Bratislava summit ; Western Media Perspective

By K Gajendra Singh
Purbanchal, March 4, 2005
They way US led Western media hyped and serenaded US President George W.Bush’s fence mending sweep across Brussels, Paris , Mainz ending in the Bratislava summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin , it should have ended him declaring like Julius Caesar did in 78 BC ,Veni, vidi, vici ("I came, I saw, I conquered") at a town called Zile, 300 kilometers northeast of Ankara, after a four hour battle victory over Pharnaces II, son of the great Mithradates VI of Pontus ,who had contested Imperial Rome's hegemony in Asia Minor. Instead , after 3 hours of frank discussions it looked like ‘ I came, I saw –‘ but “I was deflated”.
The author surfed western TV channels after the summit , but perhaps embarrassed at the denouement there was only an abbreviated joint press conference , other wise it would have played many times over like the toppling of Saddam Hussein statue or “the Mission accomplished .“
Even in US Midwest , Denver Post described Bush-Putin tensions palpable and observed that ‘George W Bush and Vladimir Putin looked friendly enough -- They called each other by first names, a diplomatic gimmick we don't pretend to understand. But it seemed clear from their subdued body language that there was lingering tension after a closed-door summit –“ The old cold warrior William Saffire told CNN that Bush had blinked . Yes , that is true , faced with a revived bear ,the Iraq wounded eagle blinked in Bratislava.
Of course, the propagandist of the self-styled successors of Imperial Rome, the hawks in the US administration, had hoped to sing paeans to Bush emulating Caesar, or at least like Reagan-Gorbachev summit.
According to extracts from Washington Post’s verbatim record Bush thanked Putin for “since September the 11th, for clearly understanding the stakes they faced. Every time we meet we have an interesting and constructive strategy session about how to continue to protect our peoples from attack. He has confronted some serious attacks in his country. I know what that means as a fellow leader. I know the strain, I know the agony, I know the sadness, I know the emotion that comes with seeing innocent people lose their lives. And we have shared that. I hope we never have to share it again, that common situation. “
Bush said that they had agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. “And I appreciate Vladimir's understanding on that issue. We had a very constructive dialogue about how to achieve that common goal. And we agreed that North Korea should not have a nuclear weapon. And, again, this is an area where we're working closely together as two nations of the five nations that are involved with North Korea. “
“And we agreed to accelerate negotiations for Russia's entry into the WTO. I stated that the other day in Brussels. And we talked about ways to move this process forward. “
Bush also said that they agreed to work together to find peace in the Middle East.” Russia's a part of the quartet, and they played a constructive role in establishing the road map, and now we look forward to working together to achieve peace.”
Putin replied that Russia was ready for a reasonable compromise. But this compromise should not go beyond the usual responsibilities as seen by countries acceding to the WTO.
On democracy Putin said that ‘ we discussed these issues at length, face-to-face, just the two of us. Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy. Fourteen years ago, independently, without any pressure from outside, it made that decision in the interest of itself, in the interest of its people, of its citizens.
“ This is our final choice and we have no way back. There can be no return to what we used to have before. And the guarantee for this is the choice of the Russian people themselves. No guarantees from outside cannot be provided. This is impossible. It would be impossible for Russia today. Any kind of turn toward totalitarianism for Russia would be impossible due to the condition of the Russian society.
“First, we are not going to make up, to invent any kind of special Russian democracy. We're going to remain committed to the fundamental principles of democracy that have been established in the world. But, of course, all the modern institutions of democracy, the principles of democracy, should be adequate to the current status of the development of Russia, to our history and our traditions.
“There is nothing unusual here either. In every country, these overall principles are embodied that way, in electoral law. We can compare the United States and a number of European countries in the operation of major democratic institutions. There may be some differences, but the main fundamental principles are going to be implemented in the form in which they're developed by the modern, civilized society. --But I believe that -- and a lot of people will agree with me -- the implementation of the principles and norms of democracy should not be accompanied by the collapse of the state and impoverishment of the people.
After the summit Putin said that "I am satisfied with the meeting and with the results of the meeting," He added that his frank discussion with Bush was useful although he made clear Russia did not accept being lectured by the West on how to run its affairs. "The meeting was very positive both in terms of its atmosphere and the choice of topics," Putin added.
Imperial USA and its European Satrapies ;
But first the journey to his satrapies , the Europe Union and Nato . The US-Europe unity after Bush’s meetings with European leaders was aptly summed up by the Guardian –“For the moment, to adapt Mahatma Gandhi's acerbic opinion about western civilisation, one can only say that such unity would be a fine thing.”
