#13
US Department of State
17 December 2001
Text: U.S. Ambassador on New U.S.-Russia Relationship, Media Freedom
(Dec. 17: Amb. Alexander Vershbow at Moscow State University) (3170)

Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic choice "to link Russia's future to the community of free, democratic nations" has created a "dynamic in which we can seriously begin to think about the United States and Russia not just as partners, but as allies in meeting the challenges of the 21st century," U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow told students and faculty at the Moscow State University School of Journalism December 17.

"In short," he said, "we now have an opportunity to put the last vestiges of Cold War thinking behind us."

In his address, Vershbow discussed not only the new U.S.-Russia relationship but also the importance of a free, independent and financially healthy media sector to any democracy.

In Russia, he said, until the media have the "independence that comes from a solid financial footing," journalists will not be able to do their jobs well and "the public interest will be sacrificed to the economic or political interests of individuals in a position to make the media do their bidding."

Regarding President Bush's December 13 decision to withdraw the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed with the former Soviet Union, Vershbow said there is "a good basis to find a common approach to missile defense for the long term," despite short-term disagreement over the treaty. He added that this kind of disagreement should not cause a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations.

"As we continue to develop, test and deploy a missile defense system against rogue state threats, we will proceed in close consultation with allies and friends, and in complete transparency with partners like Russia," he said. "We are, in fact, interested in cooperating with Russia on the development of missile defense. President Putin has acknowledged that new threats are emerging, and he has even proposed that NATO and Russia look for ways to cooperate in defending against tactical ballistic missiles. We are convinced that by reducing offensive nuclear weapons while developing missile defenses in a cooperative way, we can make the world a safer place."

Vershbow also discussed the evolving relationship between NATO and Russia, the potential for increased U.S. economic investment in Russia, and the new "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue," an initiative that fosters U.S.-Russian private sector cooperation on improving the conditions necessary for Russian media to flourish as a business.

Following is the text of the ambassador's remarks as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

THE NEW U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP AND THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA
Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation
Moscow State University School of Journalism December 17, 2001

It is a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. This is my first opportunity to speak to Russia's future journalists and it's one that I have been looking forward to. I have already talked to many of your professional colleagues working in television, radio and the print media, and I just finished an interview with your magazine "Zhurnalist." I know that speaking to an audience of several hundred aspiring journalists is a challenge, but I'm ready for it.

I would like to tell you a little bit about myself and then describe what I believe has been a remarkable transformation in U.S.-Russian relations over the past several months. I will make this as brief as possible because I want to reserve time for your questions. I wouldn't think of addressing journalists without allowing plenty of time for questions. Moreover, I want to hear what concerns you have about U.S.-Russian relations.

I studied Russian and Soviet Affairs in the early 1970s and first served here in Moscow as a diplomat from 1979 to 1981, during the height of the Cold War. As I look around this audience today, I think that I can safely say that for most of you, the Cold War is only a dim memory. Your generation may be less burdened than mine by the prejudices and habits of the past. That's a good thing.

Over the past ten years, we have seen the military confrontation between the United States and Russia decline dramatically and we have expanded our cooperation in many areas. But we have not been fully successful in overcoming the habits of thought inherited from the past. We haven't yet managed to create new ones that are more appropriate for the "post-post Cold War" period, as some commentators have described the new era, for lack of a better term.

We diplomats play only a relatively modest role in influencing the way people think about relations between Russia and the United States. You journalists play a larger role. Together the press on the one hand and government officials on the other have a very significant effect in shaping public perceptions. We both are sometimes burdened with old ways of thinking. We should not allow such thinking to foreclose possibilities that are there to be seized. When you journalists and we government officials interact, there is also the risk that we become too cautious and you not cautious enough. That is something we should both avoid as we practice our respective crafts. This will not be a problem if we seek to do our jobs well, because we both serve -- or should serve -- the same master: the public interest.

Any government official who tries to avoid or mislead the press is derelict in the performance of his or her duties. That is not to say that we must share everything with the press. The public interest is sometimes best served by keeping aspects of the business of government and business between governments confidential, just as we as individuals have a right to keep aspects of our private life confidential. The real challenge for government officials and journalists is to find a balance in the relationship that serves the public interest. It is easier to define this balance by what it is not than by what it is. As I said earlier, it is not we deceiving you. Neither is it you serving any master other than your obligation to report the facts, make the public interest the object of your commentary, and never obscure the dividing line between reporting and commentary.

