12. A Leading Role for the Security Council (Mikhail S. Gorbachev, New York Times, 21 October 2001)

    In the past month, the world has witnessed something previously unknown: a common stand taken by America, Russia, Europe, India, China, Cuba, most of the Islamic world and numerous other regions and countries. Despite many serious differences between them, they united to save civilization.

I believe the United Nations Security Council should take the lead in fighting terrorism and in dealing with other global problems. All the main issues considered by the United Nations affect mankind's security. It is time to stop reviling the United Nations and get on with the work of adapting the institution to new tasks.

Concrete steps should include accelerated nuclear and chemical disarmament and control over the remaining stocks of dangerous substances, including chemical and biological agents. No amount of money is too much for that. I hope the United States will support the verification protocol of the convention banning biological weapons and ratify the treaty to prohibit all nuclear tests - though both steps would reverse the Bush administration's current positions.

We should also heed those who have pointed out the negative consequences of globalization for hundreds of millions of people. Globalization cannot be stopped, but it can be made more humane and more balanced for those it affects.

If the battle against terrorism is limited to military operations, the world could be the loser. But if it becomes an integral part of common efforts to build a more just world order, everyone will win - including those who now do not support American actions or the antiterrorism coalition. Those people, and they are many, should not all be branded as enemies. (http://www.nytimes.com/)

13. Joint Statement on Counterterrorism by the President of the United States and the President of Russia (The White House - Office of the Press Secretary, 21 October 2001)

    The President of the United States and the President of Russia categorically reject and resolutely condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of motive. The Presidents stress that the barbaric act of terrorism committed in the United States on September 11, 2001 represent a crime against all humanity.

The Presidents note that terrorism threatens not only the security of the United States and Russia, but also that of the entire international community, as well as international peace and security. They believe that terrorism poses a direct threat to the rule of law and to human rights and democratic values. It has no foundation in any religion, national or cultural traditions, and it only uses them as a cover for its criminal goals.

The Presidents agree that every effort be undertaken to bring the perpetrators to justice, while protecting the rights and welfare of civilians. They stress that the fight against terrorism requires the unity of the entire international community to counter new challenges and threats on the basis of international law and the full use of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The Presidents call for all states to join a sustained global coalition to defeat international terrorism. Nations must make use of diplomatic, political, law enforcement, financial, intelligence, and military means to root out terrorists and their sponsors and bring them to justice.

The Presidents note with satisfaction the fruitful cooperation between the United States and Russia in the United Nations and the UN Security Council, in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, and in the G-8. They also instruct their governments to reinforce bilateral cooperation throughout the U.S.-Russia Working Group on countering terrorist and other threats emanating from Afghanistan.

The two Presidents are resolved to advance cooperation in combating new terrorist threats: nuclear, chemical and biological, as well as those in cyberspace. They agreed to enhance bilateral and multilateral action to stem the export and proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological materials, related technologies, and delivery systems as a critical component of the battle to defeat international terrorism. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/)

14. Bush and Putin to Deny Terrorists Access to Nuclear and Biological Arms (The Irish Examiner, 22 October 2001)

    Russia and the United States pledged yesterday to prevent nuclear, biological and chemical weapons being used for terrorism and to stop money funding those involved. In a joint statement released after US President George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin held more than an hour of talks, the two nations said they would co-operate in many fields in the anti-terrorism fight.

The statement also urged the formation of a coalition government in Afghanistan, the target of three weeks of US air strikes and at least one ground operation.

The coalition should include groups that would bring stability, the statement said.

"The presidents of the two countries are fully resolved to increase co-operation in the fight against new terrorist threats in the nuclear, chemical and biological fields, as well as in the field of computers," said the statement, released by the Kremlin after the leaders held a news conference in Shanghai.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin came together after participating in a weekend summit of leaders from the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) grouping. (http://www.examiner.ie/)

15. A Brave New Russia (Washington Times, 26 October 2001)

    Recent dramatic moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin towards a rapprochement with the United States and NATO in our opinion can be compared on a geopolitical scale with the far-reaching impact that the collapse of communism had in 1991.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is talking about seismic changes in U.S. - Russian relations while in Moscow a communist newspaper denounced Mr. Putin as an enemy who was a thousand times worse than Boris Yeltsin.

