Center for Defense Information
Research Topics
Television
CDI Library
Press
What's New
Search
CDI Library > Johnson's Russia List

Johnson's Russia List
 

 

March 9, 1998  
This Date's Issues:    2099  • 2100  2101

12:47 PM 12/19/00<x-rich>Johnson's Russia List (List Two)

#2101

9 March 1998

davidjohnson@erols.com


*******



United States Information Agency

Foreign Media Reaction

<center>March 9, 1998

<bold>RUSSIA: AHEAD ON IRAQ; WOOING IRAN, OTHER NEIGHBORS

</bold>

Writers abroad debated the perceived advantages garnered by Russia
through its involvement in the Iraqi crisis, its controversial push to
strengthen ties with Iran and its stepped-up involvement with other
neighbors in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russian editorialists and
their colleagues elsewhere emphasized that, from its former republics to
the Middle East, Moscow is succeeding in reasserting its influence and
promoting its economic interests throughout its vulnerable southern
borders. But some critics held that these diplomatic and economic
maneuvers were detrimental to its already ruffled dealings with the U.S.,
and wondered how these moves might affect the 10th round of the
Gore-Chernomyrdin talks this week in Washington. Russia was often seen by
these pundits as opposing U.S. policy in Iraq and Iran while trying to
undermine any gains Washington has made in the energy-rich regions of the
CIS. Moscow's reformist <underline>Segodnya</underline> and others,
however, asserted that the U.S. is the one making inroads throughout
Russia's "soft underbelly" and that a U.S. "upset" by "Russia's
'inordinate' successes in Iraq and Iran" will make Moscow pay by opposing
deals with Tehran. These were additional assessments made by
commentators:


IRAQ: A 'COMEBACK' FOR RUSSIA IN MIDEAST--The outpouring of praise in
late November that followed Moscow's diplomatic resolution of the
U.S.-Iraq confrontation was not repeated this time around. However, a
number of analysts judged that the UN's success in preventing a military
clash between Baghdad and the U.S. and Britain represented a "diplomatic
victory" for, among others, Russia. The crisis sparked several pieces in
the Russian press declaring that its solution highlighted international
opposition to U.S. hegemony. Reformist <underline>Izvestia</underline>,
for instance, insisted, "The Americans don't seem to realize that nobody
wants them to be the sole leader.... There is no room for a
one-superpower rule in this world."


IRAN: A PARTNERSHIP WITH A PRICE TAG--Even before Friday's announcement
by the Kremlin of the sale of two additional nuclear reactors to Tehran,
Russian observers were predicting that Iran, as compared to Iraq, would
prove the stronger "irritant" in U.S.-Russia relations. The U.S. and
Russia, said centrist <underline>Nezavisimaya Gazeta</underline>,
"practically have no common ground when it comes to Iran," with Moscow
believing that the U.S.' containment strategy "is clearly not the best
answer to the problem." Only one Russian comment was available regarding
the nuclear sale. Russian TV featured the director of the USA and Canada
Institute saying that the U.S. does not consult Russia when it sells
"weapons or dual-purpose technology to (its) partners." Official Tehran
Radio declared that the U.S.' persuading Ukraine not to provide turbines
for the project was actually "a gain for Iran and Russia," since the U.S.
now has to deal with Russia, "a more powerful country that has not taken
a step back from cooperating with Iran." Israeli pundits, however,
signaled their alarm over the possibility that Moscow's nuclear
contributions would allow Iran to become "a nuclear power within a year
to 18 months at most." An Israeli writer wondered whether the timing of
the announcement "was intended to discredit" Vice President Gore before
his meeting with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin--a meeting designed
to "portray Gore as a seasoned foreign policy expert."


This survey is based on 52 reports from 12 countries, Feb. 21-March 9.


EDITOR: Mildred Sola Neely


EUROPE


<bold>RUSSIA: "U.S. Does Not Consult Russia When It Sells Technology"

</bold>

According to FBIS, Moscow Russian public television's "Novosti" newscast
(3/9) aired these remarks by Sergey Mikhaylovich Rogov, director of the
Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of the USA and Canada regarding the
nuclear deals with Iran: "Americans do not consult us when they sell
weapons or dual-purpose technology to their partners. We do not discuss
these issues with them. An equal approach is required."


