U.S., Soviets Seek Ways to Combat Terrorism : Unprecedented Joint Effort in Moscow Spurred by Glasnost, Kremlin’s Recent Role as Victim

The Soviet Union, in a fundamental shift that brushes aside decades of foreign policy rhetoric, is examining ways to combat global terrorism in cooperation with the United States and other nations.

Many of the steps are preliminary, including the staging this week of the first bilateral talks between U.S. and Soviet terrorism experts. But the combination of glasnost, as President Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s policy of openness is known, and the Soviet Union’s growing victimization at the hands of terrorists is resulting in old adversaries increasingly becoming allied on the issue.

To a large degree, the Soviet moves reflect soaring new hopes here that the most sensitive policy issues that have separated the superpowers will be partially resolved under the Bush Administration.

So strong is Moscow’s new commitment to the joint efforts on terrorism, for example, that the deputy director of the KGB secret police, Gen. Vitaly Ponomarev, earlier this month called for Soviet cooperation “even with the CIA, the British intelligence service and the Israeli Mossad and other services in the West.”

“We realize we have to coordinate efforts to prevent terrorist acts,” Ponomarev said.

That sentiment was echoed at this week’s conference in a bold ice-breaker by Igor Belyaev, a foreign policy analyst and Middle East expert.

“Our view will not necessarily coincide,” Belyaev bluntly declared. “But a positive approach on international terrorism and an interest in moving our respective governments toward practical cooperation is our motive today.”

At the same time, U.S. interest also appears to be expanding. “We ought to find out whether Moscow can be helpful on these issues,” Secretary of State James A. Baker III told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in discussing terrorism, drug abuse and the environment during his confirmation hearings.

Terrorism is comparatively new to the Soviet Union, although U.S. facilities and personnel have been targeted in the Middle East, Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe for two decades.

“Frankly, you have made greater progress in the study of international terrorism than we have. We in the Soviet Union used to believe that terrorism had no impact on us,” Belyaev told the 10-member American delegation to the conference.

“It was only in 1985, when our four diplomats were taken hostage in Lebanon, that we realized how acute the problem is for all of us,” he added. One of the four hostages was murdered within 48 hours by the kidnapers, who were Sunni Muslim fundamentalists. The other three were released after being held for two weeks.

Since the mid-1980s, more than 60 Soviet civilians, diplomats and military personnel have been killed in international terrorism attacks outside of war zones, according to Soviet journalists who cover the issue. Most of the incidents have not been publicized.

And the overall Soviet problem may soon worsen, one U.S. participant in the conference predicted.

“Their problems are in some ways even greater than the United States’, especially their emerging problems with Islamic fundamentalism,” said Dr. Robert Kupperman, a terrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

“Some of their client states are also going to get weapons of mass destruction, and the Soviets are going to have trouble controlling them. Libya’s (alleged) chemical weapons plant is just the beginning.”

‘Interesting Coincidence’

The timing of the increased Soviet movement on terrorism “is a coincidence, but it’s an interesting coincidence,” said Andrei Shoumikhin, an official of the U.S.A. and Canada Institute at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and another delegate to the conference. “It happened right after the Bush inauguration.

“There was a feeling that things were not moving fast enough under the previous Administration,” despite the rapid thaw in superpower relations during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Shoumikhin said.

“President Bush, as a political figure and in his style, is very close to Gorbachev intellectually and psychologically,” he added. “Now expectations of movement between the two countries are even higher. There is a lot of interest now in figuring out the confluence of interests.”

In an extraordinary reflection of that interest, U.S. Ambassador Jack F. Matlock Jr. and Vladimir A. Kryuchkov, chief of the KGB, quietly held unprecedented talks this month that were described by Soviet sources as “tentative but comprehensive.” According to these sources, “both sides expressed interest in cooperation” on terrorism and other issues.

Other Sensitive Topics

Both sides are working to extend this cooperation to other highly sensitive topics. Indeed, the terrorism conference, organized by Belyaev and Search for Common Ground, a private U.S. foundation, was just one of three held in Moscow this week to examine such issues.

