For some inexplicable reason, I haven't yet received my invitation to cover the White House meeting today between Presidents Bush and Putin, so have had to cover it from
The Washington Post, which has been pretty good so far. Here's my two cents, informed by living in Moscow and Central Asia as well as Washington, DC...
It is sure to be a significant meeting, for right now, believe it or not, Putin is in a stronger position than Bush, so is negotiating from strength, an old Ronald Reagan tactic.
Russia's GDP is growing faster than the US economy, the new Russia-China military alliance pretty much balances the US technological edge with millions of "boots on the ground," and Putin is at 70 percent approval in Russian public opinion polls, while Bush is at the lowest ebb of his career. To add insult to injury, today's Post reports that the US space program is
now dependent on Russian technology, in the wake of the space shuttle tragedy.
Bush has egg on his face not only from shuttle screw-ups, but also from the dismal stalemate in Iraq, the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, and his weakness in the face of North Korea and Iran's nuclear threats. The Ukrainian and Kyrgyzstan "color revolutions" have bogged down into partisan infighting. Georgia is a basket case, totally dependent on American aid. The former Yugoslavia remains under NATO military occupation, and the Kosovo situation has not been resolved. Not to mention the Middle East, where American-backed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas--educated in Moscow--has not yet managed to rein in Islamist terrorists.
Bush needs some friends now, and will have to bend a little to get them. It is in his interest to have Russia as a friend, rather than an enemy.
So, what does Putin want? It's pretty clear from his UN speech that he wants to be an equal partner to the West, rather than an adversary. And he wants the fight against terrorism--read Islamist terrorism--to become the new common cause of the UN Security Council. Since the Council was formed in WWII, and represents the Allied Powers of Britain, America, Russia, China, and France, he's basically trying to restore the WWII, pre-Cold War relationship between the Great Powers. Here's
the money quote from Putin's UN speech the other day, with my interpretation in brackets:
I am convinced that today, terrorism represents the main danger to the rights and freedom of mankind, and to the steady development of states and peoples. [Forget "democracy-building," free markets, development, and all your other trendy priorities]
In connection with this, the UN and the Security Council should be the headquarters for coordinating international cooperation in the struggle against terror --Nazism's ideological successor.[Revive the WWII Alliance (my emphasis)]
They must also help coordinate the settlement of deep-rooted regional conflicts on which terrorists and extremists of all kinds breed by using the historical baggage of religious, ethnic and social inequalities. [Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Central Asia, et al.]
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is necessary to use not only states' ressources but, most importantly, the large opportunities offered by civil society, mass media, cultural and educational cooperation, and interconfessional dialogue to oppose ideologues that preach a clash of civilisations, and terrorist agression. [Shut down Islamist mosques and madrassahs, bankrupt Islamist charities]
Who if not the UN can take on this coordinating and organising role? Here it can base itself on the support of all member countries, on the cooperation of influential international organisations, and on regional integration associations. [If you try and go around the UN, we will fight you. No more NATO interventions in Yugolsavia]
Russia intends to increase her participation both in the international reaction to crises, and in assistance for development and progress. Next year, within the framework of Russia's membership in the G8, the CIS, and the Council of Europe we will continue to work together on this major issue. [Let us into your clubs as a full member, and we will help you. Keep us out, and we will hurt you]
Putin clearly wants the United States to end its support for Islamist guerilla movements in Chechnya and Central Asia, in exchange for Russian support of American positions perhaps vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq. I don't think it sounds like a bad deal. While perhaps Russia can't "deliver" Iran or Iraq, they still have considerable influence in the Middle East and as recent events have shown, are able to make trouble even if they can't defeat the West.
However a genuine full partnership with Russia would mean less hanky-panky by the CIA and its cut-outs in the former Soviet bloc, perhaps in exhange for Russia pulling back in Latin America--where Venezuela and Cuba now enjoy Russian support in the same way Ukraine and Georgia are American outposts.
While not exactly another Yalta, a partnership with Russia might mean that the UN could become an effective instrument for ending the threat of Islamist terror, just as the Allies crushed the Nazis through the UN. The UN's effectiveness, that has been hampered by US-Russian tensions, could be turned against a common foe.
That is Putin's strategy, I believe. It is why he wanted Bush at the V-E day celebrations in Moscow. And at this point, I think it seems reasonable to consider seriously Putin's approach to the war on terror as a credible alternative to that offered by American neoconservatives, realists, or isolationists. That means America has to drop the Cold War stuff and, as Bill Clinton liked to say, "focus like a laser beam" on defeating terrorism.
With Russia as a full partner, Osama Bin Laden and his Islamist supporters will no longer be able to play "divide and conquer" games. My guess is that a true alliance of the UN Security Council could crush the Islamists very quickly indeed--but Bush and his cronies might not be able to count on post-Administration payouts from their Saudi friends...
On the other hand, with Russia now rolling in petrodollars, perhaps Putin could offer to put Bush Senior (and Clinton for that matter, since they are doing a doubles act these days) on the board of his newly-reorganized Yukos?
His name was number 28 on the attendance list. Greenwald's bio on the ICG website says he is vice-president for research and publications, so he should have been able to respond. If Greenwald wasn't there for some reason, no one else spoke up for ICG, either.
