATO would come to the
defense of Latvia if attacked by the Russians. But, short of using nuclear
weapons, Latvia is not defensible.
What's going on here? Is the Article 5 commitment real or not? Is Bush saying
that NATO is no longer viable or necessary as a military organization? Does
Bush understand what he is saying? Another question: The new NATO is heavily
involved in the Balkans, specifically, at the moment, in Macedonia. The Bush
administration says the United States shouldn't be involved in Balkan
disputes because there is no vital U.S. interest there; it's a humanitarian
concern. But won't extending NATO eastward get the United States more
involved, not less involved, in these European disputes? Isn't there a
contradiction between an Article 5 commitment to the Baltic states and Bush's
reluctance to use any U.S. forces in the Balkans? There's another aspect of
Bush's comments that is disquieting. Not unlike other presidents-including
the one he most disdains, Bill Clinton-Bush suggests a personal relationship
between himself and the Russian leader is the magic elixir that can transform
mistrust into cooperation and clashing polices into harmonious agreements.
But history shows the importance of personal relationships is often
overrated. Franklin D. Roosevelt, for instance, thought he could do business
with Josef Stalin. More often than not it's the larger interests that govern
relations between nations. Not to mention that Putin, a former KGB agent, was
trained to ingratiate himself.
Bush told Noonan his meeting with Putin "could be the beginning of some
fabulous history." Let's hope that is true. But don't hold your breath.
TOP OF PAGE 
CONTENTS TOP OF SECTION NEXT SECTION
#10
WPS Agency
wpsinfo@wps.ru
POLITICAL FORECASTS [Russian press review]
June 26, 2001
Russia's domestic politics and foreign policy: the PR kingdom
The euphoria of observers after the Ljubljana summit of the two
presidents, when Vladimir Putin and George Bush were so surprisingly
friendly toward each other has been rather quickly replaced by an
analytical skepticism.
The media started to reflect on the results of the meeting. As it
turns out, there are very few reasons for delight.
The [Vedomosti] paper speculates: "Of course, personal
familiarity is very important. Everyone still remembers Bill and Boris
shows of the recent past - both Yeltsin's awkward jokes and Clinton's
catching laughter. It seemed the two presidents and their subordinates
would never be able to offend each other... Meanwhile, it was under
Clinton that the US started to develop the idea of constructing the
national anti-missile defense system and to continue NATO expansion to
the East." So Bush will only have to continue the activities of his
predecessor, only taking into consideration all the criticism of
Clinton's too indulgent - from the standpoint of the US political
establishment - attitude towards Russia.
Undoubtedly, after the Ljubljana meeting, it will be easier for
the US and Russian leaders to communicate, but "they hardly have any
common political goals," stresses [Vedomosti].
The [Vremya MN] paper writes: "As expected, the first meeting of
the Russian and US presidents brought no breakthroughs in relations
between the two countries. The sensitive areas and mutual reproaches
are the same, and major disagreements have not been resolved."
At the same time, President Bush stressed the intention of the US
to develop the trade and economic cooperation with Russia; however, as
the paper says, here the price of the issue is also of great
importance.
[Vremya MN] stresses: "Further and real change of the US attitude
toward Russia will demand certain geopolitical concessions from
Russia: this concerns Iran, China, and relations with other Russia's
neighbors."
The US needs "additional vectors" in foreign policy. On the other
hand, at present the US is not interested in worsening relations with
Russia, taking into consideration a number of principal disagreements
on certain issues with Europe and China's becoming one of its "long-
term strategic rivals".
That is why, according to [Vremya MN], "from the beginning of May
it was not Putin who was seeking to meet Bush, but on the opposite."
This has also been the reason for numerous "test balloons" the US
administration launched, such as the rumor of the possibility to write
off a considerable amount, or even all Russia's debts to the US in
exchange to agreement on modification of the 1972 ABM Treaty.
However, the paper notes, if the "cost of the issue" is worsening
the relations between Moscow and Beijing, Russia is likely to face an
excruciating dilemma - especially if consider the recent agreement
with the People's Republic of China and four Central Asian countries
on establishment of the so-called "Shanghai organization for
cooperation". The alliance is supposed to be clearly military-
political character.
The [Moskovskie Novosti] weekly believes that after the
"Goetheborg riot", which famous political scientist Alexander Yanov
called "the first public demonstrative conflict in the North Atlantic
alliance", Bush had no way out but to try to use Russia regardless of
all expectations.
[Moskovskie Novosti] quotes the words of a French observer, which
were said on the threshold of the Ljubljana summit: "We Europeans will
stand between Russia and the US. We will not allow them to start
another Cold War."
In reality, things were otherwise. Putin, "as if feeling that
Bush's bravado is actually covering vulnerability", gave a hand to the
US president: "You need the 'Russia card'? You'll get it. But remember
who helped you in hard times." According to Alexander Yanov, this is
the real ground for appearance of the "Brdo castle surprise".
