Affirmative section consultation and cooperation through dialogue networks



Download 1.5 Mb.
Page18/34
Date conversion16.02.2016
Size1.5 Mb.
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   34

The Yeltsin administration depends heavily on the support of sympathetic economic groups - so much so that it would have difficulty refusing requests for special consideration of foreign trade policy. At the same time, it must be careful not to exaggerate the policy impact of lobbying by economic groups, particularly in external strategic policy terms.


RUSSIAN MASS MEDIA MAKES BETTER RELATIONS DIFFICULT
RUSSIAN MEDIA IS ALMOST UNIFORMLY HOSTILE TO THE USA
Paula J. Dobriansky; Council on Foreign Relations, Heritage Foundation Reports, April 6, 1998; Pg. 6, HEADLINE: AMERICAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS: AN ASSESSMENT acs-VT99

Even a casual perusal of the Russian media evidences a profoundly disturbing phenomenon: Russian commentators, of whatever stripe, are hostile to American goals and policies. This criticism is not limited only to the hard-line, pro-communist newspapers. Both the reformist as well as the pro-government newspapers and magazines have been doing the same thing.

Significantly, the criticism is broad in nature. In addition, to complaining about Washington's policies on NATO enlargement, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the former Yugoslavia, etc., the Russian commentators routinely grouse about the unipolar nature of the existing international system, cite the evils of American hegemonism, and muse about the need to create offsetting power centers such as an anti-American alliance comprised of such powers as Russia, Germany, France, China, and Japan.
RUSSIAN MEDIA’S ANTI-USA BIAS IS HURTING RELATIONS
Paula J. Dobriansky; Council on Foreign Relations, Heritage Foundation Reports, April 6, 1998; Pg. 6, HEADLINE: AMERICAN-RUSSIAN RELATIONS: AN ASSESSMENT acs-VT99

This is wrong. The commentaries should not be ignored -- they do matter, and they are not prompted by congressional actions. While Russia is evolving along its democratic path, public opinion -- especially elite opinion -- matters a great deal. In fact, I believe that it can be said that there has never been a time in our bilateral relations when public diplomacy mattered more. The fact that most Russian opinion-makers appear to hate the current international arrangements and view the U.S. as Russia's enemy is very unsettling and has long-term negative implications for Russia's foreign policy.


RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE DUMA MAKE BETTER RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS DIFFICULT
CURRENTLY THE PROSPECT FOR A STABLE USA-RUSSIA PARTNERSHIP SEEM DIM DUE TO THE SENATE AND THE DUMA
Pavel Felgenhauer, Segodnya's defense and national security affairs editor, The Moscow Times, December 4, 1997, HEADLINE: DEFENSE DOSSIER: Yeltsin Rhetoric Old Tactic acs-VT99

The U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma are deadlocked by mutual distrust and suspicion. What's worse, these legislative animosities adequately reflect the attitudes of foreign policy elites in Moscow and Washington. Yeltsin is desperately trying to bridge the gap with "peace initiatives" because he badly needs Western aid and support, but in the long term, the prospect of a stable U.S.- Russia "partnership" seems dim.


BEING NICE TO THE RUSSIANS DOESN’T SEEM TO HELP
FAILURE TO CRITICIZE RUSSIAN POLICIES ONLY INCREASES THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE INTERNATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Kenneth R. Timmerman.; The American Spectator, May, 1998, HEADLINE: Strobe Talbott: Russia's Man In Washington // acs-VT99

Russia's roguish behavior these days is uncannily reminiscent of Soviet behavior during the Cold War, and critics of the Clinton administration think they know why. " Russia respects strength, consistency, and candor," says Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Penn.), a student of Russian history and a Russian speaker. "If they do something wrong, you have to call them on it." Instead, the Clinton administration has consistently turned a blind eye to Russian misdeeds and found excuses for Russian boorishness. The architect of this pernicious policy toward Russia is a former Time magazine journalist who has admitted to a close personal and professional relationship to an alleged top KGB agent during the Cold War--Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott..

RUSSIA IS INCAPABLE OF CONTROLLING ITS TRANSFERS OF ARMS AND SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IS INCAPABLE OF STEMMING THE FLOW OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Amos Perlmutter, professor of political science and sociology American University, The Washington Times, May 26, 1998, Pg. A17, HEADLINE: A new Russian foreign policy? acs-VT99

The Russian predicament is that in the absence of central power it is unable to stem the flow of weapons of mass destruction to countries like Iran and Iraq. Former nomenklatura and communist elites converted to ruthless corporate capitalists demonstrate that in the economic area, and especially in foreign trade and military sales, they are more powerful than the Russian state.


RUSSIA TRIED TO STOP THE TRANSFER OF MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TO INDIA BUT COULD NOT
Periscope Daily Defense News Capsules, April 29, 1998, HEADLINE: INDIA - US TRYING TO THWART TRANSFER OF RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY , acs-VT99

The administration received ''certain commitments that the Russian role did not involve the missile design and that it ''would continue to be circumscribed, the senior administration official said.

Since then, however, intelligence reports have continued to raise questions about Russia s involvement, the official and others said. Another official who tracked the reports said the help had included ''significant engineering services, as well as parts and equipment necessary to build and launch the missile.

The assistance appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1993 agreement between Russia and the United States to stop helping India or any other country develop ballistic missile technology, the daily adds.


RUSSIAN DIRECTIVE TO STOP HIGH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO IRAN HAS NOT DONE ANY GOOD
Steve Rodan, The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 1998, Pg. 2, HEADLINE: Israel, US dispute effectiveness of Congress sanctions on Russia // acs-VT99

US and Israeli officials do agree that the executive order issued in January by then-Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin has not stopped the flow of technology to Iran.

"Iran is pursuing its weapons program with unabated vigor," said US Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, during a hearing last Thursday. "Missile cooperation with Russia is increasing. Nuclear cooperation is continuing."
EXAMPLE OF INDIAN MISSILES SHOWS RUSSIA CANNOT CONTROL ITS MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT’S ARMS TRANSFERS
Periscope Daily Defense News Capsules, April 29, 1998, HEADLINE: INDIA - US TRYING TO THWART TRANSFER OF RUSSIAN TECHNOLOGY , acs-VT99

The New York Times says the help to India offers another instance of Russia s unwillingness or inability to control exports of missile technology and suggests a wider pattern of proliferation, the officials and arms experts said. It quoted the official as saying that the pricise nature of Russia s aid is not clear. The administration first approached Russia with its concerns as early as the spring of 1995. At that time, the officials said, Russia acknowledged that scientists from quasi-public research institutes that grew out of the Soviet military-industrial complex were providing technological help for the Sagarika missile.


SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND WEAPONS DEALINGS ARE INEFFECTIVE
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR TRADE DEALS WILL NOT WORK
Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, October 27, 1997, Pg. 6, HEADLINE: Desperately seeking a new Russia acs-VT99

Today's mantra, that sanctions don't work, has become a self-fulfilling prophesy; indeed, such measures are so rarely and selectively imposed that they have lost their deterrent value.


SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIAN FIRMS WILL ENDANGER RELATIONS AND FAIL TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOAL
DAVID E. SANGER, The New York Times, October 16, 1997, SECTION: Section A; Page 1; HEADLINE: On Russian-Iranian Oil Deal, U.S. Sanctions May Backfire acs-VT99

It did not help that Mr. Chernomyrdin apparently made no mention of the Iran investment last month when he met Vice President Al Gore in Moscow, in one of a series of discussions to promote Russia's conversion to a market economy. Any step to interfere with Gazprom's access to world capital markets would constitute a major setback to American participation in that effort, and would undoubtedly anger the Prime Minister.

For its part, Gazprom has no intention of backing down. The company has said repeatedly that it would ignore American "threats" and declared that the financial losses incurred by breaking its deal with Iran "would be greater than those incurred by sanctions against us."
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS WILL FAIL
NORMAN KEMPSTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER, Los Angeles TimesMay 20, 1998, Part A; Page 4; HEADLINE: GOP May Retaliate For Waiving Of Sanctions; Politics: White House Efforts On Free-Trade Accord, U.N. Funding Could Be Jeopardized, House Staff Member Says. // acs-VT99

John Howard, director of international policy and programs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the sanctions legislation amounted to a "dubious policy" that did the United States no good and invited retaliation from the Europeans.


SANCTIONS WORK AGAINST ROGUE STATES, BUT NOT AGAINST RUSSIA -- GAZPROM EXAMPLE
The Moscow Times, October 18, 1997, HEADLINE: U.S. Should Not Meddle In Gas Deal acs-VT99

While sanctions have in the past proven a useful weapon against rogue states, for example against Serbia and Iraq, the United States is wasting its time trying to pressure Gazprom and its partners to drop their deal.

