#8
Excerpt
US Department of State
Foreign Media Reaction
December 19, 2001
U.S. SCRAPS ABM TREATY--AND POST-SEPT. 11 COOPERATIVE SPIRIT AS WELL?

President Bush's formal notice of the U.S.' withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty drew predictable fire overseas. Upon hearing the news, editorialists (primarily in Russia, NATO capitals, East and South Asia) resurrected pre-9/11 charges of the U.S.' acting unilaterally, undermining arms control regimes, and provoking an arms race by pursuing missile defense. Almost no one endorsed Bush's argument that Sept. 11 underscored the need for MD. Writers, instead, made the opposite case: The terrorist attacks demonstrated the "uselessness" of a missile shield. Many found it especially galling that Washington was "jeopardizing" its coalition-building efforts by reverting to "self-willed unilateralism." A Toronto writer summed up the resentful mood: "The ABM announcement demolishes the conventional wisdom that the terror attacks...taught the Bush administration that unilateralism is not the way to go." Voices of support--mainly conservative dailies in the UK, a few smaller European capitals, Canada and Taiwan--were rare. They pointed to the U.S.' right to self-defense and its foresight in moving beyond Cold War "gridlock." Themes follow:

Russian media see Bush move as "mistake," potential "blow" to Putin's pro-West agenda. Some government and non-official papers adopted the Kremlin's tone of "restraint," describing Bush's decision as mistaken, but not unexpected. Putin's muted reaction was "balanced" and appropriate in light of recent progress in bilateral relations, according to these writers. They argued that Moscow's interests are better served by countenancing Washington's "escapades," than by protesting in vain. "Russia clearly needs the West more than the West needs Russia, so the Kremlin will keep up the policy of rapprochement," concluded one weekly. Others, nationalist as well as more mainstream papers, were skeptical of official statements downplaying the ABM abrogation as "no danger to Russian security" and no major obstacle to improved ties. For them, the unilateral withdrawal served as proof that U.S. avowals of a new partnership amounted to "empty talk." A parliamentary broadsheet held: "When the U.S. needed support...in Afghanistan they called us a partner, but they forgot the partnership once they decided to scrap ABM." Some in this camp portrayed Bush's move as an "insult" to Russia and a "heavy blow" to Putin's pro-West policies.

For many European writers, Russia's "restrained" reaction was the only reassuring note. In pre-9/11 commentary, analysts feared a hostile Russian response should the U.S. abrogate the treaty in order to proceed with MD. The current view, however, was that Putin would not squander benefits accrued from Russia's joining the anti-terror alliance by protesting too strongly--especially were the U.S. to proffer "consolation prizes" such as a written agreement on nuclear arms reductions. Some writers in NATO capitals urged the U.S. to recognize that Bush's decision dealt a "serious blow to Putin's prestige" at home (especially in "military and KGB circles fed with anti-American propaganda"). Therefore, they maintained, the U.S. must be forthcoming with more "dividends" for Putin--along the lines of the recent deal on closer NATO-Russian ties--in order to ensure domestic support for his Westward tilt.

East Asian outlets--not only Beijing and Hong Kong, but also Tokyo and Seoul--registered the most alarm. Media characterized the Bush decision as a "threat to world peace" and as evidence of USG double-standards: Washington "stresses international cooperation in its efforts to build a coalition against terrorism, while unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM Treaty for its own interests," averred a Seoul daily. In copious comment, Chinese papers underscored the Bush administration's perceived isolation on the issue (they repeatedly noted international opposition to the ABM pullout, often citing Western media criticism). Beijing's official press also reiterated shopworn suspicions of U.S. motives for pursuing MD, seeing it as a means for the "sole superpower to achieve hegemony and establish a U.S.-dominated unipolar world." ...

RUSSIA:

"Pentagon Goes Populist"

Artyom Rud asserted in the official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (12/19): "Though the Americans claim they are ready to deploy NMD, technological problems won't let them do so until 2008-2010. The Pentagon's optimistic reports about the NMD program are mostly 'populist' and are meant to get Congress to allocate more funds for the project."

"U.S. Cuts Russia Down To Size"

Pavel Felgengauer commented in the reformist weekly Moskovskiye Novosti (# 51, 12/19): "Coming to Russia next spring, Bush may sign an accord on mutual arms reduction. Moscow says it must be a treaty. Washington believes that friends can do without formalities--a handshake will suffice. The Americans are likely to prevail again: it is hard to expect the treaty to be prepared in the time left before the spring. If something is to be signed at the next summit, it is going to be a non-binding agreement or charter, at best.... Russia clearly needs the West more than the West needs Russia, so the Kremlin will keep up the policy of rapprochement with the United States, no matter what.... Apparently, Washington, as it decided (for the first time in world history) to scrap an arms control agreement, wanted to cut Russia down to size in the first place. Only a month ago, it sought an alliance with Moscow, thinking it vital for the success of the anti-terrorist coalition. Now that is a thing of the past. With the Taliban and Al Qaeda knocked down and the U.S. and British troops deployed, the need for Russian assistance is not all that great.... But Moscow does not despair--terrorists are still there, and America may still have a brush with China over Taiwan. We are ever ready to offer friendship and support in exchange for admission to the WTO, NATO.... The Kremlin seems to realize that, with major technological and economic reforms in Russia long overdue, it can't get them off the ground without a close alliance with the West."

