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.

Theotherrussia.org presents our interview with United Civil Front chairman Garry Kasparov after his meeting with US president Barack Obama. Kasparov was one of a group of Russian opposition figures to meet with Obama Tuesday afternoon in Moscow. (Download the interview in PDF format.)

Interview with United Civil Front Chairman Garry Kasparov after meeting with President Barack Obama
July 7, 2009 – Moscow

Q: You said at the press conference after the meeting with President Obama that his speech today was “less than what we wanted but more than what we expected.” What did you mean?

Garry Kasparov: Ideally he would have named names. He made some strong statements about democracy being the solution and the failure of totalitarianism, far stronger than anything we heard from the last two administrations. But he avoided directly criticizing Putin and Medvedev, the core of our dictatorial system. Nor did Obama mention Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose jailing by Putin and continued imprisonment by Medvedev symbolizes everything Obama was criticizing about authoritarian states.

But he was strong and gave a consistent message. He repeatedly emphasized that the important relationship between America and Russia is about the people, not their regimes. That got a very positive reception here. Obama opened direct lines of communication instead of dealing only with official Kremlin channels.

Q: Aside from Obama’s tone, what about specific positions or policy proposals?

GK: It looks like Putin and his gang have finally met someone who won’t play their little game of give and take. Obama’s tough and he didn’t back away from the most difficult issues. Sovereignty of Russia’s neighbors, mentioning Georgia and Ukraine in particular. He refused to link missile defense to Iran or anything else.

In fact, I don’t see anything that Obama gave up, which likely came as a surprise to Putin, who expected the new American president to be eager to make deals to have a success to report back home. Obama likely surprised some Republicans in the US as well. Before he started his trip, several conservative GOP members wrote an open letter to Obama with recommendations. Not linking missile defense to nuclear arms reduction, defending the rights of Ukraine and Georgia, and meeting with the opposition. From what I can tell, Obama followed each one.

Obama seems like a man who doesn’t try to solve problems that don’t have solutions. He saves his energy and political capital on realistic goals. If there’s a big obstacle he simply takes it off the table and deals with what can be done. Perhaps more importantly he is honest about saying that is what he’s doing. For example, instead of making a lot of meaningless statements about Iran, where Putin’s interests are in direct opposition, Obama moves on to areas where progress can be made. I have to admit I found this practical approach attractive in the end.

Q: What was Obama’s message to the opposition members at your meeting this afternoon?

GK: I think he left a positive impression and I felt he was being open and direct with us. He said he “didn’t live in the abstract, he lived in history,” and that he had to protect the interests of the people who elected him. When he said he wouldn’t make any deals that compromised American principles he sounded more like Reagan than what we have heard from US administrations over the past twenty years. And he kept his word to invite opposition figures from across the ideological spectrum instead of just a few liberals who are considered pro-American.

In my statement I quoted the American civil rights leader John Lewis about not being patient when waiting for freedom. Obama told a story about his time in the state senate of Illinois, how the Republicans were in charge for six years. He felt irrelevant in the opposition, like he couldn’t change anything meaningful. Things change, he said. Then [Communist Party leader Gennady] Zyuganov said that was exactly the way things are now in the Russian Duma! Zyuganov also told Obama he’d done a good job nationalizing the banks and auto companies. It was all he could do not to say, “You’re on the right track, comrade Obama!”

Q: In your statement you mentioned Khodorkovsky and a Senate resolution Obama signed about him in 2005.

GK: Yes, yes, and I was not the only one. Yelena Lukyanova and Boris Nemtsov also brought up Resolution 322 in our meeting. And it was not only Obama, it was also Biden and McCain – something of a coincidence, no? In the resolution they express concern that the case is politically motivated and that it shows the Russian court system is corrupt. And now here we are four years later with Khodorkovsky still in jail and being tried again for even more absurd charges. Obviously Obama’s concerns from 2005 have been more than validated.

