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.

Sanction Putin’s Criminals

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate will hold a hearing to discuss the accession of Russia to the World Trade Organization and the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that impedes American trade relations with Russia. The Obama administration has portrayed it as little more than overdue Cold War housekeeping while touting the imagined economic benefits for American farmers that could result from freer trade with Russia.

But the reality on the ground in today’s authoritarian Russia is far more complex. We support the repeal, both as leaders of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia and as Russian citizens who want our nation to join the modern global economy. It is essential, however, to see the bigger picture of which Jackson-Vanik is a part.

The “election” of Vladimir Putin to the presidency is over, but the fight for democracy in Russia is just beginning. At both major opposition meetings following the fraudulent March 4 election, we publicly resolved that Mr. Putin is not the legitimate leader of Russia. The protests will not cease and we will continue to organize and prepare for a near future without Mr. Putin in the presidency. Getting rid of him and his cronies is a job for Russians, and we do not ask for foreign intervention. We do, however, ask that the U.S. and other leading nations of the Free World cease to provide democratic credentials to Mr. Putin. This is why symbols matter, and why Jackson-Vanik still matters.

The new U.S. ambassador to Russia is Mike McFaul, who has a long and accomplished career as a champion for democratic rights. But he’s now become the principal architect of the Obama administration’s attempt to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations after the Bush presidency, and he has recently been pushing the case for repealing Jackson-Vanik. Earlier this week he told an audience at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., that there is “no relationship” between the repeal of Jackson-Vanik and the promotion of Russian democracy. “If you don’t believe me,” he said, “ask [Alexei] Navalny,” the Russian blogger who has become one of the charismatic new leaders of Russia’s democracy movement.

So we asked Mr. Navalny, who, along with several other members of the opposition leadership, signed a letter cited by Mr. McFaul calling for the removal of Russia from Jackson-Vanik. “Of course no one in Russia is foolish enough to defend Jackson-Vanik,” he told us. “But we also understand that it should be replaced with something else. And we said as much in our letter when we recommended the passing of the Magnitsky Act, as has been done in Europe.”

Mr. Navalny is referring to the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, which was introduced in the U.S. Senate last May with wide bipartisan support. Named for the Russian attorney who died in police custody in 2009 while investigating official corruption, the Magnitsky Act would bring visa and asset sanctions against Russian government functionaries culpable of criminal and human rights abuses.

“Such legislation is not anti-Russian,” Mr. Navalny explained. “In fact I believe it is pro-Russian. It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad.”

It will not be easy to match the legacy of Jackson-Vanik. On March 15, 1973, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson introduced the amendment on the Senate floor. It focused on a specific human-rights issue—the right of Soviet Jews to leave the U.S.S.R. The amendment’s greatest opponent was then-National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who worried it would upset his vision of détente with the Soviets and instead advocated “quiet diplomacy.” In contrast, the Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Andrei Sakharov praised the amendment as a “policy of principle” that would further détente, not hinder it. The well over one million émigrés who escaped the repressive Soviet state would surely side with Sakharov.

Jackson-Vanik is a relic and its time has passed. But allowing it to disappear with nothing in its place, and right on the heels of the fantastically corrupt “election” of March 4, turns it into little more than a gift to Mr. Putin. Our economy, like our people, will never truly flourish until Mr. Putin and his mafia structure are expunged.

Moreover, if economic engagement is the best way to promote an open society, why does the Obama administration not forge a free-trade pact with Iran instead of levying sanctions? Russia will be joining the World Trade Organization regardless of what the U.S. does. But WTO membership will not undo Mr. Putin’s monopolization of political and economic power. If Mr. Putin and his oligarchs believed for an instant that the WTO might weaken their grip, they simply would stay out.

The Obama administration is not only attempting to overturn a law, but also its spirit. As Mr. Kissinger did 39 years ago, Amb. McFaul is trying to make the case that human rights should not get in the way of realpolitik and the business of doing business. He reminds us that the State Department already has its own secret list of banned Russian officials, and so nothing more need be done. But the entire object of such laws is to publicly shame and punish the rank and file of Mr. Putin’s mob so they know the big boss can no longer protect them.

The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is an example of such legislation. Replacing Jackson-Vanik with it would promote better relations between the people of the U.S. and Russia while refusing to provide aid and comfort to a tyrant and his regime at this critical moment in history. This, too, would be a policy of principle.

Messrs. Kasparov and Nemtsov are co-chairs of the Russian Solidarity movement.

