Global News Journal
Beyond the World news headlines
from Tales from the Trail:
Senate Republicans ask: What’s the hurry on the new START treaty?
When it comes to ratifying President Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Russians, Senate Republicans say: don't rush us.
Obama has said he would like to see the Senate ratify the new START treaty with Moscow this year. But he will need some Republican support to get the 67 votes required for ratification. And Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans don't yet have the answers to their questions about the agreement and related concerns about how much money will be spent modernizing U.S. nuclear forces.
"The only way this treaty gets in trouble is if it's rushed," McConnell said in an interview with Reuters. "My advice to the president was, don't try to jam it, answer all the requests, and let's take our time and do it right," he said.
The new START treaty would cut the arsenals of deployed nuclear warheads in the United States and Russia by about 30 percent.
McConnell said he had not yet decided how he would vote on the treaty, but that he would be strongly influenced by whatever Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican whip, decides. Kyl is considered something of an expert on nuclear weapons.
Kyl is pushing the administration to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The White House has proposed spending over $80 billion to do this over the next ten years. But McConnell suggested that some evidence of the administration's commitment will need to be written into appropriations bills pending in Congress to convince Kyl.
"All they have to do is find enough money to satisfy Senator Kyl that they are prepared to do what they said they would do," he said. "If it's important to you, you can find a way, in an over a trillion dollar discretionary budget to fund it. In my view they need to do that, because without that I think the chances of ratification are pretty slim," McConnell said.
Russia’s security proposals – about much more than security
Western responses to President Dmitry Medvedev’s proposal for a new European-Atlantic security body that stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok have ranged from dismissive to lukewarm. None have been enthusiastic.
But some inside and outside Russia argue it would be unwise for Europe and the United States to reject the proposal out of hand, not least because, as one Russian official put it, this is one of the few occasions where Russia isn’t disagreeing but coming up with something constructive.
Yes Moscow’s draft treaty has gaps, they concede, yes it is almost entirely focused on security in the military sense and yes it doesn’t give much weight to liberal democracy and human rights as envisioned in modern perceptions of security – but it is a starting point for discussion.
Shutting Russia out plays in to the hands of those in Moscow, Washington and other capitals who prefer the simplicity of the Cold War’s zero sum game. It does no favours to modernisers in Russia who want to build cordial international relations, promote democratic society and build Russia’s economy away from its over-reliance on natural resources.
Russia needs stability outside its borders in order to modernise at home.
Twenty years after the collapse of communism, Russia and the rest of Europe are still struggling to establish a relationship of mutual trust and respect. They are bound by commerce – Europe is the prime market for Russian energy exports – but even that relationship is rarely straightforward. The annual Russia-Ukraine-EU gas drama is just one example of how fraught the relationship can be.
On a political and diplomatic level the complications are even greater. One need look no further than the 2008 war in Georgia when preconceptions and stereotypes dictated responses on all sides. Western media and many politicians condemned Russia outright. It was only with the publication of an EU commissioned report into the war this year that a fuller story was told. NATO’s steady expansion towards Russia’s borders has angered Moscow, where it has been noted that the Baltic states and central Europe became far more openly hostile to Russia once they had NATO and EU membership in the bag.
Level headed… good article yes. We need to work together and keep economic interests as our priority as it is with the rest of the world. The paranoia of the cold war lingers on. The new competition is not an arms race, bu a race of economic might.
In search of Russia
President Dmitry Medvedev’s conference on the modern state and global security this week was an object lesson in efficiency and organisation. Four hours north east of Moscow in the ancient city of Yaroslavl, security was tight but not overbearing, hundreds of Moscow and Saint Petersburg students guided guests to their hotels and waited tables with exquisite fish, caviar, pastries, vegetables and fruit in a marquee beside the conference hall.
Russia was showing the face of a modern state with a global role.
Escaping the speeches for a view of Yaroslavl’s medieval Kremlin and onion-domed churches and monasteries, a few of us set off down the road from the conference centre in search of a taxi to drive us into town. The modern conference grounds quickly gave way to small wooden kiosks selling ‘products’, ‘vegetables’ – no brand names here.
