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

Johnson's Russia List


June 6, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4348  4349  4350

Johnson's Russia List
6 June 2000

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Little gained from US-Russia summit -Moscow press.
2. Reuters: Don't shout, but Russia caved in on ABM.
3. AFP: Russian lawmakers cool to Clinton's urgings on reform, democracy.
4. Transcript: Clinton Speech to Russian Duma June 5.
5. Izvestia: Yevgeny Krutikov, NEW RUSSIAN WESTERNISM.]


Little gained from US-Russia summit -Moscow press

MOSCOW, June 5 (Reuters) - Russian newspapers said on Monday the summit 
meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton had generated few 
concrete results, with the United States preoccupied by its forthcoming 
presidential election. 

Moscow dailies said that apart from a deal to dismantle plutonium stocks, the 
talks had served merely to underscore a new, more realistic period of 
relations after disappointment with the initial phase of post-Soviet reform. 

``The problems have not been resolved, the next round in tackling them has 
merely been set,'' Vremya Novosti said in a front-page article entitled 
``Zero Option.'' 

``The modest outcome of 'Summit 2000' is wholly logical. The notion of 
'strategic partnership', which seemed to be breathing its last in recent 
years, now appears doomed to be around for some time. So far neither Moscow 
nor Washington knows what form the new relations will take.'' 

The daily Sevodnya, linked to the liberal Media-MOST group raided by tax 
police last month, said the summit showed that the ``summer of 
Russian-American relations is now over.'' 

Clinton, it said, was dealing with a new era under Putin ``who continues the 
war in Chechnya, pursues nuclear cooperation with Iran, takes no notice of 
'raids' on the media and declares that he may consider joining NATO while 
working with the Americans to build a nuclear shield essentially aimed at 
Russia's strategic partners.'' 

The daily Vedomosti said even Putin's proposal on the eve of the meeting to 
work together to create an alternative, joint shield against rogue missiles 
had produced little effect. It dismissed the summit as an ``unnecessary 

``The U.S. president's visit to Moscow was, above all, important for him and 
and not Putin,'' it said. ``Clinton's visit to Russia, part of a European 
tour, was intended mostly to help his Democrat ally Vice-President Al Gore 
win the election.'' 


ANALYSIS-Don't shout, but Russia caved in on ABM
By Martin Nesirky

MOSCOW, June 5 (Reuters) - It sounded more like a lawyer's natural caution, 
yet it turned out to be a shrewd tip. 

Read the small print, U.S. President Bill Clinton said after he and Russian 
President Vladimir Putin signed a joint statement on Sunday on strategic 
stability and their differences over Washington's plans for an anti-missile 
defence system. 

Clinton, a trained lawyer and veteran politician, said it again on Monday 
when he addressed Russian parliamentarians on Monday after his summit talks 
failed to bridge the gap. Russian officials were perhaps understandably less 

The 16-point statement is indeed worth the read. 

Defence analysts say the main conclusions are Russia has effectively reversed 
its opposition to changes in the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and the 
presidents made more progress than they felt comfortable announcing. 

``There is progress but they want to hide it from public attention as much as 
possible,'' said Alexander Golts, defence analyst at the weekly magazine 

``If it is stated now that we are giving up our correct position on ABM, I 
don't think there will be applause, there will be hysteria.'' 


A key section of the statement says, in evasive diplomatic language, that 
Clinton and Putin want ``to enhance (the ABM treaty's) viability and 
effectiveness in the future, taking into account any changes in the 
international security environment.'' 

In another section the two men agree there has in fact been such a change in 
the shape of the ``new threat'' from ballistic missiles in the hands of 
so-called rogue states, although Clinton said they did not yet agree on how 
to tackle it. 

``Russia lost its position on the ABM treaty,'' said Pavel Podvig, a 
prominent Russian arms control expert and editor of a book on Russia's 
nuclear arsenal. 

``Putin basically says we will talk about changes in the strategic situation 
that would lead to changes in ABM. This is a U-turn in Russia's previous 

Clinton said in his speech to the State Duma lower house of parliament the 
differences about how to deal with the growing rogue missile threat were 
ultimately surmountable. 

``I believe that we ought to be able to reach an agreement about how we 
should proceed at each step along the way here in a way that preserves mutual 
deterrence, preserves strategic stability and preserves the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile treaty,'' he said. ``That is my goal.'' 

He said the difference boiled down to whether Russia would accept the 
anti-missile shield was meant to catch a few incoming rogue missiles and not 
ward off a mass nuclear strike. 

Washington wants to amend the 1972 treaty to deploy this limited National 
Missile Defence shield. Clinton has to decide soon whether to press ahead 
with deployment. 

Putin would rather place defences close to risky states to shoot down 
missiles in their ``boost phase'' just as they are launched and has hitherto 
ruled out altering or scrapping the pact for fear of sparking a new arms race 
Russia could not win. 


Putin may be trying to make a virtue out of necessity and his ``boost stage'' 
proposal was more an indication of a willingness to talk. Clinton said the 
technology was 10 years away but the threat just five years hence. 

In what appeared to be a re-run of his proposal, Putin suggested during a 
visit to Rome on Monday that Russia create common anti-missile defences with 
Europe and NATO. 

Analysts made clear they believed a compromise could still be some way off, 
and may not be reached under Clinton's presidency -- he has to step down in 
January -- or at least before the November presidential election. 