A version of this article appeared Mar. 15, 2012, on page A15 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Right Way to Sanction Russia.

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.

Putin’s Ninth Year in Power
Russia’s new president hasn’t changed the nature of the regime.
May 13, 2009

By GARRY KASPAROV

It has become fashionable to speak of change and liberalization in Russia under President Dmitry Medvedev. May 7 marked his one-year anniversary in office. He has recently granted an interview with an opposition newspaper, allowed a few human-rights activists to criticize Russia’s regime, and even started a blog. There is also a new administration in Washington that wants a fresh start with foreign powers.

However, Mr. Medvedev’s gestures have not been matched by policy. It is more appropriate to think of Russia as living under Vladimir Putin’s ninth year in power. Mr. Putin is now prime minister but still in charge. His agenda of oppression and plunder is still the course in Russia. The Kremlin’s willingness to install its candidates in office and persecute its opponents remains undiminished.

Last month, the Putin government inserted itself into the mayoral election in Sochi, a resort town on the Black Sea that has been selected to host the 2014 Winter Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) picked the subtropical Sochi after what must have been an extraordinary lobbying effort on behalf of the Russian government. Sochi has a near total lack of infrastructure needed to support an event as large as the Olympics. Getting the city ready for the Games will result in a massive looting of the state treasury to construct, among other things, vast new developments on swampland. Russia is budgeting $15 billion for the project, while Canada is spending $2 billion on the 2010 Vancouver Games. Look for friends of Mr. Putin to benefit from the coming splurge on construction.

Sochi’s residents are being pushed out of their homes and construction will proceed regardless of whether cemeteries or wetlands stand in the way. The construction will be an ecological as well as a human-rights catastrophe. Will the IOC intervene or say even a word? Will the leaders of the Free World be so eager to press the reset button with Russia that they too will say nothing?

Sochi’s residents are speaking up and, surprisingly, in the mayoral election held there in late April there was a real opposition candidate. Sochi native Boris Nemtsov is a charismatic leader who served as deputy prime minister under Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s. As has become standard practice in our elections, however, the United Russia incumbent, Anatoly Pakhomov, refused to debate or even mention his rival. Meanwhile, the media dutifully served up United Russia propaganda by publishing outlandish slanders against Mr. Nemtsov. (Including accusations that he tried to sell the Olympiad to the South Koreans, who lost the bid to Sochi.)

Mr. Nemtsov did appear on the ballot, a rare feat for an opposition candidate in Russia. But this was no demonstration of Mr. Medvedev’s “liberalization.” The Kremlin left nothing to chance. Early voting (which involves ballots being cast before Election Day and held in a “secure” location) is typically exercised by just a handful of voters in Russia. But in Sochi, more than 25% of the ballots cast for mayor were early votes — roughly 100 times higher than in previous Russian elections. More than 90% of these votes went to Mr. Pakhomov. He won the race with 77% of the vote. There were other irregularities. At one polling station the number of ballots tallied was 250 higher than the total number of ballots distributed.

Simply appointing mayors would violate the European Charter, to which Russia is a signatory, so elections will continue. But just in case United Russia ever comes up short, Mr. Medvedev is pushing a new law that will allow city councils to remove elected mayors by a two-thirds vote with no appeal to a court.

Some of Mr. Putin’s opponents cannot be eliminated simply by rigging an election. The new show trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky (once Russia’s richest man) and his business partner, Platon Lebedev, is a case in point. Terrified by the scheduled 2011 release of this clearly unbroken man, the Putin regime has decided to extend Mr. Khodorkovsky’s sentence. The new charges accuse Mr. Khodorkovsky’s old company, Yukos, of stealing all the oil it ever produced.

The prosecution has no answer to Mr. Khodorkovsky’s question why, if Yukos was a criminal organization, its properties weren’t seized and investigated instead of quickly auctioned off to Mr. Putin’s allies? Eager to see the surreal spectacle for myself, I attended the trial in Moscow last week.

It has been obvious from the moment of his arrest in 2003 that Mr. Khodorkovsky’s prison term will be no shorter — and I’d wager not much longer — than Mr. Putin’s reign. Knowing full well the court will deliver whatever verdict is demanded by the Kremlin, the prosecution must nevertheless read its lines in the play. And it does resemble a scripted drama, as the judge has precluded the defense from challenging documents presented by the prosecution during the trial.

One of the prosecutors attempted to insult the defense attorneys by quoting Blaise Pascal, who once wrote something to the effect that an advocate has much greater confidence in his cause when retained for a large fee. During the break I asked her if she knew another of Pascal’s lines: “Unable to fortify justice, they have justified force.”

