BY LEON ARON |
NOVEMBER 20, 2012
Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced
last week that President Vladimir Putin had called to congratulate Barack
Obama on his reelection and claimed that the American president accepted an
invitation from Putin to come to Russia. Obama's plans, which have not yet been
publicly announced, seem truly puzzling.
In the
past 12 months, Putin's foreign and domestic policies have been nothing but a
brazen, in-your-face challenge to U.S. interests and values. Russia has sided
with Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria as it slaughtered tens of thousands of
its own citizens, casting three vetoes
in the U.N. Security Council to shield Damascus from international sanctions.
Moreover, it has signaled
the end of its already limited and caveat-ridden support for international
efforts to contain a nuclear-bound Iran.
Closer to
home, Kremlin-sponsored goons have heckled
and hounded Obama's own ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, and
Kremlin-controlled television networks have aired vile, Soviet-style propaganda
"documentaries" accusing McFaul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, the
United States more broadly, of organizing and funding Russia's anti-Putin,
pro-democracy opposition.
Domestically,
the regime has been relentless in ratcheting up repression. Under laws passed
in quick succession following Putin's inauguration in May, the government has meted
out huge fines and lengthy prison terms for participants in "unsanctioned"
demonstrations; branded humanitarian and civil rights organizations as "foreign
agents" for accepting international funding;
introduced Internet censorship; and established
stiff penalties for "libel" against state officials. A few weeks ago, with
barely any protest from the White House, the Kremlin expelled the U.S. Agency
for International Development from the country after 20 years of work and
billions of dollars spent by U.S. taxpayers to promote democracy, civil
society, and economic development in Russia. Just last week, Putin signed
into law new legislation vastly expanding the definition of treason (which
can be punished by up to 20 years in jail). One can be considered a traitor in today's
Russia for as little as providing or receiving information from a foreign organization deemed
hostile to Russia's interests. (Amnesty International, for example, could
qualify.)
In August,
two members of the punk band, Pussy Riot, who sang at the altar of the Christ
the Savior church in Moscow and called on the "Mother of God to rid us of
Putin," were sentenced to two years in prison for "hooliganism motivated by
religious hatred." Aged 22 and 24, one is the mother of a five-year-old boy and
the other of a four-year-old girl. They petitioned to serve in or around Moscow
-- as is normal practice for convicted Muscovites. Instead, they were sent to notorious
prison camps in Mordovia and Perm,
where tens of thousands died in Stalin's gulag and where the Soviet government
tormented the most dangerous dissidents. Meanwhile, the 17 protesters arrested on the eve of Putin's inauguration on May 6
are still in "pre-trial detention" where they could spend months or even years
in conditions that would be considered torture in Europe or the United States.
(One of them has already
been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail).
Possibly signaling the regime's transition from "softer" authoritarianism to a more traditional repression, the Kremlin further tested the waters with indictments against Russia's two top opposition leaders: blogger and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny and socialist Sergei Udaltsov. The former is accused of stealing 13,000 cubic yards of timber and the latter of plotting to overthrow the regime with the assistance of the Georgian government. Now two of Udaltsov's closest associates have already been arrested; the third, Leonid Razvozzhayev, was kidnapped by the FSB in Kiev, brought to Moscow, and held handcuffed without water, food, or access to a toilet until he "confessed" to plotting, with Udaltsov, to instigate mass riots to bring down the government It is almost certain that both Navalny and Udaltsov are headed for arrests, trials, and lengthy prison terms.
Given this record, both the Russian opposition and the regime would undoubtedly interpret Obama's visit as a show of support for the Kremlin as it continues to crack down on a non-violent opposition that demands free and fair elections, equality before the law, freedom of speech, and the end of corruption.
Occasionally, in the conduct of foreign policy, statesmen are forced to choose between their respective country's values and their interests. This, however, can hardly be the case here. Russia is no help -- or worse -- with Iran or Syria. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will end what has been Moscow's main contribution to U.S. national security: its permission to transport troops and weapons across Russia through the so-called Northern Distribution Network.
This leaves only one conceivable reason for the White House's neglecting what should be an overarching U.S. goal of facilitating Russia's transition to a freer, more democratic, stable, and prosperous state: the administration's aim to make even deeper reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal in pursuit of Obama's declared goal of a "world without nuclear weapons," as he put it in his 2009 speech in Prague, by means of another arms control agreement with Russia.
If that's the case, then turning a blind eye to the regime's increased repression and Obama's visit to Moscow can't be the only conditions for the Kremlin's cooperation. Surely, Putin will continue to demand the scuttling of missile defense systems in Europe.
I, for one, have often given the Obama White House the benefit of the doubt where the Russia policy was concerned. But it would be hard to do the same this time if core U.S. values and security goals are being sacrificed on the altar of a hardly urgent "arms control" deal with a regime in Moscow that has been so hostile to both. The president should stay home.
Possibly signaling the regime's transition from "softer" authoritarianism to a more traditional repression, the Kremlin further tested the waters with indictments against Russia's two top opposition leaders: blogger and anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny and socialist Sergei Udaltsov. The former is accused of stealing 13,000 cubic yards of timber and the latter of plotting to overthrow the regime with the assistance of the Georgian government. Now two of Udaltsov's closest associates have already been arrested; the third, Leonid Razvozzhayev, was kidnapped by the FSB in Kiev, brought to Moscow, and held handcuffed without water, food, or access to a toilet until he "confessed" to plotting, with Udaltsov, to instigate mass riots to bring down the government It is almost certain that both Navalny and Udaltsov are headed for arrests, trials, and lengthy prison terms.
Given this record, both the Russian opposition and the regime would undoubtedly interpret Obama's visit as a show of support for the Kremlin as it continues to crack down on a non-violent opposition that demands free and fair elections, equality before the law, freedom of speech, and the end of corruption.
Occasionally, in the conduct of foreign policy, statesmen are forced to choose between their respective country's values and their interests. This, however, can hardly be the case here. Russia is no help -- or worse -- with Iran or Syria. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will end what has been Moscow's main contribution to U.S. national security: its permission to transport troops and weapons across Russia through the so-called Northern Distribution Network.
This leaves only one conceivable reason for the White House's neglecting what should be an overarching U.S. goal of facilitating Russia's transition to a freer, more democratic, stable, and prosperous state: the administration's aim to make even deeper reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal in pursuit of Obama's declared goal of a "world without nuclear weapons," as he put it in his 2009 speech in Prague, by means of another arms control agreement with Russia.
If that's the case, then turning a blind eye to the regime's increased repression and Obama's visit to Moscow can't be the only conditions for the Kremlin's cooperation. Surely, Putin will continue to demand the scuttling of missile defense systems in Europe.
I, for one, have often given the Obama White House the benefit of the doubt where the Russia policy was concerned. But it would be hard to do the same this time if core U.S. values and security goals are being sacrificed on the altar of a hardly urgent "arms control" deal with a regime in Moscow that has been so hostile to both. The president should stay home.
No comments:
Post a Comment