So why isn’t the name of this prominent political prisoner a topic? I think the term “political prisoner” is too powerful and brings up heavy memories from the Cold War and the USSR. But it is also accurate, so the truth must be spoken. Several of our activists were arrested for protesting in front of the hotel where our meeting took place today, simply for standing there with a sign.

Q: Several members at the meeting broached the topic of the US improving relations with Cuba. What was Obama’s reaction?

GK: That came from Ilya Ponomariov and Zyuganov. Obama said his administration was open to contacts with the Cuban government and the opposition. He pointed out, however, that unlike in Russia, it was unlikely the Cuban opposition to Castro in the United States would be eager for the US to have closer relations with Cuba. He also frankly admitted there are political restraints on establishing such contacts.

Q: Did you have any parting advice for President Obama? Or he for you?

GK: Well, we both agree it is not for the United States to interfere in Russia. He said “we are watching but not interfering.” I suggested that he have his staff keep an eye on the Russian translations of his remarks, as the Kremlin likes to make little “corrections” to create the image they wish to present. I also presented Obama with a list of victims of state oppression. It helps that Obama’s top advisor on Russia, Mike McFaul, is extremely capable and knowledgeable, and that Obama relies on him.

Statement to President Barack Obama

Thank you, Mr. Obama, for meeting with us here today. It is odd that a meeting with the president of the United States is easier to achieve for most of us than a visit with the president of  Russia. Those of us who oppose the current Kremlin regime have ever-fewer opportunities to express our opposition – not in our fraudulent elections, our state-dominated media, or even in the streets of Russia.

I have spent considerable time in those streets in the last few years marching with thousands of others who want nothing more than to freely choose our own path. For expressing this basic desire they are called traitors and are beaten, arrested, and murdered.

These brave citizens are not troublemakers or criminals, certainly no more so than those who marched for their civil rights – for their human rights – in Selma in 1965. And our thoughts are those of John Lewis, who said “We cannot be patient, we do not want to be free gradually.  We want our freedom, and we want it now.” (Though in Russia the federal troops are on the other side, so a little patience is required.)

And yet when I travel in the West I often hear, even from high-ranking government officials, that Russians are lucky to be freer than we were in the days of the USSR. But we have crossed from a dark forest into a desert. Russia has been turned back on its road to democracy.  Once again we have political prisoners in my country, a reality I once could not imagine. There is only grief when you must explain to your children why you are not ashamed of being arrested, and why their father is not a villain.

Mr. President, your speech today was quite impressive, embracing the Russian people and distinguishing us from our current rulers. I assure you that the mainstream Russian opposition doesn’t see the United States as a threat. Anyone who considers Russia’s national interest – instead of their personal interests – realizes our real challenges, like yours, come from China and radical Islam.

You and President Medvedev are both lawyers, both young, and perhaps have other things in common. But the leaders of this Kremlin regime has fundamentally opposing interests to those of the US as well as interests that directly oppose those of the Russian people you spoke so eloquently about, and no amount of common ground will change that fact.

Prime Minister Putin and his friends have treated the Russian treasury like their personal bank, but only for withdrawals. They are selling the riches of our country from under our feet. In fact, if, President Obama, you wish to go down in history like Thomas Jefferson or William Seward, I’m sure you can get a good deal on several million acres of Russian land during your visit!

You mentioned Honduras today, but here the opposition is taking lessons from another Latin American nation, Chile in 1988, where disparate groups banded together to win a referendum against the Pinochet dictatorship. We come from every part of the ideological spectrum, united only by a desire for free and fair elections and freedom of speech and assembly.  Two days ago we hosted a meeting titled “Russia After Putin” to plan for that brighter future.

There is a great deal of conjecture about the power structure of the government in Russia today, a terrible waste of time. What matters is that it is anything but a democracy. The Russian constitution describes three branches of government. Unfortunately, all three are now contained between the walls of Mr. Putin’s office. To all of President Medvedev’s talk of liberalization, I can say only that talk is cheap. We have seen no meaningful policy changes in the past year to indicate a new course.