Mr. Putin's move toward the West, however, is not without risk for him, especially if oil prices remain depressed for much longer. The Russians are a very patient people but there is a limit to their patience. There are demagogic elements inside Russia ready and willing to blame Mr. Putin's shift to the West on any problems which may come up. One headline in a Russian newspaper said: "Putin joins the West, Russia may follow later."

May or may not depends on our reciprocity and the United States needs to look at things we can do which will give Mr. Putin some breathing room. Clearly it is in the American national interest to keep Russia on its side not only in the fight against radical Islamic fundamentalists but on a more permanent basis. And the Russian people must understand that being an American ally brings substantial dividends.

One could start with the matter of the foreign debt, which Russia inherited from the Soviet Union. This debt goes back many decades and most of it is owed to Europe and not the United States. The country and its European allies should either write it off or restructure it in such a way that it is not a burden for Russia, or follow the example of Spain, which agreed to turn its portion of the Soviet debt into investment.

Second, we should find a more positive approach to one of the most controversial issues, which is America's intended development and deployment of the ballistic missile defense system (BMD). We are strong supporters of this initiative but from our point of view, the best way to deal with it is by engaging Russia in the BMD development. It is no secret that there are still serious and widespread doubts about the effectiveness of the present U.S. version of BMD. It is also broadly understood that, despite all the difficulties of the last ten years, Russia's scientific potential, especially in the area of pioneering research in physics (such as laser technologies that can be used in missile defenses), is among the best in the world. Therefore, we believe that cooperation between Russian and American scientists, with appropriate financial support from the American side, would not only ensure the workability of the new defense system, but also certify that this system would not pose a threat to the national security of Russia.

Our preliminary contacts with the Russian Academy of Sciences and some Duma deputies indicate that such an idea will have wide support in Russian society, and once Congress and the U.S. government come up publicly with such an initiative, this support will be much stronger.

Third, we should start serious discussions and negotiations on close NATO - Russia collaboration. This would include working out a joint threat analysis and a joint NATO-Russia strategic concept and developing joint contingency planning between the Western and Russian militaries. We should also seriously consider taking Mr. Putin up on his comment about Russia joining NATO, in order to see if there is any chance of agreement with him on practical terms and in any case, taking the onus off NATO for having previously dismissed the idea out of hand. (http://www.washtimes.com/)

16. Second Chance With Russia (The Nation, 5 November 2001)

    President Vladimir Putin's agreement to cooperate with Washington's military campaign against terrorism, specifically in neighboring Afghanistan, opens the way to such a relationship, but it will require major revisions in US policies that existed before September 11. Those unwise steps had led to a Russia seething with anti-American sentiment and a cold peace between the former cold war rivals. They included the Clinton Administration's policies of virtually imposing shock-therapy economic measures, along with crushing foreign debt, on Moscow in the name of "reform"; violating a US promise to the Kremlin in 1990-91 not to expand NATO eastward; and bombing Serbia, Russia's fellow Slav nation.

But it is unlikely that Putin can stay the American course against terrorism without significant US concessions, if only because he is surrounded by political elites deeply distrustful of Washington and unhappy with his decision. They are already reminding him of the despised "Gorbachev-Yeltsin syndrome"-a pattern of far-reaching Russian concessions in the 1980s and 1990s that were met only by broken Western promises and aggrandizement. They are warning, for example, that the Bush Administration will transform permission to use bases in Uzbekistan into a permanent US military presence in former Soviet Central Asia; exploit Russian assistance in Afghanistan to install a pro-American regime in Kabul; and use the "coalition" to settle accounts with Iraq, a move long opposed by Moscow.

Still more, all of these "concessions" would be in America's long-term national interest. A Russia whose Western borders are menaced by NATO, whose nuclear security is undermined by US strategic unilateralism and whose economy is in bondage to Western debt will eventually respond by doing what the United States should hope it will not do-by seeking reliable allies in the East, by further overloading its decrepit nuclear infrastructures with more weapons and by selling more arms to states Washington has accused of sponsoring terrorism.

Thus the events of September 11 confront George W. Bush with not one but two historic challenges-to defend America from unprecedented dangers and to develop an unprecedented relationship with Russia. Properly understood, they are inseparable. (http://www.thenation.com/)