---------- From: Nancy Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/News/NewsST022101.htm > > A NEW COLD WAR IN THE MAKING? > by Srdja Trifkovic > > After a lean decade Cold War junkies are getting their fix again. During > his Senate confirmation hearing (January 17) Colin Powell declared that > Russia's objections should not be an obstacle to further NATO enlargement or > to the development of National Missile Defense. On February 10 National > Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told Le Figaro that she "sincerely > believed" Russia was a threat to the West. Last Wednesday (February 14) > Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attacked Russia on PBS as "an active > proliferator" of missile > technology, saying that Moscow had no right to challenge U.S. plans for a > missile defense system because of its arms sales to "countries like Iran and > North Korea and India" which threatened not only their regional neighbors > but also "the United States and Western Europe and countries in the Middle > East." > > The response from Moscow is equally chilly. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev > said that NATO expansion into the Baltic states would "directly threaten the > security interests of Russia." General Leonid Ivashov, Sergeyev's deputy for > international affairs, declared that the United States' striving for an > anti-missile system reflects its "quest for world hegemony." President > Putin's national security advisor Sergey Ivanov said that the abandonment of > the ABM treaty "would ruin strategic stability, and risk launching a new > arms race, including in space." Yevgeny Kozhokin, director of Russia's > Institute for Strategic Studies, warns that "Russia could not accept NATO > membership for the Baltic nations under any circumstances--but NATO does not > sufficiently grasp this." Sergei Karaganov, head of the influential > Institute of Europe, agrees: "Relations with NATO are worse than ever. > Yugoslavia shattered the arguments that NATO is not an offensive alliance." > Former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov accused the United States of "playing > the music" for its NATO partners in order to isolate Russia. > > For many of these people "partnership" was the buzzword until not too long > ago. Now they sound as if Brezhnev and Reagan were still in charge. What > we are witnessing now is the change of substance, as well as style, on both > sides. > > The Bush administration looks upon Russia as an inherently antagonistic > power, a near-bankrupt rogue state with missiles. It is to be kept in check > when necessary--and perhaps plundered when possible--but at all times > disabused of any delusions it may have about its great power status. > > In this respect there is little disagreement between the new team's supposed > "moderates" (Powell, Rice) and its neoconservative hawks embodied in > Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz. The main difference, for now, is that > the former would like America's European partners to come fully on board on > NMD, while the latter want to forge ahead regardless. Powell insists that > he will "consult, consult, and then some more" with the allies. Rumsfeld, > on the other hand, gave speeches earlier this month to a NATO meeting in > Brussels > and to a conference on global security in Munich in which he never mentioned > the European Union, and--referring to the autonomous European intervention > force--warned his hosts not to indulge in what he called "confusing > duplication" that may result in "perturbing the transatlantic link." The > French daily Liberation wrote that he looked and sounded like "a cold war > phantom." > > For its part Russia has become much more assertive on the world stage in > just over a year since Yeltsin's departure. It is being re-invented by > President Vladimir Putin as an increasingly centralized state that demands > to be taken seriously once again, and whose meek acceptance of strategic > inferiority--so prevalent during the Yeltsin era--should no longer be taken > for granted. The first round of NATO enlargement, the war in Kosovo, and > the continuing NMD controversy, have marked the stages of estrangement and > contributed to the > emergence of a new consensus in Moscow without which Putin's new course > would not have been possible. Fresh Russian activism was apparent well > before the change in the White House. Reports that the Russian army had > reintroduced tactical nuclear weapons to the Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) > enclave on the Baltic caused consternation in Europe and Washington last > fall. Arms sales to Russia's friends and neighbors in Asia, including Iran > and China, were coupled with renewed talk of a strategic alliance between > Moscow, Delhi, and > Peking. > > At the same time Putin is careful to emphasize his country's commitment to > "Europe." Russian diplomats no longer talk of "the West" as an entity, and > this is no accident. During the Cold War the unwritten transatlantic > bargain had Europe and America deal with one another as equals in economics, > while in defense issues the Europeans would follow the lead from Washington. > This is now changing, because the European Union no long wants to be > dismissed as an economic giant and a geopolitical dwarf--and Moscow is all > too pleased to assist the transition. > > The Russians are looking for trans-Atlantic cracks--and they are finding > them. Their success in making an effective case against NMD in European > capitals, which remains curiously overlooked in Washington, is largely due > to the failure of the system's American proponents to make a strong and > coherent case in its favor. In France and Germany the ongoing NMD row has > merged in the public consciousness with condemnation of renewed air raids on > Iraq. German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping showed sympathy with the > Russian > view when he visited Moscow earlier this month, while Foreign Minister > Joschka Fischer's Greens accuse the new Administration of wanting to start a > new arms race. They are busy rediscovering their old peacenik radicalism > that is tinged with strong anti-Americanism. > > The new, assertive Russian tone was obvious from the way NATO's > Secretary-General George Robertson was told during his visit to Moscow > (February 19-20) to refrain from enlargement and reject NMD. Russian > Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev proposed to Robertson the creation of a > European missile defense system that was first suggested by Putin last year > as a substitute for the American proposal that would leave Europe > vulnerable. It calls for creation of joint mobile anti-missile units, and > Russian experts are due to travel to NATO headquarters in Brussels soon to > press their case with the alliance and with the European public. Robertson > was also warned that Russia categorically rejects membership of former > Soviet republics in the alliance as a matter of pride, principle, and > policy. It was more than hinted that NMD and NATO enlargement may yet > prevent Putin from carrying out his planned reform of the Russian military > that would significantly reduce > its manpower, its stockpiles of conventional weaponry, and the size of the > military budget. > > Neither a new cold war with Russia nor a chill in America's relations with > its European allies is in the interest of the United States. Allowing both > processes to develop simultaneously would be foolish, especially with the > Middle East near the boiling point and America's position in the Far East > open to challenge in the foreseeable future. Risking them in the name of an > unproven and probably unnecessary weapons system (NMD) and an equally > unnecessary political gesture (NATO enlargement) is positively dangerous. > We deserve better from a foreign policy team that rightly prides itself on > experience, professionalism, and determination not to be distracted by > neo-Wilsonian metaphysics. > > There is nothing wrong in America acting unilaterally once it can explain > the purpose of its actions, to itself and to the world. This does not > appear to be the case right now. It is quite conceivable that the United > States is capable of humbling Russia into resentful acceptance of NATO bases > a hundred miles from St. Petersburg, and able to impose its will on NMD on > the reluctant Europeans, but the power to do things does not provide > justification for doing them. > > ________________________ _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