To the contrary, things are getting worse. President Medvedev has signed into being some of the most blatant anti-Constitutional practices of the so-called law enforcement programs. I have with me a partial list of recent victims of political oppression that I would like to leave with your staff here today. Unfortunately, even this partial list is quite long.

A single case illustrates all the ills of the regime – political, economic, and judicial. That is the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his company Yukos. Mr. Khodorkovsky and several of his colleagues have been sitting in jail for years for refusing to bend to Putin’s will. In 2005, you and your then fellow-Senators Biden and McCain submitted Resolution 322, expressing concern that the Khodorkovsky case was politically motivated, a violation of Russian law, and a demonstration that the Russian judiciary was not independent. Four years of continued injustice have proven your concerns to be completely valid.

We still have hope despite these setbacks. Do not place Russia on a mythical list of countries that are not ready for democracy. No people on Earth deserve or desire to live under dictatorship. There were two Germanys, now there are two Koreas and two Chinas. The last few weeks in Iran should prove the final repudiation of the fable that some places are genetically resistant to freedom.

Mr. President, you spoke today about a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia. This is also my dream. But today Russia is weak, uneasy, and, despite a decade of rising energy prices, still quite poor outside a select few. Only Russians can solve our crisis, and I believe that we will. And only a Russia freed from the fetters of our dictatorial regime can play the positive role in the world you described so vividly.

Topics of discussion included the new trial against jailed Yukos oil company bosses Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and the US missile defense system.

During his talk, Garry Kasparov presented Obama with a list of opposition figures who have been persecuted and killed recently, as well as a list of prisoners serving politically-motivated sentences in Russia.  (Download Kasparov’s full statement in PDF format here.)

“The US president is prepared to establish relations, not just between the White House and the Kremlin, but between the American people and the Russian people,” Kasparov said at a press-conference after the meeting.

“In my address, I said that the situation with human rights has become worse since Dmitri Medvedev came to power,” Kasparov went on.  “I turned over a brief list of the Russian opposition figures who have been arrested, assaulted or killed in recent years.”

Boris Nemtsov, who jointly leads the Solidarity democratic movement with Kasparov, gave Obama materials on Russian corruption during the meeting, while attorney Yelena Lukyanova presented a list of Russian judges facing persecution for upholding the law.

Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent politician and former head of the Russian Republican party, told journalists that the meeting was “absolutely open.”

“The subject of the second case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev was raised,” Ryzhkov said, going on to name other topics of dicussions like “journalists and freedom of speech, the subject of political prisoners in Russia, beatings and arrests during opposition meetings.”

The fact that the meeting took place at all was also significant, Ryzhkov said.

“The last US president who met not only with authorities, but with the opposition was Bill Clinton.”

Much of the reporting has been serious and laudatory of the negotiations between Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

The media also devoted a good deal of coverage to Barack Obama’s means of transport,  devoting considerable attention to both the White House aircraft –Air Force One—, and the armored limo used to drive Obama through Moscow.  Traffic jams caused by the visit were also heavily reported.

Read about the first day of meetings from Bloomberg.

—

State Run Television Channel 1:

“And today in Moscow, the presidents of the two countries signed new documents.  This isn’t an agreement, but in substance a declaration of intent for reaching a final agreement.  As the experts explain, today’s paper is not legally binding, but politically binding.  Moscow has made it clear that it is linking the agreement with the problem of locating American Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe.  Nonetheless, the sides are calling this document a breakthrough, because the previous US administration refused to discuss even the possibility of such an agreement.”

—

Izvestiya Newspaper:

“If, all of a sudden, [Obama] was counting on a red carpet track and a wild mob of admirers, screaming something like “We love you!” in a Hollywood manner, then nothing of the sort awaited him in Moscow.”