The [Obshchaya Gazeta] newspaper with great pleasure noted that
Bush's manners turned to be absolutely opposite to the data of the
Russian secret services. Putin was warned that he would have to deal
with a "cold, diffident man", who in addition "cannot listen to
anyone".
Despite these expectations, the US president turned to be a very
emotional, and rather comfortable partner, who can listen to and hear.
At the same time, the paper noted that nonetheless, Bush's
viewpoints "have not changed in the least after he listened to Putin
in Ljubljana".
In the meantime, the [Novoe Vremya] magazine wrote, "Bush
returned to Washington being severely criticized, for US critics did
not like his friendliness toward the Russian leader".
And the [Novye Izvestia] paper quoted some statements from the
"Washington Post": "Evidently Bush was trying to please Putin
criticizing Clinton's policies in relation to Russia, which is an
unforgivable mistake of our president.... How is it possible to state
that he trusts a person, who still continues the Chechen war,
pressures the free media, and does not allow OSCE observers to go to
the zone of the military operation?"
The Americans were most of all surprised by two Bush's
statements: "I understood his (Putin's) soul" and "He is an honest
man, I trust him".
"Russians have been unable to understand who Putin is for two
years," the "Washington Post" was outraged, "and our president
completely "understood" Putin within two hours and decided that he is
worth trusting."
The "New York Times" is taken aback: "Bush must have been
praising Putin for he wants to push his plans for development of the
national missile defense system through by all means. That is why
there is an impression that the things he publicly said about Putin in
Slovenia are not what he considers in reality. Either our president is
a talented actor, and ordinary American voters do not know about it as
yet, or he is extremely naive, and the Russian president managed to
outwit Bush."
According to [Novye Izvestia], the ABC television network has
given vent to suspicions: "Because of his former occupation, Putin has
never said a word of truth to anyone. Apparently, Bush has forgotten
about it and swallowed the bait of the former secret agent. Of course,
Putin could not politically impede our president in such a short time;
however, our leader will need more caution in further contacts and a
more balanced response to what the Russian president is saying and
doing."
The paper also refers to the opinion of US political scientist
Richard Cohen: "George Bush has an apparently inflated self-worth...
He is extremely self-confident, I would say opinionated, and this is
likely to do serious harm to further contact with Russians."
According to Mr. Cohen, during the meeting with Putin, Bush acted
as "a baseball team coach, assuming that he had counted everything
correctly and that the relations will keep developing according to his
scenario. However, things may turn out quite the opposite."
Actually, only a week after meeting with George Bush, and at the
end of negotiations with Austrian President Thomas Klestil, Vladimir
Putin gave an official explanation of what Russia's possible response
to the development of the US national missile defense may be.
According to the Russian president, if the US withdraws from the
1972 ABM Treaty, Russia will "have a legal right to equip Russian
missiles with three, four, or five warheads instead of one warhead" (a
quotation from the [Vremya Novostei] paper). Putin also stressed that
this was just an option for further action, the cheapest and the most
effective.
Thus, Moscow has broken its three-month silence concerning "Star
Wars". According to [Vremya Novostei], lately there has been a sort of
moratorium on this topic, which was initiated directly from the
Kremlin: Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov forbade his subordinates to
talk freely about "our response to the US militarists". Now the
president has broken the moratorium himself.
However, the paper notes we should appreciate that President
Putin rejected the suggestion of the Russian military: to restore
"nuclear trains" to combat routes, to resume flights of strategic
bombers with nuclear weapons to the air borders of the "potential
enemy" and voyages by Russian submarines loaded with cruise missiles
to the US coast.
They say the military even mentioned the possibility of
withdrawing from the treaty on restriction of medium-range missiles
and placement of a corresponding group of forces in Russia's western
regions. As we have already mentioned, these suggestions were
rejected.
However, the president's words were more than enough. As the
[Vremya Novostei] paper notes, "there has been nothing like this for
about 15 years... Evidently, the personal meting of the Russian and US
presidents finally destroyed the earlier illusions of both countries
about a possible compromise."
Nonetheless, according to the [Kommersant] paper, the US accepted
the statement of the Russian president rather calmly: in particular,
Secretary of State Colin Powell believes that Russia "will never
choose this option, as soon as they add up the cost of reinforcing
their arsenals".
