SUMMIT-TIME BLUES

• Share

They met, they talked and they accomplished almost nothing -- a classic case of low expectations barely met. Indeed, the only real drama at last week's Moscow summit involved a series of security and computer snafus. Some loftily titled Americans, including Secretary of State Warren Christopher, were denied entry to important meetings because they lacked the proper credentials, or so some overzealous Russian bodyguards said. Then just before last Wednesday's joint press conference with Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton was left without his prepared opening statement. A speechwriter's floppy disk had failed. But that too was small beer since no one wings it better than Clinton.

What of the substance? It could have gone worse, but not by much. Given America's sorry record of failing to seriously protest Moscow's brutal repression in Chechnya, it wasn't surprising that Yeltsin ignored Clinton's human-rights lecture. An internal matter, Yeltsin fumed at the press conference before asserting that the conflict had ended anyway -- a lie Clinton lamely let pass. As for the cash-starved Russians' desire to sell nuclear technology to Iran, the issue was referred to a commission, which may or may not resolve the question to Washington's satisfaction -- a good result, said the White House, despite its earlier insistence that only the deal's immediate cancellation would be acceptable.

The most important and time-consuming matter discussed by the two leaders was European security. Russia's baby-step concession to join the Partnership for Peace is something, but the continuing divergence of views regarding the U.S. plan to admit new members to NATO is truly troubling. Of the many areas of dispute between Washington and Moscow, NATO's expansion has the greatest potential to rupture relations between the two countries at exactly the moment when the course of Russian democracy (if it can be called that) is on the line.

NATO's future is, admittedly, not something most people worry about. There are probably more Americans whose dna resembles O.J. Simpson's than can name the 15 other NATO nations the U.S. is sworn to defend. But that doesn't mean the question isn't vital. It is.

With Moscow reflexively fearful of any scheme it can't dominate -- "They're world champions at improving on nightmares," says Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott -- Washington is walking a tightrope of incoherence. Clinton swore again last week that nato will expand, but slowly, so as to avoid a "differently divided Europe." Yet that, of course, is exactly what an enlarged NATO would mean.

With both nations facing presidential elections next year, there's posturing everywhere, but the merits of enlarging NATO can be considered nonetheless.