—

Moskovsky Komsomolets Newspaper:

“While Dmitri Medvedev spoke, those in attendance could notice an interesting feature of Barak Obama’s behavior.  During joint press-conferences, heads of state usually look from the podium into the room while their colleague is speaking, only rarely casting a glance at their counterpart.  But the president of the US steadily looked at [Dmitri Anatolyevich Medvedev], as if trying to tell him: “I’m all ears.”  One must admit: Obama was extremely charming in this manner.”
…
On the Missile Defense Shield:

“In whole, the American guest’s words sounded fairly contradictory: on the one hand, he admits that the defensive and offensive potential must be discussed in a single package.  On the other hand, he says that placing Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe should not be seen as a threat to the Russian Federation.  And in such a way notes the correlation between reducing strategic nuclear weapons and the fate of the system of anti-missile defense.

Yet the US has a suggestion: cooperate with Russia to create a system that would defend them from threats originating from third party states.  An one time, [Prime Minister] Vladimir Putin repeatedly spoke out with the proposal to cooperate in the realm of anti-missile defense.  However, the American administration at the time did not come half-way.  The position of the current [administration], as we can see, has softened.  Though it’s unclear what will come of it: Obama said, that this is a subject for more detailed negotiations.”

—

RIA Novosti News Agency:

“The optimism demonstrated by the leaders of Russia and the US in opening the summit turned out to be justified: framework agreements on reducing offensive armaments were signed.  The signed “Joint Understanding on Strategic Arms Reduction” defines the ceilings for reducing strategic arms and should become the basis for a new agreement on strategic nuclear weapons (SNW).”
…

RIA Novosti quotes two analysts in a section titled “Expert Opinion:”

Sergei Oznobishchev, director of the Institute for Strategic Evaluation:

“The meeting that took place is evidence that both presidents understand that it’s essential to move forward, and that solving international problems like nuclear disarmament, terrorism and others won’t happen if they act alone.  Of course there are certain groups that will seriously interfere with the restoration of our relations, but if the presidents have enough wisdom and opportunities, then Russian-American relations are fated to a partnership.

One can avoid this partnership as long as possible, draw it out, bring the matter to nearly the Cold War, but without a partnership between the US and RF we will have trouble in this world.”
…

Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the presidium of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, called the agreements an “absolute compromise:”

“What is being offered is the minimal reductions as compared with 2002 agreements, which limited the number of strategic reserve nuclear warheads of each side to 1700-2000 units.  Both sides can now calmly reduce their warheads to this level, and 1675 units is a small reduction, and each side will be free, evidently, to reduce as much as is convenient.”

“Russia would prefer a deeper reduction in delivery vehicles, because this is economically to our advantage.  The Americans, who can make the greater amount of vehicles, would want a less drastic reduction.  They were prepared for a deeper reduction of warheads.  This is a normal compromise, which suits both sides and leaves all options open, while the treaty question, the negotiations process and the schedule for limiting and reducing strategic offensive armaments receives a new impulse.”

translations by theotherrussia.org

US President Barack Obama sat down for an interview with the Novaya Gazeta, an independent paper known for its in-depth journalism and criticism of the Kremlin.  During the conversation, Obama backed President Medvedev’s judicial reforms, and repeated an earlier pledge to support worldwide freedom of speech and human rights.  The complete interview will be published in full on Monday, June 6th, but Novaya Gazeta has released some excerpts.

“I agree with President Medvedev when he said that ‘freedom is better than the absence of freedom,'” Obama told the paper.  “I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our reset.”

Asked about the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a Novaya Gazeta investigative journalist gunned down in 2006, Obama fell back on his inaugural speech:

“As I said in my inaugural address: ‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'”

The US President also briefly answered a question about the judicial process against businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil tycoon serving a sentence seen by many as political.  Russian prosecutors have launched a second set of charges against Khodorkovsky.

“It does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now,” Obama said.

Obama earlier spoke about the need to improve US-Russian relations, and reiterated his administration’s hope to “press the reset button.”  Obama also noted the many issues and interests that the two countries must face jointly, including the economy, defense, terrorism, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

The US President also made it clear that he viewed Russia as an equal, a change from earlier administrations.

Barack Obama will visit Russia from June 6th to the 8th.  Ahead of his trip, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev admitted that US-Russian relations had fallen to nearly Cold War levels in recent years, adding that now was a time to come together.

