it
en
fr
es
eo
Nl
Washington gives Moscow a chance
Tweet
John Bolton, US Deputy Secretary of State, has arrived in Russia. As part of the Bush administration, Bolton is responsible for matters concerning the spread of weapons of mass destruction, so it is quite easy to deduce the topic of his discussions here. Washington will insist that Moscow at last states her position in regard to terrorist regimes.
Significant events occurred on the eve of the talks. Pyongyang again issued threats to the international community, warning of “very serious consequences” if the world discusses its atomic programme. Political analysts long ago saw that the real reason for this hysteria in North Korea is blackmail and extortion. In talks with the USA, North Korea agreed to halt its atomic programme in return for economic aid and diplomatic recognition. The American government refused.
These rogue states and their allies accuse the Bush administration of “imperialism”, “striving for a unipolar world”, “fighting for oil”, and so on, in response to the top priority in foreign policy declared by the US after September 11 2001: an unmeasured war against terror, and against those states which support terror. The Bush administration talks of “putting its hand to the sword”, meaning that it approaches this from a position of strength. There are to be no concessions and no conciliation. The refusal of the US to welcome Pyongyang’s offer of cooperation is apparently for the ears not only of Pyongyang, but also to those politicians and commentators who took fright at North Korea’s threats and urged the international community “not to get angry, and not to force them into a corner.”
John Bolton is one of the toughest politicians in Washington. Last year he extended the “axis of evil” to include to only three countries (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) but also Libya, Syria and Cuba (which he accused of manufacturing biological weapons). It is already known that during the Moscow talks they will discuss the building of an atomic power station by Russian specialists in the Iranian city of Bushir. Reports have emerged that Washington is prepared to release the findings from its investigations into North Korean arms. It is with this information that the US wishes to clarify whether or not the Russian authorities have learned a lesson from the fiasco in Iraq, or whether they are still prepared to “advise” terrorist regimes.
Throughout the Iraqi conflict, activists from the Transnational Radical Party and the Democratic Union demonstrated in support of the coalition outside the US embassy in Moscow. One of their banners read “America is fighting for the whole work, including Russia”. The protestors were representing a minority within Russian society, most of which was caught up in anti-American hysteria, and still does not understand this. Neither do they understand that the terrorist are closer geographically to Russia than to the US.
As far as Russian politicians are concerned, it seemed that during the Afghan war of 2001 Putin knew who were his friends and who were enemies. He did not speak out against American intervention in Central Asia, seeing that this offered protection against aggressive Islamic fundamentalism in the region. But the Taliban were always enemies of Moscow. Now they have joined the ranks of our “traditional allies”. The regime of Saddam Hussein was only the first of them.
Of course, they were already “traditional” in the Soviet era. Bolton, by all accounts, will be hoping to ascertain whether Moscow intends to continue the Soviet tradition in other respects.
Significant events occurred on the eve of the talks. Pyongyang again issued threats to the international community, warning of “very serious consequences” if the world discusses its atomic programme. Political analysts long ago saw that the real reason for this hysteria in North Korea is blackmail and extortion. In talks with the USA, North Korea agreed to halt its atomic programme in return for economic aid and diplomatic recognition. The American government refused.
These rogue states and their allies accuse the Bush administration of “imperialism”, “striving for a unipolar world”, “fighting for oil”, and so on, in response to the top priority in foreign policy declared by the US after September 11 2001: an unmeasured war against terror, and against those states which support terror. The Bush administration talks of “putting its hand to the sword”, meaning that it approaches this from a position of strength. There are to be no concessions and no conciliation. The refusal of the US to welcome Pyongyang’s offer of cooperation is apparently for the ears not only of Pyongyang, but also to those politicians and commentators who took fright at North Korea’s threats and urged the international community “not to get angry, and not to force them into a corner.”
John Bolton is one of the toughest politicians in Washington. Last year he extended the “axis of evil” to include to only three countries (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) but also Libya, Syria and Cuba (which he accused of manufacturing biological weapons). It is already known that during the Moscow talks they will discuss the building of an atomic power station by Russian specialists in the Iranian city of Bushir. Reports have emerged that Washington is prepared to release the findings from its investigations into North Korean arms. It is with this information that the US wishes to clarify whether or not the Russian authorities have learned a lesson from the fiasco in Iraq, or whether they are still prepared to “advise” terrorist regimes.
Throughout the Iraqi conflict, activists from the Transnational Radical Party and the Democratic Union demonstrated in support of the coalition outside the US embassy in Moscow. One of their banners read “America is fighting for the whole work, including Russia”. The protestors were representing a minority within Russian society, most of which was caught up in anti-American hysteria, and still does not understand this. Neither do they understand that the terrorist are closer geographically to Russia than to the US.
As far as Russian politicians are concerned, it seemed that during the Afghan war of 2001 Putin knew who were his friends and who were enemies. He did not speak out against American intervention in Central Asia, seeing that this offered protection against aggressive Islamic fundamentalism in the region. But the Taliban were always enemies of Moscow. Now they have joined the ranks of our “traditional allies”. The regime of Saddam Hussein was only the first of them.
Of course, they were already “traditional” in the Soviet era. Bolton, by all accounts, will be hoping to ascertain whether Moscow intends to continue the Soviet tradition in other respects.
