New York Times on the Web


Forums

toolbar



 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?


Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (6319 previous messages)

rshowalter - 10:33am Jun 30, 2001 EST (#6320 of 6321) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Important messages, connected to much we are discussing in this thread.

Transforming Trust Into Trade By MIKHAIL S. GORBACHEV http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/30/opinion/30GORB.html

MOSCOW -- Not only because of the recent summit in Ljubljana, but from my own discussions with both Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, I have a new optimism about the future of relations between the United States and Russia. Unlike the hawks in Washington and Moscow who would like to put Russian-American relations on the foreign policy back burner, these two presidents understand the importance of the relationship.

"Now, for the first time in years the word "trust" has been heard in our dialogue. The predecessors of Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush shied away from that word out of excessive concern for their domestic political foes. But it was not just the word that fell into disuse; trust itself had begun to erode.

"Something else was said at the summit: Russia and the United States are not enemies. Continuing to emphasize this truth is of crucial importance.

"So, should we now just rejoice and wait for the new presidents' new style to be translated into concrete deeds? I don't think so. We cannot afford to wait, because we have very little time to make things work — and also because it is only too clear that the words about trust and partnership are already being used by some in the United States as a rhetorical screen, with transparent and pernicious aims.

"I am greatly worried by the attempts of some American commentators — in politics and in the press — to hinge the entire Russian-American relationship on two goals: deploying a missile defense system and enlarging the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The subtext is: if, to achieve these goals, we must sometimes talk nice to the Russians, let's do so. The same pundits and politicians are equally blunt about consultations with American allies and partners: we can talk, but in the end we shall do what's good for us.

"One would have to be very naïve to think that such a strategy would not be resisted. If this attitude were to become United States policy, the Start 1 and Start 2 treaties would fall apart. Russia would put multiple warheads on its intercontinental missiles. A new round of the nuclear arms race and of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction would be inevitable.

rshowalter - 10:33am Jun 30, 2001 EST (#6321 of 6321) Delete Message
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

"Instead of jeopardizing global security, we must pursue policies and find solutions that are mutually acceptable. Such solutions cannot be found if security issues, important as they are, are the only item on the Russian-American agenda.

"Perhaps the greatest failure during the 1990's was that Russia and the United States did not lay a groundwork for business and trade. Our relations are much the worse for it — in contrast to those between the United States and China, for which economic ties act as a powerful stabilizer.

"I am convinced that a breakthrough in Russian-American business relationships is possible in high technology, information and telecommunications, and science-based products. Of course, it is for the private businesses of the two countries to lead the way, but to get things off the ground, governments must act, and not necessarily through bureaucratic structures or commissions. The important thing is that our entrepreneurs should feel support, should see that obstacles are being removed.

"Clearly, there must be major changes in the Russian economy: a favorable investment climate, stable and predictable taxation, a genuine effort to fight corruption. A start has been made. What's primarily needed from the United States is a signal from the Bush administration that doing business with Russia is in the national interest of the United States. I understand that, as agreed by the two presidents, a large delegation of American businesspeople will soon be visiting Russia.

"In Ljubljana, Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush agreed on a mechanism for consultations on strategic stability. At their next summit, in Genoa, they should agree on how to give an impetus to trade and commerce between the United States and Russia.

Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the former Soviet president, heads the Gorbachev Foundation, a research institute.

  • *******

    This excellent letter should be compared to another fine letter from Gorbachev, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48258-2000Dec25.html Monday, December 25, 2000; The Washington Post

    set out in

    MD4668 rshowalter 6/9/01 6:49pm ... MD4669 rshowalter 6/9/01 6:50pm
    with discussions of the key word "trust" , set out and cited in
    MD4670 rshowalter 6/9/01 6:55pm .... MD4671rshowalter 6/9/01 7:13pm

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense


    Enter your response, then click the POST MY MESSAGE button below.
    See the
    quick-edit help for more information.








  • Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

    News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
    Editorial | Op-Ed

    Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

    Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

    Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company