Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=07/24/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=BUSH-PUTIN

NUMBER=6-12398

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: After the conclusion of the Genoa Economic Summit, President George W. Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin made some progress on the issue of nuclear weapons reduction. The U-S press is generally pleased that the two leaders fashioned the outlines of a possible deal.

We get a sampling of editorial reaction now from _____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: After the Genoa the two men discussed linking nuclear arms reduction in both nations with the American proposal to build a missile shield, to defend against a few nuclear rockets fired by rogue nations. To the surprise of the American press, Russian President Putin was much more agreeable to the idea than had been anticipated.

Just weeks ago, he had suggested the U-S plan would violate the landmark 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty [ABM], and further that it might ignite a new arms race. Those concerns were shared by several of America's European allies as well. Now, the climate appears to have changed, and many U-S papers are impressed.

In Georgia, The Savannah Morning News is enthusiastic:

VOICE: The Bush administration's proposed missile defense program is designed to radically reduce, if not eliminate, through intercept the number of offensive nuclear missiles ... capable of striking the United States. Even though such a system still is years away from being implemented, is appears to have already begun achieving its goal:

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Sunday that he would drop his resistance to the U-S deploying a missile defense so long as both nations made dramatic cuts in their nuclear arsenals. ...his agreeing to a conditional acceptance of NMD [National Missile Defense] all but makes the treaty insignificant ... and opens the door to crafting a fresh, modern defense framework in a post-Mutually Assured Destruction world.

TEXT: The Washington Times is equally pleased calling the Bush-Putin talks "Mr. Bush's triumph in Genoa," suggesting the reported deal is a framework that:

VOICE: ...could dramatically redefine the U-S-Russian relationship. It is a major triumph for a president derided by many as a novice in international affairs.

TEXT: However a more wary Chicago Tribune suggests that:

VOICE: ...caution is appropriate. Both [Presidents] Bush and Putin in recent weeks have been sending mixed signals on matters of defense and nuclear arsenals. [Mr.] Putin sharply criticized U-S plans for a nuclear missile shield, reached a friendship agreement with China that seemed aimed at the U-S, then suddenly made nice with [Mr.] Bush in Genoa.

[President] Bush talked about the need to consult with U-S allies on the defense shield, then seemed ready to bull ahead with plans to break ground on a missile defense test site and testing that might abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and then embraced the chance to talk things over with the Russians. So the rhetoric over the weekend may turn out to be just that ... rhetoric.

TEXT: That assessment is a bit too negative for the Saint Petersburg [Florida] Times which suggests: "One bit of good that came out of the "...summit was the cooperative spirit between Vladimir ... Putin and George W. Bush, from which they both can benefit."

"... if thousands of warheads were eliminated as part of the deal, it would be a triumph," asserts today's San Jose [California] Mercury News of the Bush-Putin talks.

And in Texas, The San Antonio Express-News is also pleased.

VOICE: So far, President Bush has shown impressive finesse in his dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

TEXT: USA Today, the national daily published in a Washington, D-C suburb, however, is much more skeptical, suggesting.

VOICE: ... between the commitment to "consultations" - - pointedly not "negotiations" - - and any actual agreement lies a host of issues that have yet to be broached ... They start with this one: Just what sort of missile defense is [President] Putin - - or the U-S public, for that matter- - willing to accept?

TEXT: However, the view from Wisconsin, at least in the opinion of Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel, is somewhat encouraging.

VOICE: ... what had seemed impossible only a month ago - that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty might be negotiable - - now may be on the table as an idea worth talking about despite [Mr.] Putin's statement on Monday reiterating his country's support for the treaty.

An accord that would reduce the number of nuclear missiles is a good idea; up to a point, the fewer of these weapons there are, the better. But if part of the package is a new international security arrangement that reflects the reality of the post-Cold War world ... well, that would be a real bonus.

TEXT: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

California's Los Angeles Times is warily optimistic, and sums up its feelings this way.

VOICE: There is still much to do before the two presidents' interest in arms reduction bears fruit. But the United States and Russia may now have the chance to achieve a more mutually advantageous arms accord than anything decades of U-S-Soviet negotiations produced. That prospect is one more reason to slow down the administration's ill-advised rush to deploy a still unproven antimissile system.

TEXT: When Pennsylvania's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette compares the progress on arms reduction against what it sees as America's intransigence on the global warming Kyoto treaty, it sees a sum gain.

VOICE: There is no agreement yet, on either the deployment of anti-missile technology by the United States or a reduction in both countries' nuclear arsenals. But the two presidents' agreement to undertake "consultations" on offensive and defensive weaponry, immediately overshadowed the differences in Genoa between the United States and its allies, notably on the desirability of the Kyoto treaty as the vehicle for an attack on global warming.

TEXT: Another important regional daily, Nebraska's Omaha World-Herald was pleasantly surprised by the announcement.

VOICE: The Sunday announcement marks a sharp turn in rhetoric. Thought no details are in place as yet, [Presidents] Putin and Bush raise the possibility, however faintly, that the two countries could agree to get their arsenal down to 15-hundred or so missiles. Predicting where such discussions might actually go would be folly. But this is a turn of events that hadn't existed and wasn't expected. And the fact that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is in Moscow this week following up, is evidence that both sides are ready to make a start.

TEXT: Lastly, from Boston, The Christian Science Monitor says:

VOICE: On the face of it, this potential deal on both offensive and defensive military systems would reshape - - perhaps for the better - - the global security structure that remains largely stuck in a cold-war "mind set," as [Mr.] Bush put it. It could launch a cooperative security system. At the least, [President] Bush's offer shows he may not be the "unilateralist" that Europe and Senate majority leader Tom Daschle fear he is.

TEXT: With that Christian Science Monitor editorial excerpt, we complete this sampling of comment on the talks between President Bush and President Putin.

NEB/ANG/FC