Issue No.588
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
30 May - 5 June 2002 Issue No.588 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Between America, Russia and Europe
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed wonders whether Russia or Europe will enjoy priority in America's new global strategy
The most important event in President Bush's visit to Europe this week was undoubtedly his signing of a landmark nuclear reduction treaty with Russian President Putin that cuts US and Russian strategic nuclear forces by roughly two-thirds over ten years. "This is a historical and hopeful day," Bush said. "President Putin and I today ended a long chapter of confrontation and opened up an entirely new relationship between our two countries."
It is no longer possible to describe American-Russian relations as based on intractable antagonism, or as a continuation of the bipolarity that existed during the Cold War. Of course, there are still differences between the two countries. A main point of contention is Russia's cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear technology. The Bush administration objects to Russia helping Iran build a nuclear reactor which Tehran says will be used to generate power but which American experts insist could become the core of a nuclear bomb. However, these differences will not prevent the former Cold War enemies from working to build friendly relations based on what national security adviser Condoleezza Rice calls "increasingly common interests and mutual trust".
The two presidents signed a number of documents which have been hailed as liquidating the Cold War legacy of nuclear hostility. These included, in addition to the nuclear reduction treaty, a joint declaration pledging cooperation on missile defence, a statement on economic relations, a counter-terrorism statement and a joint political statement in which they affirmed the need for a Palestinian state with all the prerogatives of statehood. The talks also covered Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and oil in Central Asia. The first of the three-day encounter was devoted to the ceremonial aspect of the visit, the other two to substantive negotiations between the two leaders. Bush's itinerary also included a visit to St Petersburg, the city founded by Peter the Great to serve as Russia's window on Europe.
Although this is not Bush's first visit to Europe it is seen as signalling a shift from the unilateralism which has hitherto marked his policies. A key question now being asked by political analysts is whether priority will be given to Europe or to Russia in this opening on the outside world; more specifically, with France engaged in crucial legislative elections for a new National Assembly, and Britain having its own special relationship with the US, will priority be given to Germany or to Russia?
What is clear is that Bush's visit to Europe puts to the test a number of the givens which have come to define the political map of the world after 11 September and lays down the criteria which will determine alliances and confrontations from now on.
On the first leg of his European tour Bush addressed Germany's Reichstag. At the end of a speech largely given over to celebrating Germany's achievements in the 13 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said that "ours is the first generation in a hundred years that does not expect and does not fear the next European war." His remarks were met with warm applause. Carrying the comparisons of World War II and the Cold War to the next step, the president said 11 September marked a change of eras as dramatic as Pearl Harbour, or the first days of the Berlin blockade, when the US had to mount an airlift to keep the Western-controlled parts of the city fed.
Though he avoided contentious issues such as his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, his refusal to sign the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, and his decision to impose high tariffs on foreign-made steel, such issues refused to lie still. Speaker of Germany's parliament, Wolfgang Thierse, complimented the American president for building a coalition against terrorism, thus establishing that "all those who thought that a new American unilateralism was emerging were wrong", but then warned that "the pursuit of unilateral interests proves short-sighted" and urged Bush to "continue together on the road mapped out by the Kyoto Protcol" and to ratify the International Court Treaty.
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who is from the Green Party, also praised Bush for understanding that the answer to terrorism was not only military, but included free trade and more foreign aid as an obligation of wealthy nations to the poor. But Fischer was conditional in his praise, saying the speech would be historic only if "these ideas are really translated into political action". German legislators were relieved that Bush did not mention Iraq and did not ask too much of them too soon. Although every key figure in the government knows that an attack on Iraq is coming, they want it after the elections scheduled for 22 September.
Bush spoke of a new relationship with Russia as a European-American initiative, in part through NATO. But the warmth with which he spoke of Russia was disquieting for some. As the German military strategist Margarita Mathiopoulos put it: "We Europeans get disturbed when Americans engage in this kind of love affair with the Russians. It's important the Cold War is over and we all agree, but there is still a 'but', and it will affect NATO strategy." Europeans are worried, in the context of a unipolar world, that the US will give precedence to Russia over Europe, especially with the recent growth of the right -- and the upsurge of the far right -- in a number of European countries. Right-wing nationalism is bound to negatively affect the cohesion and stability of the EU.
To the Russians Bush depicted global terrorism as the common enemy, comparable to the Nazi threat in World War II, and said it poses as much of a threat to Russia in Chechnya as it does to America in its face-off with Osama Bin Laden. It remains to be seen however, if Moscow considers the terrorist threat serious enough to warrant its demotion from its former status as senior partner in a powerful global coalition, the Socialist camp, to a junior partner in Bush's anti-terrorism alliance.
Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said that while the Kremlin viewed American politicians as in two minds about Russia -- some trusting, others suspicious -- Putin and his aides saw President Bush firmly in the first camp. Bush is likely to see a similar mixture of opinions during his visit. Shortly before his arrival, hundreds of demonstrators massed outside the US Embassy to burn the American flag and denounce White House policies. For the most part, however, Moscow appeared to be taking pains to ensure that Bush's first impression of Russia would be favourable.
Bush raised the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction with the Russian president and considered that Russian aid to Iran involved the single most important proliferation threat. He said Washington and Moscow were equally worried that terrorists could get hold of nuclear weapons. But Putin described Moscow's relations with Tehran as normal, not different than those which relate Washington to, say, Taiwan.
Another development worth noting is that America's top military brass believe they have persuaded the Pentagon's civilian leadership to put off an invasion of Iraq until next year at the earliest, and perhaps to renounce the idea altogether. In a secret briefing held at the White House, top experts told the president that invading Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein would require at least 200,000 troops, far more than previous estimates. They also expressed concern about Saddam's possible use of biological and chemical weapons. The Bush administration still appears dedicated to the goal of removing the Iraqi leader, but is focusing more on undermining him through covert intelligence operations.
The debate inside the Pentagon is only part of a larger discussion of Iraq that also involves the White House, the State Department and the CIA, among others. Those opposed to the war option question the wisdom of dislodging an aging, weakened Saddam who, by some accounts, has behaved better than usual in recent months. Their worry is that his successor will not necessarily be more amenable and that Iraq could wind up with a still more hostile regime.
The credibility of Bush's assertion that terrorism today is the one issue on which everything else depends has, in its turn, come to depend on whether the showdown with Saddam is still a viable option.
|
 |
| |||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