I sincerely believe that your work as journalists will help shape Russia's future in a fundamental way. Russia's efforts to join the club of market democracies will not succeed without a vigilant and independent media that holds leaders, politicians, businessmen and other officials -- at every level -- accountable for their actions. If you don't practice your profession ethically, your country runs the risk of allowing private interests to hijack the public's right to a democratic society and a market economy that provide justice and opportunity for all. If American journalists don't do the same, we run a similar risk in the United States.

I would like to turn now to some observations about U.S.-Russian relations, which have undergone a remarkable transformation this year. I will have more to say about media issues in the context of our relationship.

U.S.-Russian relations got back on an upward trajectory with the first Bush-Putin meetings in Ljubljana in June and Genoa in July. These led to intensive consultations on strategic issues and a series of high-level visits aimed at expanding our economic and trade relationship. The tragic events of September 11 accelerated these positive trends. President Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush after the terrorist attacks to offer condolences. He unequivocally committed Russia to the goals of the anti-terror coalition. This wasn't just words. On September 24, President Putin offered valuable assistance to the coalition in a remarkable speech. This assistance -- including the use of Russian airspace and bases in Central Asia, joint diplomatic efforts, and the sharing of sensitive intelligence information -- has been both generous and crucial.

In doing all this, President Putin made a strategic choice -- not only to help us fight a common enemy, but to link Russia's future to the community of free, democratic nations. This decision had a dramatic effect on the Bush Administration and the American public. Russia's strategic choice made clear that our two countries, together with other Western democracies, were now operating on the basis of shared interests and shared values, and not on the basis of tactical necessity alone. It created a dynamic in which we can seriously begin to think about the United States and Russia not just as partners, but as allies in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. In short, we now have an opportunity to put the last vestiges of Cold War thinking behind us.

I do not mean to suggest there aren't still a number of issues where our countries continue to differ, such as missile defense, or relations with Iraq and Iran. We are addressing these frankly, but without allowing them to overshadow our common interests.

Let me focus for a moment on the strategic relationship. One of the most important accomplishments of last month's summit in Washington and Crawford was the agreement by our two leaders to carry out dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces. President Bush announced that the United States will reduce to a level of between 1700 and 2200 warheads over the next decade (down from over 7000 today). President Putin indicated that Russia would make comparable reductions, and last week he confirmed that Russia will cut its forces to virtually the same level as President Bush announced, to between 1500 and 2200 warheads. This is a truly historic achievement, one that was secured without years of negotiations between giant delegations in Geneva. It's another sign that we're moving beyond Cold War thinking.

What's the next step? One week ago, President Putin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov met with Secretary of State Colin Powell here in Moscow. They set the goal of formalizing an arrangement on the reduction of strategic weapons by the time of President Bush's visit to Russia in the middle of next year. This will involve developing a document that codifies the two sides' commitments to the lower levels, with measures for verification and transparency. The result should help assure both nations that the mutual commitment to cut nuclear arsenals will endure beyond the term in office of either President.

As far as missile defense is concerned, as you all know, President Bush last Thursday announced our intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. President Bush made this decision because, in his view, the ABM Treaty embodies a Cold War relationship of hostility and suspicion that no longer exists. More importantly, the President decided that the Treaty is no longer consistent with America's national interests. This is because it prohibits us from testing and developing effective, but limited missile defenses to counter the threat posed by the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

We know that Russia disagrees with this decision, but we do not believe it should cause a crisis in our relations. First of all, I want to emphasize that we are not developing a system that would in any way undermine the deterrent capability of Russia's nuclear forces. Our goal is to develop the ability to protect the United States, our allies and our deployed forces from the smaller threats that rogue states could pose if they obtain missiles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Our leaders have an obligation to protect the American people from weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of individuals as evil as Osama bin Laden.

As we continue to develop, test and deploy a missile defense system against rogue state threats, we will proceed in close consultation with allies and friends, and in complete transparency with partners like Russia. We are, in fact, interested in cooperating with Russia on the development of missile defense. President Putin has acknowledged that new threats are emerging, and he has even proposed that NATO and Russia look for ways to cooperate in defending against tactical ballistic missiles. We are convinced that by reducing offensive nuclear weapons while developing missile defenses in a cooperative way, we can make the world a safer place.