``It was not up to a lame duck to lead serious negotiations on this,'' said 
Igor Bunin, director of the Centre of Political Technologies think tank. 
``There are, however, the beginning of signs that the positions may come 
closer together.'' 

Terence Taylor of London's International Institute for Strategic Studies 
pointed to two deals on destroying plutonium and setting up an early warning 
centre as signs of progress. 

``They also agreed on the need to discuss the emerging missile threat,'' he 
said. ``So the agenda for the next negotiation is in place.'' 

When those talks take place and how a compromise looks are the next big 
questions. There are signs work is already under way, in line with the 
presidents' order in their statement to ministers and experts to draw up a 
report for them to consider. 

``According to my information, several of our generals and experts have 
already left for Washington to prepare something for the meeting between 
Cohen and Sergeyev,'' said one Russian defence source on condition he was not 

He was referring to talks expected in Brussels and Moscow later this week 
between U.S. Defence Secretary William Cohen and Russian Defence Minister 
Igor Sergeyev. 

Intriguingly, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott -- a leading U.S. 
arms negotiator who did much of the summit advance work -- held extra talks 
with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov after Clinton left 

But no details were available from either side. 

It was significant Russia conceded ground on ABM without the United States 
agreeing to go lower in the target for cuts in nuclear warheads under future 
START-3 arms reduction talks. 

Russia has offered to go down to 1,500 warheads per side or lower, below the 
originally envisaged number. But the U.S. military has balked at this. 

``The chances Russia will get a good deal out of this are pretty slim now,'' 
said Podvig. ``If it is not linked to real progress with START-3 then it is 
an opportunity lost. A missile defence system is going to be built anyway.'' 


Russian lawmakers cool to Clinton's urgings on reform, democracy

MOSCOW, June 5 (AFP) - 
US President Bill Clinton urged Russia on Monday to use an economic boom to 
implement lasting reforms that could transform the country into a prosperous 
democracy where freedoms were guaranteed.

In a speech to parliament, the first by a Western leader, Clinton sought to 
allay Russian fears about US missile defence plans but met with a cool 
response from lawmakers, many of whom criticised his remarks.

Clinton also used his 43-minute address to hail voters' rejection of a return 
to the communist past in elections last December and warned against any 
return to authoritarian rule.

"A great deal of the 21st century will be strongly influenced by the success 
of the Russian people in building a modern, strong, democratic nation," he 

"The answer to law without order is not order without law," added Clinton, an 
apparent reference to Putin's mantra that he wants to impose a "dictatorship 
of the law" in Russia.

Putin critics charge the former KGB spy has an authoritarian bent, and warn a 
recent armed raid by tax police on Russia's leading private media group and 
moves to curb regional chiefs' powers heralded a crackdown on his opponents.

In his wide-ranging speech to lawmakers, an honour previously granted only to 
President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Clinton also repeated his 
criticism of Russia's crackdown in Chechnya, now in its 10th month.

"Can any war be won that causes so many civilian casualties and has no 
component bringing about a political solution," he asked, while defending 
Russia's right to protect its borders and fight terrorism.

Clinton said Russia should not be the only major industrialised country 
outside the World Trade Organisation, and pledged US support.

"But you must know too that the decision to join the WTO requires difficult 
choices that only you can make," he added.

He urged the government to pursue reforms and fight crime and corruption in 
order to attract investors and halt capital flight. He also called for an 
effective law to combat money-laundering.

The US leader, who failed during three days of talks with Putin to narrow the 
gulf with Moscow over missile defence, sought to allay parliament's fears 
saying it would not hurt Russia's deterrent.

"I believe we ought to be able to reach an agreement about how we should 
proceed at each step along the way here that preserves mutual deterrence, 
preserves strategic stability and preserves the ABM treaty.

"That is my goal," said Clinton, adding: "I think we have made some progress" 
during the summit with Putin.

Clinton is due this summer to decide on deployment of a 60-billion-dollar 
defence shield. That would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the 
cornerstone of arms control agreements for almost 30 years, unless Russia 
agrees changes to allow a limited US system.

However, the two sides have so far failed to agree corresponding cuts in 
nuclear arsenals that Moscow is demanding in exchange. Putin has vowed to 
tear up all arms controls accords with the United States if Washington 
unilaterally decides to deploy the missile defence.

Around 50 leftists brandishing "Yankee Go Home" banners and Soviet flags 
demonstrated outside the State Duma lower house of parliament where Clinton 
addressed members of both houses of parliament.

The chamber, only three-quarters full, listened in polite silence, although 
outspoken ultranationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shouted "shame" at the 
end of the Clinton speech.

"It's a profanation," he stormed, claiming the chamber had been packed with 
security service and foreign ministry personnel to mask an embarrassing mass 

"I was not in the chamber where Satan spoke," snapped communist deputy Vasily 

"He (Clinton) urged us towards prosperity after robbing us. He spoke as if he 
was president of the world," said a caustic Vasily Starodubtsev, governor of 
the Tula region.

Clinton met ex-president Boris Yeltsin before flying out of Moscow shortly 
after 1000 GMT for Ukraine, where a date for the definitive closure of the 
crippled Chernobyl nuclear power plant could be announced.


