Ahead of the world leaders' visit to Moscow, Russian diplomats and lawmakers have sought to justify the Kremlin's refusal to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, arguing that the treaty was dissolved by Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.I'm not a diplomat or a historian, but I'd say Bush may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here. Does he really want to get into a fight over this issue? America's record isn't perfect, either. First, the US itself stayed neutral until December 7, 1941 as Hitler smashed his way across Europe. American companies such as Ford and Standard Oil did business with the Nazis during this period. Second, the US refused to open a second front until June 1944, after Russia had bled considerably to stop the Nazis, bearing the brunt of the fighting, and England had been almost crushed by the Blitz. Third, the US agreed to the division of Europe at Yalta, a very sore point among Polish-Americans at the time. Finally, the USSR renounced the pact already.
Also, since the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet in 1991 denounced the treaty's secret protocols that detailed the carve-up of Poland and the occupation of the Baltic states, another denunciation is not necessary, Pikayev said.
Sergei Yastrzhembsky, Putin's envoy to the EU, said that Russia would not apologize to the Baltic states either. Soviet troops were not occupiers but welcome liberators, he said.
His comments were echoed by Federation Council member and last Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, who said that the Baltic countries 'should be grateful' for Soviet occupation. These countries 'should themselves apologize' for the fact that some of their residents fought on the German side in the war, Interfax reported him as saying.
If Bush were just to make a public statement congratulating the USSR (a nostalgic fantasyland of power, plenty and peace in the minds of many Russians today) for renouncing the carve-up of Poland and the Baltic States, pocketing that victory and sharing credit with Russia, then moving forward to the future, that might be a diplomatic advance. Instead, Bush appears to be moving backwards and stoking old resentments.
Bush must remember that Nazis killed some 20 million Russians and devastated the country. Cold war propaganda made much of the fact that the US was siding with former Nazis against the USSR. Yes, many Russians still see Estonians, Latvians, and Ukrainians as Nazis. Bush and the US should be sensitive to that perception--and explain why they are not Nazis now, why they are better off as part of the West, how America helped them out of a totalitarian past, and will help Russia likewise.
Rather than raise painful disagreements about tragic events of 50+ years ago, Bush might do better to a outline a positive vision for full US-Russian partnership in confronting the new mutual enemy of Islamic fundamentalism: announce that the US will no longer support Chechen terrorists, offer partnership with Russia in stabilizing Iraq, and demand the Russians take some concrete steps towards a more US-friendly society, such as releasing Mikhail Khodorkovsky...
UPDATE: By way of contrast, President Clinton handled the 50th Anniversary of V-E day Moscow ceremonies adroitly. You can read the agreements on nonproliferation and the future of Europe, resulting from his diplomacy with Boris Yeltsin, here. A sample result:
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin conducted a thorough review of progress toward their shared goal of a stable, secure, integrated and undivided democratic Europe. They agreed that the end of military confrontation, ideological conflict, and division of the Euro-Atlantic region into opposing blocs has created an historic opportunity for all of its peoples. They emphasized their determination to cooperate closely to ensure that in the future, all peoples of the Euro-Atlantic region shall enjoy the benefits of a stable, just and peaceful order.
Bush might do well to come up with a similar joint statement regarding the Middle East in his one-on-one meeting with Putin.
