Kemp & Edwards agree - time to get tuff with Russia
[I.e., Russia’s not doing what we want! Whine! Whine!!]
International Herald Tribune - July 12, 2006
We need to be tough with Russia By John Edwards and Jack Kemp International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON Fifteen years ago, when the leaders of the world’s seven
leading industrialized democracies first invited Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev to attend their meeting in London, they extended a
hand to their faltering adversary in the hopes of bringing it into
the West. It signaled the Cold War’s end; by the end of that year,
the Soviet Union itself no longer existed.
In this context, this week’s meeting in St. Petersburg marks a
turning point: For the first time, Russia will play host as a full-
fledged member of what is now the Group of 8, and not as a
supplicant. It is a measure of how far Russia has come - but
regrettably, also a stark reminder of how far it has to go.
For the United States and Europe, a strong relationship with Russia
is essential to handling the most difficult global challenges we
face. Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
tight energy markets, climate change, the drug trade, infectious
diseases, human trafficking - all these problems are more manageable
when we have Russia on our side rather than aligned against it.
Yet during the past few years, cooperation has become the exception,
not the norm. On a range of issues, Russian-American relations are
now marked by a growing number of disagreements, and this presents
challenges far beyond whether or not the St. Petersburg summit
meeting will be seen as a success.
At a time when the president of the United States has made democracy
a central goal of American foreign policy, Russia’s political system
is becoming steadily more authoritarian. When we visited Moscow last
year as chairs of a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, no one
we talked to argued that Russia was a democracy. Many feared that the
roll-back of pluralism and centralization of power may not have run
its course.
Despite remarkable economic growth and dramatic social
transformation, Russian political institutions are not becoming
either more modern or more effective, but dysfunctional and brittle.
By many measures Russia seems stable, but its stability has a weak
institutional base. The future of its political system is less
predictable, and the country’s problems less manageable, than they
should be.
There is no question that a more democratic, open, transparent Russia
would be behaving differently on many issues. A more democratic
Russia would be forcefully engaged in efforts to end Iran’s nuclear
weapons ambitions - and it would be talking openly about the
consequences of Iran’s defiance. It would not be cracking down on
dissent and a free press.
It would not play host to Hamas. It would not work to kick the United
States out of vital bases in Central Asia. It would not be using
energy as political leverage. It would not be supporting autocrats in
Belarus or undermining democrats in Georgia and Ukraine.
Given all of this, there has been a lot of controversy over whether
Russia should be the chair of the G-8 - which, after all, is supposed
to be the world’s leading democracies - and whether there should even
be a meeting at all.
We believe that it is in the U.S. national interest for Russia to be
a part of the G-8 and eventually other key institutions such as the
World Trade Organization. But this cannot be inclusiveness for its
own sake. Inclusiveness has to be justified by results.
The summit meeting’s success cannot be measured by pomp and warm
words; it must be judged by concrete results. Has Russia joined with
the United States and other democratic states in warning Iran about
the negative consequences of going forward with its nuclear program?
Has Russia agreed to ratify the European Energy Charter (which it
signed 12 years ago), so that its energy companies begin to act like
commercial entities rather than instruments of state power? Has
Russia dropped its effort to keep foreign governments from meeting
with nongovernmental groups and opposition parties on the eve of the
summit?
Then there is the 2008 question. Russia is entering a critical
political phase, with parliamentary elections next year and
presidential elections in 2008. America and the European Union should
begin working now to make clear the criteria by which we will judge
this process to be legitimate, and we should communicate this
publicly and privately.
If today’s reality of Russian politics continues - with opposition
candidates kept off the ballot arbitrarily, unable to access the
media or raise funds; with opposition parties unable to form because
of “technicalities,” or with independent domestic monitoring
organizations kept out - then there is the real risk that Russia’s
leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
Only Russia can decide on a change of course, but other countries can
help frame its choice, making clear how much is to be gained and how
much has to be done.
Doing so will be a long-term effort, but it should begin now, and the
place to start is by talking about it. Russia’s leaders and its
people deserve to know what the world’s real democracies think.
John Edwards, former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, and Jack
Kemp, former Republican vice-presidential candidate, are co-chairs of
the Council on Foreign Relations independent task force on U.S.
policy toward Russia.