US Department of State
05 June 2000 
Transcript: Clinton Speech to Russian Duma June 5 
(Praises Russia's progress, urges focus on common goals) (6520)

Moscow - "A great deal of the 21st century will be strongly influenced
by the success of the Russian people in building a modern, strong,
democratic nation that is part of the life of the rest of the world,"
President Clinton told members of the Russian Duma in a June 5 address
in Moscow.

And because Russia's success is so important, "many people across the
world have sought to support your efforts, sharing with you a sense of
pride when democracy is advanced, and sharing your disappointment when
difficulties arose," Clinton said in a speech following two days of
meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He praised the progress Russia has made over the past decade despite
obstacles and setbacks. "We see an economy that is growing ... people
taking responsibility for their future... a country transforming its
system of higher education to meet the demands of the modern world ...
a country entering the Information Age ... a Russia that has just
completed a democratic transfer of executive power for the first time
in a thousand years."

He spoke about the economic and security challenges of globalization,
and of the challenge of defining Russia's relationship with the United

"Many Russians still suspect that America does not wish you well,"
Clinton said. "The United States wants a strong Russia, a Russia
strong enough to protect its territorial integrity while respecting
that of its neighbors," meet threats to its security, help maintain
strategic stability, and help its people "live their dreams."

"We have an obligation... to focus on the goals we can and should
advance together in our mutual interest, and to manage our differences
in a responsible and respectful way," the President added.

Clinton outlined some important goals of the U.S.-Russian partnership:

-- building a "normal economic relationship, based on trade and
investment between our countries and contact between our people." He
said the United States will support Russia's efforts to create a
modern and more diversified economy, fight crime and corruption, and
undertake reforms needed to join the World Trade Organization.

-- meeting "threats to our security together," such as through
negotiation of START III, and the new measures announced at the
Clinton-Putin summit on the destruction of weapons-grade plutonium and
establishment of an Joint Warning Center on missile launches.

-- building "a world that is less divided along ethnic, racial and
religious lines." The stability of both societies depends upon people
with differences being able to live together "under a common framework
of rules."

In discussing security threats, Clinton assured the Duma that
America's proposed missile defense system "would not undermine
Russia's deterrent, or the principles of mutual deterrence and
strategic stability." The United States finds "any future apart from
cooperation with you in the nuclear area inconceivable," he said.

"I believe we ought to be able to reach an agreement about how we
should proceed ... in a way that preserves mutual deterrence,
strategic stability, and the ABM treaty."

The debate over the missile defense system "reflects a larger and more
basic truth," Clinton said. "The fundamental threat to our security is
not the threat that we pose to each other, but instead, threats we
face in common" -- terrorism, diseases such as AIDS and tuberculosis,
global warming and environmental destruction.

Clinton discussed the disagreements between the United States and
Russia over Kosovo and Chechnya. He then said his ultimate security
goal is "to help Europe build a community that is democratic, at
peace, and without divisions -- that includes Russia."

Estrangement between Russia and the West lasted too long, Clinton
said, not because of inherent differences but rather due to choices
made by both sides. "We now have the power to choose a different and a
better future.... We can do it by making sure that none of the
institutions of European and trans-Atlantic unity, not any of them,
are closed to Russia."

"I leave you today looking to the future with the realistic hope that
we will choose wisely; that we will continue to build a relationship
of mutual respect and mutual endeavor... I believe we will do this,
not because I know everything always turns out well, but because I
know our partnership, our relationship, is fundamentally the right
course for both nations" and it is "profoundly important to the

Following is a transcript of President Clinton's remarks to the Duma:

(begin transcript)

Office of the Press Secretary 
(Moscow, Russia)
June 5, 2000


The Duma
Moscow, Russia

10:10 A.M. (L)

PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, I thank you for that introduction.
And even though it is still in the morning, I am delighted to be here,
with the members of the state Duma and the Federation Council.

It is important to me to have this opportunity because the prospects
for virtually every important initiative President Putin and I have
discussed over the last two days will obviously depend upon your
advice and your consent, and because through you I can speak to the
citizens of Russia directly, those whom you represent.

I have made five trips to Russia in my years as President. I have
worked with President Yeltsin and now with President Putin. I have met
with the leadership of the Duma on more than one occasion. I have
spoken with Russia's religious leaders, with the media, with
educators, scientists and students. I have listened to Russian people
tell me about their vision of the future, and I have tried to be quite
open about my own vision of the future. I have come here at moments of
extraordinary optimism about Russia's march toward prosperity and
freedom, and I've been here at moments of great difficulty for you.

I believed very strongly from the first time I came here that Russia's
future fundamentally is in the hands of the Russian people. It cannot
be determined by others, and it should not be. But Russia's future is
very important to others, because it is among the most important
journeys the world will witness in my lifetime. A great deal of the
21st century will be strongly influenced by the success of the Russian
people in building a modern, strong, democratic nation that is part of
the life of the rest of the world.

And so, many people across the world have sought to support your
efforts, sharing with you a sense of pride when democracy is advanced,
and sharing your disappointment when difficulties arose.

It is obviously not for me to tell the Russian people how to interpret
the last few years. I know your progress has come with unfilled
expectations and unexpected difficulties. I know there have been
moments, especially during the financial crisis in 1998, when some
wondered if the new Russia would end up as a grand social experiment
gone wrong. But when we look at Russia today, we do not see an
experiment gone wrong.

We see an economy that is growing, producing goods and services people
want. We see a nation of enterprising citizens who are beginning,
despite all of the obstacles, to bring good jobs and a normal life to
their communities. We see a society with 65,000 non-governmental
organizations, like Eco-juris, which is helping citizens defend their
rights in court, like Vozrozhdenie, which is aiding families with
disabled children, like the local chambers of commerce that have
sprung up all across Russia.

We see a country of people taking responsibility for their future --
people like those of Gadzhiyevo on the Arctic Circle who organized a
referendum to protect the environment of their town. We see a country
transforming its system of higher education to meet the demands of the
modern world, with institutions like the new Law Factory at Novgorod
University, and the New Economic School in Moscow.

We see a country preserving its magnificent literary heritage, as the
Pushkin Library is doing in its efforts to replenish the shelves of
libraries all across Russia. We see a country entering the Information
Age, with cutting-edge software companies, with Internet centers at
universities from Kazan to Ufa to Yakutsk, with a whole generation of
young people more connected to the outside world than any past
generation could have imagined.

We see Russian citizens with no illusions about the road ahead, yet
voting in extraordinary numbers against a return to the past. We see a
Russia that has just completed a democratic transfer of executive
power for the first time in a thousand years.

I would not presume to tell the people you represent how to weigh the
gains of freedom against the pain of economic hardship, corruption,
crime. I know the people of Russia do not yet have the Russia they
were promised in 1991. But I believe you, and they, now have a
realistic chance to build that kind of Russia for yourselves in far
greater measure than a decade ago, because of the democratic
foundations that have been laid and the choices that have been made.

The world faces a very different Russia than it did in 1991. Like all
countries, Russia also faces a very different world. Its defining
feature is globalization, the tearing down of boundaries between
people, nations and cultures, so that what happens anywhere can have
an impact everywhere.

During the 1990s, the volume of international trade almost doubled.
Links among businesses, universities, advocacy groups, charities and
churches have multiplied across physical space and cyberspace. In the
developing world some of the poorest villages are beginning to be
connected to the Information Superhighway in ways that are opening up
unbelievable opportunities for education and for development.

The Russian people did more than just about anyone else to make
possible this new world of globalization, by ending the divisions of
the Cold War. Now Russia, America, and all nations are subject to new
rules of the global economy. One of those rules, to adapt a phrase
from your history, is that it's no longer possible to build prosperity
in one country alone. To prosper, our economies must be competitive in
a global marketplace; and to compete, the most important resource we
must develop is our own people, giving them the tools and freedom to
reach their full potential.

This is the challenge we have tried to meet in America over the last
few years. Indeed, the changes we have seen in the global economy pose
hard questions that both our nations still must answer. A fundamental
question is: How do we define our strength and vitality as a nation
today, and what role should government play in building it?

Some people actually believe that government is no longer relevant at
all to people's lives in a globalized, interconnected world. Since all
of us hold government positions, I presume we disagree. But I believe
experience shows that government, while it must be less bureaucratic
and more oriented toward the markets, and while it should focus on
empowering people by investing in education and training rather than
simply accruing power for itself, it is still very important.

Above all, a strong state should use its strength to reinforce the
rule of law, protect the powerless against the powerful, defend
democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression, religion and the
press, and do whatever is possible to give everyone a chance to
develop his or her innate abilities.

This is true, I believe, for any society seeking to advance in the
modern world. For any society in any part of the world that is
increasingly small and tied together, the answer to law without order
is not order without law.

Another fundamental question is: How shall countries define their
strength in relation to the rest of the world today? Shall we define
it as the power to dominate our neighbors or the confidence to be a
good neighbor? Shall we define it by what we are against, or simply in
terms of what others are for? Do we join with others in common
endeavors to advance common interests, or do we try to bend others to
our will?

This federal assembly's ratification of START II and the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty suggests you are answering these questions in a way
that will make for both a stronger Russia and a better world, defining
your strength in terms of the achievements of your people and the
power of your partnerships, and your role in world affairs.

A related question for both Russia and America is: How should we
define our relationship today? Clearly, Russia has entered a phase
when what it needs most is outside investment, not aid. What Americans
must ask is not so much what can we do for Russia, but what can we do
with Russia to advance our common interests and lift people in both

To build that kind of relationship, we Americans have to overcome the
temptation to think that we have all the answers. We have to resist
the feeling that if only you would see things our way, troubles would
go away. Russia will not, and indeed should not, choose a course
simply because others wish you to do so. You will choose what your
interests clearly demand and what your people democratically embrace.

I think one problem we have is that many Russians still suspect that
America does not wish you well. Thus, you tend to see our relationship
in what we call zero-sum terms, assuming that every assertion of
American power must diminish Russia, and every assertion of Russian
strength must threaten America. That is not true. The United States
wants a strong Russia, a Russia strong enough to protect its
territorial integrity while respecting that of its neighbors; strong
enough to meet threats to its security; to help maintain strategic
stability; to join with others to meet common goals; to give its
people their chance to live their dreams.

Of course, our interests are not identical, and we will have our
inevitable disagreements. But on many issues that matter to our
people, our interests coincide. And we have an obligation, it seems to
me, to focus on the goals we can and should advance together in our
mutual interest, and to manage our differences in a responsible and
respectful way.

What can we do together in the years to come? Well, one thing we ought
to do is to build a normal economic relationship, based on trade and
investment between our countries and contact between our people. We
have never had a better opportunity, and I hope you will do what you
can to seize it.

This is the time, when Russia's economy is growing and oil prices are
high, when I hope Russia will create a more diversified economy. The
economies that will build power in the 21st century will be built not
just on resources from the soil, which are limited, but on the genius
and initiative of individual citizens, which are unlimited.

This is a time when I hope you will finish putting in place the
institutions of a modern economy, with laws that protect property,
that ensure openness and accountability, that establish an efficient,
equitable tax code. Such an economy would keep Russian capital in
Russia, and bring foreign capital to Russia, both necessary for the
kind of investment you deserve, to create jobs for your people and new
businesses for your future.

This is a time to win the fight against crime and corruption, so that
investment will not choose safer shores. That is why I hope you will
soon pass a strong law against money laundering that meets
international standards.

This is also the time I hope Russia will make an all-out effort to
take the needed steps to join the World Trade Organization. Membership
in the WTO reinforces economic reform. It will give you better access
to foreign markets. It will ensure that your trading partners treat
you fairly. Russia should not be the only major industrialized country
standing outside this global trading system. You should be inside this
system, with China, Brazil, Japan, members of the European Union and
the United States, helping to shape those rules for the benefit of

We will support you. But you must know, too, that the decision to join
the WTO requires difficult choices that only you can make. I think it
is very important. Again, I will say I think you should be part of
making the rules of the road for the 21st century economy, in no small
measure because I know you believe in the importance of the social
contract, and you understand that we cannot have a world economy
unless we also have some rules that people in the world respect
regarding the living standards of people -- the conditions in which
our children are raised, whether they have access to education, and
whether we do what should be done together to protect the global

A second goal of our partnership should be to meet threats to our
security together. The same advances that are bringing the world
together are also making the tools of destruction deadlier, cheaper,
and more available. As you well know, because of this openness of
borders, because of the openness of the Internet, and because of the
advances of technology, we are all more vulnerable to terrorism, to
organized crime, to the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons -- which themselves may some day be transferred, soon, in
smaller and smaller quantities, across more and more borders, by
unscrupulous illegal groups working together. In such a world, to
protect our security we must have more cooperation, not more
competition, among like-minded nation states.

Since 1991, we have already cooperated to cut our own nuclear arsenals
by 40 percent; in removing nuclear weapons from Belarus, Ukraine, and
Kazakhstan; in fighting illicit trafficking in deadly technology.
Together, we extended the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, banned
chemical weapons, agreed to end nuclear testing, urged India and
Pakistan to back away from nuclear confrontation.

Yesterday, President Putin and I announced two more important steps.
Each of us will destroy 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, enough to
build thousands of nuclear weapons. And we will establish a system to
give each other early warning of missile tests and space launches to
avoid any miscalculation, with a joint center here that will operate
out of Moscow 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- the first
permanent, joint United States-Russian military cooperation ever. I am
proud of this record, and I hope you are, too.

We will continue to reduce our nuclear arsenals by negotiating a START
III treaty, and to secure the weapons and materials that remain. But
we must be realistic. Despite our best efforts, the possibility exists
that nuclear and other deadly weapons will fall into dangerous hands,
into hands that could threaten us both -- rogue states, terrorists,
organized criminal groups.

The technology required to launch missiles capable of delivering them
over long distances, unfortunately, is still spreading across the
world. The question is not whether this threat is emerging; it is. The
question is, what is the best way to deal with it? It is my strong
preference that any response to strengthen the strategic stability and
arms control regime that has served our two nations so well for
decades now. If we can pursue that goal together, we will all be more

Now, as all of you know well, soon I will be required to decide
whether the United States should deploy a limited national defense
system designed to protect the American people against the most
imminent of these threats. I will consider, as I have repeatedly said,
many factors, including the nature of threat, the cost of meeting it,
the effectiveness of the available technology, and the impact of this
decision on our overall security, including our relationship with
Russia and other nations, and the need to preserve the ABM
[Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty.

The system we are contemplating would not undermine Russia's
deterrent, or the principles of mutual deterrence and strategic
stability. That is not a question just of our intent, but of the
technical capabilities of the system. But I ask you to think about
this, to debate it -- as I know you will -- to determine for
yourselves what the capacity of what we have proposed is -- because I
learned on my trip to Russia that the biggest debate is not whether we
intend to do something that will undermine mutual deterrence -- I
think most people who have worked with us, not just me and others,
over the years know that we find any future apart from cooperation
with you in the nuclear area inconceivable. The real question is a
debate over what the impact of this will be, because of the capacity
of the technology involved.

And I believe that is a question of fact which people of good will
ought to be able to determine. And I believe we ought to be able to
reach an agreement about how we should proceed at each step along the
way here, in a way that preserves mutual deterrence, preserves
strategic stability, and preserves the ABM Treaty. That is my goal.
And if we can reach an agreement about how we're going forward, then
it is something we ought to take in good faith to the Chinese, to the
Japanese, to others who are interested in this, to try to make sure
that this makes a safer world, not a more unstable world.

I think we've made some progress, and I would urge all of you who are
interested in this to carefully read the Statement of Principles to
which President Putin and I agreed yesterday.

Let me say that this whole debate on missile defense and the nature of
the threat reflects a larger and, I think, more basic truth. As we and
other nation states look out on the world today, increasingly we find
that the fundamental threat to our security is not the threat that we
pose to each other, but instead, threats we face in common -- threats
from terrorist and rogue states, from biological, chemical and nuclear
weapons which may be able to be produced in increasingly smaller and
more sophisticated ways. Public health threats, like AIDS and
tuberculosis, which are now claiming millions of lives around the
world, and which literally are on the verge of ruining economies and
threatening the survival of some nations. The world needs our
leadership in this fight as well. And when President Putin and I go to
the G-8 meeting in July, I hope we can support a global strategy
against infectious disease.

There is a global security threat caused by environmental pollution
and global warming. We must meet it with strong institutions at home
and with leadership abroad.

Fortunately, one of the benefits of the globalized Information Age is
that it is now possible to grow an economy without destroying the
environment. Thanks to incredible advances in science and technology
over the last 10 years, a whole new aspect in economic growth has
opened up. It only remains to see whether we are wise enough to work
together to do this, because the United States does not have the right
to ask any nation -- not Russia, not China, not India -- to give up
future economic growth to combat the problem of climate change. What
we do have is the opportunity to persuade every nation, including
people in our own country who don't yet believe it, that we can grow
together in the 21st century and actually reduce greenhouse gases at
the same time.

I think a big part of making that transition benefits Russia, because
of your great stores of natural gas. And so I hope we will be working
closely together on this in the years ahead.

In the Kyoto climate change treaty, we committed ourselves to tie
market forces to the fight against global warming. And today, on this
World Environment Day, I'm pleased that President Putin and I have
agreed to deepen our own cooperation on climate change.

This is a huge problem. If we don't deal with this within just a few
years, you will have island nations flooded; you will have the
agricultural balance of most countries completely changed; you will
have a dramatic increase in the number of severe, unmanageable weather
events. And the good news is that we can now deal with this problem,
again I say, and strengthen our economic growth, not weaken it.

A third challenge that demands our engagement is the need to build a
world that is less divided along ethnic, racial and religious lines.
It is truly ironic, I think, that we can go anywhere in the world and
have the same kinds of conversations about the nature of the global
information society. Not long ago, I was in India in a poor village,
meeting with a women's milk cooperative. And the thing they wanted me
to see was that they had computerized all their records. And then I
met with the local village council, and the thing they wanted me to
see in this remote village, in a nation with a per capita income of
only $450 a year, was that all the information that the federal and
state government had that any citizen could ever want was on a
computer in the public building in this little village.

And I watched a mother that had just given birth to a baby come into
this little public building and call up the information about how to
care for the child, and then print it out on her computer, so that she
took home with her information every bit as good as a well-to-do
American mother could get from her doctor about how to care for a
child in the first six months.

It is truly ironic that at a time when we're living in this sort of
world with all these modern potentials, that we are grappling with our
oldest problems of human society: our tendency to fear, and then to
hate people who are different from us. We see it from Northern Ireland
to the Middle East to the tribal conflicts of Africa, to the Balkans
and many other places on this Earth.

Russia and America should be concerned about this because the
stability of both of our societies depends upon people of very
different ethnic, racial and religious groups learning to live
together under a common framework of rules. And history teaches us
that harmony that lasts among such different people cannot be
maintained by force alone.

I know when trying to come to grips with these problems, these old
problems of the modern world, the United States and Russia have faced
some of our greatest difficulties in the last few years. I know you
disagreed with what I did in Kosovo, and you know that I disagreed
with what you did in Chechnya. I have always said that the Russian
people and every other people have a right to combat terrorism and to
preserve the integrity of their nations. I still believe it, and I
reaffirmed that today. My question in Chechnya was an honest one and
the question of a friend, and that is whether any war can be won that
requires large numbers of civilian casualties and has no political
component bringing about a solution.

Let me say, in Kosovo my position was whether we could ever preserve a
democratic and free Europe unless Southeastern Europe were a part of
it, and whether any people could ever say that everyone is entitled to
live in peace if 800,000 people were driven out of a place they had
lived in for centuries solely because of their religion.

None of these questions will be easy, but I think we ought to ask
ourselves whether we are trying to resolve them. I remember going to
Kosovo after the conflict, after Russians and Americans had agreed to
serve there together as we have served in Bosnia effectively together,
and sitting down with all the people who represented the conflict
around the table. They would hardly speak to each other. They were
still angry; they were still thinking about their family members that
had been dislocated and killed.

So I said to them that I had just been involved in negotiating the end
of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and that I was very close to the
Irish conflict because all of my relatives came from a little village
in Ireland that was right on the border between the North and the
South, and therefore, had lived through all these years of conflict
between the Catholics and the Protestants.

And I said, now here's the deal we've got. The deal is majority rule,
minority rights, guaranteed participation in decision-making, shared
economic and other benefits. Majority rule; minority rights;
guaranteed participation in decision-making; shared economic and other
benefits. I said, now, it's a good deal, but what I would like to tell
you is that if they had ever stopped fighting, they could have gotten
this deal years ago.