<bold>"Yeltsin Snubs Duma's Advice" 

</bold>

Aleksandr Shumilin wrote in reformist, business-oriented
<underline>Kommersant Daily</underline> (3/6): "The State Duma
recommended that President Yeltsin consider sending naval vessels on a
friendly visit to Iraq and order Russia's leading arms dealer
Rosvooruzheniye to organize an arms exhibition in one of the countries in
the Arabian peninsula. The president chose not to notice the
recommendation. But the effects of the Duma's 'intimidating' action won't
be long in coming. Demarches of that sort undo the efforts of Russia's
arms merchants. In the Persian Gulf area, like nowhere else, political
considerations have an overriding importance in signing arms contracts.
Confrontation between the Arab Six, on the one hand, and Iraq and Iran,
on the other, has been a determining factor in recent years. Attempts by
Russian politicians and businessmen to gain ground in Iraq and Iran tend
to turn off the Six member countries." 


<bold>"Nixon's Ping Pong Diplomacy May Be Of Use In Iran Case" 

</bold>

Aleksei Pushkov judged in centrist <underline>Nezavisimaya
Gazeta</underline> (3/6): "'Quiet' differences on Iran between Moscow and
Washington may escalate into a 'friction' more serious than their heated
debates on Iraq. With Iraq, they at least have a common UN Security
Council resolution and the Baghdad agreement. In fact, the United States
and Russia have complemented each other. Without America's threat to use
force, Saddam Hussein would most certainly have been less inclined to
listen to the UN's Kofi Annan and Russia's Viktor Posuvalyuk. All that
plus the fine skills of Russian diplomats have helped Moscow look good in
the Iraq crisis. But we must also hand it to the Clinton
administration--despite considerable pressure from the rightists, it
exercised restraint, resisting a temptation to aggravate relations with
Moscow over Iraq. Iran is a different story. The United States and Russia
practically have no common ground when it comes to Iran. America's
containment strategy is clearly not the best answer to the problem,
causing no enthusiasm even among its allies in NATO. Apparently, Iran
will remain a strong irritant in Russo-American relations until the
Americans change their attitude toward that country. They would do well
to remember the Richard Nixon ping-pong diplomacy used in regard to China
in the early 1970s."


<bold>"America's Idea Of Russia Very Uncertain" 

</bold>

Reformist, youth-oriented <underline>Moskovskiy Komsomolets</underline>
(3/4) ran this piece by Oleg Yuryev: "Overall, America's idea of Russia
is extremely uncertain now. Two almost mutually exclusive views stand
out: One is optimistic and the other pessimistic. That 'the optimists'
have started to retreat across the board says a lot. The United States is
seriously concerned over how things are standing in Russia: Slow progress
of economic reform, regional separatism, and weakened control over the
army and its nuclear weapons. But, officially--at the government
level--there are no problems between our countries, and none are expected
soon. 'Friend Bill' and 'friend Boris' will always smile in front of
cameras and pat each other on the back. Nor is our government going to
leave its stand of 'balanced optimism.' But 'the pessimists' are taking
the upper hand, nonetheless." 


<bold>"Russia, U.S Agree On Ends, Differ On Means" 

</bold>

Aleksandr Bovin said in reformist weekly <underline>Moskovskiye
Novosti</underline> regarding Iraq (# 8, 3/3): "Russia and the United
States pursue the same objective--to make Saddam Hussein fully honor a UN
resolution. But to do that, Russia believes, there is no need to kill. A
siege, patient and enduring, not an attack, less so a doomed attack, is
how I would define our approach. It is an approach which meets the
criteria of reason and justice." 


<bold>"Be Cautious About America's Calls For Caution On Iran" 

</bold>

Vadim Markushin held in centrist, army <underline>Krasnaya
Zvezda</underline> (3/3): "After the Iraq crisis 'resolves itself,' the
United States is expected to toughen its stand in areas that Russia
considers her underbelly in the South. So Moscow would do well to build
up the potential of cooperation with ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia
and the Caucasus, even if it has to make 'tactical' concessions to pander
to their ambitions.... To cite our foreign minister, Russo-Iranian
goodneighborliness may serve as an 'example of international relations in
our region.' We should be cautious about the Americans calling for
caution in our dealings with Iran so as not to find ourselves pushed out
of major political and economic processes going on to the South of our
borders. A firm and consistent policy in the South, far from putting off
leading Western powers, will enhance Russia's prestige among them." 


<bold>"CIS In U.S. Commanders' Areas Of Responsibility" 

</bold>

Viktor Kalashnikov wrote in reformist, business-oriented
<underline>Kommersant Daily</underline> (2/28): "The United States, in
the biggest move since World War II, is getting set to update its global
military-political control system. CIS member-countries are for the first
time to be included in the U.S. military commanders' areas of
responsibility. That American military plans now cover the CIS is, in
effect, a result of the ongoing operation in the Persian Gulf. The
U.S.-staged massive show of force has thrown in bold relief that which
the Americans have had time to do in the area stretching from western
Ukraine to Central Asia. Moscow has unwittingly contributed to that by
saving the United States the risk of military escalation over Iraq." 


<bold>"A New Approach To Our Neighbors And Brothers" 

</bold>

In the view of Aleksei Pushkov in centrist <underline>Nezavisimaya
Gazeta</underline> (2/28): "The main paradox and the main rule of
Russia's post-Soviet existence is that we find it easier now to get along
with countries in [South and Southwest Asia] or the Far East than with
our recent brothers in the huge 'family of nations.' The former
closeness, alluring and deceptive at the same time, creates illusions. It
upsets our partners when it proves non-existent or it reminds them of its
existence via galling and as-yet insurmountable dependence on the Big
Brother. That makes our policy irregular, with us running to extremes,
from excessive paternalism to excessive concessions. Apparently, it is
time that we and our neighbors set aside our emotions and start searching
intensively for converging and diverging interests."


<bold>"Without U.S. Armada, It Wouldn't Have Worked" 

</bold>

Boris Petrovsky summed up in reformist, business-oriented weekly
<underline>VEK</underline> (# 9, 2/27): "The (Baghdad) deal enabled
Russia and France to avoid the hard choice between their interests in the
Arab world and solidarity in global politics. But had it not been for the
formidable U.S.-British armada in the Persian Gulf, diplomacy, including
Russian-French diplomacy, wouldn't have worked." 


<bold>"U.S. Push In Central Asia, Caucasus Brews Problems To Our South" 

</bold>

Neo-communist <underline>Pravda-Five</underline>'s Pavel Bogomolov filed
from London (2/27) about "serious 


advancements in Iraq-Iran rapprochement": "As expected, the threat of air
raids against Baghdad has become a powerful catalyst for a new anti-NATO
alliance. This is only a beginning, the beginning of an inevitable
reaction of the Islamic world, divided as it is, to outside pressure. The
murderous irony of it all is that the more the United States tries (at
Russia's expense) to draw ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia and the
Caucasus into its sphere of influence, the greater the trouble brewing up
in areas to the South. The past few months have seen the contours of a
Baghdad-Tehran axis thrown in high relief." 


<bold>"Russia Has To Pay For Ties With Iran" 

</bold>

Georgy Bovt commented in reformist <underline>Segodnya</underline>
(2/27): "Upset by Russia's 'inordinate' successes in Iraq and Iran,
America is putting more pressure on it. You have to pay for everything,
including your spectacular diplomatic victories. In the Iraq case, Russia
has had to pay, too, in the form of a drop in the price of oil in the
world market. Next it will have to pay for Iran, supposedly when Gazprom
puts up its securities for sale in the United States. Hopefully, Moscow
knows what it is doing, and the Primakov-Posuvalyuk breakthrough in the
South will not entail defensive battles or, worse still, retreats on
other fronts."


<bold>"Thanks Largely To Russia, UN" 

</bold>

The Iraqi settlement sparked this piece by Dmitry Gornostayev in centrist
<underline>Nezavisimaya Gazeta</underline> (2/26): "A peaceful settlement
has been reached and has every chance to become final soon, thanks
largely to Russia and the UN secretary general." 


<bold>"No Room For Just One Superpower" 

</bold>

Reformist <underline>Izvestia</underline> (2/26) published this article
by Sergei Markov, director of an institute for political studies: "The
Americans don't seem to realize that nobody wants them to be the sole
leader. They have either to find a new global enemy to prove a need for
that status or to develop a new foreign-policy concept acknowledging the
demise of the unipolar world.... There is no room for a one-superpower
rule in this world. The sooner America realizes that, the sooner it will
find a new spot for itself. The difficult road once covered by Russia may
have to be trodden by the U.S. foreign policy elite. Of course, America's
place in world politics will be way more honorable than Russia's, but it
won't be a place for the only superpower. As shown by the Iraq crisis,
the unipolar world is receding into the past." 