In the author’s view, there is an existential misunderstanding between USA and Europe about the global 'war on terror' or the 'war against tyranny', as Washington puts it .After September 11 , the Americans believe that the world has changed , while others say that USA has changed ( for the worse ). It was a reality check to US , whose reaction has been excessive, brutal and shocking for the world . Europeans know terrorism ; the British with the IRA, Italians and Germans with their Red Brigades, the Spanish with the Basque separatist Eta, French with Corsicans and so on. So what , there is no need to go overboard. And so do Turks and Indians .But USA has done little to keep its promise to Ankara on Turkey’s Kurdish insurgents sheltered in North Iraq or take with Islamabad Indian complaints about Jihadis and terrorists in Pakistan , documented in US government reports.
Cold Warriors like Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and even Condoleezza Rice , in spite of Iraqi quagmire want to maintain 'full spectrum dominance' .Europe is seen not as “a partner for peace in a multi-polar world, but as a useful, if sometimes troublesome partner , to bolster its own position in a uni-polar one. Superpowers are on a high , hyper power is high on a cocktail of many ingredients . If Europe is to be a partner it will be only as a junior .” Thus the differences with Europe on stabilization of Iraq , the security of oil the Gulf and the Caspian , China's military and economic potential, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in the context of North Korea and Iran remain.
Bush’s charm offensive with French and German leaders was not a great success either, in spite of many “bon mots “ ,nor earlier of Ms Rice ‘s safari , when she was politely listened to and equally politely applauded .Europeans , including Tony Blair wonder now that Bush has been re-elected , how to square the circle . But Bush’s conciliatory words fell short of offering substantive changes in US policy.
Declaring that the US stands "proudly" in the tradition of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, Bush won applause when he told an invited audience in Brussels: "When Europe and America stand together, no problem can stand against us." But after Guantamano, Abu Gharaib and Fallujah these words sound hollow.
Summit; Western media coverage;
According to the Western media the dominating issue was US concern that Putin was backsliding on Russia's democracy. He has taken steps to recentralize power - eliminating elections of provincial governors, restricting the media, intimidating critics, ousting opposition legislators, and interfering with Russian oil giant Yukos.
USA Today said that they called each other 'George' and 'Vladimir' and insisted they remain good friends. But their body language spoke volumes ... Mr Putin barely smiled. Mr Bush at times seemed ill at ease. Back-slapping and soul-searching were out. Sparring about democracy was in ... . For all of Mr Putin's rhetorical commitment to democracy, his actions will speak more loudly."
Boston Globe said "If Mr Putin expects to gain entry to the WTO, he will have no choice but to meet WTO terms and cease staging sham legal procedures and phony auctions to steal energy companies such as the oil giant Yukos from impertinent private owners ... Bush should be telling Mr Putin that the path to Russian prosperity and security must pass through a political resolution of the war in Chechnya, removal of Russian military bases from Georgia, an end to meddling in Ukrainian politics, the creation of an honest and independent judiciary at home, and a decision to refrain from changing the Russian constitution to allow himself a third term. Those are tickets Mr Putin should have to punch if he wants to become a full-fledged member of the democratic club."
London Economist , a loyal US supporter with its elegant English , described Russia as a medium-sized country whose global importance is still fading but which still has plenty of scope for troublemaking—and a huge nuclear arsenal said that Bush who had ‘urged European Union leaders to join him in pressing Mr Putin to recommit himself to “democratic reform”, following several recent moves in which the Russian leader has seemed to be taking Russia back towards its authoritarian past , used the word “candid” to describe their discussion on this matter. As Mr Bush breezily reiterated -- the concerns he had expressed about the rule of law, press freedom and other democratic institutions in Russia, Mr Putin stood beside him, stony-faced.
Economist did admit that “Mr Putin insisted Russia would not slide back towards totalitarianism and -—arguing that candidates for governor would have to be approved by the elected regional assemblies, -- that this was no less democratic than the electoral-college system used to choose American presidents. Then like others in Western media ,a former Prime Minsiter Kasyanov news conference in Moscow and his attack on Putin's record on basic rights --to challenge him for the presidency in the 2008 elections, at the head of a pro-democracy coalition ,was splashed .
Economist also mentioned “the disregard for the rule of law that he has shown in destroying Yukos, an energy giant; by his brutal military campaign to try to crush separatism in Chechnya; and by the scrapping of elections for regional governors. He is also helping Iran to build its civilian nuclear capabilities (which, America fears, could aid the Islamic republic’s clandestine atomic-weapons programme).-- And he is negotiating to sell advanced military hardware to Syria.”