While in Moscow, Obama will meet with Kremlin officials, as well as parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition leaders.  Obama has invited some of the Kremlin’s fiercest critics, including United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov and Solidarity chair Boris Nemtsov, to a Tuesday meeting.

—

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S INTERVIEW WITH NOVAYA GAZETA

1. Do you agree with the opinion expressed by many Russian and European politicians that the United States is primarily responsible for the economic difficulties that their countries are now living through?

No. We all are experiencing a severe economic crisis that is affecting the lives of many people in countries around the world.  This crisis resulted from a culture of irresponsibility regarding financial matters that took hold over a number of years in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.  I am proud of our efforts to lead by reforming our regulatory and supervisory systems and promoting an era of responsibility, so that the U.S. and global economies will be stable and growth will be sustained. We of course have an obvious interest in developing policies that stimulate economic growth in the United States, but we also believe that economic growth in our country also will nurture economic growth around the world, including in Russia.
In the 21st century, we all -Americans, Russians, and everyone else – have an interest in fostering world economic growth that benefits us all. We need to spend less time thinking about who is to blame and more time working together to do what needs to be done to get all of our economies moving in the right direction.

2. Do you agree that lies and greed – –  lies about the state of markets and greed of their participants — are the main reasons for the current economic crisis?

As I said to Congress in February, our economy did not fall into decline overnight.  Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank.  We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.  Yet we import more oil today than ever before.  The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.  Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.  And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.  A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.  Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.  People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.  And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

3. Many experts believe that the 21st Century Financial Regulatory Reform you proposed may become the most significant innovation in the U.S. financial system since the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  What do you consider to be the most important element of this reform?  Are we at the doorstep of new transparency of business and finances?

Our regulatory and supervisory reform plans, announced a few weeks ago, are sweeping and important.  The plans include three important components. First, we’re proposing a set of reforms to require regulators to look not only at the safety and soundness of individual institutions, but also — for the first time — at the stability of the financial system as a whole. Second, we’re proposing a new and powerful agency charged with just one job: looking out for ordinary consumers. Third, we’re proposing a series of changes designed to promote free and fair markets by closing gaps and overlaps in our regulatory system — including gaps that exist not just within but between nations. We are called upon to put in place those reforms that allow our best qualities to flourish — while keeping those worst traits in check. We’re called upon to recognize that the free market is the most powerful generative force for our prosperity — but it is not a free license to ignore the consequences of our actions.

4. On November 18, 2005 Senators Obama, Biden and McCain together with other Senators adopted Resolution 232 on the trial, sentence and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy and Platon Lebedev. The Resolution said that “in investigations that present a threat to authorities, Russian courts become instruments of the Kremlin, and cannot be responsible or independent.” Have you been following the new trial of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev?

I do not know the intimate details of these new proceedings, though my advisors most certainly do. However, without knowing the details, it does seem odd to me that these new charges, which appear to be a repackaging of the old charges, should be surfacing now, years after these two individuals have been in prison and as they become eligible for parole. Nonetheless, I think it is improper for outsiders to interfere in the legal processes of Russia. Instead, I would just affirm my support for President Medvedev’s courageous initiative to strengthen the rule of law in Russia, which of course includes making sure that all those accused of crimes have the right to a fair trial and that the courts are not used for political purposes.

5. “Restarting” the relationship implies cooperating with Russia in those areas where it is possible. Does this mean weaker attention to Russia’s observation of civil rights and liberties, and to persecution against and murders of journalists? Specifically, to [the need to] apprehend and punish those who ordered and committed the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya?

Of course not. I seek to reset relations with Russia because I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments recently have not pursued as actively as we could have. For instance, I believe that Americans and Russians both would benefit from fewer nuclear weapons in the world, greater control over nuclear materials around the world, a defeat of extremist elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an Iran that produces nuclear energy but not nuclear weapons, and a North Korea that refrains from launching missiles and exploding nuclear weapons and instead returns to the negotiating table. I also believe that Americans and Russians have a common interest in the development of rule of rule, the strengthening of democracy, and the protection of human rights. As I said in my inaugural address: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” I then emphasized in my Cairo speech that “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.” These are ideas embraced by your president and your people. I agree with President Medvedev when he said that “Freedom is better than the absence of freedom.” So, I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our “reset.”