<bold>"G.I.s Won Laurels For Annan, Saddam And Viktor Posuvalyuk" 

</bold>

Valery Batuyev said in reformist, youth-oriented <underline>Moskovskiy
Komsomolets</underline> (2/26): "Kofi Annan returned to New York as a
hero and a great peacemaker. But he did not win those laurels--they were
won for him by American G.I.s who scared Saddam into a consensus by
having flexed their muscles for a couple of weeks.... Moscow can't but
rejoice over the success of the Annan mission which was proposed by Boris
Yeltsin and prepared by Viktor Posuvalyuk. So it appears that Kofi Annan,
Saddam Hussein and Viktor Posuvalyuk are the ones who have benefitted the
most by Desert Thunder. I am not so sure about the Yankees in khaki who
continue sweating out there in the Persian waters. But then, Saddam
Hussein is not known to be as good as his word. Therefore, new diplomatic
or military missions are just a matter of time." 


<bold>"How Friend Bill Treats Friend Boris" 

</bold>

Reformist weekly <underline>Obshchaya Gazeta</underline>'s Aleksei Bausin
noted (# 8, 2/26): "The current crisis has shown how 'friend Bill' treats
his 'friend Boris.' At the height of the war preparations the U.S.
president was asked if he could order an attack against Iraq over
Russia's 'nyet.' The head of the White House said that 'nyet' did not
mean 'no' to the United States in that situation. Some 20 years ago he
would have thought hard before making statements like that. Some 20 years
ago, mind you, the Kremlin's 'nyet' weighed a lot more, too." 


<bold>"Moscow Counts On Tehran" 

</bold>

Yury Chubchenko remarked in reformist, business-oriented
<underline>Kommersant Daily</underline> (2/26): "Slow at the start of a
race for the Caspian Sea resources, Moscow risks ending up among losers
at the finish. It can remedy the situation by enlisting support from
Tehran. This is why, Yevgeny Primakov said, we are working to step up
cooperation with Iran across the board."


"<bold>Influenced By Initiatives Of Boris Yeltsin And Russian Diplomacy" 

</bold>

Official government <underline>Rossiyskaya Gazeta</underline> (2/25)
stated editorially on page one: "For the first time since 1990, world
public opinion, influenced by the initiatives of Boris Yeltsin and
Russian diplomacy, has compelled the United States to refuse to use crude
force in an international crisis." 


<bold>"Crisis Practically Resolved With Russia's Active Participation" 

</bold>

<underline>Rossiyskiye Vesti</underline> (2/25), a newspaper of the
presidential administration, front-paged this editorial: "The Iraq crisis
has practically been resolved with the active participation of Russia
which, to cite Boris Yeltsin, consistently worked for a diplomatic
solution." 


<bold>"Cooling Off In U.S.-Russia Relationship" 

</bold>

Aleksandr Shumilin held in reformist, business-oriented
<underline>Kommersant Daily</underline> (2/25): "Yeltsin's pronouncements
on the possibility of a third world war are a sure sign that
Moscow-Washington relations, warm only recently, have cooled off
noticeably. As a result, the United States, while remaining the only
superpower, is finding itself confronted with a 'political
multipolarity.' Saddam Hussein may well claim that as a success of his
crisis-type diplomacy." 


<bold>"Partnership With Iran Has Its Price" 

</bold>

Sergei Guly, commenting on the current visit to Russia by the Iranian
foreign minister, pointed out in reformist <underline>Noviye
Izvestia</underline> (2/25): "Any partnership has a price. Moscow pays
for its share of the Iranian market in its reputation as a reliable
member of a club of democratic nations by ignoring their concerns over
Iran developing weapons of mass destruction, sponsoring international
terrorism, misinterpreting human rights, and impeding the peace process
in the Middle East." 


<bold>"U.S. Not Perfect But Familiar" 

</bold>

Centrist <underline>Nezavisimaya Gazeta</underline> (2/21) published this
article by Yevgeny Bazhanov: "Unlike the radicals, the Kremlin does not
believe that there is a direct threat to Russia's security from the
outside. But it discerns quite a few challenges and risks, including NATO
enlargement, Islamic extremism, conflicts in CIS countries, and the
growing strength of the giants of the East--China and Japan. At the turn
of the century, Russian foreign policy, essentially, is geared to helping
the world community become multipolar. The 'establishment' is of the
opinion that international relations will become favorable and convenient
for all, if American hegemony is replaced with a system of several power
centers, Russia among them, of course. This does not seem indisputable.
The United States is not a perfect superpower, but it is at least
familiar and predictable. Sure enough, entrusting the fate of humanity to
one power, civilized as it may be, is unfair and risky. But there is no
telling either how would-be power centers, such as Japan, will behave." 


