Could 'Islamic threat' unite Russia, U.S.?
By Daniel Broessler
PRAGUE (DPA): Twelve years separate the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York. This short span of time divides the era of dawning of hope from the era of dawning of horror. Yet not only since the terrorist attacks on America has it been clear that the epochal year of 1989 utterly failed to keep the promises it appeared to make a dozen years ago.
For those so inclined, that ought to provide a modicum of consolation. If the euphoria at the close of the cold war was exaggerated, then perhaps so fare the fears emanating from this nascent "grey war". Yet with the Warsaw Pact's peaceful self- disbandment, the world was obviously banking on the end of East- West conflicts.
But the pendulum of time refused to swing that far. Central Europe, which could be forced into Soviet hegemony only with violence, has rejoined the West while Russia has remained where it was -- wherever that might be.
In its search for a home, it first cosied up to the United States, only to discover that it would find neither the economic nor political foothold it required to help it cope with the loss of superpower status.
Subsequently, Moscow sought solace in maintaining distance to America. The mantra to help them counter their loss of self- confidence is threefold: We are great. We have nuclear weapons. And, we shall not let the U.S. dictate terms.
Thus far, there is little of substance to distinguish Boris Yeltsin from Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin pursued his course noisily while Putin is more mild-mannered about it.
In the immediate aftermath of the heinous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Russian president swiftly passed on his sincere message of sympathy.
He eloquently announced his willingness to join in the coalition against terror that America is demanding. Will everything be different henceforth? Might Arab suicide hijackers succeed where democratic politicians have failed -- in uniting the West and Russia in common cause?
That is not too far-fetched, particularly since the terror is quite enough to put any Russo-American dispute in the shade. The anger over NATO enlargement up to its western border will not dissipate in Russia, but no one would seriously suggest that it poses anywhere near the danger of the radical brand of Islamism festering in Russia's southern regions.
Even the simmering conflict over the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, whose existence hampers U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system, is now viewed in a new light. It appears that both sides were right: the U.S. with its complaint that the missile treaty is no longer appropriate in a completely transformed world order; and the Russians with their warning that the planned defense system will provide no protection at all against real threats.
In many respects, the old argument now appears petty because far from stemming from a real difference of opinion as in the cold war, it resulted from sheer lack of direction. America and Russia distrusted each other because no replacement for the old friend-foe leitmotif had been found.
Nothing has changed here. Still, at least there is another enemy at large, and it is one that is shared by both nations.
Russia has always feared America muscling in on its resource- rich Central Asian backyard. Now the Kremlin is being forced to accept that it cannot contain the danger of terrorism without American help. Russia can only hope that criticism over its conduct in the Chechen war becomes more muted; criticism of war crimes, however, must be kept vocal.
Russia's soldiers will not enter the fray at the side of Americans, not least because of the trauma it has already suffered in Afghanistan. But American troops may well end up setting up bases -- with Russian connivance -- on the site of what used to be Soviet bases in Central Asia.
Russia's intelligence services are already supplying the U.S. with information. Indeed, that would appear to be the best remedy to alleviate Moscow's neuroses.