There are optimistic rumors in the West of a potential rift between Messrs. Medvedev and Putin. With the steep drop in energy prices, the Russian economy in free fall, and the need to find a scapegoat, a clash is likely. But it will not be because the two men differ significantly in matters of morality and power. We have seen enough to recognize that they are both enemies of democracy, open competition, and free expression.

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

“What’s happening in Russia is that we are witnessing the survival gambit of a corrupt regime,” he writes. “The question is whether the West will bail out the Russian dictatorship or let it fall.”

Beware of Doing Deals With Putin
The U.S. shouldn’t get too cozy with a regime on the skids.
By GARRY KASPAROV
March  5, 2009

Vladimir Putin’s regime is fighting for its political life. That’s the good news. But the bad news is that the Obama administration is sending out mixed messages that may help the Russian autocratic regime survive.

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Geneva, Switzerland. The agenda will include talks on arms control and NATO. But in the forefront of everyone’s mind should be the secret letter that President Barack Obama recently sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The New York Times broke the story this week, reporting that Mr. Obama’s letter proffered a deal for the U.S. to “back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe” in exchange for Moscow’s help in stopping Iran from “developing long-range weapons.”

The thinking here is not sound. Russia’s overwrought protest against antimissile systems never sprung from any genuine strategic fear. It was always a ploy and a distraction from its real agenda.

Mr. Putin — who is now prime minister of Russia — relies heavily on oil revenues to maintain his grip on power. It is in his interests to increase tensions in the Middle East as a way of driving up global oil prices. There is no deal the U.S. can cut to stop Mr. Putin’s Russia from arming Mideast terrorists and helping Iran’s nuclear program.

Secret letters aside, there are other troubling signals coming out of the Obama administration. One such sign came last week in Japan, where Mrs. Clinton talked about the “three Ds” of U.S. national security. She listed defense, diplomacy and development. But she left off the vital fourth “D” — democracy. The omission was no doubt welcomed by Mr. Putin.

Another troubling sign came in Munich, Germany, last month, where Vice President Joe Biden talked about the need for “pushing the reset button” on America’s relationship with Russia. But pushing reset won’t pressure Mr. Putin into acting responsibly on the world stage. It will only obscure, for a time, Russia’s malignant and contagious virus of authoritarianism.

While all these deals and olive branches are being extended to the Kremlin, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Putin regime is teetering toward collapse. One sign: Russia is beefing up its federal security forces in order to violently repress public protests. Last month, for example, the regime created the “National Center of Crisis Management,” which will deploy uniformed troops against “disturbances.”

It probably won’t be enough to quell public anger. Protests are increasing in Russia because many voters didn’t care that their elections were rigged until inflation started squeezing them. Time has run out on the illusion of economic prosperity for the average Russian.

Meanwhile, the Russian National Welfare Fund — created to back up the state pension system — is being raided to prop up the monopolistic industries belonging to Mr. Putin’s closest allies. Billions are being handed out to the likes of oligarchs Oleg Deripaska, Sergey Chemezov and Roman Abramovich — money that is going to service debt, not to develop industry.

When even billionaires are feeling the pinch, this may not be enough to arrest the slide. In the past year, according to the magazine Finans, the number of Russian billionaires was cut in half to 49 from 101. Many of those who remain may be billionaires only on paper; it appears that many of them have debts that exceed assets. This may be why Mr. Putin attended the World Economic Forum in Davos recently to push debt forgiveness.

Consider also that the Kremlin just struck a deal with China to send Russian oil to China at rock-bottom prices (under $20/barrel) for 20 years in exchange for $25 billion in loans. Powerful countries don’t cut such deals unless they are desperate for cash. What’s happening in Russia is that we are witnessing the survival gambit of a corrupt regime. The question is whether the West will bail out the Russian dictatorship or let it fall.

Some may doubt the fragility of the Putin government. But there are plenty of examples in history of supposedly entrenched regimes falling quickly. In late 1989, many in the West were surprised to see the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Others didn’t foresee the sweeping away of totalitarian regimes in Poland and Hungary.

Mr. Putin and his allies live in fear of a popular uprising because it would likely force them into bankruptcy, exile and even prison. They cannot be expected to operate Russia as a rational state actor. Indeed, they may relish a violent clash with a contrived enemy in hopes of building nationalistic support — the war with Georgia this past summer may just be a prelude.