<bold>"Cause Of Anti-Americanism Is In Us" 

</bold>

Pavel Palazhchenko of the Gorbachev Fund wrote in reformist weekly
<underline>Moskovskiye Novosti</underline> (# 


7, 2/21,1998): "Barely felt at first and quite palpable now,
anti-Americanism has come into fashion in Russia. It is still not an
established ideology or habit. Far from it. It is more like a 'manner of
speaking,' a fad. The main cause of anti-American sentiment, especially
in the upper crust of Russian society, is not in American policy. The
main cause is in us. Russia is not cross with America. We are cross with
ourselves. A blue-eyed perception of 'their' life and a blue-eyed
perception of how instantly 'our' life can be changed for the better are
closely interrelated. What happened--they haven't 'helped' very much, and
we haven't been much of a success either--has not only ruined our
illusions but wounded our pride. Plainly speaking, we feel that we have
been fooled. And we can't forgive America for that. New anti-Americanism
is insincere and schizophrenic. The Soviet elite, anti-imperialistic ex
officio, tried to find jobs for their children in the Foreign Ministry
and other agencies with outlets abroad. The new 'establishment,' sounding
off its anti-American discourse, is hypocritical." 


<bold>GERMANY: "Only Guideline In Controversy Must Be Non-Proliferation
Treaty"

</bold>

Werner Adam's editorial in right-of-center <underline>Frankfurter
Allgemeine</underline> (3/7) said regarding Russo-Iranian nuclear power
cooperation: "When political and commercial interests are involved, there
will always be disputes. The only guideline in such a controversy must be
the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Access to nuclear power can legally not be
denied to countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty."


<bold>"Russia Interested In Seeing Iraq Sanctions Lifted"

</bold>

Roland Heine said in an editorial on Russian policy toward Iraq in
left-of-center <underline>Berliner Zeitung</underline> (3/4), "It is
clear that Russia and China will try to exert influence on the
disarmament controls in Iraq through the newly created group of
diplomats, since the outcome of their inspections determines whether and
when the embargo on Iraq will be lifted. Russia is very interested in
seeing these measures lifted as soon as possible. Baghdad still owes
Moscow several billions of dollars which can be repaid only when Baghdad
fully resumes its oil exports. But in addition, other interests are
involved: For a long time, international companies have been negotiating
behind the scenes on exploration rights on Iraqi oil fields. In addition
to Russian and Chinese companies, French, Italian, and Spanish companies
are involved."


<bold>"Another Reshuffle Or Real Reform?"

</bold>

Werner Adam frettted in an editorial in right-of-center
<underline>Frankfurter Allgemeine</underline> (3/4), "President Yeltsin
is using the levers of power in an almost confusing manner. The only
strategy that is visible behind his moves is that he knows very well how
to use the formidable apparatus to safeguard his czarist methods to rule,
but in this context, some urgently needed reforms are going to the dogs.
It remains to be seen whether the latest streamlining of his presidential
bureaucracy will be more than a continuation of his permanent reshuffling
efforts in the Kremlin. 


"But it makes at least sense that the Defense Council and the Military
Inspection Offices should be included in the Security Council to finally
implement the reform of the armed forces.... It is obvious that this
reform could create dangers for the Russian state. Yeltsin has obviously
realized this, since he no longer wants to leave it to his reluctant
generals to transform the armed forces into smaller but more advanced
units. He has now entrusted a civilian with this task. Nevertheless, one
must demonstrate caution when trying to draw conclusions from the Kremlin
leader's treatment of his power apparatus."


<bold>"Yeltsin: Loss Of Authority"

</bold>

An editorial by Werner Adam in right-of-center <underline>Frankfurter
Allgemeine</underline> judged (2/27), "Russia's president is exposing
himself and his government to ridicule. Before the eyes of his subjects,
he announced the dismissal of cabinet members but then refrained from
doing so. At the 


same time he is surprised that the Federal Duma no longer takes
presidential decrees seriously. The loss of authority is increasingly
making the system of checks and balances in Russia...a farce, while the
president likes to play the role of an absolute ruler." 


