Re: The Chechens US friends: bipartisanship

[Chris Doss <lookoverhere1@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> how do they view Bush (the lesser) vs. Clinton?
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &
> http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
>
>From the Russian newspaper Izvestia.

Izvestia
September 3, 2004
JOHN KERRY IS MUCH THE SAME AS BUSH
A view from Washington
Author: Nikolai Zlobin, director of Russian and Asian
programs at
the Center for Defense Information


<> Don't expect any substantial foreign policy changes
from John
Kerry

      Everyone is trying to guess whether George W.
Bush will win a
second term in office, or whether Democrat John Kerry
will replace
him. In fact, it does not matter who will be the
president - but
it does matter what policy the worlds' most powerful
state will
pursue. The Top 20 list of priorities for Americans
contains no
foreign policy issues at all, except for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
However, these are far below the economy, education
and health
care. Citizens of the world's only superpower are not
interested
in its foreign policy, even though many other
countries are
looking forward to changes in U.S. foreign policy
after the
presidential election.
      The Bush administration's foreign policy has
drawn
unprecedented annoyance and criticism around the
globe. Even the
closest allies of Washington refused to accept it.
Many
governments, which are looking forward to changes in
the U.S.
foreign policy, pin great hopes on a victory of Kerry.
I think
those hopes are based on illusions, and are even
harmful. The
current situation in America and the rest of the
world, as viewed
by Washington, leaves little room for alternatives;
there is no
time to look for more reasonable solutions. The
Democrats' foreign
policy, though it differs in many respects from the
Bush
administration's, is in fact based upon the same
principles of
combat with international terrorism and priority of
national
security of the United States over its international
commitments.
Kerry admitted that today, even if he knew that Iraq
has no
weapons of mass destruction, he would still vote for
the war. This
confession is another evidence of the unity of the
U.S. elite in
major issues.
      If Kerry comes to power, he will be able to
considerably
change the tone and rhetoric of foreign policy, but he
will not be
able to change its strategies. The United States will
continue to
be a self-reliant country building a defense wall
around itself
and putting ever less trust in the rest of the world.
However, the
change of tone and language may be enough to satisfy
Bush's
foreign critics. U.S.-Russia relations seem to have
been
developing over the past few years according to the
well-known
slogan of Lev Trotsky: "neither war nor peace".
Nonetheless,
neither is going to disband their armies. On the one
hand the
relations are quite good: America and Russia do not
scheme against
each other. Americans give Putin a credit for this.
But on the
other hand, the relations between the two countries
lack the most
essential thing - the principal idea, the foundations.
The United
States and Russia are not enemies, but they still have
a long way
to go to become allies. Their geopolitical interests
are different
in many ways.
      The driving force for U.S.-Russian relations
over the past
two years most often has been clash of interests in
third
countries including Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Iraq,
Syria, Iran,
and others. For the most part, it concerned the former
USSR
republics. The main focus of bilateral relations was
resolving
such conflicts. Consequently, the quality of relations
between
Moscow and Washington depend in a greater degree on
success or
failure in the settlement of the conflicts. There is
no
established mechanism for that, and as the countries
remain highly
distrustful towards each other and sometimes their
attitudes
border on paranoia, every time conflict solution
follows a new,
unpredictable way, which enhances irritability on both
parts.
      Western countries, however great differences
they may have,
developed numerous mechanisms for their settlement and
mutual
trust. Moscow has such relations with none of the
world leaders.
Therefore, it always finds itself in the position of
the loser.
Even when Moscow tries to defend its legitimate
interests in
particular regions, it cannot get support from the
leaders and
only reinforces its reputation as an unpredictable and
wayward
player. Just like everything in Russia, Russia's
foreign policy
has always been dramatic and passive-aggressive. It
scares
Washington, as well as harming Moscow's own interests.
      The twentieth century ended a long era of
bilateral
relations, special unions and strategic blocs. The
so-called
political geography is in the past now. The world has
grown more
complicated, the situation has become more changeable.
Nobody
signs agreements today on "eternal friendship," at
least it
applies to the United States. There is no rational
explanation for
Bush's extremely favorable attitude to Russia and
Vladimir Putin.
Regrettably, most of the American establishment does
not share
this attitude. Kerry's team has a more critical
stance. If Bush,
who seems to be the most pro-Russian U.S. president in
modern
history, leaves office, Russia will surely gain
nothing - and may
lose more than any other country. But if he remains in
power until
2008, U.S.-Russian relations will depend on issues
concerning the
next Saddam Husseins, Bushehr nuclear power plants,
and South
Ossetias - rather than on the Kremlin and the White
House.
      Translated by Sergey Kolosov




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com