In his latest op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov stresses the urgency of passing the Magnitsky Act – a US Senate bill that would block entry to the country and freeze the assets of 60 Russian officials involved with the cover-up and murder of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. In a significant move towards its eventual passage, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the bill on Wednesday.

How Obama Can Support Russia and Oppose Putin
By Garry Kasparov
June 27, 2012

President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin met for two hours last week during the Group of 20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. The meeting was described in the press as “chilly,” which is no surprise. For Mr. Obama, seeing Mr. Putin across from him was a concrete reminder that his administration’s “reset” policy has been a bust, that all the time spent promoting the fantasy of former president Dmitry Medvedev as a liberal alternative to Mr. Putin had been a waste.

Immediately prior to the G-20 summit, top Russian officials announced that Mr. Putin’s highest priority in meeting Mr. Obama would be the Magnitsky Act, a piece of pending U.S. legislation that would apply travel and financial sanctions against Russian functionaries complicit in the 2009 torture and murder of anticorruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Critically, the act can also be extended to those who commit similar crimes.

This was a startling admission for the Putin regime to make. I have long promoted the idea of going after the money and travel privileges of the Kremlin loyalists who keep Mr. Putin’s criminal regime operational. The surprise was his in effect confessing how afraid of the act he is. He clearly felt it necessary to publicly reassure his rank and file that he would fight to protect their ill-gotten wealth and lifestyles.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is focused on improving trade relations with Russia, emphasizing the need to repeal the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which prevents the U.S. from granting most-favored-nation status to countries that restrict emigration. In doing so she has argued that even the Russian opposition is in favor of repealing Jackson-Vanik.

This is a half-truth. We of the opposition are hardly of like mind on everything, but nearly all of us agree that it is important to replace the obsolete Jackson-Vanik Amendment with the Magnitsky Act instead of simply repealing it. The objective of such a law is to deter further human-rights violations in Russia by altering the climate of impunity.

Mr. Putin’s May 7 inauguration was followed by crackdowns against the pro-democracy movement, including raids on the homes of opposition leaders and their families and a massive raise in the fines and jail sentences for participating in demonstrations. While more than a dozen protesters are already behind bars, the raids and arrests continue. As ever, the application of the law is focused on punishing opposition activities that are supposed to be protected by the Russian constitution. The police and judiciary understand that by protecting Mr. Putin’s power, they gain ultimate immunity.

The Magnitsky Act would shake the foundation of Mr. Putin’s power base. It is less clear why the Obama administration has worked so hard to bury it. Abroad, Mr. Putin’s Russia continues to sell arms to the Assad dictatorship in Syria and generally do everything possible to keep the Middle East at a boil—the better to keep oil prices high.

In March, President Obama was overheard telling Mr. Medvedev he would have “more flexibility” to address Russian interests after his re-election. Yet Mr. Obama looks all too flexible already. Negotiating on trade or missile defense is all well and good, but when you put moral values on the table with a dictatorship you lose every time.

America should be siding with the Russian people, not with Mr. Putin. Russia is not America’s foe. We have much in common—struggles with radical Islam, concerns about Chinese influence and expansionism, real shared strategic interests. Mr. Putin’s Russia, on the other hand, is concerned only with power and the oil and gas profits needed to maintain it. Yes, a free Russia will compete with the U.S., but it will not be an unwavering adversary.

Ronald Reagan understood history and its lesson that appeasing dictators never works for long. By passing the Magnitsky Act, which was unanimously approved Tuesday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the United States will be supporting the Russian people, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and protecting its own long-term interests. Being “flexible” on these issues will only prove the old saying that by standing for nothing, you will fall for anything.

Mr. Kasparov is the leader of the Russian pro-democracy group the United Civil Front and chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation. He lives in Moscow.

A version of this article appeared June 27, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: How Obama Can Support Russia and Oppose Putin.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged what she calls a global crackdown on human rights during a trip through former Soviet republics over the weekend, lamenting a “steel vise” squeezing the life out of social activism.

Clinton arrived in Azerbaijan on Sunday after declaring in Poland that intolerant governments, including Russia’s, are undercutting rights groups whose work is vital to the development of democracy. She said the trend is apparent and growing worse, even in countries that call themselves democracies.

At the palatial residence of President Ilham Aliyev, overlooking the vast, glimmering Caspian Sea, Aliyev and Clinton spoke briefly before reporters and television cameras.

Aliyev stressed the urgency of his country’s territorial dispute with neighboring Armenia. The two nations are in conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave in Azerbaijan that has been under control of Armenian troops and ethnic Armenian forces since a 1994 cease-fire.

“This is the major problem for us and the major threat to regional security,” he said.

At an airport news conference later with her Azeri counterpart, Elmar Mammadyarov, Clinton said they had discussed at length the territorial dispute.

“The final steps toward peace are often the most difficult, but we believe peace is possible,” Clinton told reporters.

“This is a high priority for the United States,” she added. She said the 1994 cease-fire agreement “must be enforced.”

Following her meeting with Aliyev, Clinton gathered with about a dozen Azeri youth activists, including bloggers, to encourage them to speak out in favor of social change.

She said she raised the issue of freedom of expression in her talks with Aliyev.

On Saturday, addressing an international conference in Poland on democracy and human rights, Clinton recalled Winston Churchill’s warning 60 years ago that an iron curtain was descending across Europe. She noted that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, that curtain no longer remains.

