#2
strana.ru
October 22, 2001
Fate of ABM Treaty Still Undecided
In Shanghai, Bush refrained from reproaching Putin on Chechnya, and called for persecuting political supporters of terrorists
By Nikolai Ulyanov

Many unsolved problems between Russia and the U.S. remain - from the ABM Treaty to the Jackson-Vanick amendment, which Russia perceives as discriminatory. On the other hand, the two nations have much in common on a geographic, geopolitical, and military level, including the need to combat world terrorism as a united front, and unresolved conflicts in smaller countries. In other words, they share a common responsibility for peace in the world. Perhaps the sheer scale of these problems - hampered by nostalgia for the cold war years on both sides - is preventing their rapid solution. Nevertheless, progress in bilateral relations between the two countries is obvious.

No sensations, positive or negative, had been expected from the meeting between Vladimir Putin and George Bush in Shanghai. Both sides regarded the meeting as a prelude to the official U.S. visit by the Russian President slated for November. Bush would definitely prefer sensational news about breakthroughs in bilateral relations to be announced at home at his Texas ranch. The Shanghai meeting was designed to reveal the extent of a compromise the two presidents were prepared to make in November. It had been clear to Bush that to retain Russia in the international anti-terrorist camp, sharp remarks in a conversation with Putin, concerning, for instance Chechnya or the ABM Treaty, should be avoided.

And so it was. The two leaders confirmed their positions on the ABM Treaty. Bush again called it an outdated and even "dangerous" treaty, but, despite the rumors spread by some members of the U.S. delegation, he told Putin nothing about a U.S. unilateral withdrawal from it this year. Putin retorted to the U.S. President's highly anticipated remarks by saying that the ABM Treaty was "a major element of stability in the world," and that Russia was not going to scrap it, though it could agree to modernizing it to some extent, if the U.S. were to outline the parameters of such a change.

The U.S. did not suggest such parameters either in Ljubljana or in Genoa. Similarly, it looks as though no concrete proposals have been made on that score in Shanghai. Meanwhile, Russia continues to insist that there is no sense in building a National Missile Defense system by the U.S. in the situation of new global threats, and Putin almost ironically expressed doubt that an intercontinental ballistic missile could ever be seized and used by terrorists. As a matter of fact, exactly the same view was expressed in Shanghai by the leader of another nuclear power - China's Chairman Jiang Zemin.

The intention to reduce jointly with Russia strategic offensive arms down to an acceptable level announced by Bush was not new either. For the time being, the U.S. is calculating the number of its warheads, and it is hard to tell when it will come to signing disarmament agreements.

It is significant to note that the Chechen issue - a traditional stumbling block in Russian-American relations in recent years - was mentioned neither at the Putin-Bush press conference, nor in the joint statement issued after the talks. Evidently they displayed a maximal diplomatic approach, at least in public, and, speaking about terrorism as a whole, they had in mind their own problems - one was thinking about the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda and the other about Chechen bandits.

In any case, the phrase uttered by Putin is quite unambiguous - the war against terrorism must be carried through to the end, "otherwise terrorists may get the impression that they are invulnerable, and then their actions will become even more dangerous, more brazen, and will lead to even worse consequences." This idea has always been among the main ones when Putin speaks about the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya. Bush let Putin's remarks pass without comment.

Meanwhile, before leaving for Shanghai, according to "The Los Angeles Times", Bush was planning to tell the leaders of Russia and China that he supported their efforts in combating terrorism in their own countries, but that they should see a difference between legitimate dissatisfaction and real terrorism, and not to violate human rights. Instead, he said he and his Russian counterpart had agreed that the war against terrorism should include also persecution of those who support the political demands of terrorists and the methods they use. This phrase could well refer also to Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov - before the explosions in New York and Washington U.S. State Department officials insistently advised Russia to start talks with him.

Evidently, Putin's statement about complete support for the actions undertaken by the anti-terrorist coalition was a kind of payment for not pressing the Chechen issue. And Bush had come to Shanghai precisely for that. As the joint communiqu? remarks, the leaders of Russia and China call on all states to join the stable global coalition for victory over international terrorism.

On the other hand, Russia, too, seems to be able to get from the U.S. what it wishes in bilateral economic ties. During the first round of talks, further promotion of trade and economic relations was raised, including cancellation by the U.S. administration of the Jackson-Vanick amendment. This time, the problem was viewed by the U.S. delegation with greater understanding.

So, for all the differences over the NMD issue, Russia remains a reliable ally of the U.S. in the anti-terrorist coalition. And Americans are prepared to improve economic ties with Russia and stop stressing the "humanitarian aspect" in the Chechen settlement process. It cannot be ruled out that both sides will draw up large-scale agreements on this basis for the Russia-U.S. summit in November, which would correspond to the spirit of establishing relations of real partnership, described by the U.S. president as "warm."