"Moscow Loses First Major Battle"

Igor Korotchenko commented in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/18): "Having virtually scuttled the negotiations with the U.S. on a modified ABM treaty, with Washington growing even more determined to pull out of the treaty, the (Russian) Defense Ministry assured the President that it was nothing much and that the U.S.' decision caused no damage to Russia's security. Putin's response to Washington's unilateral move, basically, is a replica of the position of Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov and First Deputy Chief of the Army Staff General Yuriy Baluyevskiy. Washington's withdrawal from the ABM treaty, in effect, is Russia's first major foreign policy setback and has serious implications for strategic stability in the world."

"U.S. Creates Security Vacuum"

Yevgeniy Grigoryev said in the centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/18): "It was with reason that Russia and many other countries, including the U.S.' allies, worried about the ABM treaty. That they have reacted sort of calmly to Washington's statement does not mean that they don't care. The U.S.' policy and behavior directly affect the interests of the rest of the world.... Now there is the question: What is Russia supposed to do under the circumstances? Of course, with the ABM or without it, we can't fence ourselves from the U.S. That would be the end of anything worth the name of policy. It is imperative that Russia develop and maintain good relations with the Americans, never mind their escapades and 'surprises.' Their latest, while helping us learn more about cowboy manners, doesn't free us of having to do our utmost to 'minimize' the damage to strategic stability and disarmament, even more to think of a future security architecture."

"Russia Humiliated"

The nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (12/18) front-paged this by Vasiliy Safronchuk: "It would seem that, with strong opposition to renouncing the ABM treaty inside the U.S. and outside it, the Kremlin could have effectively resisted the Americans' trying to dismantle the current system of arms control. Instead, Putin avoided even the cautioning statements he had made before.... It looks as if Bush and Putin coordinated their statements.... Russia must review all its agreements with the U.S. on arms control and freeze the accords on heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads."

"Partnership Questioned"

Anatoliy Anisimov commented on page one of the official parliamentary Parlamentskaya Gazeta (12/15): "Unfortunately, everything we have heard over the last few years about the basically new non-confrontational, if not partner-like, relationships between the U.S. and Russia, has turned out to be empty talk. When the Americans needed support for their military action in Afghanistan, they called us a partner. But they forgot the partnership once they decided that they wanted to scrap the ABM Treaty, a cornerstone of the disarmament policy. It is true what people say about charity beginning at home. With the damage done, no accolades over President Putin's statement will repair it."

"Moscow Reluctant To Slow Progress"

The centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (12/15) noted in a comment by Vadim Markushin on page one: "Moscow has taken a balanced position, reluctant to slow progress in the bilateral relations it has made jointly with Washington in the past few months."

"Gloating Is Inappropriate"

Mikhail Khodaryonok said in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/15): "The tests that are being carried out in the U.S. are without precedent. Interception (of incoming missiles) is an incredibly complicated thing, so failures at the early stage are unavoidable. Gloating or rejoicing maliciously at setbacks would be most inappropriate.... The latest failure has born out what Russian President Vladimir Putin said about the U.S.' NMD posing no threat to Russia's security."

"Ulterior Motives"

Anatoliy Verbin contended in nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (12/15): "Serious plans usually have serious motives or problems behind them. So apparently, the motives behind the new Star Wars program differ considerably from what is said publicly. Only a very naive person can believe that countries whose military potentials will never be nearly as big as the ex-USSR's pose a threat to the U.S. You can't trust the Americans when they refer to 'international terrorism' as their other enemy either. To pull out of the ABM treaty, they must have had far more important reasons. Of those, the state of the U.S. economy seems to be the chief one. Indications are that the world's capitalist economy, especially the U.S. economy, needs a big stimulus."

"A Planned Mistake"

Reformist Izvestiya (12/14) front-paged a comment by Svetlana Babayeva, Yevgeniy Bai and Dmitriy Safonov: "In effect, the Russian and American presidents made that decision together at George Bush's ranch in Texas. That it came as no surprise is evidence of a new quality of relations between the two countries. Putin was restrained. He said that the unilateral withdrawal from the treaty 'poses no danger to Russia's national security.' Other Russian officials have been just as restrained. Even if critics, contrary to the new climate of (U.S.-Russian) relations, tried something stronger than rhetoric, they would be hard put to do so. Nobody knows what Russia can do besides being discontented or why it should it should do anything else."