“But we must be wary of the steel vise in which governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit,” she said.

Among the offenders she cited: Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Cuba, Belarus, Egypt, Iran, Venezuela, China and Russia.

Clinton said her current trip, which began in Ukraine on Thursday and was to include stops in Armenia and Georgia, is intended to demonstrate the Obama administration’s commitment to democracy and human rights.

In Ukraine, Clinton praised the new Moscow-friendly leadership for its pursuit of democracy, skimming over concerns about a rollback of liberties.

At a joint news conference with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Clinton said the Obama administration supports efforts by Ukraine to deepen its relationship with Russia, so long as it also remains open to closer ties to the United States and Europe.

Yanukovych said he views the United States as a reliable strategic partner and is prepared to take new steps to build a stronger partnership.

Clinton also met privately at her Kiev hotel with former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who lost the February presidential election to Yanukovych and remains his political enemy.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov calls for President Barack Obama to face the reality of Russia’s interests in continued high tensions in the Middle East, and to take a serious stance in talks with Moscow over Iran’s nuclear program.

Russia Worries About the Price of Oil, Not a Nuclear Iran
The Obama administration’s foreign-policy goodwill has yet to be repaid in kind.

By GARRY KASPAROV
October 18, 2009
Wall Street Journal

Last Wednesday in Moscow, the remaining illusions the Obama administration held for cooperation with Russia on the Iranian nuclear program were thrown in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s face. Stronger sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, just days after President Dmitry Medvedev said sanctions were likely inevitable. This apparent inconsistency should remind us that Mr. Medvedev is little more than a well-placed spectator, and that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who discounted sanctions in a statement from Beijing, is still the voice that matters.

This slap comes after repeated concessions—canceling the deployment of missile defenses in Eastern Europe, muted criticism of Russia’s sham regional elections—from the White House. Washington’s conciliatory steps have given the Kremlin’s rulers confidence they have nothing to fear from Mr. Obama on anything that matters.

And nothing matters more to Mr. Putin and his oligarchs than the price of oil. Even with oil at $70 a barrel, Russia’s economy is in bad straits. Tension in the Middle East, even an outbreak of war, would push energy prices higher. A nuclear-armed Iran would, of course, be harmful to Russian national security, but prolonging the crisis is beneficial to the interests of the ruling elite: making money and staying in power.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy has directed a great deal of optimism and good will toward friends and foes. Such a cheery outlook is commendable as long as it does not clash with reality. Unfortunately, there were several clashes in the past week.

On Wednesday, a top Russian security chief, Nikolai Patrushev, said in an interview in Izvestia, one of the main Kremlin propaganda papers, that Russia was planning to reshape its policies on nuclear force to allow for pre-emptive strikes and use in regional conflicts. Since it cannot be a coincidence that this news leaked while Mrs. Clinton was still in Moscow, it can be considered a response to Mr. Obama’s talk of a world without nuclear weapons and rescinding the deployment of missile defenses.

Also last week, Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov was cleared of wrongdoing for dispatching a squad of his paratroopers to interfere with the criminal investigation of a firm owned by his son-in-law. Transcripts of the general’s phone calls demonstrating his involvement were published in Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the last print outlet critical of the Kremlin. But this was not enough to cause trouble for this idol of the second Chechen war, where his forces were repeatedly accused by Human Rights Watch and other organizations of atrocities against civilians.

Then there was the spectacle of Russia’s regional elections. They were as fraudulent and superfluous as every election under Mr. Putin’s reign, with real opposition candidates barred and the ruling United Russia party receiving its predetermined majority. This time the fraud was too blatant even for Kremlin-allowed opposition party leaders Alexander Zhirinovsky and Gennady Zyuganov, who loudly protested results that have moved Russia to the verge of a one-party dictatorship. Mr. Medvedev asserted that the elections had gone perfectly well. Meanwhile, the U.S. statement expressed the usual concerns and quoted President Medvedev’s own words on the importance of free and fair elections—as if he would be shamed by them.

From the shameless expect no shame. And from a corrupt and criminal regime, expect no changes unless real consequences are put on the table. With Russia, this would mean going after Mr. Putin’s coterie of oligarchs and hitting them where it hurts: their privileges and their pocketbooks. If the European Union and the U.S. started canceling visas and prying into finances, they would find the Kremlin far more interested in sanctions against Iran. Mr. Putin has used human rights and democracy as bargaining chips because these things matter to the West and not to him. Until the game is played for stakes with value to the Kremlin, it’s a one-sided contest.

If the U.S. is serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then Mr. Obama must get to the point and state the penalties unequivocally. Repeating over and over that it is “unacceptable” has become a joke. For more than 10 years a nuclear North Korea was also “unacceptable.” If Mr. Obama says the U.S. will do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, then we will see if Tehran blinks. At a minimum, the White House should publicly promise that any attack on Israel with weapons of mass destruction will be treated as an attack on American soil and urge NATO to make a similar commitment.

Like many Russians, I was encouraged by Mr. Obama’s inspirational speech in Moscow last July, but he must know there is more to statesmanship than printing money and making speeches. Inflated rhetoric, like inflated currency, can lead to disaster. The goodwill bubble Mr. Obama is creating will burst unless there are real results soon.

Mr. Kasparov, leader of The Other Russia coalition, is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal.