#7
Washington Post
November 4, 2001
Putin Faces Strong Pressure To Cash In on Russia's
Support
By Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker
Washington Post Foreign Service
MOSCOW -- After throwing its support strongly behind the United States in the new war on terrorism, Russia is beginning to look for payback, not only in the form of security agreements but also in economic concessions that would help it integrate more fully with the West.
As the leaders of the two countries prepare for their summit in Washington and at President Bush's Texas ranch later this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin is under mounting pressure to demonstrate that he has achieved something in return for his recent bow to the United States, according to Putin's advisers and allies.
Although the Russian president once vowed there would be no "haggling" over the terms of his cooperation with U.S. strikes against Afghanistan, Kremlin insiders have drawn up a long bargaining list that includes everything from improved trade status to relief from billions of dollars in Soviet-era debt. Putin's advisers fear he has gotten too far out in front of Russian public opinion and must return from the summit with a package of tangible rewards that will demonstrate the benefits of joining the West.
"President Putin now is in a quite complicated situation," said Boris Nemtsov, leader of a pro-Western political party, the Union of Right Forces. "It will be difficult for him to continue such a policy if the West doesn't respond, not only on military issues but also on economic issues."
Nemtsov and others who have met with Putin in recent days said the president, while genuine in his overture to the West, has become increasingly impatient for more concrete results. "Personally, he made his choice, which was a huge decision for him," Nemtsov said. "But now he's waiting for some response." Asked in an interview if Putin had privately expressed frustration, Nemtsov replied, "Absolutely."
Putin does not express this in public, though, and in a speech this week reiterated that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an assault not just against the United States, but also the world. He does not want to be seen as crassly demanding trade-offs, advisers said; however, he is coming under tremendous pressure to justify shifting the country's foreign policy so radically.
While missile defense has dominated the discussion leading up to the summit in Washington and Crawford, Tex., Kremlin political allies and advisers have listed a number of economic measures they say would do more to build public support in Russia. Among them: restructuring or forgiving the billions of dollars of Soviet debt; accelerating Russia's admission into the World Trade Organization; encouraging more foreign investment; and repealing the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik Amendment, a 1974 law that intended to pressure Communist bloc countries to allow unfettered emigration as a condition of maintaining normal trading privileges with the United States.
The United States has signaled its willingness to accommodate Putin beyond simply muting criticism of the war in Chechnya and postponing anti-missile tests. The Bush administration is studying legislation introduced by Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) to write off some Soviet-era debt, and it may announce loans for Russian investment through the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corp., a federal agency that helps U.S. companies invest in developing nations.
But some of the Russian priorities could be hard to deliver. While the administration has decided to revoke the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and had hoped to do so by the summit, U.S. officials said that winning congressional approval for lifting the sanctions on Russia and up to six other former Soviet republics could take several months. The penalties have not been applied to Russia for years but must be revoked if Moscow is to gain entry to the World Trade Organization. And while the United States can encourage Russian ascension to the WTO, it cannot unilaterally waive the economic restructuring also required for membership.
Either way, senior officials said any gestures should not be read as horse-trading. "We haven't been talking in the language of quid pro quos, but rather thinking in much broader terms," said U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow. "If there's a quid pro quo, it's that both sides will end up with a fundamentally better relationship. It's a win-win."
From Moscow's point of view, Putin has already made a series of once-unthinkable concessions designed to reshape the Russia-U.S. relationship, which has been hampered by Cold War hangovers. Since declaring "America, we are with you," on Sept. 11, the Russian president has closed his country's main spy base in Cuba and allowed an unprecedented U.S. military presence in former Soviet republics in Central Asia. He has given support to U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan, eased his opposition to NATO expansion and even signaled his readiness to cut a deal on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Putin's immediate reaction -- he was the first world leader to call Bush after the terrorist attacks -- was all the more striking because during nearly two years in office he had earned a reputation as a cautious, even inscrutable leader who liked to quote the Russian proverb "We measure seven times before we cut once."