If anything it was Bush who was ill at ease while Putin looked charged like a Judo black belt which he is . But then Economist splashes Rose revolution in Georgia and Orange revolution in Ukraine , but does not follow up as new rulers , with western wives ,installed with western money , training and muscle are turning out to be more authoritarian and wealth grabbers .
West was so happy to have Gorbachev’s de-structuring of the powerful Soviet state without any returns and Yeltsin , under whom public assets were sold for nothing and hundreds of billions of dollars transferred to western banks and institutions .
In New York Times ,Elisabeth Bumiller and David E Sanger commented that Bush expressed concern about Russia's commitment to democracy in a sometimes tense and awkward encounter with Putin , who at times visibly uncomfortable, refused to yield. When pressed “Mr. Putin tartly responded that he would listen to some of Mr. Bush's ideas but not comment on others and said that debating "whether we have more or less democracy is not the right thing to do." The Russian president also said that the American Electoral College was in essence a "secret ballot" and pointedly noted, "It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"
Another report observed that there was no major agreement reached as a result of Bush and Putin meeting, except for few modest agreements, some already committed to, on trade, energy and nuclear proliferation. They agreed to limit the spread of the shoulder-fired missiles called Man-Portable Air Defense Systems ( which Russia has agreed to supply to Syria).Remember the US sidewinder missiles which US distributed like confetti to Mujahaddins in Afganistan but came to haunt it . Another instance of not well thought out policies and their consequences.
In the same paper ,Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state , now president of the Brookings Institution , who was kept at bay by Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh after India’s nuclear tests in April, 1998 , referred to demands by some influential Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress to expel Russia from Group of 8 rich nations . Group of 7 invited Mikhail Gorbachev as a reward (for loosening the iron grip of Soviet power) .Yeltsin as the democratically elected president of post-Soviet Russia, was granted full membership in 1998.But being a diplomat of long standing he urged that it would only play into the hands of nationalist forces in Russia , which suffer from all the ills of the world . He then hopefully suggested that others close ranks behind Bush and Blair and use the next 16 months for a campaign of quiet calibrated diplomacy and tell Putin - reform or otherwise.
Fox Channel describing Bush's Europe Trip - Mission Accomplished? claimed that” White House officials are celebrating that they have found some common ground with European allies on helping in Iraq — even among those who opposed the war. “
Under subtitle “A Public Whipping? , it becomes coy ,”But some wondered why Bush didn't more publicly express his displeasure with his foreign counterpart, particularly since he stressed in this year's inaugural address the need to spread democracy. "Privately, I was hoping the president would take a sharper line" with Putin, P.J. Crowley, former special assistant to President Clinton, told FOX News. "He [Bush] clearly went to bat for democracy yesterday, [but] I thought he swung and missed."
Hardly a stinging rebuke
Ian Traynor said in the Guardian that “Putin responded robustly to the suspicions about his rule, declaring that Russian democracy had already passed the point of no return. Russia, he said, had opted for democracy 14 years ago, not to do anyone else's bidding but for its own sake. "This is our final choice and there can be no way back ... --. "We discussed these issues at length, face to face, just the two of us."
A “leader’ in the same paper said that” despite Mr Bush's warning in Brussels earlier in the week that Russia "must renew a commitment to democracy and the rule of law" , he only spoke of his "concerns", about "the rule of law, protection of minorities and a free press and a viable political opposition", while immediately paying tribute to the "tremendous progress and amazing transformation" that had taken place since the demise of the Soviet Union. Hardly a stinging rebuke, but better than nothing.
“ None of this sits easily with Mr Bush's strident emphasis on democracy, whose advances he trumpets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Ukraine, where old regimes have been supplanted by American military muscle in the first two cases and western-assisted people power in the others.”
Bush has reached a dead end in his foreign policy ‘
A touch of reality was injected by Sidney Blumenthal also in Guardian - Lost in Europe , “President Bush has reached a dead end in his foreign policy, but he has failed to recognise his quandary. His belief that the polite reception he received in Europe is a vindication of his previous adventures is a vestige of fantasy. --He gives no indication that he grasps the exhaustion of his policy. His reductio ad absurdum was reached with his statement on Iran: "This notion that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." Including, presumably, the "simply ridiculous". --Bush - who, according to European officials, has no sense of what to do - is boxed in, whether he understands it or not.