No taxi either but there was a kiosk selling water melons, run by an Azeri eager to earn some extra cash.
His Lada stank of petrol and exhaust fumes belched inside the car every time it pulled away from every junction. He told us police sometimes stopped him because of his dark colouring – in this part of northern Russia blonde is the order of the day. And he complained that his invalid allowance – he had kidney problems – barely covered the cost of his medicine.
Bumping into the centre of Yaroslavl, the Volga stretched before us, we saw a harbour packed with millionaire’s boats. Out of the car and walking through the ancient gates of the Kremlin, we were greeted by an old woman sitting on a wooden chair.
Can the real Russia please step forward?
Russia is a paradox. On one hand there is democracy but no real opposition to Putins iron hand. A country of geniuses led by thugs. The U.S., China, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and Italy all have larger economies. Not exactly a ‘superpower’ in my book. Russia is a thug-ocracy that sells WMD’s to states like….Iran, N. Korea, etc. The Russian government is an embarrasment to its people. With Putin as the number one thug. There are people in the West who have not forgotten Litvenenko. Putin will pay.
How much did Russia know about Manas negotiations?
David L. Stern covers the former Soviet Union and the Black Sea region for GlobalPost, where this article originally ran. KIEV, Ukraine — Was Kyrgyzstan’s decision last week not to evict American forces from a strategic air base the result of the “Obama Effect” — President Barack Obama’s reputed benign influence on how other nations now view the United States — or evidence of the new president’s hardball negotiating tactics?
The answer holds implications for the American leader’s first meeting with Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, when he is in Moscow July 6 to 8. Depending on whether the Kyrgyz reversal was made with or without the Kremlin’s blessing, the base issue could be a sign of how U.S.-Russian relations will develop over the next four years.
Bishkek announced that an arrangement was reached last week to allow U.S. forces to remain at Manas air base, where they staff a major re-fueling and transport hub for operations in nearby Afghanistan. Parliament, in which all but a few seats are occupied by President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s ruling party, quickly ratified the new agreement.
Rumors of a deal had been swirling around Washington and Bishkek for more than a month, but U.S. and Kyrgyz officials maintained a strict silence that allowed no official confirmation of the back-channel negotiations. Only three weeks ago, Foreign Minister Kadyrbek Sarbayev said that the decision to eject the Americans by August still stood.
Under the new agreement, Washington’s annual rent for using Manas will be upped from $17.5 million to $60 million. In addition, the U.S. will pay some $36 million to renovate Manas International Airport, where the base is located, just outside the capital, and tens of millions more to combat drug trafficking and terrorism, and to promote economic growth. Some news reports placed the total amount of the new package at about $180 million per year. When the U.S. first opened Manas in 2001, its rent was just $2 million.
It is still unclear, however, if the base’s core functions will in any way change. A Russian foreign ministry statement indicated that cargo through Kyrgyzstan would be limited to “non-lethal” goods. Kyrgyz and U.S. officials made no mention of this, however.
Last year more than 6,300 flights took off from the base, while some 189,000 troops passed through and more than 200 million pounds of fuel were used.
I think more money from the americans gave the Kyrgyz the excuse to cancel the treat of closing the base. They did not want to close the base from the outset, it was the assertive mood of Russia combined with the weakened america after the arrival of obama which made former us allies to feel lost. Hence, Obama did not contribute positively to the decision. Afterall, all what he has been doing in the last several months is give concession after concession to everybody. If it was not for fear of scorning the Czechs and the Polishs, he would conceed the missile defence too.
Post card from Russia
This is one in a series of post cards from Reuters reporters across Europe, Middle East and Africa.
Who rules the world’s biggest energy producer? That’s the question that is bugging many people in Russia as the country’s two leaders – PM Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev — try to cope with the worst economic crisis since the 1998 domestic debt default.