The West must not be tempted by a desire to maintain comfortable relations with the current government in charge of Russia. After years of criminal mismanagement, the Russian economy is falling apart more rapidly than those of other industrialized nations. The popular outrage that will lead to regime change will stem from the public realization that the Russian economy is in worse shape than other leading nations.

In fact, it is no longer taboo in Russia to speak openly of the post-Putin era — even among regime loyalists. The foreign businessmen and politicians eager to play ball with Mr. Putin should bear in mind that in all likelihood Mr. Putin will not be around that much longer. Nor will the dubious deals that he and his friends are making in Russia’s name for their own profit go unexamined after they are gone.

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

Those looking for a bright side in the global economic meltdown are fond of invoking the old line about finding opportunity in a crisis. But also keep in mind that there are those who will incite a new crisis to escape or distract from the current one. This is the scenario looming in Russia as the Kremlin faces increasing pressure on multiple fronts.

Russia and its fellow petrodictatorships are in dire need of a way to ratchet up global tensions to inflate the sagging price of oil. Petrodictators, after all, need petrodollars to stay in power. The war in Gaza and the otherwise inexplicable skirmish with Ukraine over natural gas have helped the Kremlin in this regard, but $50 a barrel isn’t going to be nearly enough. It will have to reach at least $100 and it will have to happen soon.

The effects of the financial crisis are rapidly reaching every level of Russian society. With no avenue for political expression left open to us, Russians are ready to take to the streets. Vladimir Putin has reacted true to form, ramming through new “anti-extremism” laws, building up the interior ministry’s paramilitary police forces, and increasing the volume of the xenophobic propaganda in state-controlled media.

The natural place for the Kremlin to find its new crisis is the Middle East. Open hostilities between Iran and Israel would lift the price of oil back to a level that would allow Mr. Putin and his gang to keep funding the crackdown. Israel’s anxiety over Iran’s nuclear-weapon ambitions is the most vulnerable link in a very weak chain.

There persists a very damaging myth in the West, spouted by politicians and the press, that says Russia’s assistance is needed with Iran and other rogue states. In fact, the Kremlin has been stirring this pot for years and has a vested interest in further increasing turmoil in the region. The Hamas/Hezbollah rockets, based on the Russian Katyusha and Grad, are not delivered via DHL from Allah. It doesn’t require the guile of a KGB man like Mr. Putin to imagine a way to accelerate Iran’s nuclear program, which has been aided by Russian technology and protected by the Kremlin from meaningful international action.

So the question for Western leaders is whether they doubt Mr. Putin would hesitate to provoke a war in the Middle East. If his regime falls, he and his cronies will face the loss of their immense fortunes and criminal prosecution when their looting is exposed. What are thousands of lives in the Middle East to a Kremlin mob that is openly preparing for the day when they will have to open fire on their own citizens to stay in power?

This “mad bear” theory is even more plausible when you consider how tolerant the current cohort of Western leaders has been regarding the destruction of democratic rights around the world. There appears to be no line the world’s despots — and would-be despots — cannot cross with impunity.

It is time to bury the failed model of dealing with the world’s antidemocratic and bloodthirsty regimes. The real change we must effect in 2009 is toward a new global emphasis on the value of human life. Anything less confirms to the enemies of democratic civilization that everything is negotiable. For Mr. Putin that means democracy; for Hamas it means Israel’s existence. The Free World must take those chips off the table.

Israel has the capability to annihilate Gaza to secure the safety of its people, but it chooses not to do so because the Israelis value human life. Does anyone doubt for a moment what Hamas would do if it had the power to wipe out every one of the five-and-a-half million Jews in Israel? Hamas should not be considered less a villain simply because it does not as yet possess the means to fulfill its genocidal agenda.

Terror suspects such as the United Kingdom’s “liquid-bomb” plotters and the recently convicted group plotting to kill U.S. soldiers at the Fort Dix military base were arrested before they were able to carry out their lethal plans. Those who call Israel’s assault on Gaza disproportionate should write down on a piece of paper exactly how many Israelis should die before the Israeli Defense Forces respond.

The leaders of Europe and the U.S. are hoping that the tyrants and autocrats of the world will just disappear. But dinosaurs like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and Iran’s ayatollahs are not going to fade away by natural causes. They survive because the leaders of the Free World are afraid to take a stand.

Years from now, when Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is either dead or deposed, his legacy will lead to another genocide trial in The Hague. Why don’t Western powers, many of whom are condemning Israel’s action in Gaza, take action now to stop the extermination in Zimbabwe instead of waiting a decade for a trial? Criticizing Israel is easy while rescuing Zimbabwe is hard. Choosing the path of least resistance is moral cowardice. It does not avoid difficult decisions, it only postpones them.