The U.S. policy of isolating Iran at any cost is too far out of step with world opinion, including the opinion of its key allies. They do not share U.S. hysteria over Iran and believe now is the time to try to bring that country back into the international community.
SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIAN GAS FIRMS CANNOT SUCCEED
The Moscow Times, October 18, 1997, HEADLINE: U.S. Should Not Meddle In Gas Deal acs-VT99

The State Department has been reluctant to respond, partly because there were no obvious sanctions it could impose on Gazprom, a purely European company, and partly because Russia would resent what it sees as a U.S. attempt to impose its foreign policy on the rest of the world.


IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON RUSSIAN COMPANIES WILL CREATE SERIOUS ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS
DAVID E. SANGER, The New York Times, October 16, 1997, SECTION: Section A; Page 1; HEADLINE: On Russian-Iranian Oil Deal, U.S. Sanctions May Backfire acs-VT99

Instead, officials are discovering anew that imposing sanctions on foreign companies that defy American policy -- in this case by doing business with a country that supports terrorism -- raises numerous unforeseeable problems.

The issue is not whether Washington can stop the investment in Iran. That is clearly beyond its reach. Instead, it is whether Gazprom should be allowed to raise $1 billion in world financial markets, including the United States, next month -- money that will go right into the company's coffers just as it is preparing to write the Iranians a fat check.
EUROPEAN COOPERATION IN LIMITING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS IS DAMAGED BY SANCTIONS
NORMAN KEMPSTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER, Los Angeles TimesMay 20, 1998, Part A; Page 4; HEADLINE: GOP May Retaliate For Waiving Of Sanctions; Politics: White House Efforts On Free-Trade Accord, U.N. Funding Could Be Jeopardized, House Staff Member Says. // acs-VT99

In exchange for Clinton's action [lifting sanctions against companies dealing with Iran]VT99, the EU promised to be more vigilant in preventing European companies from assisting Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs and to join the United States in an international effort to prevent the resale of property expropriated without just compensation.

US CANNOT STOP RUSSIA FROM DEALING WITH IRAN, OR IRAN FROM GETTING WHAT IT WANTS
SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA WILL NOT STOP TRANSFERS TO IRAN, AS IT WOULD GOP THROUGH CHINA AND THE UKRAINE
Steve Rodan, The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 1998, Pg. 2, HEADLINE: Israel, US dispute effectiveness of Congress sanctions on Russia // acs-VT99

US critics, however, say congressional sanctions on Russia alone would not stop Iran's missile and nuclear weapons program. They said China and the Ukraine continue to supply Iran with help in its ballistic missile and mass destruction weapons program, including biological and nuclear.

But the critics say both Israel and the US are playing down Chinese participation in Iran's military programs. On April 29, The Washington Times reported that the Clinton administration has drafted a space cooperation agreement with Beijing that permits the transfer of technology to a Chinese agency that is a key developer of weapons-related technology.
USA CANNOT SUCCEED IN INFLUENCING RUSSIA’S GAS AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
The Moscow Times, October 18, 1997, HEADLINE: U.S. Should Not Meddle In Gas Deal acs-VT99

In the case of Gazprom's relatively innocent gas venture, Russia is even less likely to give in to U.S. pressure. If it is forced to dispense with Goldman -Sachs' services, it will simply seek out a European finance house as an alternative.

The United States must realize that despite its position as the only remaining superpower, there are restrictions on the extent to which it can impose its foreign policy priorities on its neighbors. Gazprom's gas deal in Iran is a case where it is not worth the effort.
FRENCH WILL DO THE GAS DEAL WITH IRAN EVEN IF RUSSIA DOES NOT
WILLIAM SAFIRE The New York Times, October 5, 1997Section 4; Page 15; HEADLINE: Essay; The Boris & Jacques Show acs-VT99

French President Jacques Chirac met with Boris Yeltsin in Moscow to cook up an Iranian natural-gas deal that would (1) enrich their business interests, (2) gain a diplomatic foothold in the Persian Gulf by helping terrorists obtain missiles and (3) distract their restive unemployed by sticking a thumb in the U.S. eye.


SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR DEALING WITH IRAN WILL CREATE A CRISIS
IF THE US SANCTION RUSSIA FOR ITS DEALINGS WITH IRAN, RELATIONS WILL HAVE THEIR WORST CRISIS SINCE THE COLD WAR
CRAIG R. WHITNEY, March 15,1998 [The New York Times. SECTION: Section 4; Page 4; Column I; HEADLINE: The World; The Not- S o- Superpower Society \\ jan]VT99

Russia said last week that it would continue to defy American opposition to its helping Iran build a nuclear power plant, and should the United States decide this month to inflict sanctions on Total or other French and Russian interests under the despised extraterritorial Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, American relations with both France and Russia could enter one of their worst crises since the cold war.


THE POLICY OF CONTAINMENT OF IRAN IS CAUSING STRAINS IN US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
Alexei Pushkov, March 6, 1998 [Russian Press Digest. HEADLINE: On Razor's Edge. SOURCE: NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA, p. 6 \\ jan]VT99

Because of this, Washington pursues a policy of "containment" in respect to Iran, i.e., international isolation and sanctions, and insists that Moscow stop cooperating Tehran in the military-technical and nuclear power engineering spheres.

Here, the author examines Russia's interests in the area of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and Transcaucasia. And these interests require steady, stable and even partnership relations with Iran. Iran has never threatened Russia, nor is it threatening Russia today, the author points out.

Meanwhile, the Americans have been using various channels to send signals to Moscow, giving us to understand that our partnership with Tehran could result in the most undesirable consequences for American- Russian relations. On its part, Moscow suspects Washington of intentions to squeeze Russia out of the Iranian market under various pretexts, and in general, to precipitate a divorce between Moscow and Tehran.


SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR DEALING WITH IRAN WILL DAMAGE THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY AND RELATIONS WITH EUROPE
DAVID E. SANGER, The New York Times, October 16, 1997, SECTION: Section A; Page 1; HEADLINE: On Russian-Iranian Oil Deal, U.S. Sanctions May Backfire acs-VT99

But stopping that deal threatens to unravel delicate negotiations with European allies over United States sanctions policy, and to interfere with Washington's efforts to stabilize the rickety Russian economy


SANCTIONS OVER THE RUSSIAN GAS DEAL WITH IRAN WOULD BECOME A FULL BLOWN CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE USA AND RUSSIA
The Moscow Times, October 18, 1997, HEADLINE: U.S. Should Not Meddle In Gas Deal acs-VT99

No one can fault the United States for trying to stop terrorism, but it would be stupid for Washington to provoke a major confrontation with Moscow over the $ 2 billion deal Gazprom has just signed to develop Iranian natural gas fields.

Hotheads in Congress who have objected to the deal between Gazprom and a French and Malaysian consortium are calling on the White House to enforce the provisions of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act that target companies investing in states that sponsor terrorism.
ARMS CONTROL DEALS WITH RUSSIA FAIL
ARMS CONTROL EFFORTS ARE WISHFUL THINKING
George Will, Washington Post Writers Group, The Chattanooga Times, May 26, 1998, Pg. A4, HEADLINE: Arms control fantasies acs-VT99

Liberalism and (which is much the same thing) wishful thinking favor arms control as a means of taming the unruly world with pieces of paper. However, two attempts at arms control are collapsing simultaneously, with reverberations in a third conflict that has an arms control dimension.


ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BINDING, BECAUSE NATIONS WILL ACT IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST
George Will, Washington Post Writers Group, The Chattanooga Times, May 26, 1998, Pg. A4, HEADLINE: Arms control fantasies acs-VT99

However, arms control is usually impossible until it is unimportant. Arms control agreements usually renounce superfluous weapons or accept limits higher than anticipated procurements. Nations will abide by only those arms limitation agreements that do not seriously inconvenience their pursuit of security and other national interests. As India's euphoria about the nuclear tests demonstrates, those interests can have a huge psychological component.


RUSSIA WILL NOT SIGN START II UNLESS SEVERAL CONCESSIONS ARE MADE BY THE WEST
Mikhail Shevtsov, February 9, 1008 [TASS. HEADLINE: US guarantees for START-3 signing needed \\ jan]VT99

The conditions on which Russian parliament can ratify the START-2 strategic offensive arms reduction treaty include U. S. guarantees that it will sign the START-3 treaty, strictly observe the 1972 ABM treaty and refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in territories of new NATO members, Major-General Roman Popkovich, member of the State Duma Defence Committee, told Itar-Tass on Monday.


