Bush
and Putin sign arms treaty, clearing way for era of new issues.
By
Francine Kiefer
Staff writer
of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - It's being called the last summit of its kind.
As Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed a nuclear
weapons treaty today in Moscow, they walked in the steps of their
predecessors, making arms control the centerpiece of their meetings.
But the White House views the treaty almost as a sideshow – an item
under "old business" to be checked off in order to get to more
urgent "new business" and, in the process, to a far more
"normal" relationship with Moscow.
"Perhaps it's good news that the time of historic agreements in
US-Russia relations [is] over. Now we can start doing important
things," says Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center.
By "important things," Mr. Simes means counter-terrorism
efforts, trade, and energy. To that, the administration would add
preventing the production of weapons of mass destruction in the
"axis of evil" triumverate, as well as continued integration
of Russia with the West.
"We're all hopeful that this is actually the last (time) that an
arms reduction treaty gets quite the attention that this one has gotten.
That really, what this should be is ... a normal relationship,"
says Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security advisor – and a Soviet
expert in the former Bush administration.
What's perhaps remarkable about this summit is not its hyped billing
as the end of the cold war – that was marked by the reforms of Mikhail
Gorbachev and subsequent implosion of the Soviet Union. Rather, it's the
evolution of a White House that began openly clashing with the Russians,
but whose commander in chief now playfully refers to Mr. Putin as "Pootie-Poot"
(though not to his face).
The September terrorist attacks helped to warm up this relationship
enormously, analysts say, with Moscow grateful to Washington for
eliminating Afghanistan's Taliban and the US thankful for Russia's
support in the war effort, including its blessing for American military
bases in sensitive Central Asia.
But the more fundamental reason for the turnabout, observers say, is
Russia's continued drive westward – toward membership in the World
Trade Organization, and, as of next Tuesday, as a new party at the NATO
table (though on limited subjects, and minus veto power). At the same
time, it's been cleaning house economically, averaging a 6.5 percent
economic growth rate over the past three years.
"Let's give credit to the Russians here, as well," says Ms.
Rice. "A lot has happened in this relationship in a very short
period of time."
And there's more to come, though interestingly, much of it is still
focused on security.
The Americans have made it clear that their top two issues with
Russia are the war on terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. On the terrorism front, they see mostly eye-to-eye. But
with two of the "evil axis" players – Iran and Iraq – the
diplomacy is rough going because of Russian economic ties to both
countries.
Still, some analysts believe that the US and Russia will eventually
work things out.
The Russian position on Iraq has "changed considerably,"
says Simes. "As long as Russian financial interests are taken into
account ... Russia can live with" a US attack on Iraq, he says.
Iran is trickier. Russia views Iran as a good regional citizen and is
loath to cancel its deal to help Iran build nuclear power plants – a
deal the US claims could aid Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
Additionally, Washington complains about Russian conventional-arms
exports to Iran, which it says are intended for use against American
forces.
Even here, however, observers see some room for cooperation. Rose
Gottemoeller, a non-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, says that top US and Russian energy officials have
been having productive talks. One idea that might be workable, she says,
is a just-in-time inventory system in which Russia would supply Iran
fuel for its energy plants at the last minute, and remove spent fuel
immediately.
In this new "normal" relationship, energy and the economy
rank a close second behind security issues. Russia produces 10 percent
of the world's oil, and the two leaders reportedly may announce an
"energy security" deal in which Russia supplies more oil to
the US. Bush also may declare Russia a "market economy" –
helping clear the way for its membership in the WTO. It's trade – not
aid – that can most assist the Russian economy, he maintains.
While this broader relationship looks promising, Michael McFaul, a
Russia expert at Stanford University, sees a big black cloud on the
horizon. It's not the trade disputes over steel and chicken, or even the
alarming anti-Americanism in Russian institutions and the elite. Neither
is it the tension in a relationship where Russia is now the obvious
junior partner. "My No. 1 worry is about democracy," he says.
Whether it's Putin's heavy-handedness with the media, human rights
abuses in Chechnya, or election manipulation, the trend is away from
democracy, McFaul warns. If that fails – and he gives it a 30 percent
chance of failure – then so does the "new normal" between
two erstwhile enemies.