Mr. Putin’s Russia has invaded one neighbor and is threatening to freeze much of Europe by shutting down natural gas pipelines that flow through Ukraine. But since confronting Mr. Putin would take courage, Western leaders pretend his help is needed. This policy of self-deception will have disastrous consequences.

The futile pursuit of balance and neutrality by Western leaders and the media has become nothing more than a cover-up for the gravest of crimes. No doubt they would have judiciously considered the “legitimate grievances” of Stalin, Hitler and bin Laden. The time to stand up to such monsters is before they have achieved their horrific goals, not after.

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

—

November 20, 2008
Garry Kasparov

Obama Should Look Into Putin’s Record, Not His Eyes

The U.S. has the chance for a fresh start on Russia relations.

Even as Barack Obama faces front-page issues like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, he will still have to find the time and courage to deal with a certain nuclear-armed autocracy that controls much of the world’s oil and gas.

How should Mr. Obama deal with Russia’s official president, Dmitry Medvedev, and Russia’s real leader, Vladimir Putin? The choice is straightforward: Mr. Obama can treat them like fellow democratic leaders or like the would-be dictators that they are. His decision will tell the world a great deal about how seriously he takes his promises of change.

The Kremlin is very eager to be accepted as an equal. It apparently hopes that Mr. Obama will send the signal that democracy in Russia doesn’t matter, that the Kremlin’s crushing of the opposition and free speech is irrelevant, and that annexing pieces of neighboring Georgia is a local issue and not an international one.

Last week Mr. Medvedev was in France to meet with the leaders of Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the current European Union president, tripped over his tongue to ingratiate himself and to present himself as a great peacemaker.

Mr. Sarkozy proudly announced that Russia had “mostly completed” its obligations to resolve the conflict with Georgia. But there is no way to “mostly” accept a dictatorship.

Russia’s ruling elite has close allies among the European nations that Mr. Obama is expected to woo. I am far less concerned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s clownish remarks about Mr. Obama’s “suntan” than about the way he so eagerly rushes to defend the commercial and political interests of Mr. Putin’s clan.

Leaders like Messrs. Berlusconi and Sarkozy have no allegiance to the nation of Russia. Rather, they are defending Mr. Putin as a means to protect their personal and business relationships. Will Mr. Obama’s desire to be the toast of Europe come at the expense of democracy in Russia? Mr. Obama must listen very carefully when European voices defend the Putin regime. Nearly always there is the hiss of gas or the bubbling of oil in the background.

Last weekend Mr. Medvedev was in Washington to continue his new charm offensive. But Mr. Obama must remember that he was selected by over 66 million votes while Mr. Medvedev needed only one — that of his predecessor, Mr. Putin.

There is little doubt the most recent elections in Russia had even less value than those in Venezuela and Iran. Russia’s own “supreme leader” cannot be treated as a true democratic representative if the new U.S. administration wishes to maintain any credibility on matters of human rights and freedom abroad. For a glimpse into Russia’s “democracy,” just look at its idea of a bailout. While Washington is worried about Main Street, in Russia the government wants to rescue the oligarchs — at the expense of the Russian taxpayer.

In Mr. Medvedev’s Nov. 5 speech in Moscow, he assured the mafia running the country that everything is business-as-usual despite the global financial crisis. He also talked about extending the presidential and parliamentary terms of office, even though the next Russian parliamentary elections aren’t until 2011.

The speech sent two signals. First, that the Constitution, praised by Mr. Medvedev as the “cornerstone of law,” can be twisted. This helps pave the way for Mr. Putin’s return to his old Kremlin office, perhaps even before all the furniture has been moved out. Equally important, it says that Messrs. Medvedev and Putin aren’t going anywhere until they are forced to leave.

In a Nov. 7 meeting of senior officials, Mr. Medvedev instructed the interior minister to crush any demonstrators “exploiting the crisis” as extremists and criminals. If the EU has “mostly” ignored bloodshed in Georgia, would they accept it in Russia as well?

The collapsing Russian economy precipitated Mr. Medvedev’s new batch of threats. The vast majority of Russians, who haven’t shared the trough with Mr. Putin’s elites over the past decade, are realizing that they never will. When Mr. Medvedev took office he said that Russia would become a global financial center and that the ruble would become a reserve currency of choice. But with oil nearing $50 a barrel, the charade of a strong and stable Russia is over. The ruble is becoming a reserve currency — in Russia. With so many aspects of life in Russia deteriorating simultaneously, the regime has to squeeze harder to keep control.