RUSSIA WILL NOT RATIFY START 2 UNLESS THE US GUARANTEES THAT START 3 WILL BE RATIFIED
Alexander Nikolayevich Shokhin, February 3, 1998 [LEADER OF OUR HOME IS RUSSIA. Official Kremlin Int'l News Broadcast. HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH ALEXANDER SHOKHIN \\ jan]VT99

As for the consequences of possible strikes, the LDPR faction, for example, suggests withdrawing from the regime of sanctions in order to demonstrate our disagreement. I don't think we should take this path and put ourselves in opposition to the international community. But the passage of certain documents through the Duma, such as START2, will most certainly be affected. It has already been affected since START-2 does not guarantee a parity between Russia and the US. Such a parity is secured only by START-3. In their minds Duma deputies have already linked the two -- they would be prepared to ratify START-2 if there are advanced talks on START-3 so that we would know at least approximate quantitative benchmarks to lead to the ratification of START-3 in the future following the ratification of the previous treaty. But if new circumstances arise, for example, lack of agreement between Russia and the US on the settlement of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, it may most certainly affect this and other treaties.


DE-ALERTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL
RUSSIA WOULD NOT ACCEPT DE-ALERTING BECAUSE THEIR MILITARY IS DEPENDENT ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Jonathan S. Landay, February 20, 1998 [The Christian Science Monitor, SECTION: UNITED STATES; Pg. 4, HEADLINE: Nuclear Disarmament With Low-Tech Approach \\ jan]VT99

While de-alerting sounds appealing, other experts say it would be hard to implement. Facing deep decay in its conventional forces as the NATO alliance expands into its backyard, Russia is becoming more reliant on nuclear weapons for its security. Among other things, it has a "launch on warning" policy that requires its leaders to authorize a devastating counterstrike within minutes of detecting an attack but before the incoming warheads land. Says a senior US official: "The Russians are ... shifting their nuclear doctrine in the direction of greater reliance on nuclear weapons. One of the factors we have to consider is that they may be very suspicious, not to say negative, about ideas that would make their nuclear forces slower to generate."


THE US WILL NOT ACCEPT DE-ALERTING UNLESS IT IS PROVEN THAT IT CAN BE VERIFIED
Jonathan S. Landay, February 20, 1998 [The Christian Science Monitor, SECTION: UNITED STATES; Pg. 4, HEADLINE: Nuclear Disarmament With Low-Tech Approach \\ jan]VT99

A key difficulty, another official says, is designing reliable arrangements to verify that each side abides by any agreement because de-alerting - as opposed to outright destruction - is reversible. Furthermore, it is easier to monitor Russian missiles, most of which are based on land, than US weapons, many of which are aboard submarines. Overcoming verification hurdles is critical for the administration effort. Legislation passed by the GOP-led Congress prohibits it from spending funds on de-alerting unless the president certifies that any accord can be monitored effectively and subjects the US and Russia to the same rigorous standards.

COUNTERPLAN SECTION
OPEN SOCIETY FUND COUNTERPLAN

page 156
RUSSIAN REGIONS COUNTERPLAN

page 165
CONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN

page 167


OPEN SOCIETY COUNTERPLAN
THESIS: The Fund for an Open Society is a philanthropic organization financed by billionaire George Soros. He has recently made a long term commitment to help Russia which is in the hundreds of millions, and he has billions to spend. This counterplan suggests that whatever project needs to be done in Russia would be better done by the Fund for an Open Society than by the American government.
TEXT:
The programs specified in the affirmative plan will be carried out through the Fund for an Open Society, a private philanthropic organization funded by George Soros. Normal FOS means will be used.
ONE: THE COUNTERPLAN IS NOT TOPICAL
It is not a part of the foreign policy of the United States but of a private group funded by citizens.
TWO: THE COUNTERPLAN IS COMPETITIVE
You would want to choose the counterplan over a combination of the plan and the counterplan because:
1. REDUNDANCY: The counterplan enacts the programs called for by the affirmative, and there is no compelling reason to do it twice.
2. NET BENEFITS: The counterplan funding will not trade off with other assistance to Russia or other nations, but is part of an on-going open commitment to Russia by Soros.
3. NET BENEFITS: The counterplan avoids the disadvantages of USA action which we will be defending in this debate.
THREE: OPEN SOCIETY ACTION IS AVAILABLE AND EFFECTIVE
A. SOROS GIVES TO HELP CREATE “OPEN SOCIETIES” AND IS FOCUSED ON RUSSIA
EDITORIAL, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, October 30, 1997; Pg. B7, HEADLINE: 'SAINT GEORGE' SOROS PUTS POWER OF GIVING TO WORK acs-VT99

This makes Soros's interest in public policy rare indeed. His passion is not for marble memorials but for what Karl Popper, his tutor at the London School of Economics, called the "open society."

1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   34


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page