COMMENTARY
by Gordon Hahn
As both a Russia analyst and an American conservative, it would be improper for me not to comment on respected Republican Party House Speaker John Boehner’s recent statements at the Heritage Foundation on past, present, and future U.S. policy on Russia.
It is possible to agree that President Barack Obama has a tendency to overlook American interests in favor of his globalized view of the world. However, it is difficult to agree that the Obama administration has overlooked U.S. national security or interests in the conduct of its ‘reset’ policy with Russia.
Furthermore, it is impossible to agree with the persistent tendency of many conservatives and other Republicans to virtually equate Russia with the USSR––and to perceive Russia through the lens of the Cold War.
It is also impossible to agree with Boehner’s exaggeration of the authoritarian nature of Russian domestic politics and his distortion of Russian foreign policy as a kind of Soviet revanchism.
Finally, it is difficult to support a policy statement that urges putting the values of “democracy and human rights...at the forefront of America's engagement with any country” and especially with Russia.
Addressing the above in reverse order, democracy promotion should be an important part of U.S. foreign policy, but U.S. national security comes first. It needs to be said that out of necessity we at times have had to ‘play ball with unstable and dangerous regimes.’ Quite often we fail to live up to the ideal of placing democracy and human rights at the forefront of our foreign relations––but this failing is recalled and denounced most frequently in relation to Russia. As a general proposition, growth in the number of regimes that honor democracy and human rights serves U.S. national interests. Regimes that respect those values at home tend to do so abroad, stabilizing international relations and security. There are few cases of democracies going to war with other democracies.
However, democracy and human rights simply cannot be at the forefront of America's engagement with every country. American foreign policy must balance its national interests with its national ideals. It is in our relations with the most egregious violators of democratic and human rights ideals that democracy and human rights should be at the forefront.
The tenor of the respected Speaker Boehner’s speech gave the impression to the uninformed that Russia, ‘under former KBG colonel Vladimir Putin,’ is a neo-Stalinist regime and on a totalitarian par with China, North Korea, Cuba, Syria Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and tens of other hard authoritarian regimes.
However, Russia commits far fewer violations of democracy and human rights compared to these just mentioned––and many other countries, including several with which we have very close relations. Russia, in fact, is a rather ‘soft’ authoritarian regime with elements of ‘managed democracy.’ Even according to the Freedom House, which holds a somewhat anti-Russian bias inherited from the Cold War, Russia’s democracy ranking of 5.5 (with 1.0 being the most democratic and 7.0 being the most totalitarian) is equal to such U.S. regional allies as Mubarak’s Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates and is significantly better than Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Syria, Libya and North Korea.
In contrast to many such countries with whom we do not put ‘democracy and human rights’ as an issue, Russia does not force women to wear the hijab or the burqa (except the hijab in public institutions in semi-autonomous Chechnya), stone them to death for adultery, and ban them from driving. Buddhist monks are not driven to self-immolation, and Muslims are not prevented from building mosques.
In Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries allied with the U.S., women will not dare go uncovered. This is true even in countries where our soldiers are currently laying down their lives to save regimes that have adopted and enforce such laws. Try bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim U.S.-allied countries. In Russia one can buy a Bible, the Koran or Torah or practice Buddhism, Taoism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.
In contrast with these same countries, Russia’s citizens can hold opposition demonstrations, most often without police inteference, read opposition opinions in their newspapers and electronic media, use a free Internet, travel freely, hold private property, bring suit to officials, and much else. Russia’s radio channel Ekho Moskvy (Moscow’s Echo), a beacon of free speech, is state-owned. It gives Russia’s most oppositionist political figures opportunities to be heard on air. Many of Russia’s opposition candidates including Alexei Venediktov, Yevgeniya Albats, and Vladimir Ryzhkov – have their own radio programs. In other words, ‘KGB colonel Putin’ permits the Russian state giving airtime to the same opposition personalities that his security forces at times try to oppress.
In Russia, to be sure, the opposition will not be allowed to win important elections any time soon, but they do win lesser ones, such as mayoral elections in small cities. And, the courts are far from fully independent, but some are very independent––Russia’s arbitration courts, for example. To be sure, religious and ethnic minorities live with discrimination far more than they do in the West, but more often than not they are much freer to practice their ethnic customs and religious rites without interference by the state than they are in most countries, including some with which the U.S. are quite close. If a Chinese, Tibetan, Saudi, or Jordanian tries to hold an opposition demonstration or asks for even somewhat free elections, he will be treated much more harshly than a Russian would under same circumstances.
Thus, if we are to eschew double standards, it is now incumbent upon Speaker Boehner and other Russia critics to deliver a major policy address at a Washington think tank dressing down Beijing or Riyadh.
Turning to foreign policy, the respected Speaker Boehner reiterated several inter-related chimeras. He notes: “Russia has continued to expand its physical, political, and economic presence ... under the guise of what's strangely called a ‘sphere of influence.’ … And it plays ball with unstable and dangerous regimes.”
Have the U.S. or any of its allies ever expanded their ‘presence’ or ‘played ball with unstable and dangerous regimes’? Until recently, we were playing ball with Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt and Qadaffi’s Libya––and today we are still playing ball with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan in addition to China and others mentioned earlier. We have done so and will do so, because various security concerns of our own and our allies connected with such unsavory regimes supercedes our desire or ability to democratize those countries.