6. Will you sign the new START treaty if Russia conditions its signing upon non-deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in Central Europe?

In our meeting in London on April 1st, President Medvedev and I issued a joint statement on instructions for our negotiators for this new treaty. These instructions very explicitly did not mention missile defense as a topic of discussion for these negotiations.
At the same time, we understand Russian sensitivities to this issue and have sent several high-level delegations to Moscow over the last several weeks to engage in a serious dialogue about U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defense.

My government is completing a comprehensive review of all of our missile defense programs, including those in Europe. Given the threats around the world, especially those growing from North Korea and Iran, our goal is to enhance missile defense for the United States and our allies in Europe and elsewhere. As I have said many times, such a system has to work, be cost effective, and must address the real threats to the United States and our allies, not imaginary ones. When discussing our plans for Europe, we first and foremost are seeking to build a missile defense system that protects the United States and Europe from an Iranian ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead. We are not building and will not build a system that is aimed to respond to an attack from Russia. Such thinking is simply a legacy of the Cold War.

We have not yet decided how we will configure missile defense in Europe. But my sincere hope is that Russia will be a partner in that project. If we combine our assets on missile defense, the United States, Russia, and our allies will be much safer than if we go it alone. I see a great potential here, and I hope to have a robust discussion with President Medvedev about these possibilities for cooperation on missile defense when I am in Moscow next week.

7. In the course of your presidential campaign, you competed with Hillary Clinton. Does this hinder your joint work now?

Absolutely not. This is the beauty of democracy. Secretary Clinton and I engaged in a hard-fought, very competitive race for the nomination of our party. By the way, without question, these primaries made me a better candidate for the general election against Senator John McCain. But in democracies, once the election is over, then all Americans who care about our country get back to work. It was because of how well I got to know Secretary Clinton during our campaign that I knew she would be such an excellent Secretary of State, and she has served our country with excellence.

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

June 29, 2009

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing in regard to your upcoming visit to the Russian Federation and your meeting with President Medvedev.

As you attempt to set a new tone with the Russians, we believe there are issues of common interest, but we also believe it is crucial that you vigorously defend the values that have been the cornerstone of free markets and free societies. At a minimum, below are three key issues we believe you must raise.

First, with the coming expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, there is little time to complete negotiations.  However, the United States must not concede the key issues in exchange for expediency.  One specific point is the linkage Russian leaders have made between the United States abandoning missile defense and reducing nuclear weapons.

There should be no quid pro quo between deploying defensive capabilities like missile defense and the reduction of offensive nuclear weapons either in a treaty or through separate agreements.  This is essential to our close Czech and Polish allies and a key factor in placement of the “third site.”

Second, during her confirmation process before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Clinton said the United States “cannot accept the notion that Russia has a special say over the future of its independent neighbors.”  Whether it is Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, or other neighbors, Russia aggressively exerts a “special say” over its neighbors.  However, undermining UN peacekeeping operations or the European Union’s Monitoring Mission in Georgia, waging economic warfare with energy during the winter, and conducting cyberattacks are not the actions of a proud and constructive nation.

It is important President Medvedev understands that the United States strongly supports the independence and self determination of all the former Soviet Republics.  As a Senator, you cosponsored a number of resolutions on the ascension of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and we hope you will specifically reaffirm this support with President Medvedev.

Finally, as you know, the interests of the Russian people and the Russian elites are not always the same.  It is important that you seriously address issues like corruption and rule of law, and also take time to visit with members of the opposition and civil society, especially those leaders who are not closely associated with the Kremlin.

There are many tough, but important issues in the relationship between the United States and Russia.  It is imperative that the words you deliver in Moscow are well received in the capitals of our close friends and allies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

We wish you the best of luck on your upcoming trip, and look forward to working together to ensure success in U.S.-Russia relations upon your return.

