US, Russia differ on how to tackle international issues

US Features

By Mike McCarthy Mar 8, 2006, 15:02 GMT

Washington - The top US and Russian diplomats met Tuesday in Washington to address a host of tricky relations between the countries amid differences over how to confront some of the world's most difficult challenges.

Atop the agenda during the meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was the nuclear dispute with Iran, but the two diplomats also discussed Hamas' emergence in Palestinian politics, and Rice voiced US concerns about democratic backsliding in Russia. Both countries agree that Iran should not be permitted to develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons, but Washington and Moscow have not been on the same page over how much pressure should be placed on Tehran. In negotiations within the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board in February, Russia rebuffed an attempt by the United States, Britain, France and Germany to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council. A compromise was worked out that allowed the board to report Iran's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, but delayed Security Council action. Another potential disagreement was avoided when Lavrov said that the Russians would not agree to a deal with Iran that allows for a small level of uranium enrichment to take place in Iran. 'There is no compromise, new Russian proposal,' Lavrov told a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before meeting at the White House with President George W Bush. The United States has backed a proposal - under discussion between the Russians and Iranians - to enrich uranium for use in Iranian nuclear reactors on Russian soil, to prevent Iran from mastering the technology. The aim is to alleviate concerns that Iran could use uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons. Moscow's decision to meet with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which prevailed in January 25 Palestinian Authority elections, also raised eyebrows in Washington. The United States considers Hamas a terrorist organization and vowed to not hold any discussions with the party until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel and previous agreements on the peace process. Lavrov defended the talks, saying the purpose was to convey international demands that the group give up violence and recognize Israel. The demands were made in a joint statement by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union - known together as the quartet - shortly after the Palestinian elections. 'We conveyed to them our commitment to the quartet position and explained that this would be in the interest of the Palestinian people if the quartet position is accepted by Hamas,' Lavrov said. But the key issue that could do the most to damage relations between Russia and the United States are worries in Washington that Russian President Vladimir Putin's government has backtracked on building democratic institutions, while centralizing power in the Kremlin and cracking down on civic society and press freedoms. Some members of the US Congress have objected to Putin chairing the G8 summit - an annual meeting of the world's leading developed economies plus Russia - and have called on Bush to boycott the gathering in July in St. Petersburg. Despite tension over the subject, Rice spoke positively of how Lavrov addressed the issue during discussions Monday night over dinner and in their meeting Tuesday at the State Department. 'I appreciate the candid and good spirit in which we discussed those issues and in which our questions have been answered,' Rice said, without offering details. The meeting came after a report by the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank, urged Bush to take a tougher stand against Russia for its 'downward trajectory' under Putin. It said that positive relations prevailing after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have eroded. 'US-Russian relations are clearly headed in the wrong direction,' the report said. 'Contention is crowding out consensus. The idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seem realistic.' Lavrov criticized the United States for not approving Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization. Rice voiced support for Russia on the issue but cautioned that the WTO's rules of admission must be followed. After his meeting at the White House, Lavrov told reporters that Bush was committed to attending the G8 summit and making it a success. Standing beside Rice at the State Department, Lavrov emphasized that even if Washington and Moscow don't always see eye- to-eye, they share the same goals. 'Despite the fact that our methods in achieving the goals do not necessarily coincide or are identical, the goals which there are in our cooperation are identical and are shared,' he said, through a translator. © 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1

here we go againMar 8th, 2006 - 17:01:50

when will the international community learn that if they speak with one voice then things will get done? same with Iraq, thanks to France, Russia, China, Belgium and Germany there was a war, if everyone sings the same song then Saddam would have gone. Yes, it is that simple. Here we go again with Iran, although I hope that we have learned our lesson...

Saddam, now this fruit cake in Iran try to divide us all... nobody wants a war, never again if possible, not even the US. Nobody wants some loony with nukes either so come on and at least put on a united show in public dumbass politicians and negotiators

Report this comment

Economics of WarMar 8th, 2006 - 17:22:28

Although noble to state the need for global cohesion on this matter, we're really just looking for the correct rationalization for going there. And if we can do it without losing more troops, then we will. Economically, it's a boon. If the cold-war reappears as a luke-warm war, it still helps. If other countries want to sign up to assist, all the better. Regardless the US machine is in motion and the intent is clear. The rest is posturing. Iran's time will come, because it only make sense economically. It's the expansion of our American empire. That being said... and hopefully you caught my sarcasm in it all... look north at our quiet neighbours. Not only do they live in a terrorism free society - they aren't afraid to tackle the issues, as I believe they are leading the Afghanistan deployment right now and providing about half the troops there. Why would they risk bringing the whiplash to their otherwise peaceful area of Norht America? Seems to be principle over gain. I think we, and the rest of the UN council, could learn a thing or two from that.

Report this comment

page: 1

US

US, Russia differ on how to tackle international issues

US Features

Your Talkback on this Story

Talkback

Similar articles

Latest Headlines in US

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Latest Cinema Blend News

Latest Tech Herald News

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print