Many believe Putin, a former KGB spy, is still the boss despite handing over power to Medvedev last year. But boss of what? The economy forecast to contract this year and Moscow is facing tumbling budget revenues as the income from oil, gas and metals exports dries up.
The Kremlin says it is concentrating on avoiding social tensions but the country’s richest men – the oligarchs – also say they need state bailouts. Russia’s richest man has been forced to open restructuring talks with Western creditors and more are likely to follow.
Russian debt and equity markets have rallied this year as bottom feeders snap up what they say are bargains of the decade. Sovereign yield spreads have narrowed. But friends in major companies report tumbling demand across the board – from shampoo to cars. The banking system has stopped giving out credit, job losses are soaring and the property market is paralysed with fear.
The smartest people in Moscow expect this to be a deep, long Russian crisis that will send prices down far further. The question is how the ruling duo of Putin and Medvedev handle the crisis; or rather, what happens if they fail to.
Why all comments about Russia is so bad and project Russia as evil country? It is not fair! There is more evil in the world and still Russia is the one of the favorite countries to pick up.If people believe in communism let them believe in what they want. There is not danger for US or other world from communism – the danger is greed of capitalism.Why not focus on real bad greedy guys worldwide.
A fresh start with Russia: what’s the trade-off?
Russia has reversed its decision to station missiles in the Western outpost of Kaliningrad, next door to the European Union, according to Interfax.
The move would be the clearest signal so far of the start of a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations, which could be one of the major changes in U.S. President Barack Obama’s first year in office. We don’t know what commitment, if any, Obama may have given to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the missile shield (the two spoke by telephone earlier this week).
Obama’s scepticism about the effectiveness and utility of missile defence was clearly stated during the campaign. But since the Russians unilaterally made the Kaliningrad threat on the day of his election, the suspension of the deployment plan is a clear goodwill gesture. It follows NATO’s announcement, slipped out without fanfare earlier this week, that political relations with Moscow, frozen after the Georgia war, would resume within a few weeks.
Expect Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to foam about appeasement.
The Obama administration has already made clear it will pursue bilateral and multilateral nuclear arms control treaties which Bush eschewed. At the very least, they will try to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty to replace START 1, which expires at the end of this year. This is important because it treats Russia as a nuclear power on an equal footing with the United States, which the status-conscious Kremlin craves and the Bush administration always dismissed.
Obama realises he needs Russian cooperation for the two biggest foreign policy items on his agenda this year: trying to defang Iran’s nuclear ambitions and turn the tide in Afghanistan.
The Russians have made clear what some of the trade-offs could be: safe supply routes for U.S. and NATO forces to Afghanistan across Russia and its central Asian friends in exchange for a halt to NATO expansion along Russia’s southern border. There is no consensus in NATO to take in Ukraine and Georgia. Germany and France blocked giving them a roadmap to membership last year and the U.S. agreed reluctantly in December to put the issue on the back-burner for now.
“Howls of betrayal”? (From Eastern Europe). Reuters staff, give me a break please. We Eastern Europeans have been members of NATO for several years, there is more than an implicit understanding involved in this compact. But seriously – “howls of betrayal”? Is this not below the belt? Is this dispassionate? Is this use of non-loaded terminology? You could have written this in tens of ways. For example: “If Obama does not support giving NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, we can expect strongly worded objections from the neo-cons, the Baltic States and Poland”. “Howls of disapproval” my foot, when do we in fact truly hear the Baltic States or Poland beating the podium with their shoes? An unkind cut. To Ernst: will Obama be duped by Russia? What if he is has been going along with the plan all along? His thesis at Columbia was on the topic of bilateral nuclear arms reduction. I am for a reduction in nuclear arms if at all possible as much as the next man – indeed, total scrapping of the things would be desirable – but the Soviet Union used the Peace and arms reduction platform in an active measures kind of way during the Cold War to its own advantage and in an attempt to use (or actually abuse) the Summer of Love generation in the West, to attain the subjective and less than sincere ends of the Kremlin. With the KGB – oops, I mean the FSB – now running the show in Moscow, is there any reason to believe the objective or the methods have changed?