In fact, [Kommersant] notes, we do not even have money to pretend
that we have a strategic balance with the US. By 2010 the service
lifetimes of all Russian ICBMs will have expired, except for 26 Topol-
M missiles. In order to restore the arsenal, Russia will have to
deploy 30-40 missile systems annually. However, the paper notes that
even in time of Igor Sergeev, when the missile forces had the priority
for funding, the defense industry could not produce more than ten
Topol-M missiles a year. And the new leadership of the Defense
Minsutry intends to first of all develop the general-duty forces. That
is why, according to [Kommersant], "even is Moscow will seriously
decide to increase the number of nuclear warheads on Topol-M missiles,
it is hardly likely to considerably influence the situation in the
world." Several dozens of new Topol-M missiles will be unable to
balance even the 736 US monoblock intercontinental ballistic missiles,
that are permitted by START II." And if Russia withdraws from the
treaty, the US will have a chance to increase its ground grouping.
The paper concludes: "Moscow simply has no chances to win another
weapon race".
Meanwhile, the [Novaya Gazeta] paper believes there is one more,
no less important aspect of the meeting of the two presidents in
Ljubljana. The paper's political observer Andrei Piontkovsky also paid
attention to the "unprecedented and not demanded by the protocol
praises" Bush was showering on Putin. However, in his opinion, it is
much more important that the incumbent US president is much less
concerned about Russia's interior issues than about the necessity to
find a common language with Russia in the national security area.
"Bush's message was clear enough: if we come to mutual understanding
on key geopolitical issues, the US will not draw the attention to the
issue of human rights in an unpleasant for you, Mr. Putin, aspect.
Such an inconsistent, if not hypocritical approach of the US and the
West on the whole toward the issues of the freedom of speech and human
rights has been resumed."
On the other hand, in accordance with the logic of the author, if
(based on Russia's latest statements) the West fails to find a common
language with Russia in the security field, it is very likely to
resume its interest in the issues of freedom of speech and human
rights. Thus, the topic of human rights is likely to be used once
again as a tool in big-time politics. This is a very popular trick -
for instance, Boris Berezovsky uses it very often and quite
successfully: recently he announced the establishment of a political
opposition to the current regime in Russia on the basis of the human
rights movement.
[Kommersant-Vlast] has reprinted an article from the Orenburg
regional newspaper [Yaik] which says that the tycoon's concern with
human rights is of a selfish nature. For instance, recently the Civil
Liberties Foundation set up by Berezovsky decided to support minors in
detention, allocating $1 million for this campaign. The newspaper
notes that this money would be enough to provide breakfasts for 20,000
Russian children who have not committed any crime. The newspaper also
states that cases of children fainting from hunger are not rare now,
especially in rural areas.
Henri Reznik, a well-known Russian lawyer, has explained
Berezovsky's "selective" love for children. He has stressed that not
only adolescent criminals will get money as a result of this campaign:
a lot of lawyers will get jobs, since minors in detention will get
qualified legal aid thanks to Berezovsky's money. Thus, "links between
civil activists and lawyers will be fortified," which is certainly
very helpful for the tycoon. The newspaper has also stated that thus
measure will activate 163 regional public organizations set up within
Berezovsky's foundation. "Tomorrow these public activists may easily
set up a party, if their sponsor wants them to."
There is no doubt that Berezovsky will certainly want to set up a
party of his own. Last week the newspapers [Izvestia] and [Kommersant]
published Berezovsky's interview given to an [Izvestia] correspondent
Elmar Guseinov in Paris. As has turned out, the first version of the
interview published by [Izvestia] did not appeal to the interviewee
because it was abridged. [Kommersant] immediately published the
complete version of the interview. Thus Berezovsky has made
practically all people interested in politics pay attention to his
words. First people read in [Izvestia] that the "zigzag trajectory of
Russia's current development is a result of too rapid reforms." On the
other hand, this "zigzag" is a result of "short-sightedness of the
current president who is trying to flirt with the crowd" and who wants
to cater all strata of the society. In other words, Berezovsky
considers that Russia may become an authoritarian country with liberal
economy.
In two days readers could find out from the interview published
by [Kommersant] that Berezovsky is engaged in creating the right
opposition aimed and countering the aforementioned "zigzag."
Berezovsky does not conceal that he is fighting against Putin
personally. In particular, he announced in his interview, "If Putin
were left-oriented, I would have set up the left opposition with the
same fury, since the key point for a liberal state is existence of the
opposition in principle."
Besides, the reader found out from the [Kommersant] article that
Berezovsky does not view media as the main instrument of the politics.
He said, "A different time has come. In my opinion, the state's fight
for media as a mechanism of political influence is erroneous."
Berezovsky is sure that in the next elections it is not media that
will play the leading role. In his opinion, it will be more important
to "reach everyone." Then Berezovsky quotes Aleksander Kwasniewski,
who won the presidential election in Poland because he had "traveled
around the whole country." He also put forward an analogous example of
Italian President Berlusconi, who practically did not use media in his
election campaign.
Berezovsky drew readers' attention to the fact that currently the
government often loses regional elections despite its influence over a
lot of media. He makes the conclusion that the president's ratings are
"a soap bubble." He considers that people are aware of the
government's intentions, even if the government does not call any
particular candidate its protege. "People understand it and act in
defiance of the government's will."