Sincerely,
Jim DeMint
Jon Kyl
Roger Wicker

CC: The Honorable Hillary R. Clinton
Secretary of State
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense

Obama went on to condemn the Russian authorities, who he said are becoming “increasingly assertive.”

“And when it comes to Georgia and their threats against their neighboring countries,” Obama said, “I think they’ve been acting in a way that’s contrary to international norms.”

At the same time, Obama recognized Russia’s economic gains, saying that “Russia is a country that has made great progress economically over the last several years. Obviously, high oil prices have helped them.”

“We want to cooperate with them where we can,” Obama said, “and there are a whole host of areas, particularly around nonproliferation of weapons and terrorism, where we can cooperate. But we also have to send a clear message that they have to act in ways that are not bullying their neighbors.”

—

Related reading:
Kasparov: Obama Should Look Critically at Russia

Full transcript:

TOM BROKAW: And, briefly, how soon after you take office do you want to meet with the leaders of Russia? And which ones do you meet with? Your counterpart is Medvedev; but, of course, the power behind the throne is Vladimir Putin.

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, this is something that we’re going to make a determination on. I think that it’s going to be important for us to reset US-Russian relations. Russia is a country that has made great progress economically over the last several years. Obviously, high oil prices have helped them. They are increasingly assertive. And when it comes to Georgia and their threats against their neighboring countries, I think they’ve been acting in a way that’s contrary to international norms. We want to cooperate with them where we can, and there are a whole host of areas, particularly around nonproliferation of weapons and terrorism, where we can cooperate. But we also have to send a clear message that they have to act in ways that are not bullying their neighbors.

“For the Sake of One Man”

– by Bret Stephens

The Wall Street Journal – July 17, 2007; Page A16

In the six or seven years in which they interacted on a regular basis, Vladimir Putin’s police state and journalist Fatima Tlisova had a mostly one-way relationship. Ms. Tlisova’s food was poisoned (causing a nearly fatal case of kidney failure), her ribs were broken by assailants unknown, her teenage son was detained by drunken policemen for the crime of not being an ethnic Russian, and agents of the Federal Security Services (FSB) forced her into a car, took her to a forest outside the city of Nalchik and extinguished cigarettes on every finger of her right hand, “so that you can write better,” as one of her tormentors informed her. Last year, the 41-year-old journalist decided she’d had enough. Along with her colleague Yuri Bagrov, she applied for, and was granted, asylum in the United States.

Ms. Tlisova and Mr. Bagrov are, as the wedding refrain has it, something old, something new: characters from an era that supposedly vanished with the collapse of the Soviet Union 16 years ago. Now that era, or something that looks increasingly like it, seems to be upon us again. What can we do?

The most important task is to get some facts straight. Fact No. 1: The Bush administration is not provoking a new Cold War with Russia.

That it is seems to be the view of Beltway pundits such as Anatol Lieven, whose indignation at alleged U.S. hostility to Russia is inversely correlated with his concerns about mounting Russian hostility to the U.S., its allies and the likes of Ms. Tlisova. In an article in the March issue of the American Conservative, the leftish Mr. Lieven made the case against the administration for its “bitterly anti-Russian statements,” the plan to bring Ukraine into NATO and other supposed encroachments on Russia’s self-declared sphere of influence. In this reading, Mr. Putin’s increasingly strident anti-Western rhetoric is merely a response to a deliberate and needless U.S. policy of provocation.

Yet talk to actual Russians and you’ll find that one of their chief gripes with this administration has been its over-the-top overtures to Mr. Putin: President Bush’s “insight” into the Russian’s soul on their first meeting in 2001; Condoleezza Rice’s reported advice to “forgive Russia” for its anti-American shenanigans in 2003; the administration’s decision to permit Russian membership in the World Trade Organization in 2006; the Lobster Summit earlier this month at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport (which Mr. Putin graciously followed up by announcing the “suspension” of Russia’s obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty).