In terms of ‘spheres of influence,’ it is difficult to think of a region in the world that the U.S., in recent years, has not declared ‘a sphere of vital Amereican interests.’ This is no different than Russia’s interests in a ‘sphere of influence.’ The major differences is that America’s sphere is global and real––but Russia’s is limited to central Eurasia and is perhaps more aspirational than actual.
The respected Speaker also persisted (as many conservatives do), to equate Russia with the USSR, perceiving Russia through a Cold War lens.
He stated, “In Russia's use of old tools and old thinking, we see nothing short of an attempt to restore Soviet-style power and influence. Soon, Russia will be officially led by someone known to harbor intense Soviet nostalgia. … Putin…considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe’ of the 20th century...”
Commenting on Speaker Boehner’s remarks, Russia’s leading human rights activist Ludmuilla Alekseeva begged to differ: “The return of the Soviet Union is impossible,” Alekseyeva said. "You can't step into the same river twice. Besides, there is private property in Russia” (BBC Monitoring, 26 October 2011 citing ‘Ekho Moskvy’ Radio).
Speaker Beohner’s reference to Putin’s lament about the Soviet collapse as the greatest geopolitical castrophe is mistaken, since he left out Putin’s explanation as to why this was a catastrophe for Russians.
Putin said in full: “First, it is necessary to admit that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the century’s greatest geopolitical catastrophe. For the Russian people it became a real drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots ended up beyond the borders of Russian territory. The epidemic of collapse ricocheted back on Russia itself. The savings of citizens were devalued, old ideals were destroyed, and many institutions were dissolved or reformes hastily. The country’s integrity was violated by a terrorist intervention followed by the Khasavyrut capitulation. Oligachic groups, possessing unlimited control over information flow, served their own corporate interests exclusively. Mass poverty became perceived as the norm. And all this occurred on a background of gravest economic decline, unstable finances, and paralysis of the social sphere.” (“Poslanie Federalnomu Sobraniyu Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” Kreml.ru, 25 April 2005).
I am sure Speaker Boehner would agree that the entire quote gives a rather different meaning than the truncated and spun version foisted by the mass media upon the American public and policymakers. Speaker Boehner should be aware of U.S. media bias, since this is a theme frequently raised by conservatives and other Republicans.
Finally, the Obama administration has done a fairly good job at wringing some concessions from Moscow, matching them with our own. The U.S. missile defense plans have not been abandoned. Rather, they have been reconfigured and combined with an attempt to include Russia in the overall system, if possible. Moscow has ceased supplying weapons to Iran, effectively broke a contract to supply S-300 missiles, and long delayed the supply of nuclear reactor fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. Although Moscow has won some watering down of UN sanctions against Teheran, it has not vetoed them. The Russians also has ‘played ball’ with the West on Libya and have been a major partner in the war against jihadism in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Yes, Russia has a long way to go before it can promote itself as a democracy that strongly protects human rights or will be considered an ally and friend of the West. However, we should not exaggerate the level of Russian authoritarianism or call a sometimes hesitant partner/ sometimes competitor, an inveterate, ideological enemy. This can become self-fulfilling prophecy.
Be careful of what you prophesy, for you just might get the consequences and regret it. We have enough real enemies in the world; there is no need to manufacture additional ones.
Gordon M. Hahn is Analyst/Consultant, Russia Other Points of View – Russia Media Watch; Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.; Senior Researcher, Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program; Visiting Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Policy Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies; and Senior Researcher, Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group. Dr Hahn is author of two well-received books, Russia’s Revolution From Above (Transaction, 2002) and Russia’s Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), which was named an outstanding title of 2007 by Choice magazine. He has authored hundreds of articles in scholarly journals and other publications on Russian, Eurasian and international politics and publishes the Islam, Islamism, and Politics in Eurasia Report (IIPER) at CSIS at http://csis.org/program/russia-and-eurasia-program.
"We have enough real enemies in the world; there is no need to manufacture additional ones."
Nixon said it would be easy to save his presidency by creating a foreign policy crisis. In other words, foreign crisis is not always about protecting Democracy, and is not always about REAL enemy. It serves the interests of the American elite, American Big Oil, etc.
But Nixon would not risk American lives. Clinton, on the other hand, would. The Clintons manufactured enemies at every point of their presidency when they needed the cover up. Monica Lewinsky - bomb Iraq. The polls are shaky - Clinton bombs Iraq... 1996 election... Clinton bombs Iraq and win reelection...
You sshould ask somebody to translate the comments on the Russian site InoSmi.ru where your article is published in Russian!
Posted by: Andor | November 14, 2011 at 02:39 PM
I must disagree with you, Gordon, on one important point:
Here, from the official site, is what Putin said about the USSR's collapse
"Прежде всего следует признать, что крушение Советского Союза было крупнейшей геополитической катастрофой века."
(http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2005/04/25/1223_type63372type63374type82634_87049.shtml)
And here is the official English translation from the same source
"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century."
{http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/04/25/2031_type70029type82912_87086.shtml}
Not/not "the greatest" but "a major". He does not use the Russian superlative construction.
One can argue about how major (top 10, top 100) it was of the 20th Century's long list of geopolitical catastrophes but he did not say it was "the greatest".
Of all the thousands and thousands of sentences he has uttered, this is the most commonly misquoted.
Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | November 24, 2011 at 04:36 PM