“The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, seeking to impress French intellectuals while in Paris, referred to Iran as totalitarian, as if the authoritarian Shia regime neatly fitted the Soviet Union model. With this rhetorical legerdemain, she extended the overstretched analogy of the "war on terrorism" as the equivalent of the cold war to Persia. Her lack of intellectual adeptness dismayed her interlocutors. One of the French told me Rice was "deaf to all argument", but no one engaged her gaffe because "good manners are back".
“Regardless of Rice's wordplay, it is not a policy. Rice has vaguely threatened to refer Iran to the UN security council. The "simply ridiculous" remains on the table at the same time as the US is unengaged in diplomacy. Bush doesn't know whether to join the Europeans in guaranteeing an agreement to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons or not.”
RUSSIAN COMMENTATORS: PUTIN WON ON POINTS
According to Russian media ,in his Brussels speech on February 21 Bush had thundered . "[F]or Russia to make progress as a European nation, the Russian government must renew a commitment to democracy and the rule of law,". "We recognize that reform will not happen overnight. We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power, and the rule of law -- and the United States and all European countries should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia"
But in Bratislava Bush said in his opening remarks "It's very important that we establish not only a working relationship, but that we understand that in the 21st century strong countries are built by developing strong democracies," "And so we talked about democracy. Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that. But democracies have certain things in common: They have a rule of law and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition.
“Russia has made tremendous progress over the last 15 years. It's an amazing transformation of the nation. And I applaud President Putin for dealing with a country that is in transformation. And it's been hard work. I was able to share my concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling these universal principles. I did so in a constructive and friendly way. I reaffirmed my belief that it is democracy and freedom that bring true security and prosperity in every land. We may not always agree with each other, and we haven't over the last four years -- that's for certain -- but we found a lot agreement, a lot of common ground, and the world is better for it"
Putin said that Russia would never return to the past -- something he has said before -- but added his now familiar caveat: that "the principles of democracy should be adequate to the current status of the development of Russia, to our history and our traditions." Bush indicated that he accepted this explanation, answering one reporter's question by saying: "I think the most important statement that you heard, and I heard, was the President's statement, when he declared his absolute support for democracy in Russia, and they're not turning back. To me, that is the most important statement of my private meeting, and it's the most important statement of this public press conference." Bush added: "And I can tell you what it's like dealing with the man over the last four years: When he tells you something, he means it."
Russian journalists at the press conference forced Bush on the back foot .Andrei Kolesnikov of Kommersant said that the American security services had assumed, " great powers" because of which the private lives of citizens are now being monitored by the state. This could be explained away by the consequences of September 11th, but this has nothing to do with democratic values." Bush replied lamely that USA was a "transparent country" where the government was accountable and must behave constitutionally.
Strangely , it was Putin who came to Bush's defense, and said : "I would like to support my American counterpart. I'm absolutely confident that democracy is not anarchy. It is not the possibility to do anything you want. It is not the possibility for anyone to rob your own people. Democracy is, among other things, and first and foremost, the possibility to democratically make democratic laws and the capability of the state to enforce those laws."
Then the Interfax correspondent Alexei Meshkov to embarrass Bush asked Putin why he does not raise the issue of "violations of the rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired"
Many Russian commentators said that Putin got the better of Bush at the joint press conference. Arkadiy Dubnov wrote in Vremya Novostey, Russia, "If it was proper to ask who was the winner at the Bratislava summit ... I would venture to announce the Russian president ... Despite numerous statements by Mr Bush that he would confront Mr Putin on problems with democracy in Russia, the press heard nothing of the sort from the US president. Quite the opposite: Mr Bush radiated contentment and even pride at the assurances received from his 'friend Vladimir' that Russia continues to uphold the values of democracy and will not betray its choice, which it made 14 years ago.
Other commentators felt the same way ."The subject of the underdevelopment of Russian democracy was raised a huge number of times in the days preceding the summit," Ilya Baranov wrote for Gazeta.ru on February 24. "Many American and European politicians insistently advised the American president to draw attention to that subject during the course of his conversation with Putin. At the end of the day, the accents were maximally softened and what is more the Russian president returned the favor."