This isn’t a study in appeasement, quite. But it stands in striking contrast to the British government’s decision yesterday to expel four Russian diplomats over Mr. Putin’s refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the former FSB man suspected of murdering Alexander Litvinenko in London last November with a massive dose of polonium. “The heinous crime of murder does require justice,” British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said yesterday. “This response is proportional and it is clear at whom it is aimed.” Would that Dick Cheney walked that talk.

Now turn to Fact No. 2. Russia is acting with increasingly unrestrained rhetorical, diplomatic, economic and political hostility to whoever stands in the way of Mr. Putin’s ambitions.

The enemies’ list begins with Mr. Putin’s domestic critics and the vocations they represent: imprisoned Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky; murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya; harassed opposition leader Garry Kasparov. It continues with foreign companies which have had to forfeit multibillion-dollar investments when Kremlin-favored companies decided they wanted a piece of the action. It goes on to small neighboring democracies such as Estonia, victim of a recent Russian cyberwar when it decided to remove a monument to its Soviet subjugators from downtown Tallinn. It culminates with direct rhetorical assaults on the U.S., as when Mr. Putin suggested in a recent speech that the threat posed by the U.S., “as during the time of the Third Reich,” include “the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world.”

None of these Kremlin assaults can seriously be laid at the White House’s feet, unless one believes the lurid anti-Western conspiracy theories spun out by senior Russian officials. And that brings us to Fact No. 3. Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state.

It does not matter here, as the Kremlin’s apologists are so fond of pointing out, that Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia: Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups and the cunning exploitation of the Church, and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets. Nor does it matter that Mr. Putin hasn’t re-nationalized the “means of production” outright; corporatism was at the heart of Hitler’s economic policy, too.

What matters, rather, is nicely captured in a remark by Russian foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin regarding Britain’s decision to expel the four diplomats. “I don’t understand the position of the British government,” Mr. Kamynin said. “It is prepared to sacrifice our relations in trade and education for the sake of one man.”

That’s a telling remark, both in its substance and in the apparent insouciance with which it was made: The whole architecture of liberal democracy is designed primarily “for the sake of one man.” Not only does Mr. Kamynin seem unaware of it, he seems to think we are unaware of it. Perhaps the indulgence which the West has extended to Mr. Putin’s regime over the past seven years gives him a reason to think so.

Last night, Ms. Tlisova was in Washington, D.C., to accept an award from the National Press Club on behalf of Anna Politkovskaya. “She knew she was condemned. She knew she would be killed. She just didn’t know when, so she tried to achieve as much as she could in the time she had,” Ms. Tlisova said in her prepared statement. “Maybe Anna Politkovskaya was indeed very damaging to the Russia that President Putin has created. But for us, the people of the Caucasus, she was a symbol of hope and faith in another Russia — a country with a conscience, honor and compassion for all its citizens.”

How do we deal with the old-new Russia? By getting the facts straight. That was Politkovskaya’s calling, as it is Ms. Tlisova’s, as it should be ours.

Reprinted with permission from The Wall Street Journal.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

• The U.S. should emphasize to Russians that, although it supports democratic institutions, the core of the U.S. position is support for moral values. This means opposing criminality, corruption, the assassination of political opponents and the reckless waste of lives in hostage situations.
• Russian relations should be based on complete frankness. Self censorship on the part of the U.S. has not induced Russia to moderate its international behavior.

While we agree with their general conclusions about the condition of human rights and freedom in Russia, we want to make one thing clear. Russia does not need lectures from America on moral values or anything else, certainly not from a Bush administration with rock-bottom credibility on these matters. Instead, Russians, and the rest of the un-free world, would like to see America and other western democracies live up to their own rhetoric and rebuild that lost credibility. Hypocrisy is poison when it allows the US to promote democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan while saying little about Russia. And how credible would American criticism be when Bush insists he and “Vladimir” are still good pals and Russia is still welcomed in the G-7? Lead by consistent example and high moral standards, not by lecture.