AMERICAN hospitality can fix almost any problem. That was the background assumption to this week’s summit between George Bush and Vladimir Putin in Kennebunkport, at the home of the first President Bush. Relations between America and Russia have been icier than at any time since the end of the cold war. But two days of casual dress, some fishing, an intimate dinner, and the honour for Mr Putin of being the first foreign leader to be brought to Kennebunkport by George Bush, were all designed to warm ties with the Russian leader.
Some progress has indeed been made at the «lobster summit», even if it is mostly symbolic. The two big (and linked) issues of the summit were missile defence for Europe and thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. America wants to put interceptors and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic, now NATO members, to defend Europe against incoming missiles. Russia sees this as an aggressive move into countries formerly in its own orbit, despite the fact that Russia’s thousands of missiles could easily overwhelm any American missile defence. America insists that the plan is designed to protect against rogue states, especially Iran, and has invited Russia to co-operate. The Russians nonetheless have responded by suggesting they would target Poland and the Czech Republic with their own nuclear weapons if the plan goes ahead.
At last month’s G8 summit in Germany, Mr Putin made a counter-proposal, suggesting the Americans should use a radar facility in Azerbaijan instead. At the time Mr Bush called the idea «interesting». Since then Robert Gates, America’s defence secretary, said that the Azerbaijan facility would complement, not replace, the Polish and Czech installations. Unsurprisingly, the Russians did not see it that way.
The Bush-Putin summit at least saw a willingness to agree-to-disagree. Mr Putin expanded his proposal for upgrading the Azerbaijan facility and adding another in southern Russia. He suggested that the whole of NATO should be brought into the discussion. Mr Bush called the idea «sincere» and «strategic», but continues to insist on Poland and the Czech Republic.
The missile-defence plan is a long-term one, and the technology has many sceptics. Of more immediate concern is the effort by Iran to enrich uranium. America is desperate for Russian help in the UN Security Council to proceed with new, tighter sanctions on Iran. Different proposals including inspecting all cargo to and from Iran for nuclear materials, and freezing Iranian assets overseas. Iran is certainly looking vulnerable to pressure. A recent imposition of petrol rationing caused riots in Tehran. (Iran has drastically underinvested in local refining, so the oil-rich nation is short of fuel for cars.) UN sanctions, think the Americans, may cause the Iranian people to see the folly of their regime’s reckless course.
Russia remains sceptical, but American officials say that Mr Putin is coming around, seeing the threat Iran poses. The two sides may be inching closer. The six countries negotiating with Iran over its nuclear activities—the five permanent Security Council members and Germany—have been keen to keep the Islamic republic in talks. Rather than insisting Iran end all enrichment, the six countries say that a simple halt to expansion would forestall new sanctions. Mr Bush said that his country and Russia were in agreement on a «common message» to Iran. Mr Putin said that the newly flexible approach could contribute to «further substantial intercourse» with Iran.
It is by no means clear that the two men now agree on Iran, and they certainly disagree on the missiles for Europe. But the summit was a friendly affair, in which Mr Bush said he didn’t like everything that Mr Putin said, but he was convinced that he was «honest». The past few years have seen the fortunes and popularity ratings of the two men shift substantially (see chart). With each scheduled to leave office within two years the chance to improve relations with a rival big power could well be beyond them. But as in the cold war, the summit has at least shown that talking to a rival may be considered a modest success in itself.
"The Economist"