Each day decreases the likelihood of a quiet transition of power later on. As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Such talk about the fall of the Putin regime is not just wishful thinking. Remember all the experts who failed to anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Do not believe that the damage from a violent fall would be limited to within Russia’s borders. Gazprom and its ilk have many allies in the Western companies and administrations that currently serve as the Kremlin’s enablers. There is also the issue of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal and large, though impoverished, military.

Mr. Medvedev’s posturing about the supposed threat of NATO expansion — and about deploying missiles near the Polish border in response to the U.S. missile shield — are part of his plan to get Western leaders to leave him alone so that he can continue his looting. Mr. Obama must quickly make clear that he will not tolerate this. He cannot repeat his predecessor’s mistake and look into Mr. Putin’s eyes instead of looking at his record.

Mr. Obama’s character is already being tested. He will fail unless he labels the Putin dictatorship correctly from the start. If he does, Mr. Obama might even be able to help bring hope and change to an entirely new constituency: 142 million Russians.

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

—

Putin Is Ruining Russia’s Economy
Sept. 19, 2008
By GARRY KASPAROV

Moscow

This week’s global market catastrophe kicked the Russian economy when it was already down. On Wednesday trading was suspended for a day and a half. An unprecedented 1.126 trillion rubles (around $44 billion) has been allocated to rescue three major Russian banks. One, Gazprombank, is controlled by Yuri Kovalchuk, Vladimir Putin’s closest partner.

The market’s collapse, down 57% since May, is linked to the dysfunctional nature of the Russian state and economy. Nearly every aspect of commerce in Russia is deeply entangled with state power, if not with Mr. Putin personally. This, for obvious reasons, does not comfort most investors.

One famous investor in particular was worried about the security of doing business in Mr. Putin’s Russia. Rupert Murdoch, speaking on News Corp.’s earnings call on Aug. 5, had this to say: “The more I read about investments in Russia, the less I like the feel of it. The more successful we’d be, the more vulnerable we’d be to have it stolen from us, so there we sell now.”

The hoped-for liberalization under new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has turned out to be another case of wishful thinking both in Russia and the West. There’s no doubt in the business community about who’s really in charge. After his cronies’ takeover attempt of steel and coal giant Mechel was rebuffed, Mr. Putin’s public outburst of criticism in late July was enough to destroy the company’s market value.

Mechel is a tempting new target now that the price of coal is rising rapidly. As Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his company Yukos found out, in Russia success can be a very dangerous thing. Mechel may yet be another casualty of the mafia-like extortion tactics that have become a standard Kremlin maneuver.

In 2000, BP attempted to rebrand itself with the slogan “beyond petroleum.” These days the company is scrambling to get “beyond Putin.” Robert Dudley, the CEO of BP’s Russian joint venture, fled Russia due to what he called “sustained harassment.” Even the recent truce between BP and its Russian partners in BP-TNK represents a major defeat for the British company. Mr. Dudley attempted to hold a press conference in Moscow in July, but his venue was abruptly cancelled by the National Hotel, a property of the American giant Starwoods. This was not a unique occurrence.

The National Assembly, an opposition parliament with representatives from across Russia and across every ideological line, scheduled a public hearing on the Russia-Georgia conflict for Sept. 11. It was to take place at the new Hilton hotel in Moscow, and I personally signed the contract for the conference room. On Sept. 10, the Hilton cancelled the arrangement, claiming problems in the hall. Maybe all contracts in Russia should now include a third line for the signature of the local KGB official.

Two days after Mr. Murdoch expressed his concerns, Georgia and Russia opened hostilities. Europe and the U.S. waved their hands helplessly as Russian tanks and ships went far beyond defensive or peacekeeping action. It remains to be seen whether the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which have issued contradictory statements, can act meaningfully in the face of Mr. Putin’s belligerence.

Just hours after Nicolas Sarkozy completed his second trip to the region, signed agreements in hand, several of his claims of peacemaking were contradicted by the Kremlin, leaving the energetic French president looking the fool. Mr. Sarkozy has just one more trip to go before he completes his imitation of Neville Chamberlain’s infamous trio of visits to Germany in September 1938. Perhaps Georgia should not be as nervous today as Czechoslovakia was then. But one parallel is real: If there is anything an authoritarian leader cannot abide, it’s a power vacuum on his borders.

