Bush and Putin clash over Iran after signing treaty to cut nuclear missiles

Vladmir Putin and George Bush differed publicly over Iran at their summit yesterday, with the Russian leader denying that his country's co-operation with Tehran could help it to acquire nuclear weapons.

The issue has emerged as the chief barrier to a smooth summit, scripted to open a new chapter in relations after Russia's support for the war on terror declared because of 11 September.

Earlier yesterday the two leaders signed a nuclear arms treaty in the Kremlin, cutting the strategic weapons deployed against each other by two-thirds.

Both presidents have repeatedly expressed their mutual goodwill and joint determination to pursue the war on terrorism during the three-day summit, although critics point to a lack of substance in the nuclear arms agreement.

Mr Bush, speaking in the Kremlin, said he and Mr Putin would win the war against "cold-blooded killers". The centrepiece of the summit, the nuclear arms reduction agreement, is the first such treaty to be signed for almost a decade. Its significance is mainly symbolic. America has insisted that strategic warheads not deployed may be stored rather than destroyed.

The main difference between the two sides was over Iran. Speaking at a Kremlin news conference, Mr Putin denied American charges that Russia was helping to build a $800m (£570m) nuclear power reactor at Bushehr in Iran using technology that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.

The Russian leader said pointedly that America was involved in a similar deal with North Korea. "Co-operation between Russia and Iran is not of a character that would undermine the process of non-proliferation," he said. "I would like to note that the United States has taken on the obligation of building a nuclear power station identical to the one in Bushehr in North Korea."

Mr Bush said he had received some assurances over Iran from the Russian President but he did not specify what they were.

Mr Putin responded by saying that Russia had worries about Taiwan similar to those of America about Iran. "I think we should think about other countries. We are, for example, concerned to some extent by the development of some rocket programmes by Taiwan and some other states where work is being carried out on weapons of mass destruction."

The differences over Iran were the main sign that Mr Putin did not want to be portrayed in Russia as subservient to America. The Kremlin is conscious of the degree to which the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev damaged himself at home by appearing too accommodating to the West.

Russians are, nevertheless, conscious that almost all the concessions in the past six months in relations with America have come from them. Mr Putin has approved of US troops moving into countries such as Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia as part of Washington's war on terror.

Mr Bush played down differences with Mr Putin by underlining the overall amity between their two countries. The American President's tone grated on some Russians. Vitaly Tretyakov, a political commentator, noted that "Bush uses the word 'friends' too often during his interviews instead of words like 'allies' or 'partners'." But most Russian foreign policy specialists felt the arms reduction treaty was better than nothing.

There was only a small demonstration of 300 people in Moscow against Mr Bush's presence, in sharp contrast to tens of thousands in Germany. Mr Tretyakov said: "Anti-Americanism still exists in society, but most people just try to survive and pay no attention to politics which does not affect their personal interests."

Russians have been struck by the failure of Congress to lift the Jackson-Vanik rules, originally introduced to force the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate by restricting its trade with America.

Mr Putin said jovially that Mr Bush had raised various trade issues between Russia and America. There have recently been disputes over the import of American chickens to Russia and the export of Russian steel.

The treaty counting the warheads

Russia and the United States signed an arms reduction treaty limiting both to between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. This is a reduction by some two thirds from the 6,000 apiece now.

But there is less to the treaty than there seems. Each country retains the ability to destroy the other several times over.

Moscow was willing to destroy the warheads not deployed, knowing that because of its economic weakness its ability to deliver warheads is going down. America was not. Instead it will "deep freeze" warheads. In 10 years it will still have 10,000 nuclear warheads that it could use.

However, the three-page document does not appear to control tactical nuclear warheads, of which Russia might have somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000.

Each country can decide the pace at which it will retire its warheads, as long as the reduction is achieved by 2012. There will be meetings twice a year of a Bilateral Implementation Commission, site inspections, data exchange and monitoring.

Russia will submit the treaty to the Duma and America to the Senate to ratify it, but either party can withdraw from it after giving three months' notice.

Despite the kind words spoken yesterday the sides still have warheads aimed at each other's capitals. President George Bush's claim that the treaty will "liquidate the legacy of the Cold War" is considerably exaggerated.

Patrick Cockburn