#6023 #6024
[Third Issue of the Day]
#14
Izvestia
No. 4
2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
THE UNITED STATES AGAIN DIVIDES TERRORISTS INTO GOOD
AND BAD ONES
By Maxim YUSIN, Alexander SHUMILIN
U.S. Department of State spokesman Richard Boucher has accused Russian troops in Chechnya of disproportionate use of force against civilian facilities and continued human rights violations.
Things have returned to what they used to be before the September 11 terrorist attacks - the same rhetoric, the same criticism, the same arrogant tone of a mentor. As if there had not been a four-month-long moratorium on criticism of Russia, although not officially declared yet strictly observed.
After the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and after President Vladimir Putin's famous call to President George Bush, Americans more often paid compliments to Russia than criticised it. At Bush's Texas ranch, the two presidents met not only as allies but also as friends. American officials did not stint praise in describing Russia's contribution to the common cause of anti-terror struggle. Moscow's main propaganda victory was the U.S. Department of State's public acknowledgement that Chechen "fighters for freedom" were linked with Osama bin Laden's group.
It seemed that after those words there could be no return to pre-September statements about disproportionate use of force. It seemed that Americans, who themselves became a target of terrorist attacks, finally began to understand us, that they finally realised that it is very difficult to observe all the required "proportions" in combating such people as bin Laden or Shamil Basayev.
Alas, it only seemed. September 11 has not changed anything, and Americans have not changed. Russia and its president should not hope for any special attitude, leniency or solidarity on the part of the only superpower.
The moratorium did not last long - only four months, until Americans won the war in Afghanistan. As soon as they won it, the value of the "strategic alliance" with Moscow immediately diminished in Washington's eyes. As before, terrorists are again divided into two categories - bad and good ones, into those who fight America and those who fight for freedom and against whom force is used disproportionately.
What is behind Boucher's harsh statements? What message did Washington want to convey to Moscow? We asked experts in international relations to answer these questions.
Viktor KREMENYUK, deputy director of the Institute of U.S. and Canada Studies:
"The matter at issue is the bargaining between Moscow and Washington over a type of relations between them upon completion of the anti-terror operation. Moscow hoped that its interaction with the U.S.A. in the last few months would help raise their relations to a higher level. Americans want to cool this ardour, showing that there is something on which they disagree with the Russian leadership. Washington does not like Russia's union with Belarus, widespread corruption and the outburst of spymania in Russia. Americans show that they will demand changes in Putin's policy. I don't think this position will bring about coolness between the two countries. These demands should be viewed as a price for the help America intends to give Russia, for Russia's admission to the WTO and, in a broader sense, for Russia's inclusion in the new world order."
Vyacheslav NIKONOV, president of the Politika Foundation:
"The U.S. policy is rather consistent. Despite the community of our interests in Afghanistan, differences between Moscow and Washington persist. Americans still believe that the freedom of speech is not ensured in Russia and that the problem of peace settlement in Chechnya is not being solved. When the United States takes a position, it then consistently upholds it."
Back to the Top Next Article
January 15, 2002:
#6022 #6023 #6024
- Back to the Top -