What’s next in the Russia-West crisis over Georgia?
The people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were celebrating on Tuesday after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree recognising the independence of the two regions.
Western leaders responded with harsh words. U.S. President George W. Bush said it increased world tensions and Britain called for “the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia,” where the two regions lie.
But what can the West do to punish Russia or discourage it from any similar acts in the future?
Military action has never been a realistic option since Russia sent tanks and troops to halt Georgia’s assault on South Ossetia. United Nations sanctions are also out of the question because Russia ihas the right of veto on the U.N. Security Council.
Major powers are also reluctant to do anything that might encourage Moscow to withdraw its help with U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme and transit support for NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Retaliation could involve Russian membership of the big international clubs: excluding Russia from the Group of Eight (G8) top industrial democracies or blocking its bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).
But any action will be carried out with the nagging thought at the back of Western leaders’ minds – Moscow is no longer the economic basket-case of Soviet times and, riding a tide of petrodollars from soaring oil prices, western Europe depends on Russian oil and gas.
Angela,
You talking nonsense. USA-owned NATO has no jurisdiction over the world. Nobody gave them right to police other countries.
The way I (and the most of reasonable people here) see it, – Russia has rights to protect her interests. When Gorbachev has torn Berlin Wall down, he has been given a promise, that NATO would not expand to the East. That was a lie. Apparently, Russia was enduring this for too long. But when NATO started openly threatening Russia’s defenses by installing bases in Poland and expanding through CIA-established governments to Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has slapped it in the face. I feel for Georgia, she is a pawn in the Big Game of the USA for world dominance. btw, did the USA help you? I don’t think so. That was a powerful message to NATO, – hands off!
Now Saakashvili has a dilemma, – in order to get accepted to NATO, he has to recognize and drop all claims on S.Ossetia and Abkhazia. Because of his actions, Georgia has lost them forever, and Georgians will never forgive Saakashvili for that! (The last words belong to my friend, a Georgian, also living in the USA).
Is the American dream over for Georgia and Ukraine?
When thousands in the streets of the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the Georgian capital Tbilisi overthrew Soviet-style rulers, many felt warm in the embrace of the West.
Western support for the opposition — open and behind the scenes – helped many people overcome fear of Soviet-style reprisals to stand for days outside Georgia’s parliament in 2003 or to pitch orange tents on Kiev’s main thoroughfare in late 2004, providing a lasting image of “people power” overthrowing a stale leadership.
Washington, or at least organisations with close political ties with the Bush administration, had courted opposition parties in both countries, coaching in the methods of democracy or securing “regime-change” as they sought to end the rules of President Leonid Kuchma and Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze.
But the new leaders, and their teams, soon found that the attentions of an adoring West didn’t last for long. Ukraine’s team of President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko soon fell apart. The West grew tired of the constant bickering of the Ukrainian leaders, unable to agree on almost any policy, while a resurgent pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich, who lost a rerun of the presidential election, encouraged unity in his own party and rose in popularity.
In Georgia, Saakashvili cracked down on post-election protests last year and now some blame him for taking Tbilisi into a war it could never win.
The war in South Ossetia has frightened Ukraine. Yushchenko was quick to turn to the United States, saying he considered “U.S. support for Ukraine to be very important”.
But has the West given up? Ukraine and Georgia have been promised membership of NATO one day but the alliance decided at a summit in April not to give them a road map to membership.
I agree the Chinese have made a substantial investment in America. So has the Middle East. If you read the blog I said that the Chinese and American’s have no desire for confrontation because our economies are so interdependent. It is in there look again. Ryzer really the one that thinks there is significant hostilities between US and China. I just saying if the poop hits the fan (war) we would default on all that investment. Hurting the Chinese more than the Americans cause their investment has been spent in benefit of America. Essentially giving us a Zero balance do to any enemy on a massive investment.
Can the Caucasus flames be controlled?
The Caucasus tinderbox is alight again. How far will the flames spread this time and what can the outside world – the United States, the European Union, NATO – do to extinguish them?
