Washington Post - 10.07.2001

 

The Washington Post

Two Who Seized The Moment

By Jim Hoagland

The vast wind machines that modern political leaders employ to create word pictures of themselves in the usually otherwise occupied minds of their citizens count for relatively little in times of true crisis. Existential threats draw out and expose the true nature of leadership and of those who practice it.

Abroad, two men stand out in quickly grasping the possibilities that rise from the terror of Sept. 11 and the Bush administration's efforts to shape the international environment for a U.S. response. In very different ways, Britain's Tony Blair and Russia's Vladimir Putin see opportunities in this crisis and reach for them.

Less than a month into a struggle that President Bush declares will last for years, Blair and Putin have articulated separate visions of where the war on terrorism can take the world. These visions are powered by self-interest and national ambitions, not surprisingly. But both go beyond simple self-interest to link today's actions to tomorrow's consequences and to the fate of their nations.

Caution and haggling have emerged as the default position for many nations as the initial waves of shock and sympathy subside. Saudis, Egyptians, Chinese and others respond to Washington's stress on coalition-building by asking the first question of politics-as-usual: What's in it for me? The American tab for asking other nations to do the right thing threatens to be enormous, if not unpayable, over the long haul.

But Blair and Putin see a moment in which power relationships in the world can be changed in profound ways by ideas and new thinking as well as by bargaining. They are willing to make down payments on the future and thus to influence it.

Important distinctions need to be made between two leaders who act independently. I have in the past praised Blair's determination to pursue a new moral world order (especially during the Kosovo emergency) and questioned Putin's commitment to democracy and his tolerance of Russian atrocities in Chechnya. These filters remain and no doubt color my perceptions.

But the political behavior of Blair and Putin in recent days transcends and alters established images. These relatively youthful men (Blair is 48; Putin turns 49 today) do not run from dramatic change. They run to lead it in their direction.

It is not possible in this space to do justice to the masterful, intensely personal speech Blair gave last Tuesday to his Labor Party's annual convention. He outlined why and how the campaigns to end terrorism and the conditions that help sustain terrorism must be waged jointly. He made a powerful case for supporting not just an American president but also America's imperfect but dynamic society. And he traced the way in which Britain could soon become an integral part of a new, transformed Europe.

"Tony Blair hopes that the world anti-terror campaign will make Europe mean something. He wants Europe to matter to itself, to its citizens and to the Americans," the Guardian's Hugo Young wrote of the speech. The other, fearful side of that coin was put to me in Washington by Claude Imbert, founder and publisher of Le Point magazine in Paris:

"I worry about Europe's response to this crisis. This is a moment for conviction and optimism, such as I find in America now, not for the cynicism and subtleties of diplomacy and politics as often practiced in Europe."

In Brussels on Wednesday, Putin made a skillful bid to enlarge the opening for Russia in Europe's most important institutions and ambitions. He sought to hitch Russia's wagon to the urgency of the anti-terrorism horse.

He outlined a program of cooperation with the European Union on Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Putin also advanced a promising dialogue nurtured by NATO Secretary General George Robertson by imagining out loud that NATO membership for the Baltic states and perhaps eventually for Russia could contribute to stability in Europe. He did this after overruling his military on cooperating extensively with Washington on Afghanistan.

Actions will count far more than words in the days to come. But history's door is swinging on its hinges, as the humanistic agenda of Blair and the skillful opportunism of Putin both demonstrate.

It has been said that Sept. 11 has already changed world politics and foreign relations. That is a premature judgment. Blair and Putin both understand that the direction of that change is not inevitable or easily foreseeable. It can be channeled by imagination and effort. Influencing the dramatic change to come is still an option for genuine leaders; halting that change is not.