<bold>"Yeltsin's Complaints Rebound On Him"

</bold>

Readers of business <underline>Handelsblatt</underline> of Duesseldorf
(2/27) saw this: "Yeltsin's complaints rebound on him. It is not
Chernomyrdin but Yeltsin who is responsible for the replacement of
government officials. The result of this presidential carrot-and-stick
policy are unnerved ministers who try to cover themselves before they
make any decision and hardly dare to formulate any courageous
strategies.... The pressure which Yeltsin is exerting on the cabinet does
not produce any fruit and does not result in a salutary shock. Instead,
the ministers pass the buck down to inferiors. But those who think that
they will soon lose their job feel the need to enrich themselves in the
short period of time they are in a top position. Thus the system is
feeding upon itself: The quicker the names change, the quicker they try
to take advantage of their good position." 


<bold>"Nothing Happens"

</bold>

Adrian Zielcke commented in an editorial in centrist
<underline>Stuttgarter Zeitung</underline> (2/27), "Yeltsin likes to
pound the table...and nobody has been able to frighten him. But to keep
the communists away from power and to fight putschists is one thing, to
build up a country and establish democratic structures is another. Over
the past few years, Yeltsin signed thousands of decrees...but the country
makes no progress and decrees from the top are not taken seriously
outside of Moscow.... After his re-election, Yeltsin's plan was to
implement reforms, simplify the tax system, allow everybody to possess
property, and restore law and order. But since then, nothing has
happened."


<bold>ITALY: "Winner: Russia"

</bold>

Alberto Pasolini Zanelli wrote in leading rightist opposition
<underline>Il Giornale</underline> (2/25): "The White House tried to
hinder Annan's mission which was instead proposed and sought by Russia,
which is therefore the real, unexpected winner of the game from a
psychological and political point of view. Yeltsin has managed to achieve
a prestigious success. Not Saddam Hussein, whose situation has not
changed notwithstanding his delirious communiques. Not Bill Clinton, who
has spent two months waiting to cut a Gordian knot which has never
come."


<bold>AZERBAIJAN: "A New U.S.-Russia Cold War?"

</bold>

Independent <underline>Ayna/Zerkalo</underline> (2/21) published a
commentary by correspondent "Nurani" (Tofiqa Qasimova) which argued that
the Iraqi crisis represents only "the tip of the iceberg in what may be
called a new 'cold war.' It is impossible to find a better explanation
for Russia's apparent readiness to do its best in supporting an odious
leader like Saddam Husein.... It is this competition, rather than any
Russian sympathies for the present Iraqi regime, which serves to explain
Yeltsin's predictions of a third world war or Sergeyev's threat to end
military cooperation between the United States and Russia. By trying to
play on the conflicting ambitions between these superpowers and thus
preserving his own power, Saddam Husein has transformed Iraq into a
hostage of Russo-American relations or rather, into a training ground for
showdowns between these two powers. 


"Recent rumors concerning a rapprochement between Baghdad and Tehran (two
former 'irreconcilable' enemies) and their strengthening diplomatic
relations can be seen as additional proof that two military blocs are in
the process of being consolidated: one headed by the United States, and
the other by Russia." 


<bold>BELGIUM: "Virtues Of Russo-Euro-American Cooperation"

</bold>

Pierre Lefevre observed in independent <underline>Le Soir</underline>
(2/25): "The latest Iraqi crisis has shown the limits of U.S.
unilateralism and the virtues of Russian-Euro-American cooperation. Will
the lessons be drawn from it?" 


<bold>"Russia, In Particular, Can Be Elated"

</bold>

In the editorial opinion of foreign affairs writer Frank Schloemer in
independent <underline>De Morgen</underline> (2/24): "Russia, in
particular, can be elated. With silent and industrious diplomacy, the
former superpower has made its comeback in the Middle East--the exclusive
hunting ground of the United States."


<bold>ESTONIA: "A Diplomatic Victory For France And Russia"

</bold>

An editorial in top-circulation, center-right
<underline>Postimees</underline> (2/25) concluded, "This peaceful
agreement does not damage the U.S.' reputation, even though it is a
diplomatic victory for France and Russia."


<bold>TURKEY: "There Are Now Other Players In The Gulf"

</bold>

Sami Kohen remakerd in mass-appeal <underline>Milliyet</underline>
(2/27): "There are signs of change regarding the power equilibrium in the
Gulf.... After the 1991 crisis, the United States had managed to prove
its influence and strength, and the first steps of a Pax Americana were
taken. But the conditions today are not the same as in 1991. The United
States continues to be the sole superpower; however, there are some other
players in the region today. Not only Iraq, but also Iran and the Arab
world welcome the Russian role in the region, and they consider Russia's
influence as a counterbalance." 


