Presidents Bush and Putin Discuss Democracy and Nuclear Proliferation

MARGARET WARNER:

For an assessment of today's meeting, we turn to Stephen Cohen, a professor of Russian studies and history at New York University; Adrian Karatnycky, a senior scholar at Freedom House, which advocates political and economic freedom around the world; and Charles Curtis, a former deputy secretary of energy in the Clinton administration, who worked with Moscow on programs to safeguard Russian nuclear material — he's now president of The Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit group working to reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation. Welcome to you all.

President Bush, Stephen Cohen, went into this meeting under great scrutiny as to whether he was going to really apply his inaugural rhetoric about putting democracy at the forefront of his foreign policy. From what he said at least publicly, how did he do on that score?

STEPHEN COHEN:

Well, he raised the right question. Bush has been under tremendous pressure, bipartisan pressure from Democrats and Republicans, to get tough with Putin on the grounds that he's a bad guy; he's an anti-democrat, an anti-capitalist — the advocacy that Bush adopted a neo-Cold War policy toward Putin and Russia. What's interesting here, Margaret, just to add to your point, is exactly the same pressure is being applied in Moscow to Putin. The argument is being made to Putin that he's gotten nothing for his friendship with Bush, Bush has taken advantage of him and it's time for Putin to stand up to Bush.

So what's quite interesting, based on certainly the press conference today, is how these two leaders ignored that pressure, that Cold War pressure. In fact, they went out of their way, each of them, to help the other withstand that pressure. What comes to my mind, because I think they did the right thing, I think the nuclear dangers are so great that they chose the right priority, what comes to my mind is Churchill. I think it was Churchill's famous statement that politicians think about today and statesmen think about tomorrow. And I think in this case Bush and Putin were statesmen.

MARGARET WARNER:

Mr. Karatnycky, is that how you see it, they were taking the long view and not letting the democracy issue get in-between?

ADRIAN KARATNYCKY:

Well, I think they raised the democracy issue. The president made the democracy issue a central part of the discourse, and the important thing that happened was not simply the discussion between the two presidents but also the addressing of the Russian public.

Mr. Putin is under pressure, some pressure from political opponents in Russia to liberalize and from substantial international pressure, but the Russian media, which are controlled by the Kremlin and by businesses and corporate entities that are state-controlled or state-linked do not pass along that message significantly to the Russian people.

At this high level of summitry, it was possible to spark a bit of a debate about the direction in which Mr. Putin is taking Russia. It was done cordially. It was done with the proper balance, but I believe that the issues that human rights groups and democracy groups want raised were put on the agenda.

MARGARET WARNER:

So Professor Cohen, do you think that the degree to which they did engage in that public debate will be enough to satisfy those here in the United States who are pushing for a hard line on not only against the consolidation of power in Russia, but also what Russia has been doing abroad in some of its former client states?

STEPHEN COHEN:

Well, until this moment, I would have thought it would not have been sufficient to satisfy these people in the United States, but having heard Mr. Karatnycky's approving words of President Bush's behavior, and considering his organization , Freedom House, has brought great pressure on Bush to act in a more Cold War way, I may be wrong. Maybe it is adequate. I hope it is.

MARGARET WARNER:

Mr. Karatnycky?

ADRIAN KARATNYCKY:

Well, I don't think we're seeking to revive the Cold War. I think what we hope to revive is scrutiny within Russia and support for civic forces within Russia to reverse the tide of anti-democratic consolidation that's occurred over the last five years since Mr. Putin has been in power. And I think the most important thing again is that Mr. Putin is in a bit of a bind. He's practiced his own diplomacy in the near abroad — I would say a Cold War style of diplomacy —

MARGARET WARNER:

Referring to his former client states.

ADRIAN KARATNYCKY:

The bordering countries, right. Russia's relations with Ukraine, with Moldova, with Georgia, all of these have backfired, so the idea for Mr. Putin of ratcheting up the rhetoric against the United States in the context where he is losing more and more of his former allies, I think, is untenable.

And I think that the atmosphere with precisely right, and I believe it means that these democracy issues can be raised in a more significant and consistent way. And I hope that European leaders will equally raise those kinds of rights and democracy issues.

MARGARET WARNER:

Okay. Well, let me get Mr. Curtis in this and talk about the deals they did come to, particularly this nuclear agreement which had several facets. How significant a deal is this in terms of securing with greater safety, the loose nukes, as we call it, or the loose Russian nuclear material?

CHARLES CURTIS:

Well, Margaret, I think the central important point is that the Russian and the U.S. presidents are taking personal charge and responsibility for advancing our nuclear security cooperation. Second, that a recognition that the cooperation between the United States and Russia on a broad range of activities, both regionally, globally and in the bilateral relationship is essential to address the nuclear dangers that we face. And the third thing of most importance here is a recognition, as your earlier speakers signaled, that differences between the United States are not going to stand in the way of this central cooperation.