And so I told the people of Kosovo, I said, you know, everybody around
this table has got a legitimate grievance. People on all sides, you
can tell some story that is true, and is legitimately true. Now, you
can make up your mind to bear this legitimate grievance with a grudge
for 20 or 30 years. And 20 or 30 years from now, somebody else will be
sitting in these chairs, and they will make a deal -- majority rule,
minority rights, shared decision-making, shared economic and other
benefits. You can make the deal now, or you can wait.

Those of us who are in a position of strong and stable societies, we
have to say this to people. We have to get people -- not just the
people who have been wronged, everybody has got a legitimate grievance
in these cauldrons of ethnic and racial and religious turmoil. But
it's something we have to think about. And as we see a success story,
it's something I think we ought to look for other opportunities to

Real peace in life comes not when you give up the feelings you have
that are wrong, but when you give up the feelings you have that are
right, in terms of having been wronged in the past. That's how people
finally come together and go on. And those of us who lead big
countries should take that position and try to work through it.

Let me say, finally, a final security goal that I have, related to all
the others, is to help Europe build a community that is democratic, at
peace, and without divisions -- one that includes Russia, and
strengthens our ability to advance our common interest. We have never
had that kind of Europe before in all of history. So building it will
require changing old patterns of thinking. I was in Germany a couple
of days ago in the historical town of Aachen, where Charlemagne had
his European empire in the late 8th and early 9th centuries, to talk
about that.

There are, I know, people who resist the idea that Russia should be
part of Europe, and who insist that Russia is fundamentally different
from the other nations that are building a united Europe. Of course,
there are historical and cultural arguments that support that
position. And it's a good thing that you are different and that we are
different; it makes life more interesting. But the differences between
Russia and France, for example, may not be any greater than those
between Sweden and Spain, or England and Greece, or even between
America and Europe. Integration within Europe and then the
transatlantic alliance came about because people who are different
came together, not because people who are the same came together.

Estrangement between Russia and the West, which lasted too long, was
not because of our inherent differences, but because we made choices
in how we defined our interests and our belief systems. We now have
the power to choose a different and a better future. We can do that by
integrating our economies, making common cause against common threats,
promoting ethnic and religious tolerance and human rights. We can do
it by making sure that none of the institutions of European and
transatlantic unity, not any of them, are closed to Russia.

You can decide whether you want to be a part of these institutions. It
should be entirely your decision. And we can have the right kind of
constructive partnership, whatever decision we make, as long as you
know that no doors to Europe's future are closed to you, and you can
then feel free to decide how best to pursue your own interests. If you
choose not to pursue full membership in these institutions, then we
must make sure that their Eastern borders become gateways for Russia
instead of barriers to travel, trade and security cooperation.

We also should work with others to help those in Europe who still fear
violence and are afraid they will not have a stable, secure future. I
am proud that, together, we have made the OSCE [Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe] into an effective champion of
human rights in Europe. I am pleased that President Putin and I
recommitted ourselves yesterday to helping find a settlement to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I am proud we have, together, adapted the
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, to reduce conventional arms in
Europe and eliminate the division of the continent in the military
blocs. I believe it is a hopeful thing that despite our different
outlook on the war in the former Yugoslavia, that our armed forces
have worked there together in both Bosnia and Kosovo to keep the

We may still disagree about Kosovo, but now that the war is over, let
me say one other thing about Yugoslavia. I believe the people of
Serbia deserve to live in a normal country with the same freedoms the
people of Russia and America enjoy, with relationships with their
neighbors including Russia that will not constantly be interrupted by
vast flows of innocent people being forced out of their country or
threatened with their very lives.

The struggle in Belgrade now is not between Serbia and NATO, it is
between the Serbian people and their leaders. The Serbian people are
asking the world to back democracy and freedom. Our response to their
request does not have to be identical, but Russia and America should
both be on the side of the people of Serbia.

In the relationship we are building, we should try to stand abroad for
the values each of us has been building at home. I know the kind of
relationship that we would both like cannot be built overnight.
Russia's history, like America's, teaches us well that there are no
shortcuts to great achievements. But we have laid strong foundations.
It has helped a great deal that so many members of our Congress have
visited you here, and that a number of Duma committee chairmen visited
our Congress last month, that members of the Federation Council have
been invited to come to Washington.

I want to urge you, as many of you as can, to visit our country, and
invite members of our Congress to visit you. Let them understand how
the world looks from your perspective. Let them see how you do your
jobs. Tell them what you're worried about and where you disagree with
us. And give us a chance to build that base a common experience and
mutual trust that is so important to our future together. All of you
are always welcome to come and work with us in the United States. We
have to find a mutual understanding.

I also would say that the most important Russian-American relationship
still should be the relationship between our peoples -- the student
exchanges, the business partnerships, the collaboration among
universities and foundations and hospitals, the Sister City links, the
growing family ties. Many of the Russians and Americans involved in
these exchanges are very young. They don't even have any adult
memories of the Cold War. They don't carry the burdens and baggage of
the past; just the universal, normal desire to build a good future
with those who share their hopes and dreams. We should do everything
we can to increase these exchanges, as well.