According to Interfax ,State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev said that the results of the summit "exceeded the most optimistic expectations." "discussions of the subject of democracy did not occupy the central place in the two presidents' talks, and George Bush's comment that the field of our disagreements is considerably narrower than the field of [our] coinciding interests can be considered crucial"
Conclusion;
A corporate US network anchor while discussing the role of on line media specially of the bloggers , queried about their accountability .the blogger said that apart from peer pressure and competition , if the bloggers were not objective and truthful , they will lose readers .It was more accountable than the so called mainstream media which was controlled by half a dozen corporations ; the sentence was quickly cut. This is a common practice on the western TV media .Also Western media always talks pompously of “the international community “, when mostly USA and its poodle UK support a certain policy , ignoring the governments representing many billions of Chinese, Indians , other Asians , Russians , Arabs and Africans .The audacity of distorted spin continues to amaze me .
It is quite clear that USA is not in a strong position , mired in the Iraqi swamp , with Nato and other allies not very keen to be involved any further in it. UN was emasculated by USA and has lost credibility and capability in Iraq .
USA is running a massive deficit at home and abroad and owes 1.5 trillion dollars to the world .US dollar is not going to go up soon .Its neo-cons and military industrial complex remain immune to correction and continue to pour billions in the so-called national missile defence project , which has been a screaming failure so far .In any case the missile defence system is irrelevant against the insurgency USA geminated and nurtured and now faces all around the world. New Russian missile tests have exposed the inadequacies of the missile defence
Russian coffers are overflowing with revenues from high oil prices which are not going to come down soon .Former republics in central Asia are lining up behind it . India and China are ready to invest tens of billions of dollars in Russian oil sector .China is accumulating dollars and enjoying others ‘having an interesting time ‘.
After the charade of globalization after the fall of the Berlin Wall , electorates are now voting for socialist governments ,as in Spain, Portugal , India and Latin America . After the election of a left of centre leader even in Uruguay , the leaders of Latin America , which USA has treated as its backyard are organizing resistance against unrestrained US hegemony and exploitation. People of these states have seen the failure of US style capitalism. Many in the Arab world are looking for a hedge against US unilateralism and the so-called drive for democracy in the Middle East , marketed by American media but believed by few , with USA’s abysmal record in promoting democracy .
The American regime is becoming more authoritative at home , media manipulative and catering for the rich . Instead of solving problems at home and with little prospects of coming out of Iraq honourably , US administration , like a trickster is diverting attention by calls for attack on Iran for its nuclear programme , from which it had to retreat after Russian signed and agreement to supply nuclear fuel after a used fuel return agreement .
US and EU had extended last year vociferous support by other means and in money and succeeded in foisting a pro-West president on Ukraine, historically and strategically close to Russia , with a large Russian speaking minority. Russian naval forces berth at Ukrainian ports and loss of Ukraine would constrict Russian access to the Black like that of Iraq to the Gulf. It is like Mexico going the way of Cuba.
Now there is organized spontaneity and cacophony of the opposition in Lebanon after a massive bomb blast on 14 February in Beirut that killed the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri . Israel and US have accused Syria , even of recent suicide bomb blast in Tel Aviv . First Israel and then USA said that they have proof .After weapons of mass destruction and other false claims and lies, US credibility lies shattered.
The whole dangerous game resembles recent franchised revolutions , in Georgia and Ukraine . Druzes , whose leader Walid Jumbalat is shown regularly on Western channels are 7% of population , the media has not bothered to interview leaders of Shiite community, organized in Ammal and Hizbullah political groups and militias .The Shiite form over 50% of population , but for western media , the peoples power in the street is now important . It was ignored when a million marched through the streets of London before the invasion of Iraq .
The Syrian forces came to Lebanon in 1976 and are there under Taif agreement , as neither Arabs nor the West could agree on any hing else . UN 1559 Resolution , passed last year at the behest of USA and France , a former colonial power which divided Syria to create Lebanon and gave power to Christians ,apart from with drawl of Syrian forces , also demands disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias including Hezbollah ,which had ousted Israeli forces from southern Lebanon .But US and France led measures have resulted in a call for the with drawl of Syrian forces .It could lead to a catastrophe in Lebanon. Just look at what happened when Iraqi armed forces were disbanded by USA in Iraq . Lebanon has a large Christian minority , which is now leading the opposition . It is being egged on from safety by even larger Lebanese Christian community living abroad .But whenever the Western Christians have come to the East , Eastern Christians have suffered though out history. It was an attack by Western Crusaders on Constantinople , which undermined the foundations of the Byzantine empire which soon led to its decline , defeat and take over by the Turks from central Asia.
K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey from August 1992 to April 1996 . Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies and editorial adviser with global geopolitics website Eurasia Research Center, USA. E-mail: Gajendrak@hotmail.com.
This article was also published at Saag.org.