MIDDLE EAST


<bold>IRAN: "Ukraine's Decision A Gain For Iran, Russia"

</bold>

Ukraine's decision not to supply equipment for an Iranian nuclear power
plant being built with Russia's help sparked this commentary on official
Tehran Radio (3/7), "Contrary to what it might seem, the decision by
Ukraine not to provide turbines...announced on Friday after a visit
by...Albright to Kiev, will be a loss for America and Ukraine but a gain
for Iran and Russia. The Ukrainian decision was a loss for America
because, before the Americans had the opportunity to celebrate, Russia
announced that it would complete and deliver the Bushehr nuclear power
station on time. This is no solution for the Americans because now the
situation is more complex and they have to deal with Russia, a more
powerful country that has not taken a step back from cooperating with
Iran.... The promise by the Russian government to provide the turbines
and complete the Bushehr nuclear power station is an example of firm and
independent decision-making on the part of Russia."


<bold>"Bright Future For Iran-Russia Ties" 

</bold>

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi's February visit to Moscow
sparked this comment on official Tehran radio (2/24), "It should be noted
that Iran's relations with the Russian Federation have improved greatly
and have seen a considerable growth in the past few years. The officials
of the two countries are determined to improve their relations in the
fields of politics, economics and culture. Therefore, the Iranian foreign
minister's discussions with Russian officials, relative to regional
issues, the recent Iraqi crisis and the Caspian Sea treaties, enjoys
especial importance. It should be noted that from the inception of the
Iraqi crisis, Iran and Russia were in favor of a diplomatic resolution of
differences between Baghdad and Washington in 


compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council by Iraq....
Cooperation among the regional countries can provide a suitable example
for other countries and on this basis the two countries can expect
friendly relations and a bright future for Tehran and Moscow."


<bold>ISRAEL: "The Russians Are Coming (Back)" 

</bold>

Mass-appeal, pluralist <underline>Maariv</underline>'s lead editorial
pointed out (3/9): "Moscow's announcement of the sale of additional
nuclear reactors to Iran is a disquieting statement of intent directed at
both Washington and Jerusalem. Militarily, the sale does not amount to
much but, coming right after the visit of Israeli Cabinet Minister
Sharansky to Moscow and in the wake of Vice President Al Gore's trip to
Russia, the statement demonstrated considerable defiance.... Russia wants
to play superpower games in our region. To that end it is using the old
and notorious strategy of buying off the Arabs at Israel's expense." 


<bold>"Russia's Diplomatic Muscle Flexing On Eve Of Gore-Chernomyrdin
Talks" 

</bold>

Analyst Zvi Barel wrote in a front-page commentary in independent
<underline>Haaretz</underline> (3/8): "Russia's announcement of the sale
of two additional nuclear reactors to Iran is astounding only in its
timing.... Building additional reactors in Iran does not influence
Iranian nuclear arming capability in any significant manner.... What is
left, therefore, is only the timing of the Russian announcement....
Gore's meeting with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin...was
meant to...portray Al Gore as a seasoned foreign policy expert. Moscow
chose this moment to flex its diplomatic muscles...in order to
demonstrate its return to the world's key strategic arenas." 


<bold>"Too Late To Stop Iranian Nuclear Program"

</bold>

Anti-Netanyahu analyst Akiva Eldar wrote in independent
<underline>Haaretz</underline> (3/6): "The United States and Israel agree
that if Russia does not stop its technology leak, Iran will be nuclear
power within a year to 18 months at most.... Next week, Vice President Al
Gore will try once again to convince Russian Premier Chernomyrdin to move
from excuses to practical steps against violators of the ban. The
Americans themselves are not placing high hopes on Gore's mission. All
signs indicate that it is too late to stop the Iranian nuclear
program.... That said, there is nothing more annoying to Netanyahu's last
advocate in the White House than the Israeli threat to push Congress into
legislating sanctions against Russia.... The Russians hoped that Israel
would help them get a sort of Marshall Plan from the Americans to help
them convert their nuclear weapons industry to peaceful purposes. Upon
the completion of her tenure, Israel's ambassador to Russia Aliza Shenhar
said...the Russians have hinted to her that a quiet dialogue aimed at
finding practical solutions would be far more effective than highly
publicized pressure."