It is a security imperative for both nations. It is a security imperative for the world that we advance our cooperation on nuclear security. There are a couple elements of the agreements that are especially important. The most important of them is that they have agreed to complete the security upgrades and in the weapons and nuclear materials in the Russian Federation.

MARGARET WARNER:

That should mean the security around the perimeters, the security procedures and so on.

CHARLES CURTIS:

That's correct, and also then to spread their cooperation globally to address materials at risk in other countries.

MARGARET WARNER:

Professor Cohen, do you see a relationship between the two presidents' willingness to strike this deal now, which surely Mr. Curtis is not something new that's been desired, correct? I mean…

CHARLES CURTIS:

It's not new, but this is the first time…

MARGARET WARNER:

That they've actually done it.

CHARLES CURTIS:

— that the two presidents have taken direct responsibility for this cooperation.

MARGARET WARNER:

So, Mr. Cohen, do you think there is a relationship at all between the pressure the president is exerting, rhetorically and otherwise, on the democracy front and an agreement like this, or is it just that he's demonstrating that both countries can walk and chew gum at the same time; they can pursue different interests at once?

STEPHEN COHEN:

I don't think they can walk and chew gum at the same time and at least think rationally. It depends on how you view these things. Maybe we disagree. I think I'm close to Mr. Curtis' position.

What we need to understand is that something unprecedented has happened in the world since 1991 — a fully nuclearized state, the Russian state, the former Soviet state, has been in a 14-year process of disintegration. That includes its nuclear infrastructure, and that's why we're worried not only about accidents, nuclear accidents in Russia but also about proliferation and the theft of material. They're coming apart at the seams.

Now that seems to me to be the number-one world and American priority, is to do something about that. You can do nothing about it without Russian cooperation. So if you badger Putin, if you pursue a hard-line policy toward him, if you humiliate him at home, if you say to him, well, yes, Ukraine was yours but now it's ours and the Caspian oil was yours but now it's ours, why should Putin or his political class want to cooperate with us or trust our cooperation? So in my mind it's a matter of setting a priority. I think, I think President Bush set that priority today.

MARGARET WARNER:

Mr. Karatnycky, do you think he set that priority today, and is that the right priority, that is that the nuclear security issue is number one in this age of terror?

ADRIAN KARATNYCKY:

I don't think it's a question of walking and chewing gum at the same time. It's kind of walking with both feet. And I do believe that the openness, the issues of openness and transparency in Russia and democracy in Russia are integrally related to the aims of nonproliferation. We want to have a Russian media that will be covering lapses in Russia's internal nuclear controls. We want to have a media that will be checking how the war against terrorism is conducted, which is another high priority enunciated by President Bush and by both presidents indeed.

And again, we want to have a strong opposition that can in both countries that can hold leaders accountable when these very complicated tasks of fighting terrorism, which have impact on civil liberties, are conducted by these very important powers. So I would say that the two legs of addressing these security issues and addressing these democracy issues are the way you build long-term stability and long-term alliance relationships.

MARGARET WARNER:

Now, there are people in this country, including Senator McCain and others, who are suggesting that unless Russia mediates its behavior on the democracy and the meddling in other countries' front, that, in fact, Russia be kicked out of the G-8.

You negotiated with the Russians, Mr. Curtis. What's your view of that? In other words, would following up the rhetoric with actually– with actual actions that Russia would consider hostile, would that be productive or counter-productive when it came to issues like the nuclear cooperation?

CHARLES CURTIS:

Well, I don't think you can leverage cooperative behavior by that type of action. We need to build trust in a true partnership commitment from Russia to deal with these dangers, not just in the Russian federation, but globally, taking advantage of the capacities that Russia has. The United States and Russia as stewards of the largest weapons systems over 50 years developed best practices to keep materials and weapons secure and safe. We need to share those practices with the rest of the world to raise the standards in the world to secure these materials. That was a little commented on part of the announced cooperation today, but it's a very, very important part.

MARGARET WARNER:

And Professor Cohen, you made it quite clear that where you think the balance ought to lie, and you feel that that is, in fact, where the president's aiming, you don't see the pressure coming from many quarters to actually take action against Russia?

STEPHEN COHEN:

Well, I see the pressure. And I can't be certain that President Bush — I'm not a great admirer of President Bush, but I hope he can withstand it. He did this far. But let me say very briefly how bad the situation is.

There is a report, I assume it's accurate, that some agreement has been reached today, yesterday between Bush and Putin to do something to secure Russia's nuclear weapons. It was supposed to be a secret, but it was already circulating in Russia that there was going to be this agreement. And you know what Putin's enemies are saying? They're saying that Putin is so weak he's going to turn over control of Russian nuclear weapons to America or NATO, and that he's a betrayer of the Russian state for even discussing that with Bush.

That's how serious this struggle inside Russia is on this issue. So ask yourself, if Bush loses Putin, we're not going to get these people Mr. Karatnycky likes into power. We're going to get someone fearful in power. And it seems to me that the Bush administration has figured that out.

MARGARET WARNER:

Alright. We have to leave it there. Thank you all three very much.