The strategic significance of this mountainous region stretches back through history.
To the west lies the Black Sea, to the east the Caspian, to the south the Mediterranean, Iran and Turkey.
In the past Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and the Russian tsars struggled to control its trade routes. Today Russia and the West are competing for influence over its energy pipelines carrying Caspian oil to world markets.
The Caucasus’ blue mountains and fiercely independent people have caught the imagination of Russian writers, Lermontov and Tolstoy. It has created only headaches for political leaders.
Georgia’s pro-Russian breakaway region South Ossetia is the latest battle ground in a long-running conflict.
Will the fighting, involving Russian and Georgian troops end there, or will another of Georgia’s breakaway regions Abkhazia seize the opportunity to press its claim for autonomy?
Now US ships arrived in Georgia/Poti port. If Russians is smart enough, I think they should use their spies in Georgian army to cause a Georgian attack to Russian army. Then Russian army counter-attack.
- Then if US army supported Georgian army by attacking Russian army, Russia can make the case that US intentionally intervene or they were there not to ship aid but take part in the war (proved that they told their Georgian stupid puppets to attack Russian). Then with its strong army base around, ships, strikers, tanks, Russian army can humiliate US army easily. Then what US can do? They are stretched in Iraq, Afghanistan…no way they can win that war (with Russia). It is then apparently a failure for US/EU.
- If US do not counter-attack, Russia would prove to Georgian people that: “hey, idiots, you rely on NATO/US/EU, now what? they are here but we can kill you! They can give you money (like they did all over the world: VN, Nicaragua,Cuba, Iraq/Iran… but that’s that” Georgian people would cry for themselves!
- Then China can take advantage of this situation, they would feel they are now in much better position to do what they want to in several reasons around the world!
For what US have done on VN, Afghanistan,Iraq… after they create false/misleading excuses, their governtment serve this situation.
Was South Ossetia’s fate sealed in Kosovo?
Is Kosovo to blame for the fighting in South Ossetia?
When the Serbian province seceded from Belgrade in February, South Ossetia was quick to reassert its own claim to international recognition.
As a spokeswoman for separatist leader Eduard Kokoity told Reuters at the time: “The Kosovo precedent has driven us to more actively seek our rights.”
Those remarks will not have gone unheard in Tblisi and could well have added some urgency to Georgia’s desire to impose its rule over breakaway South Ossetia.
With widespread Western backing, Kosovo was able to achieve a fairly clean break with its former ruler, despite Russian objections.
Now Moscow is backing the separatists and it’s far from clear how things will play out this time.
Giles, in your report of “Under-fire Saakashvili defends Georgia war” you “But at the time, there was no public statement from the Georgian leadership that Russian forces were invading. The shelling of Tskhinvali after a ceasefire of several hours and the subsequent ground assault was justified as a response to rebel shelling of Georgian villages.”
What story have you been following?
Please see Saakashvili’s interviews that he gave to international media (CNN, BBC) immediately following the start of the conflict. He clearly says that he decided to mobilize the troops AFTER he got intelligence of Russian troops crossing the border. Please, revise the article at once.
Sen. Mitch McConnell asserts that the Senate needs more time to consider the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, but nothing could be further from the truth. The treaty was signed more than a year ago, and the Senate has held at least 20 hearings on it. It is supported by an impressive number of members of the Republican foreign policy establishment, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz,James Baker and Colin Powell; former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger; and former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The text of the treaty places no limits on U.S. development of missile defenses, and, as noted in the article, the Obama administration will seek substantial increases in funding for the nuclear weapons complex in parallel with the implementation of the treaty. Last but not least, there is real urgency to ratifying the treaty as soon as possible. When the prior START agreement lapsed last December, the elaborate system of verification measures that allowed the United States to keep close tabs on Russian nuclear developments lapsed as well. As seven former heads of the Strategic Air Command and the U.S. Strategic Command noted in a recent letter to Congress, we will know more about Russia’s nuclear program with New START than without it — a significant benefit to our security. The time to ratify New START is now.