But while some see Putin's instinctive embrace of the West as proof of his true inclinations, it has raised broader questions: Is this a partnership of convenience only, a World War II-like coming together against a common enemy that will evaporate as soon as the threat is gone? Or can it be the radical restructuring of relations envisioned but never achieved after the Cold War?
As Andrei Kokoshin, former head of the Russian Defense Council, sees it, Putin's new policy "is a real, clear-cut position. He is saying, definitively, we are part of European civilization."
But the rhetoric of partnership, Kokoshin and others said, has so far exceeded the reality. "It's not just a question of missile defense. We need to create a real system of collaboration to deal with potential threats. And such political mechanisms simply don't exist yet between our countries."
For the moment, Putin has earned broad praise around the world for his actions. On Tuesday, at a Moscow conference of the World Economic Forum, the business group that usually meets in Davos, Switzerland, Putin was showered with plaudits. Klaus Schwab, president of the forum, introduced Putin as "a man who in a very short time has created a new image and a new reality for Russia -- powerful, responsible, young, dynamic and forward-oriented."
"The terrorist attacks of the 11th of September have rewritten history," Schwab said. "Russia has been, under your decisive leadership, not only an indispensable partner in the fight against terrorism, but a whole change in mind-set around the world has happened. Russia is not anymore in some way a country apart. . . . Russia has become an integral part of the world community."
At home, however, the Russian public remains skeptical of joining the West, while inside the bureaucracy, Cold War-era generals and diplomats used to bashing the United States have yet to fully embrace the new presidential line.
Some have even started comparing Putin to Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, who pursued a pro-Western foreign policy that left him vulnerable at home. "Putin today is facing the same threat that Gorbachev did 10 years ago, because there is such a distance between the president's position and that of the elite," said Andrei Ryabov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center. "Putin risks repeating Gorbachev's mistakes unless he can create a strong and stable coalition within Russia for his policy. Right now, this policy is simply his personal choice."
Alexander Oslon, a Kremlin pollster, said that while "there has been a noticeable shift in terms of attitudes toward America," Russians have yet to enthusiastically endorse Putin's new direction. "There is a real chance to establish partnership with the West," he said, "but it goes without saying there are many doubts."
Recent surveys suggest the degree of Russian ambivalence. A poll conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion just after the U.S. bombing campaign began found only 41 percent in favor of it and 57 percent opposed; moreover, 47 percent said Russia should remain neutral, while just 41 percent said Russia should offer support. Still, this has yet to dent Putin's own popularity, which even inched a couple points up, to 75 percent, in a poll released Wednesday.
The situation also appears to have created tension in Putin's inner circle. The president has few friends in government who are closer to him than Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, but Putin has contradicted Ivanov publicly at least twice in recent weeks -- most prominently when Ivanov categorically ruled out a U.S. military presence in Central Asia only to have Putin agree to it days later.
Some veteran officers said the military understands a shift has occurred. "Before, we did not understand each other -- we were speaking as the deaf to the dumb," said Anatoly Kulikov, a former general and internal affairs minister. "But now the political elite and Russian society expect not just an improvement of relations, but that this improvement will lead to concrete steps."
In Moscow, politicians and analysts have become significantly more vocal in questioning whether Putin has caved in to U.S. demands without receiving anything in return.
"So far, no reciprocal moves have been made by the American side," said Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for USA and Canada Studies. "On Sept. 10, they wanted only one thing from us: Take the bitter pill, sign, [and] the ABM Treaty has ceased to exist. Today, they need from us very many things, and there is nothing shameful in acting like allies always do -- we oblige you, you oblige us. Our position when we do not ask for anything in return is naive and dangerous."
But others have warned Putin against such thinking. "I told him, this is not a case for bargaining," Grigory Yavlinsky, parliamentary leader of the progressive Yabloko party, said in an interview. "Our national interests are to put down the terrorists. This is our priority, not the loans or the WTO."
Staff writer Alan Sipress in Washington contributed to this report.
Next Article