Therefore, Berezovsky is sure that "Putin's political age will
not last long" (this phrase was also omitted in the [Izvestia]
version).
Meanwhile, it is not only Berezovsky and his supporters who
threaten Putin's presidency. [Novoe Vremya] magazine reports
surprising rumors scaring civilians. "A conspiracy is being prepared
by state security services. Evil KGB agents want to deprive Putin of
power by any method possible." The president is said to be a stranger
to them, because he worked for only a year as head of the Federal
Security Service (FSB), he is "the protege of Yeltsin's team, and used
to be a member of Sobchak's team." The magazine considers that there
is no point in discussing this rumor, since Putin had worked for the
KGB before he joined Sobchak's team. However, the magazine believes
that this "foolish rumor proves that the Russian public consciousness
is in a very curious state now." This state is an outcome of
activities of media, whose power has been questioned by Berezovsky.
[Novoe Vremya] says, "The media mole is digging without a break
for rest. Every day detailed privatization sagas and stories about
luxurious life of the top-ranking bureaucracy are published. This
blind beast has undermined the very chance of social concord." The
magazine notes that it is impossible to construct public consensus on
the president's high rating. "These ratings show that people stake
their hopes on the new president. Meanwhile, the grapes of wrath are
ripening." People's love for the president may vanish as quickly as it
appeared. "However, people do not want to part with their beloved
leader: they want to justify him in any possible way. That is why such
rumors appear."
It is clear that this behind-the-scenes monster is unlikely to
come out on stage, since he actually does not exist. However, people
are obviously looking forward to "tightening the screws", being tired
of a decade of chaos. At the same time the nation does not want its
beloved president to perform this shabby operation. "People realize
that tightening the screws will not bring any good even to those who
began to love the president for his merciless anti-corruption plans."
So people "will have to give up their love for president, although
they do not want to."
Vitaly Portnikov, an observer of the newspaper [Vedomosti],
states that the current rumors about threats to Putin's life are
connected with the current slight decline of Putin's rating. Portnikov
notes that in the Yeltsin era, media were saying that it was necessary
to reduce the Federal Service of Presidential Guards (FSPG) inflated
by Korzhakov. However, the old FSPG has turned out to be too small for
Putin. At the same time the increase of the FSPG does not cause
people's indignation, since people see that the president is extremely
popular and therefore should be thoroughly protected.
In reality, as Portnikov considers, these awkward PR actions only
harm the president. "There is no need to make a Russian Kennedy out of
Putin." Reports about attempts at the president, indeed, can return
popularity to the president, but this mainly concerns non-democratic
states. Russia is not a country with a dictator regime, and Putin's
rating is now low yet. In this connection [Vedomosti] supposes that
"PR structures close to the Kremlin base their policy on some
different information from that they publish."
[Subbotnik-NG], a weekly supplement to [Nezavisimaya Gazeta],
asserts that the "open and obtrusive demonstration of measures for
protection of the president appeared in the post-Soviet period. Before
that, guards were inconspicuous in order not to undermine the idea of
unity between the Party and the people." Bodyguards appeared in the
Gorbachev era, to show that Gorby was a serious reformer risking his
life for the sake of ideas.
As the article says, such unusual propaganda moves were invented
by Alexander Yakovlev, one of the ideologues of perestroika. This
proves that even at that time authorities were aware of the importance
of the image.
At the same time, oddly enough, even now politicians do not
always care about their image. The weekly [Zhizn] writes about methods
of Coordinator of the Fatherland-All Russia Duma faction Farida
Gainullina, a former basketball player. When she raises her hand, this
means that the faction should vote for this or that document. If the
faction should vote against it, Ms. Gainullina crosses her arms: in
basketball this sign means that the time is up. If she moves her hands
round above her hand, this means that deputies may vote as they like.
Unity deputies use simpler signs: "for" is expressed by one
raised hand, and "against" is expressed by two raised hands.
The Union of Right Forces and Yabloko use gestures of ancient
Romans: if deputies should vote against a document, the coordinator
shows a thumb turned down, and deputies should support a document, he
turns his thumb up.
The Communist coordinator raises his hand if other members of the
faction should vote for this or that document. If they should vote
against it, he makes some movements above his head that resemble
movements of a whip when a rider drives his horse on.
Although Russia calls itself a democratic state, the concept of
"party discipline" is no less important now than it used to be in the
time of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This is a case when
PR loses its importance.
>Mavra Kosichkina
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova and Kirill Frolov)
TOP OF PAGE CONTENTS TOP OF SECTION CDI RUSSIA WEEKLY HOME CDI HOME
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109
Ph: (202) 332-0600 · Fax: (202) 462-4559
info@cdi.org
