War of words between Moscow and Washington

The war of words between Russia and the United States escalated last week to a new high. It began with a speech by US Vice-President Dick Cheney in Lithuania, who accused the Russian authorities of "unfairly" restricting citizens' rights and of using gas and oil supplies as "tools of intimidation and blackmail". A few days later Russian President Vladimir Putin hit back at what he called US double standards during his state of the nation speech.

Mr Putin criticised Mr Cheney's rebuke of Russia's record on human rights and democracy, portrayed the US as following an aggressive unilateral agenda and pointed out that America's military spending was 25 times that of Russia, saying: "That means we must make our own house strong and firm because we can see what is happening in the world."

The fact that Mr Cheney was speaking in Lithuania, a former Soviet republic and today a member of both the European Union and NATO, and in front of nine East European Presidents, must obviously have displeased the Russians.

Mr Cheney said: "America and all of Europe want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies. Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade. In many areas of civil society - from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties - the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people."

He added: "Other actions by the Russian government have been counter-productive and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolise transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbour, or interfere with democratic movements."

Mr Cheney's speech was criticised in Moscow where a Kremlin spokesman called the Vice-President's comments "incomprehensible" and "highly subjective". Russian newspapers - both government-controlled and independent - said the speech marked the beginning of a new Cold War.

Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia's best-selling (and pro-government) daily said: "Asia has stayed with Moscow, but former socialist Europe has gone over to the American side. What is Russia to do? Evidently it needs to strengthen links with Belarus and Central Asia. And get friendly with China, to counterbalance this Western might."

In his speech on Wednesday President Putin remarked: "We should be able to respond to attempts to put foreign pressure on Russia and it should be said frankly: the stronger our armed forces are, the less temptation there will be to put pressure on us." He also criticised Washington over Moscow's long-delayed attempts to join the World Trade Organisation, saying WTO membership should not be used to make demands on Russia over issues that have nothing to do with world trade.

So, how much damage has been caused by the speeches given by Mr Cheney and Mr Putin? Have US-Russian relations really sunk to a new low? Although Mr Cheney did exaggerate in his criticism of Russia - as one perhaps would expect such a right-wing hawk to do - the Vice- President did make some valid points. I am referring to Russia's use of its energy policy to exert pressure on neighbours such as Georgia, the slow erosion of civil liberties in the country and Russia's exaggerated suspicion of the spread of democracy in republics which were once part of the Soviet Union.

However it has to be pointed out that during a visit to energy-rich Kazakhstan - Washington's main ally in Central Asia - a day after his Lithuania trip, Mr Cheney was publicly silent on the country's democratic and human rights record, considered by many international observers to be as bad, if not worse, than Moscow's. Instead he expressed "admiration" for Kazakhstan's economic and political developments, prompting many analysts to accuse the US of double standards. Such a policy does create a consistency and credibility problem for the US. If Washington criticises Moscow's democratic record, should it not also apply the same criticism to a country like Kazakhstan?

Although Mr Cheney's speech was full of Cold War rhetoric - which could have been diluted - he did make it clear, that "none of us believes that Russia is fated to become an enemy". That is good because good Russian-US relations are essential for international peace and stability, Russia is a very important player on the world stage and a stable, democratic Russia is in everyone's interest.

However, what is needed is for Europe to speak up in a firm and united manner over Russia and to listen to the concerns the former Soviet republics and East European countries have over Russia. True, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has adopted a stronger stand on Moscow than her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, but other large European countries and the European Union have largely remained silent on the matter. In a nutshell, speaking about Russia's democratic record should not be left to somebody like Dick Cheney who as a Cold War warrior might make Moscow somewhat paranoid. Europe definitely has a very important role to play in this regard.

In two months' time President George Bush and President Putin, along with the other G8 leaders will meet for a summit in St Petersburg. There are a number of important issues that will need to be discussed, such as energy security and Iran's nuclear ambitions. One hopes that the atmosphere has not been poisoned by the recent war of words between the two sides.

It is important that Russia is engaged by the international community, encouraged to move away from authoritarianism and convinced that it has nothing to fear from the West. While believing that Europe and America must be firm and consistent when criticising Moscow on democracy and civil liberties, Russia is too important a country to antagonise or to be made to feel isolated. As usual it is a question of balance.

New President for Italy

Giorgio Napolitano, the distinguished elder statesman from Italy's centre-left, has been elected by Parliament as the country's next President, succeeding the widely-respected Carlo Azeglio Ciampi.

There had been some concern within centre-right parties in Italy over this appointment because Mr Napolitano is a member of the Democratic Party of the Left, successor of the Italian Communist Party (PCI), which makes Italy's new President an ex-Communist.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Like many Italians Mr Napolitano joined the Italian Communist Party (in 1945) because he was an anti-Fascist in his youth. However, he always insisted that the party must be loyal to Italy's democratic system. The fact is, however, that he is not a Communist, but an ex-Communist.

Richard Gardner, who was US President Jimmy Carter's Ambassador to Italy in the late 1970s, recalled that he had secret meetings with PCI leaders when tensions were high in Italy: "For the first of these meetings I chose Giorgio Napolitano, who had a reputation for being highly intelligent, pragmatic and sincerely committed to moving the PCI towards Western-style social democracy".

Mr Napolitano has already occupied a very senior position in Italy, that of President of the Lower House of Parliament, between 1992 and 1994. He was always on the moderate side of his party and once told his party congress in 1991: "We must resist the temptation of once again turning America into the traditional bogeyman of the left."

I am sure he will make a very good President.