And finally, we must have a sense of responsibility for the future. We
are not destined to be adversaries. But it is not guaranteed that we
will be allies. For us, there is no fate waiting to be revealed, only
a future waiting to be created -- by the actions we take, the choices
we make, and the genuine views we have of one another and of our own

I leave you today looking to the future with the realistic hope that
we will choose wisely; that we will continue to build a relationship
of mutual respect and mutual endeavor; that we will tell each other
the truth with clarity and candor as we see it, always striving to
find common ground, always remembering that the world we seek to bring
into being can come only if America and Russia are on the same side of

I believe we will do this, not because I know everything always turns
out well, but because I know our partnership, our relationship, is
fundamentally the right course for both nations. We have to learn to
identify and manage our disagreements because the relationship is
profoundly important to the future.

The governments our people elect will do what they think is right for
their own people. But they know that one thing that is right is
continuing to strengthen the relationship between Russia and the
United States. Our children will see the result -- a result that is
more prosperous and free and at peace than the world has ever known.
That is what I believe we can do.

I don't believe any American President has ever come to Russia five
times before. I came twice before that. That's when I was a very young
man and our relations were very different than they are now. All my
life, I have wanted the people of my country and the people of your
country to be friends and allies, to lead the world away from war
toward the dreams of children. I have done my best to do that.

I hope you will believe that that is the best course for both our
countries, and for our children's future.

Thank you very much.


June 5, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]

President Vladimir Putin is opening up as a covert 
Westernist who is endeavoring - slowly yet confidently - to 
bring the Russian civilization to European culturally and 
Putin's "creeping westernism" is doing no harm to Russia's 
national interests. Simply, the current change of global 
political and cultural priorities has coincided with a change 
of generations: hence the imprecation of the traditionally 
despised Pepsi as a symbol of the West by an appreciable sector 
of the population and the well-nigh hysteric reaction of the 
Russian Orthodox Church to the invitation extended to the Pope. 
A realistic opposition to Putin's course may soon be 
formed on the basis of traditional beliefs in Russia's Eurasian 
roots, while the openly pro-West information media's honorable 
image of a persecuted opposition may soon fade in the Liberal 
Convergence a la Putin is politically self-sufficient and 
aims to protect Russia's new national interests by way of 
involving it in the common global cause, rather than globalize 
international processes. Isolationism is no longer the national 
idea; "Russia's special way" is no longer the super-objection 
used to explain away the poor quality of highways, the 
abundance of morons in high places and the unwillingness to 
work even for money. 
Patriotism is becoming tangible and is no longer 
instrumental to the anti-West hysteria. 
We just may live in a different country, well nigh a 
European state, some ten years from now. If Putin succeeds, 
that is. 


Bill Clinton's visit to Russia is a farewell. It is a 
courtesy visit. It adds to Russia's image. Alas, Russia is no 
longer the most important partner for the US, but one of many 
other important partners. 
No matter how strong Clinton's affinity to Russia may be, 
and no matter how sympathetic he may be to Russia's problems in 
defiance of his critics at home, he will not be able to do 
anything extraordinary for Russia in the course of his visit. 
He is a lame duck president. 
Albert Gore, Clinton's heir presumptive, does not stand 
too good a chance to become the White House occupant. The 
Russia policy's continuity may be interrupted. 
The election of George Bush Jr., a Republican and Gore's 
opponent, promises nothing good to Moscow. The Clinton 
Administration's respectfully interested attention to Russia's 
affairs may be replaced by the potentially high and mighty ways 
of a Bush Administration. And the son of ex-president George 
Bush stands a good chance of winning the election. 
Not that Clinton's visit becomes less significant in view 
of the above. There is no avoiding the problems the two 
presidents are discussing. 
Take the ABM treaty. Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev 
signed it way back in 1972. In the lingo of Soviet-era 
newspapers, the treaty has for nearly thirty years faithfully 
worked for the cause of peace. 
Clinton could have made the treaty Gore's trump card for 
the forthcoming election. He could have gone farther than the 
Republicans and not only revived Ronald Reagan's 
trillion-dollar Star Wars program, but withdrawn from the ABM 
treaty altogether.
But Clinton is not a tough-liner. He is ready to converse with 
Moscow on a mutually acceptable transformation of the 1972 
treaty until the last day of his stay. But if he fails, he is 
ready to make the decision to build a nuclear umbrella for the 
US, one that would cost "only" 60 billion dollars but would not 
save America from all missiles Russia possesses these days. 
Judging by the preliminary results of the dialogue, Moscow 
has not been stunned by Clinton's plans; instead, it is 
suggesting a way out of the situation. It looks as if Russia is 
ready to cooperate with the US in building a non-strategic ABM 
system for defense against the so-called rogue states. 
The two presidents have also discussed international 
terrorism. Russia is facing the problem of creeping Islamic 
extremism more than any other country of the world. This is a 
new challenge for Moscow. Washington, meanwhile, has amassed a 
wealth of experience of combating terrorism. 
Clinton goes shortly after the November elections. A 
post-Clinton Russia may run into troubles in case Bush Jr. were 
to win. Even at the most critical moments - the shelling of the 
Russian government's building, and the wars in Chechnya - the 
Clinton Administration has been understanding and supporting 
first to Boris Yeltsin and now to Vladimir Putin. If Bush Jr.
takes the office, Russia may have to face tough policies of the 
1980s type. 
Moreover, Clinton has defended Russia in the European 
His reserved stance at the EU Istanbul summit meeting has had a 
sobering effect on many a European critic of Russia's behavior 
in Chechnya. 


Web page for CDI Russia Weekly:


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