Terrorism has brought Russia and U.S. closer together

Viktor Kremenyuk, Professor, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Information Agency, Novosti, Moscow

The progress in Russo-American relations, which was prompted by the tragic events of Sept. 11, has seemingly become an irreversible tendency. After the recent Moscow negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that his meeting with the Russian head of state had become another brick in the efficient relations which have been forming between Vladimir Putin and George Bush over the past 11 months.

However, it is still too early to be over optimistic in one's forecasts.

True, for the first time since the end of World War II, the combined efforts of Russia and the U.S. in the fight against terrorism have shown to the world an example of entirely successful cooperation.

Though, Moscow has not taken a direct part in the anti- terrorist operation in Afghanistan, its military-technical aid for the Northern Alliance and intelligence information which it shared with Washington and its allies, no doubt, played an important role in the overthrow of the Taliban regime.

However, the fight against international terrorism has not finished, on the contrary, it has just started and naturally, the agenda of the Moscow negotiations included the necessity of coordinating activities in this field.

The sides spoke about joint political-diplomatic efforts within the UN to settle the situation in Afghanistan and render economic aid to this country.

However, both sides should know to what extent their level of cooperation in combating terrorism can be used in other fields and what each of the partners is going to do next.

For if Washington would like to develop a serious dialogue with Moscow enriching it with specific efforts and sealing it with important agreements, the Bush administration will have to reconsider the entire strategy of relations with the Kremlin and refrain from attempts to impose self-advantageous decisions on Moscow.

But Washington reports show that the USA is not quite ready for such a u-turn breakthrough in its relations with Russia.

In the course of the negotiations with Powell the Russian side reconfirmed its position on U.S. anti-missile defense system plans, stating that the 1972 Treaty was a useful and important element of global strategic stability provision and should be preserved. However, the Bush administration obviously failed to hear Moscow's arguments. The US plans to withdraw from the Moscow Treaty could change the world's strategic stability.

It is natural that Washington's plans have provoked a negative reaction on the part of such countries as China and India and from US allies, too.

Thus, while commenting on the latest reports from Washington, the official spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry emphasized the significance of the 1972 ABM Treaty as an element of the present stability of international relations.

The U.S. does not treat its administration's decision equivocally, either. One can agree with a statement by Senator Carl Levin, in charge of the armed services committee, to the effect that unilateral U.S. steps will lead to a chain reaction in the development of new offensive and defensive technologies, including anti-missile measures, and that an arms race will not make the U.S. less vulnerable.

The Sept. 11 events proved that even the most perfect system of national missile defense cannot offer any protection against terrorism.

The U.S. decision to withdraw from the ABM may have a negative impact on the plans to drastically cut strategic offensive arms. For Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that issues related to offensive and defensive systems should be considered together. Although the sides in Moscow came out in favor of further arms cuts, a U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty may prompt quite a different situation.

Given their mutual understanding and a sincere desire to co- operate, Moscow and Washington could make a great contribution to the peace process.

This also refers to Russia-NATO cooperation; joint efforts on a Mideastern settlement in which Moscow and Washington as co- sponsors of the peace process play a special role; a solution to the complicated Balkan crisis and the improvement of control over the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The history of the 20th century proved that Russia and the U.S. are particularly responsible for the fate of the world. Accordingly, the entire world is interested in the two great powers reaching a consensus.