At one of the other meetings, American and Soviet analysts debated proposals for disarmament by the superpowers. The third conference, this one on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, brought together many of the John F. Kennedy Administration officials and their Soviet counterparts under Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev who faced off during the showdown over the deployment of Soviet missiles.

Ironically, the Soviet rush to create a new momentum on combatting international terrorism is, in large part, a role reversal.

Since World War II, Moscow has armed and aided, directly and indirectly, some of the individuals and groups that the United States have declared are among the world’s most notorious terrorists.

The Soviet Union has been among the chief arms suppliers to the Palestine Liberation Organization for two decades, for example. In addition, the movements of renegade Palestinian leader Abu Nidal and his agents have in the past been aided by free passage through East Bloc countries.

“International terrorism is now an active danger to us,” Belyaev acknowledged. “This is why we pushed (PLO chairman Yasser) Arafat to renounce terrorism and to follow a real, human policy in political affairs.”

U.S. officials have conceded privately that Moscow played a constructive role in pressuring the PLO last month to renounce terrorism and to recognize Israel’s right to exist, the United States’ two key conditions for opening a dialogue with the Palestinian group.

In the last 18 months of the Reagan Administration, officials said, they had already attempted to cultivate closer contact with the Soviets on fighting terrorism. At the time, however, Moscow showed limited interest, according to one U.S. counterterrorism official.

Now, the Soviets appear to have softened. An almost plaintive candor pervaded the conference table as Soviet foreign policy analysts, regional specialists, ranking former military officers, academics and journalists opened up on problems ranging from drug-related terrorism to air piracy.

Moments of near-comedy also enlivened the conference when Soviets intervened to end the windy rhetoric of their colleagues. In one of several instances, a Soviet foreign policy analyst extolled at length the glorious goals of liberation movements and Moscow’s obligation to support them. Within minutes, a colleague from the Soviet Academy of Sciences reached over, put his hand on the speaker’s arm and shook his head--and the speaker ended his speech.

“Propaganda has occasionally reared its head,” said Brian Jenkins, a terrorism specialist at the Santa Monica-based RAND Corp. “But all along it was the Soviets who put it down.”

Occasionally, the 10-member Soviet delegation seemed anxious to agree to specific measures. Among general areas of cooperation, they concurred with the Americans on the need for a permanent channel to share basic intelligence on terrorist activities; joint investigations of terrorist attacks, and limitations of arms traffic and the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.

In informal discussions, they also expressed understanding of the need to tighten constraints on client states, particularly in the Middle East. For the Soviet Union, that specifically means Libya and Syria, two of the nations most problematic to the United States.

Indeed, there were few disagreements. And although participants described the overall talks as exploratory, both sides expressed fascination with the unprecedented exchange.

“Just holding a conference of this nature is extraordinary,” Kupperman said.

“Until recently, this meeting would have been unthinkable,” agreed Vladimir P. Vesensky, a Soviet specialist on Latin America.

However, at least one potential Soviet participant--the KGB--backed out. “They told me it was an excellent idea and they wanted to see the outcome,” Belyaev said. “But they said they were not yet ready to participate directly. They said, ‘Maybe next time.’ ”

The same was true of American officials, who expressed strong interest in seeing the level of cooperation and more specific actions before initiating new contacts with Moscow.

“I was skeptical that these meetings would be productive. I will leave Moscow pleasantly surprised,” said Geoffrey Kemp, who was Reagan’s National Security Council staff director for the Middle East from 1981 to 1985. He described Soviet cooperation thus far as “almost too good to be true.”

‘Pragmatic and Smart’

“The Soviets are pragmatic and smart. They know that their old attitude on terrorism infuriated the Americans,” Kemp said. “They now see more to gain from cooperation than they will lose.”

Even so, the superpower collaboration is unlikely to fully end the threat posed by modern terrorism.

“Even if the United States and the Soviet Union pool all their resources to end terrorism, it is unrealistic to believe that we will succeed,” said Gleb B. Starushenko, a foreign policy analyst at the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Yet the progress was, in one way, tangible. The U.S. delegation officially complained about a booklet, available near the conference hall in Moscow’s Peace Committee building, that depicted U.S. Marines in training for “terrorist” acts. The next day, all copies were gone.