Dictatorial power demands to expand into every available space. Establishing effective penalties will require great political will, especially in Europe. There Mr. Putin has defenders like Silvio Berlusconi, who boasted last week about how he prevented the EU from levying sanctions against Russia over its actions in Georgia. The Kremlin also has many influential employees, including former EU leaders Gerhardt Schroeder of Germany and Paavo Lipponen of Finland, who both took plum positions with the Russian energy giant Gazprom immediately after leaving office.

With their reliable business partners in the West, the Kremlin has opened up a lucrative market for what could be called democracy offsets. In exchange for oil and gas from Russia, they provide democratic credentials and pretend Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev are elected officials rather than mafia bosses.

Until Russia has a government that is accountable to its citizens, no company or individual will be safe here. The silver lining of the meltdown will be the weeding out of so many of the foreign and domestic profiteers who greedily abetted Mr. Putin’s drive to turn Russia into a dictatorship. But there are still many who hope that all will be back to business as usual once the dust settles. Apparently they think the show must go on, even though many of the lead actors have left the stage — and the theater itself is ablaze.

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

“Russia’s invasion,” he writes, “was the direct result of nearly a decade of Western helplessness and delusion.”

—

How the West Fueled Putin’s Sense of Impunity
By GARRY KASPAROV
August 15, 2008; Page A13

Russia’s invasion of Georgia reminded me of a conversation I had three years ago in Moscow with a high-ranking European Union official. Russia was much freer then, but President Vladimir Putin’s onslaught against democratic rights was already underway.

“What would it take,” I asked, “for Europe to stop treating Putin like a democrat? If all opposition parties are banned? Or what if they started shooting people in the street?” The official shrugged and replied that even in such cases, there would be little the EU could do. He added: “Staying engaged will always be the best hope for the people of both Europe and Russia.”

The citizens of Georgia would likely disagree. Russia’s invasion was the direct result of nearly a decade of Western helplessness and delusion. Inexperienced and cautious in the international arena at the start of his reign in 2000, Mr. Putin soon learned he could get away with anything without repercussions from the EU or America.

Russia reverted to a KGB dictatorship while Mr. Putin was treated as an equal at G-8 summits. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Germany’s Gerhardt Schroeder became Kremlin business partners. Mr. Putin discovered democratic credentials could be bought and sold just like everything else. The final confirmation was the acceptance of Dmitry Medvedev in the G-8, and on the world stage. The leaders of the Free World welcomed Mr. Putin’s puppet, who had been anointed in blatantly faked elections.

On Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy sprinted to Moscow to broker a ceasefire agreement. He was allowed to go through the motions, perhaps as a reward for his congratulatory phone call to Mr. Putin after our December parliamentary “elections.” But just a few months ago Mr. Sarkozy was in Moscow as a supplicant, lobbying for Renault. How much credibility does he really have in Mr. Putin’s eyes?

In reality, Mr. Sarkozy is attempting to remedy a crisis he helped bring about. Last April, France opposed the American push to fast-track Georgia’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership. This was one of many missed opportunities that collectively built up Mr. Putin’s sense of impunity. In this way the G-7 nations aided and abetted the Kremlin’s ambitions.

Georgia blundered into a trap, although its imprudent aggression in South Ossetia was overshadowed by Mr. Putin’s desire to play the strongman. Russia seized the chance to go on the offensive in Georgian territory while playing the victim/hero. Mr. Putin has long been eager to punish Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his lack of respect both for Georgia’s old master Russia, and for Mr. Putin personally. (Popular rumor has it that the Georgian president once mocked his peer as “Lilli-Putin.”)

Although Mr. Saakashvili could hardly be called a model democrat, his embrace of Europe and the West is considered a very bad example by the Kremlin. The administrations of the Georgian breakaway areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are stocked, top to bottom, with bureaucrats from the Russian security services.

Throughout the conflict, the Kremlin-choreographed message in the Russian media has been one of hysteria. The news presents Russia as surrounded by enemies on all sides, near and far, and the military intervention in Georgia as essential to protect the lives and interests of Russians. It is also often spoken of as just the first step, with enclaves in Ukraine next on the menu. Attack dogs like Russian nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky are used to test and whip up public opinion. Kremlin-sponsored ultranationalist ideologue Alexander Dugin went on the radio to say Russian forces “should not stop until they are stopped.” The damage done by such rhetoric is very slow to heal.