In short, I think there is a good basis to find a common approach to missile defense for the long term, despite our short-term disagreement over the ABM Treaty. At their Summit last month, both our Presidents made clear their determination to develop a new strategic framework for the long term, one that is more in keeping with our new relationship and takes account of the changes in the strategic situation since the ABM Treaty was signed 29 years ago. A new framework should enable our two countries to meet future threats together. The threats posed by international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are as real for Russia as they are for the United States.

Russia's relations with NATO should reflect this new strategic relationship as well. NATO-Russia cooperation has yielded only modest results since the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act four years ago. Our common task is to devise new mechanisms for cooperation, coordinated action and joint decisions that can integrate Russia more closely in NATO's work, while respecting NATO's and Russia's prerogatives to act alone if necessary.

The idea discussed between Presidents Bush and Putin last month, and now endorsed by NATO and Russian Foreign Ministers ten days ago, is quite simple: to create a new forum in which NATO's 19 members and Russia work together as a group of 20 equal partners on issues where our shared interests make it sensible to do so. These might include counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, or responding to a future regional conflict. We hope this new mechanism will be in place by next spring. For it to work, Russian diplomacy will need to acquire the spirit of flexibility and compromise that is essential to reaching a consensus among nations with different security perspectives and priorities. This is the way NATO works, but it has not always been a hallmark of Russia's approach to NATO up till now.

In addition to these security issues, we must continue to find ways to expand our dynamic economic relationship and promote Russia's full integration into the world economy. We are working to accelerate Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, based on the standard conditions other countries have followed. President Bush has pledged to work with the Congress to graduate Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a prerequisite to extending unconditional or permanent normal trade relations to Russia.

U.S. investors are coming to Russia, thanks to the strong economic recovery of the past two years and the impressive package of reform legislation enacted by the Duma. U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans led a successful trade development mission here in October, with the heads of 14 U.S. companies. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was here two weeks ago to celebrate the inauguration of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's new oil export route. This multi-billion dollar project is the largest foreign investment in Russia to date. In addition, a consortium led by ExxonMobil recently announced firm plans to invest $12 billion [$12,000 million] in its oil and gas project in Sakhalin -- a project that will create as many as 10,000 new jobs.

U.S. investment here is good for Russia and good for the United States. Common economic interests will create the basis of a cooperative relationship across a broad spectrum of issues, a relationship that will allow us to work together to resolve not just today's problems but those that we will face in the new century. It's another way to put Cold War thinking behind us.

Cooperation between the private sectors of our two countries -- facilitated by our two governments -- applies to the media as well. At the conclusion of their recent meetings in Washington, Presidents Bush and Putin endorsed the initiative of Russian and American media executives, journalists and independent organizations to convene a "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" aimed at improving the conditions necessary for media to flourish as a business in Russia.

The logic of this initiative -- to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson -- is self-evident. Until the media here have the independence that comes from a solid financial footing, you won't be able to do your jobs well and the public interest will be sacrificed to the economic or political interests of individuals in a position to make the media do their bidding.

The mechanics of this "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" are being worked out now. It is intended to expand contacts between experts and executives in the United States and Russia to look at areas where current laws, regulations, practices, and infrastructure constraints impede the growth of media as a business here in Russia. On the American side, the Newspaper Association of America and the National Association of Broadcasters have offered to steer the Dialogue. On the Russian side, the successful NGO Internews has already stepped forward and we expect other participants to join them.

As I mentioned earlier, the logic of the "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" is to look at ways to create conditions in which the media can pursue the public interest unrestrained by other interests. Private individuals are not the only party in a position to undermine the independence and standards of the press when media are not self-sustaining economically. Governments can do so as well, either actively by using public money as patronage to enlist the media in the service of political objectives or indirectly by neglecting to create a legal framework that supports media independence.

This of course leads me directly to the case of TV-6. I realize that this is a complicated case in which private interests and the public interest are intertwined in a way that is not easily unraveled. There is ample reason, however, to proceed with caution. The test that public officials must apply in this case is the same one that you as future journalists must rely upon: Will the action taken serve the public interest? Or will a struggle between rival oligarchs end up removing from the air a group of highly professional and independent telejournalists? My government is unequivocally committed to the principle that a free press is fundamental to a democratic society. Let me turn again to Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." These words first spoken two hundred years ago are no less true today.

Let me end on that note, because these words of Jefferson underscore the important burden of public trust placed in you, Russia's future journalists. I want to thank you for this opportunity to do my job as a diplomat committed to improving relations between Russia and the United States. Now it is time for you do your job as journalists. Questions please.

Back to the Top    Next Issue