|
RUSSIA – U.S.A.
A new arms race?
• Vladimir Putin’s fierce
onslaught on the Bush administration have aroused
diverse interpretations, none of them positive
BY ELSA CLARO —Granma International staff writer—
THE
strongest criticisms of the United States expressed
by Russia so far have taken place during a NATO
defense ministers’ summit in Munich. Speaking of the
military organization, Vladimir Putin said that he
was against it as a replacement for the UN, alluding
to at least two interpretations. One refers to the
fact that Washington passed over the head of the
international organization when it warned that it
would positively endorse the invasion of Iraq. And
two, concerning the Bush administration’s current
steps aimed at creating new military installations
in central Europe, despite the fact that during
talks for the reunification of Germany in 1990, it
was agreed that none would be created beyond Germany
itself.
It
so happens that Washington is disposed to deploy
parts of its so-called anti-missile shield in the
Czech Republic and Poland. To that respect and
reaffirming the Russian president’s statement,
Serguei Ivanov – currently defense minister and
recently promoted to Russian vice-president – stated
that the pretexts employed to install parts of the
aforementioned shield in these two East European
nations are implausible.
“Look on the map, exactly where the Czech Republic
and North Korea are located, and you will see that
the argument does not appear to be credible. And
with respect to Iran, Tehran has missiles with a
range of 1,400 to 1,600 kilometers. The range of
attack is, therefore, more critical for Israel and
for Russian territory itself than for NATO. And in
the case that Iran reaches the stage of possessing
missiles with a reach of 5,000 kilometers, although
these things do not happen overnight, the shield
would have to be installed in places like Turkey,
Afghanistan or Iraq itself, given that the best time
to destroy rockets is when they are fired.”
Ivanov had previously referred to the issue before
his counterparts, during another recent meeting in
Seville, where he confirmed that “we will not return
to another arms race” but “we will develop our own
strategic systems” (¼) “this is not a threat but we
want to be absolutely sure that we will not be
exposed to any political or military threat under
any circumstances.”
These statements are based on the information that
the United States has been outlaying more on
military spending than during the Cold War period.
At the Munich conference, of course, representatives
from the Bush administration urged NATO members to
invest military spending in Afghanistan, affirming
that a potential failure in that Central Asian
nation would be a disgrace for the organization.
In
this area, the Russian leader had said that the U.S.
administration is provoking a new arms race, given
that the small nations have acquired interest in
developing nuclear weapons as a result of the
policies of U.S. might.
Putin said in Munich and repeated his statement to
the Al Jazeera station that his country is hoping
for the return of a multipolar world as the current
unipolarity of the United States “signifies in
practice just one thing: a center of power, a center
of force, a center of decision-making, that would
act as the only sovereign state.” Besides this, he
also made reference to the “exaggerated and almost
incontrollable use of force in international
relations”, clarifying that “Russia does not want
the role of a superpower and has no intention of
entering into conflict with anyone” (¼) but it will
attempt “to influence the construction of a new
world order.”
As a
consolidation of his statement, just a few days
later at a meeting in New Delhi, the foreign
ministers of China, India and Russia signed a
document which confirmed their commitment to give
life to a new world system that is “stable and
balanced”.
It
would be achieved through reforms to the UN and the
“democratization” of world relations. They are three
nuclear powers, each with a significant land mass
and a high number of inhabitants and, also, are all
in a stage of economic expansion. Uniting in the
idea of promoting harmony and international
understanding and “finding common ground in
diverging interests” is certainly commendable during
this complex stage.
That
trilateral axis, as some media channels have begun
to describe it, established in the final communiqué
of their meeting that anti-terrorist activities
cannot be carried out “selectively,” but must be
fought in a global way and “without double
standards.”
Criticism of the United States is evident in these
statements. Putin’s was direct on this and other
topics. “Terrorists don’t need missiles. There are,
for example, suicide terrorists.” He was alluding to
the anti-missile equipment that Washington is
attempting to install in the vicinity of Russia’s
borders. Shortly afterwards, the Kremlin announced
that it will abandon the Treaty on Medium-Range
Nuclear Weapons (signed by the USSR in 1987) if the
United States insists on installing its facilities
in central Europe.
With
respect to Iraq, the president described the
situation as “worrying, appalling and tragic.”
“Criteria imposed from outside (¼) and which do not
emerge from the natural development of the same
society from within, only bring with them tragedy.
The best example of this is Iraq,” emphasized Putin,
referring to the criticisms and impositions of the
White House model on other nations.
For
some analysts, these strong statements are just one
expression of current dissatisfaction. For others,
it is just bravado. Meanwhile, there are those who
are seeing the issue as the inevitable fruit of U.S.
actions to encircle Russia militarily. Time will
tell who is right and what point the conflict will
reach.
|
