Editorial de “The New York Times” del 28.04.2003
While the Bush administration has decided to punish France for its opposition to the war in Iraq, it seems inclined to forgive Russia its transgressions. We would favor mending fences with France as well, but at least the White House understands the importance of repairing relations with the Kremlin so the two nations can work together on common problems.
To that end, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, recently traveled to Moscow, and President Bush still plans to visit President Vladimir Putin's hometown of St. Petersburg this spring for its 300th anniversary. We hope the meeting will not be another symbolic embrace, but an earnest attempt to turn the good chemistry of the Bush-Putin relationship into an enduring partnership between the two nations.
The reason is not only that magnanimity in victory is wise, nor even the vast leftover arsenal of Soviet nuclear missiles. The fact is that we need Russia's help on a variety of critical issues. The war on terrorism, on nuclear proliferation, on the illicit trade in arms or drugs - all these require intense international cooperation. Russia, more than many countries, is critical as an ally.
Few countries have as much relevant real estate in the war on terrorism as Russia, whose endless border winds through some of the most explosive regions on two continents. No country has as many arms, technology or experts to proliferate. The Soviet Union had advanced programs in biological and chemical weapons, and Russians know how to combat them.
Unfortunately, the relationship has been largely one-sided - in Washington's favor - since Mr. Bush famously declared that he had looked into Mr. Putin's soul and found a partner to be trusted. Mr. Putin offered considerable help in Afghanistan, and he swallowed NATO expansion and the scuttling of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. But he has received little in return beyond Washington's misguided decision to go mute on Russia's brutal war in Chechnya.
That puts Mr. Putin in a vulnerable position. He still presides over a governing bureaucracy heavily laced with cold warriors who resent American power, and they have wasted no time in accusing him of kowtowing to Washington. This, in fact, is shaping up as the dominant battle in parliamentary elections later this year, and it is one reason Mr. Putin sided so publicly with France and Germany against the American war in Iraq.
A helping hand now from Washington, despite Mr. Putin's stand on Iraq, would go a long way toward demonstrating to his electorate that his opening to the West is not a humiliating failure, and it would encourage him to stay the course in his next term. Giving Russia a serious stake in postwar Iraq, for example, would do much to help.
The benefits might extend well beyond retaining Mr. Putin as a soul mate. An anxious world is looking for signs that the United States is not the arrogant and vindictive superpower so many fear. Supporting Mr. Putin would also show that the United States is serious about helping emerging democracies. It wasn't that long ago, after all, that Russia pulled down its own statues.