"Moscow Suffers Defeat"

Sergey Guliy stated on page one of reformist Noviye Izvestiya (12/14): "Fighting to hold its own on what it considers a key foreign policy issue, Moscow has suffered yet another ignominious defeat. It might have avoided it, though, if Putin had accepted a compromise, as Washington in the last year of Clinton's presidency wooed Moscow to make it agree to modifying the treaty so that, with its basic provisions remaining unchanged, the U.S. could carry out MD tests.... The fact that Bush and Putin have suddenly become emotionally attached to one another can only influence the methods they use to pursue their policies, not the policies themselves."

"It Is Not A Crime. It is a Mistake"

Centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/14) editorialized on page one: "According to this newspaper's experts, the U.S.' decision to pull out of the ABM treaty can complicate its relations with Russia. The same newspaper quoted Aleksey Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Duma's defense committee: 'This decision is not meant to insult or hurt Russia. Yet this is exactly what it has done. The U.S. would have had many more years for research and testing without having to breach the ABM treaty. All it would have had to do is coordinate with Russia in amending it. To use Talleyrand's words, (Washington's decision) is worse than a crime. It is a mistake.' Konstantin Kosachev, deputy chairman of the Duma's foreign relations committee, said, 'Politically, the U.S.' decision is at variance with the new climate of trust and cooperation characteristic of relations between the two countries in the months after September 11.'"

"Bush Acts As He Sees Fit"

Aleksandr Kuranov commented in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (12/14): "The U.S. president, taking advantage of the post-September 11 situation, keeps acting in foreign affairs as he sees fit. Russian politicians should not be too hopeful as they shake hands with Bush and see smiles on the face of Secretary of State Colin Powell, perhaps the most experienced and 'proper' member of the current U.S. leadership. He may really think that Bush needs to be cured of Russophobia, but there are more than enough people around the President who think otherwise."

"Bush Capers About, But Nobody's Afraid in Moscow"

Reformist business-oriented Kommersant (12/14) cited several Russian officials in an article by Gennadiy Sysoyev on page one: "Moscow, while dubbing the U.S.' decision a mistake, pretends that nothing terrible has happened. President Putin is quite certain that it 'poses no danger to Russia's national security.' All politicians whose opinions amount to Moscow's official position sound placating, saying the same things, which is rare. Presidential aide Sergey Yastrzhembskiy: 'Russia's reaction will be calm since our nuclear potential is enough to protect our national interests.' Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov: 'We feel confident as far as our defense capability is concerned.' Chief of the Russian army staff Anatoliy Kvashnin: 'Militarily, the issue of the U.S.' withdrawal from the ABM treaty is solvable'.... Reluctance to mar relations with the U.S. is not the only reason for Moscow's calmness. Russia still hopes to get compensation for maintaining composure."

"It Doesn't Seem Like A Step In The Right Direction"

Vadim Markushin remarked in centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (12/14): "Russia's military security will be none the worse for that. But military wariness will persist in spite of the bilateral relations beginning to change for the better. Russia will have to take adequate retaliatory measures to strengthen its security. Other powers, including China and France, won't remain indifferent either. So the U.S. president's statement does not sound like a step in the right direction."

"A Blow To Putin's Merger Policy"

Nationalist opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (12/14) ran this by Vyacheslav Tetekin: "The U.S.' decision is a heavy blow to the policy of Russia's merger with the West which President Putin has worked hard to implement in the last few months. With the Russian strategic forces a major factor and the only deterrent to the U.S.' aggressiveness, the Americans clearly aim to render it useless. That Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Moscow in advance...makes no difference. The timing is quite remarkable. The U.S. decision is sure to upset the entire system of international agreements of the last few decades. Putin, apparently softened by the flattery of Western politicians and the media, does not seem able to respond firmly, as the leader of a great power should, to the dangerous moves by his new 'ally'.... We must think of Russia's security. We need to think fast, and we need to act even faster. It is time we stopped playing the game of 'the threat of international terrorism' and recognize that a real threat comes from the Kremlin's new 'ally,' the U.S.A."

"One-Sided Bush"

Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (12/13) front-paged a comment by Leonid Gankin: "The U.S. president has confirmed his country's plan to withdraw from the ABM Treaty unilaterally. Russia's reaction will not be too strong. It would look irrelevant, as relations between Moscow and Washington have been very close indeed over the past few months.... According to U.S. sources, Vladimir Putin, meeting with George Bush in the U.S. last month, assured him that the relations between the two countries won't be impaired even if the U.S. withdraws from the treaty unilaterally."

BACK TO THE TOP    #185 CONTENTS