<bold>"Russia And Iran" 

</bold>

The independent <underline>Jerusalem Post</underline>'s lead editorial
maintained (3/4): "The U.S. administration should drop its opposition to
Congressional efforts to cut off space cooperation as long as Russia
continues aiding Iran's missile program.... Since the Russians have been
immune to the force of reason, it is time to cut to the chase.... Russia
is directly threatening U.S. security interests by aiding Iran and it is
Russia which should fear damage to its relations with the United States,
not vice versa.... There is still time to prevent the security nightmare
of an aggressive Iranian regime armed with missiles that can reach both
Israel and Europe. The United States must not let itself be duped by
delaying tactics and diplomatic chaff, and link hard consequences to
Russia's failure to control itself."


<bold>"Russian Diplomacy" 

</bold>

Right-wing columnists Uri Dan and Dennis Eisenberg wrote in the
independent <underline>Jerusalem Post</underline> 


(2/26): "As American prestige sinks in the Middle East, with Uncle Sam
appearing to be nothing more than a toothless tiger, Russian influence
and prestige soar in the area.... War is still on the mind of Saddam
Hussein.... France and Russia don't give a damn. And therein lies the rub
for the Middle East--and particularly for Israelis presently storing away
their gas masks with sighs of relief."


<bold>WEST BANK: "Russia Creates A Rift In Unpopular World Order"

</bold>

Semi-liberal, pro-Palestinian Authority <underline>Al-Ayyam</underline>'s
editor-in-chief Akram Hanieh said (3/2) that there are new realities in
the world which "preclude an American monopoly.... A rift has been
created in the unpopular world order. Russia can be credited for that."


EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC


<bold>CHINA: "Russo-Ukrainian Relationship Gradually Upgraded"

</bold>

Xu Zhihong and Yu Hongjian collaborated in this piece for the official,
Communist Party <underline>People's Daily</underline> (<underline>Renmin
Ribao</underline>, 3/3), "Ukrainian President Kuchma's official visit to
Russia and the signing of a series of documents by Ukraine and Russia
indicates that the two countries' relationship has achieved some
progress.... But is still far from excellent. To Russia's satisfaction,
the Ukrainian president has articulated that Ukraine does not want to
join NATO." 


<bold>"Historic Opportunity To Improve Russia-Ukraine Ties" 

</bold>

The official, Chinese Youth Party <underline>China Youth
Daily</underline> (<underline>Zhongguo Qingnian Bao</underline>, 3/3) ran
this by Li Qingyi, "Some say that the Ukrainian president's visit to
Russia represents the total sum of achievements he has attained in the
bilateral relationship since he took office. For the sake of the 1999
election, Kuchma needs to get all-out support from Moscow. Therefore,
these two years, 1998 and 1999, might serve as a historical opportunity
to improve the Russo-Ukrainian relationship." 


<bold>"Japan-Russia Ties Promoted" 

</bold>

In the opinion of Wang Xianju in intellectually oriented
<underline>Guangming Daily</underline> (<underline>Guangming
Ribao</underline>, 2/27), "Although the Russo-Japanese relationship has
been improving recently, territorial disputes between the two nations
remain just as before. Whether a treaty can be signed still remains a
question. The enhancement of engagement between the two nations recently
demonstrates that neither Russia nor Japan is willing to have their
relationship impaired by the territory dispute. They are hoping to
improve their ties and appropriately promote cooperation in certain
fields such as trade and economy." 


<bold>HONG KONG: "China, Russia See Washington As Common Foe" 

</bold>

The independent, English-language <underline>Hong Kong
Standard</underline> featured this comment (2/24) by Cary Huang: "The
impending showdown between Iraq and the United States is forging a
Sino-Russian alliance that aims at putting the brakes to Washington's
domination of global affairs and its self-proclaimed role as the world's
sole superpower policeman.... The simple truth as to why China and Russia
have such a high profile on the issue is that both are in no position to
intervene militarily in the Middle East.... The Gulf has additional
value. If Washington is not able to control the transit area between
Europe and Asia or if it falls into hostile hands, the U.S.' strategic
outlook would be seriously impeded.... (This is) just what other
adversaries such as China and Russia want to see as a check on the U.S.
military and strategically.... Both nations also have economic, political
and strategic stakes in the region." 


<bold>For more information, please contact:

</bold>

<bold>U.S. Information Agency

</bold>

<bold>Office of Public Liaison

</bold>

<bold>Telephone: (202) 619-4355

</bold>

</center><bold> 3/9/98 


*******</bold>

---


Return to CDI's Home Page  I  Return to CDI's Library