Calling a `spy' a spy

THE U.S. PRESIDENT, Mr. George W. Bush, is confident that Russia will ``understand'' his firmness in ordering a mass expulsion of its alleged pseudo-diplomats for espionage. Mr. Bush's father had served as the Director of America's Central Intelligence Agency before becoming President. So, it is a plausible irony that the present Russian President, Mr. Vladimir Putin, himself a former officer of the erstwhile Soviet intelligence network (KGB), is the recipient of Mr. Bush's message in the wake of the new `spy' scandal. Mr. Bush has affirmed his political will to take ``firm positions'' on what he considers to be ``right''. Mr. Putin, on his part, has sternly retaliated by authorising similar marching orders in respect of an equal number of American diplomats resident in Russia. The expulsions, 50 on both sides, are being carried out in a phased manner except for the initial batch of four from either country. Now, the latest flare-up is no doubt a grim reminder of the faded montage of some chilling Cold War-era events that rocked the U.S.-Soviet relationship. Tit-for-tat diplomatic gamesmanship and matching political brinkmanship often marked the bygone Cold War confrontation between the two countries. However, there is more now to the evolving equation between the U.S. and post-Soviet Russia than just an apparent desire of the present Kremlin authorities to appear to be equal to the U.S. leadership.

It is no surprise in this emerging saga of undefinable competition between the U.S. and Russia that their leaders have cautioned each other against seeing the latest fracas over `spies' as a retreat into the realm of Cold War-style psychosis. Mr. Bush does not expect the dramatic new `spy'-war to preclude the possibility of a meeting between him and Mr. Putin ``at some point in time''. Lest the ambiguity about the timing of such a summit be read as a signal of hostility, Mr. Bush has indeed spoken about the purpose. He will not fight shy of a ``good, honest, discussion'' with Mr. Putin over ``common interests''. Nearly echoing a similar view, the Russian leader says he does not foresee adverse consequences for future parleys with the U.S. While the two cannot pretend that the U.S.-Russia ties are in a state of good repair despite the latest row, they are no less aware of the need to look positively beyond the present real-life drama of calling a perceived `spy' a spy-incarnate.

The prospects of a first pragmatic dialogue between the U.S. and Russia depend on their abilities to carve out the ``common interests''. The recent and somewhat sustained U.S.-Russia engagement, which occurred during the Clinton presidency, was not conclusive in establishing a post-Cold War entente between the two sides. The reasons thereof pertain mostly to the uncertainties of the Yeltsin years in Russia as also the strategic inertia of the U.S. itself even as it tried to re-focus on a qualitatively new Moscow. For Mr. Bush, with no idealist view of the present Kremlin, the challenges are formidable. Russia is not amused at Mr. Bush's benign view of a possible U.S. missile defence system. Not the least of Moscow's concerns relate to the tentative American definitions of anti-U.S. activities by states and non-state players. However, Russia seems to think that the U.S. cannot avoid a dialogue on a range of issues, some with a direct bearing on missile defence. A short check-list consists of ideas about a long-term global political order, ways to reform the United Nations, steps to reorganise the world trading system and thoughts on how to transform outer space into a possible new frontier of friendship instead of a theatre of unpredictable rivalry.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : In a combative mode
Next     : A crime against democracy