The conflict also threatens to poison Russia’s relationship with Europe and America for years to come. Can such a belligerent state be trusted as the guarantor of Europe’s energy supply? Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been derided for his strong stance against Mr. Putin, including a proposal to kick Russia out of the G-8. Will his critics now admit that the man they called an antiquated cold warrior was right all along?

The conventional wisdom of Russia’s “invulnerability” serves as an excuse for inaction. President Bush’s belatedly toughened language is welcome, but actual sanctions must now be considered. The Kremlin’s ruling clique has vital interests — i.e. assets — abroad and those interests are vulnerable.

The blood of those killed in this conflict is on the hands of radical nationalists, thoughtless politicians, opportunistic oligarchs and the leaders of the Free World who value gas and oil more than principles. More lives will be lost unless strong moral lines are drawn to reinforce the shattered lines of the map.

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

Berlin is an ideal place for an American president, even a would-be president, to speak to the world about freedom and shared values. Barack Obama’s recent visit evoked the famous speeches of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that defended the U.S. stance against the Soviet Union and tyranny in Eastern Europe. Both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union are now gone, but dangerous, nuclear-armed dictatorships are not. Sadly, Mr. Obama declined to mention this in Berlin.

The stage for his disappointing performance was set several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain’s proposal to eject Russia and exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama’s response during a July 13 interview on CNN — “We have to engage and get them involved” — suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and human rights.

It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.

The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.

Commercial agreements, arms control and other mutually beneficial projects can be pursued without endorsing dictatorship. During the same interview, Sen. Obama spoke of enlisting China to help write the “international rules of the road.” This is the same logic that led the United Nations to place China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia on its current Human Rights Council. Do we really want to live under rules created with the approval of such regimes?

While Mr. Obama talked about the importance of receiving Russia’s help in containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Reuters reported that Tehran is acquiring advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles from the Kremlin. This is the cooperation the West has earned by including Russia in the G-8.

In Berlin, Mr. Obama repeatedly mentioned the 1948 Berlin airlift. On CNN, he said he would like to “bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.” A strange statement, since President Harry Truman fought against giving up an inch to the communists on any front around the world. Not only did Truman save West Berlin; South Korea, Taiwan and Western Europe also have much to thank him for. By contrast, in their July 9 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Obama advisers Madeleine Albright and William Perry, secretaries of state and defense under Bill Clinton, criticized Sen. McCain’s proposal to respond to major powers’ human-rights abuses with more than lip service.

Mr. Obama also asked if the West would stand up for “the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe.” Commendable, but what about the political prisoner in China and the recently convicted blogger in Russia? Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and Russia’s Dmitri Medvedev both came to power in blatantly fraudulent elections. The hypocrisy of condemning one while embracing the other destroys American and European credibility, and undermines any attempt at global leadership. Those of us living behind the Iron Curtain at the time were grateful Ronald Reagan did not go to Berlin in 1987 to denounce the lack of freedom in, say, Angola.

In short, the candidate of change sounds like he would perpetuate the destructive double standards of the current administration. Meanwhile, the supposedly hidebound Mr. McCain is imaginative enough to suggest that if something is broken you should try to fix it. Giving Russia and China a free pass on human rights to keep them “at the table” has helped lead to more arms and nuclear aid to Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and interference from both nations in solving the tragedies in Darfur and Zimbabwe.

Would all of this have occurred had the U.S. and Europe threatened meaningful reprisals? At least Mr. McCain wants to find out.

Reagan’s Berlin speech is remembered for his command: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” But he also made a critical point about negotiating from strength, a point Mr. Obama seems to be missing. Reagan knew that if the U.S. backed down on the Strategic Defense Initiative, his speech would just be pretty words the Soviets would ignore.

Reagan avoided the mistake John F. Kennedy made when he met with Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, Kennedy was weak in Khrushchev’s eyes and keen to make a deal, and the Soviet premier bullied him mercilessly in Vienna. The Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis were soon to follow.

Today, instead of communists there are deal-making capitalists and nationalists running the Kremlin and China’s National People’s Congress. They, and blowhards like Hugo Chávez, hardly represent the existential threats faced by Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. Yet Mr. Obama still is reticent to confront them, saying in Berlin that “we must reject the Cold War mindset of the past and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must.” But the Cold War ended and democracy became the global standard not because Western leaders merely defended their values, but because they projected them aggressively.

On Sept. 11, 150 years ago, another Illinois politician to run for president, Abraham Lincoln, said: “Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere.” Not where it’s convenient. Not in countries lacking large energy reserves. Everywhere, Mr. Obama, everywhere.

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

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved