Translated material
The "Russian gun" will still fire
Vladimir Abarinov
The US presidential race is entering a decisive stage. The Russian issue does not appear in it yet, but it may well come up, as has happened more than once
The US presidential race is entering a decisive stage. The Russian issue does not appear in it yet, but it may well come up, as has happened more than once
In a few more days, the candidates for the post of owner of the White House - Democrat Al Gore (left) and Republican George W. Bush (right) - will meet face to face in a televised debate. (Photo: AP )
Party congresses have never been a spectacle in our country - neither under Soviet rule, during the time of the CPSU, nor after, in the era of a motley multi-party system. The Americans are another matter. For them, a party convention, be it Republicans or Democrats, is something between a masquerade and a “Field of Miracles.” It is hard to believe that in such an atmosphere, delegates make the most serious decisions, including electing party candidates for the positions of president and vice president of the country.
During the current presidential campaign, which is now entering a decisive phase, all competitors of the main contenders for the post of owner of the White House - Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore - were eliminated at the stage of the primary elections - primaries. So delegates to last week's Republican Convention in Philadelphia did not face a difficult choice. The more fun the “carnival”: party members competed in eloquence and wit, talking about Republican values, the glorious achievements of the “elephant party”, its urgent tasks, past leaders and, of course, the current protagonist of this show, George W. Bush.
A certain George of Bengal, taking the podium, told the touching story that his father was a Democrat, but the same values that brought his father into the Democratic camp made his son a Republican. Nobody understood anything, but the audience rewarded this nonsense with applause. Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, who became famous during Operation Desert Storm, on the contrary, spoke seriously and decisively, as befits a military man. Schwarzkopf attacked Clinton and Gore: they had brought the valiant armed forces into disarray. And it also caused delight in the audience - of course, these democrats are to blame for everything!
The convention participants sang hosannas to the last three Republican presidents: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan (his wife Nancy was in the hall instead of the seriously ill ex-president) and Bush Sr. Each of them went down in history. Ford signed the Final Helsinki Act 25 years ago, Reagan broke the Berlin Wall and turned the “evil empire” - the USSR - into a predictable partner, Bush won the Gulf War and agreed with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear weapons. The hearts of the delegates were filled with pride: this is truly a great legacy.
The rising star of the Republican Party, Condoleezza Rice, who is running for the post of presidential national security adviser, spoke about how the new team led by George W. Bush intends to manage the “great legacy.”
For Bill Clinton, the time has come to sum up his presidency: eight years is an entire era in the life of America. (Photo: EPA )
"George "Double-U" Bush (that's what Bush Jr. is called in the States - "Double-U", after the initial letter of his middle name. - "Results") believes that America has a special responsibility for maintaining peace, - she said, "He recognizes that the fine men and women who serve in America's armed forces are not the police or 911 of the world, but the strongest shield and the surest sword for peace. If the time comes to use force, President George "Double U" Bush will use it." Condoleezza Rice said in one single sentence what Bush Jr.'s policy towards Russia would be: "Peaceful Russia has no reason to fear the United States." What if Washington decides that Russia is “not peaceful”? What then?
However, the vast majority of Americans today are thinking about something completely different. As in any normal country, the voter here is primarily concerned with the problems of his personal well-being: what taxes he will pay under the new president, how he will raise and educate his children, where and how to get treatment, and what old-age benefits he will receive from the social insurance fund. And foreign policy is on the periphery of public consciousness. Surveys show that no more than 18 percent of the electorate is concerned about international affairs in the country. Apparently, these are those who have not forgotten what the Cuban Missile Crisis was or the story of a South Korean passenger Boeing shot down by Soviet air defense - in a word, who still remembers what the Cold War is.
However, this does not mean that the candidates themselves, who will very soon have a series of live television debates, are not concerned about foreign policy issues. Logic dictates: when each of them convinces the voter that they need to vote for him and not for a competitor, this gun will definitely fire. The international issue has always been an easy target for opposition politicians. However, the specificity of the current situation is that the opposition candidate George “Double-U” Bush does not have the slightest experience in this area, while Al Gore, as Vice President of the United States, has been doing just this for the last 8 years. Moreover, the area of his personal responsibility was American-Russian relations.
So it is possible that the Russian topic, which has receded into the background today, may be in demand when Gore and Bush come together in a decisive, principled dispute. Let's remember that an attempt to spin the Russian plot has already been made, and very persistently: last summer, investigators' safes suddenly leaked, leaks poured into newspapers, and an astonished public was told that the Russians had allegedly laundered billions from American banks. The publications were followed by hearings in Congress, and the tireless fighter against the scourge of world communism, Senator Jesse Helms, called to account the “father” and “mother” of the Clinton administration’s Russian policy - US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
The best minds of both parties entered into a discussion on the topic "Who lost Russia?" - "Who lost Russia?" Naturally, the Republicans argued that the Democrats led by Clinton and Gore were to blame for the failures of Russian reforms.
Ariel Cohen, an expert at the Heritage Foundation who makes no secret of his pro-Republican sympathies, believes that last year's attack on Gore did not achieve its goal: “It is difficult for the American average to explain all these ingenious money laundering and corruption schemes. Besides,” the interlocutor believes “Results,” the scandal broke out too early, long before the elections.”
Ohio Democratic supporters hope that Al Gore will become the country's new president after Clinton leaves office. (Photo: AP )
Carnegie Endowment expert Michael McFaul, who adheres to democratic views, also believes that the Republicans failed to play the Russian card in their attacks on the White House. According to him, last year it was not difficult for the Clinton administration to repel the attack: we had nothing to do with it, the Russians themselves lost Russia. However, McFaul is confident that Republicans will again try to use the Russia issue to attack Gore. Congressman Christopher Cox, the author of the sensational report on Chinese espionage, is preparing a new report, this time about Russia: again about how the administration and the vice president personally “lost” it.
For James Baker, Secretary of State in the Bush Sr. administration, the question of “who is to blame” does not exist: it is clear that the Democrats. Baker, with whom the Itogi correspondent had the opportunity to speak briefly, suggests asking another eternal question - “what to do?”
The Americans had two answers to this “Russian question” in relation to post-communist Russia. One is the policy of involving Russia in world affairs. Gore's team advocates forward engagement - proactive, early involvement. And if Gore becomes president, then a new attempt will be made to introduce Russia into the international community, to make it a full-fledged partner of Western international institutions.
Another option for the American course towards Russia is a return to the policy of containment. Michael McFaul considers the second approach an anachronism that “has nothing to do with the 21st century.” “The Cold War is not only a balance of power, it is a confrontation between communism and democracy,” he reminds. “This was the vision of Ronald Reagan, and if you remember history, then Woodrow Wilson.”
However, will Bush Jr. be able to completely abandon the policy of containment that previous Republican presidents followed during the Cold War era? On the one hand, James Baker believes, if Bush Jr. wins, we should expect a return to the principles and values that guided his father. "Bush Sr. was an excellent foreign policy manager, and I expect Bush Jr. to understand that," says the former secretary of state. The Republican president will cut off funding to American organizations that provide technical assistance to Russia. The US position towards Russia on the world stage will become tougher. In particular, this may affect such a sensitive issue as Russian-Iranian relations.
On the other hand, Bush Jr., as befits a “foreign policy manager,” will do everything possible to build relations with the Kremlin. According to experts in the “Russian question,” their level will be determined by the degree of democracy in Russia. It may be minimal. In this case, only nuclear disarmament, missile defense and other strategic security issues will remain on the agenda of bilateral negotiations.
To the remark that the new president of Russia, to put it in American terms, is a tough guy, and excessive pressure on him can and is already leading to the opposite effect, Ariel Cohen replies: “How is this actually known? Examples? On the contrary: it is his, Putin's, unconstructive position that will lead to the opposite effect. You just need to honestly answer the question: who needs good relations more - Bush or Putin? Who needs investments, technology? Finally, to what extent is Moscow ready to defend the interests of Beijing? Negotiations on disarmament Russia also needs them more - among other things, they fit into the reform of the Strategic Missile Forces, which is being lobbied by the Chief of the Russian General Staff, Kvashnin."
But Russia is also a huge market, isn’t it? Yes, of course, Cohen agrees, but in any case not the largest and most attractive. "There are others. For example, India, whose GDP is twice that of Russia. In addition, India is an English-speaking democracy and a regional counterweight to China. The market in Russia is really large, but the purchasing power of the population is small. In India, for example, the size of the middle class "100 million people. This is about the same percentage of the population as in Russia, but the Russian middle class is only 10 million people." Finally, in the area of arms control, Bush will prefer to reach an agreement with Moscow. But at the same time, no one will have the impression that Moscow dictated the terms to him.
Washington
For US citizens, the election campaign is a carnival. This American woman, dressed up as an elephant, is campaigning for George W. Bush: the elephant is a symbol of the Republicans. Bush feels confident: after all, he is supported not only by such pretty girls, but also by veterans of American politics. Among them are Dick Cheney, who is number two on Bush's team, and the famous General Colin Powell. (Photo: EPA )