America must give Russia a dose of tough love

[uzbek]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/73bfb41e-18...00e2511c8.html

America must give Russia a dose of tough love
By Mark Brzezinski and Richard Holbrooke
Published: October 7 2004 03:00 | Last updated: October 7 2004 03:00

The US needs a Russia policy that firmly promotes a positive reform agenda in that vital nation. All too often, however, the Bush administration's approach has been to pursue good relations with Vladimir Putin as an end in itself, not as a means to a greater end. Good relations with Mr Putin need not be purchased at the price of democratic regression in Russia or Moscow's intimidation of Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics.


The tepid American reaction to the disturbing trends under Mr Putin's leadership reinforces the Russian president's worst instincts. The terrorist acts in Beslan were undoubtedly horrific and Russia has every right to protect itself. But turning a blind eye to Mr Putin's crackdown on human rights activists and his attempts to consolidate control in the region are not in the national security interests of the US or Russia.

Based on what President George W. Bush said during the 2000 presidential campaign, many expected Washington to be clear with Russia over the issue of democratisation. It was the 2000 Cox Commission "Report on US Policy Towards Russia", hailed by the Bush campaign, that criticised the Clinton administration for its "exaggeration of success and concealment of failure in US-Russia relations". But in September 2003, Mr Bush gushed: "I respect President Putin's vision for Russia: a country at peace within its borders, with its neighbours, and with the world, a country in which democracy and the rule of law thrive."

That statement is striking considering Mr Putin's record. His government has suppressed all challenges within Russian politics. By silencing the press and closing non-governmental organisations, he has moved to shut down independent critics. Western contact with Russian society has been limited - the Peace Corps was expelled, the representative of the American Federa tion of Labour (AFL-CIO) in Moscow was declared persona non grata. Mr Putin's proposals to end the direct election of members of parliament and regional governors would further centralise the Kremlin's power.

Mr Putin's strategy of weakening independent sources of power extends beyond Russia's border. Even as Georgia sends more troops to help in Iraq, Russian officials are telling the country to end its political and security relationships with the US and Nato, and to accept Russian military bases in two separatist regions for the long-term. Mr Putin is the principal sponsor of the repressive Lukashenko regime in Belarus. There are credible media reports of Russian efforts to subvert the upcoming Ukrainian presidential elections on 31 October.

Pro-democracy groups are justifiably concerned by developments in Russia and Mr Bush's soft response. Gaining Russian support in counter-terrorism is vital but not mutually exclusive to the pursuit of responsible Russian behaviour. Russia is in a position to tackle critical security threats, including Iran's development of its nuclear programme and the stand-off with North Korea. Russia's stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and expertise in this area make co-operation essential to prevent proliferation. Seeking its support on these issues is in Russia's interest as well as that of the US.

There is a more responsible reaction. First: straight talk. The US president should communicate to Mr Putin privately, and to the people of Russia publicly, that he is concerned about the erosion of democracy. American support for reformers and condemnation of anti-democratic trends can make a difference.

Second: democracy-building programmes. The US should expand funding and democracy assistance in Russia. Third: regional engagement. The lack of Bush administration reaction to Russian meddling in the former Soviet states has resulted in growing anxiety in the region. The new states need reassurance that the US is committed to their independence.

Fourth: non-proliferation. Six hundred tonnes of nuclear material remain unsecured in Russia. Currently, it would take 13 years to secure it. But with a concerted effort, and at a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq, the problem could be eliminated in three to four years.

The Bush administration's record on Russia proves that wishful thinking and "happy talk" are not substitutes for strategy. A dose of "tough love" is timely. But this is unlikely if this administration, which is unapologetic about its "blank cheque" policy, is re-elected.

Richard Holbrooke served as US ambassador to the United Nations. Mark Brzezinski served on the National Security Council staff

[T-34_Fanatic]

What is meant by "tough love"? Like making up some half wit bull**** story and bombing the country killing millions?

[dj_who_kid]

Another "great" idea by Uzbek. Maybe he should keep them to himself more.

Too bad Holbrooke is a well known anti-Slav, who still harbors hatred for anything Serbian or Russian. A moron in the Clinton administration, now he is an advisor for the Kerry campaign, and will probably be given a top diplomatic position if the quasi-communist Kerry wins. As I've said all along, I fear Kerry being in office for a multitude of reasons, one being a further distancing of US-Russian relations and a return to open hostilities.

[scandinavian]

Originally posted by dj_who_kid
Another "great" idea by Uzbek. Maybe he should keep them to himself more.

Too bad Holbrooke is a well known anti-Slav, who still harbors hatred for anything Serbian or Russian. A moron in the Clinton administration, now he is an advisor for the Kerry campaign, and will probably be given a top diplomatic position if the quasi-communist Kerry wins. As I've said all along, I fear Kerry being in office for a multitude of reasons, one being a further distancing of US-Russian relations and a return to open hostilities.

No wonder. The guys behind his campaign are the worst f*cking scum on earth and I bet they hate Putins guts so much they wouldn't hesitate to put a nuke on Moscow if they'd find it in their interest.

[dj_who_kid]

I'm surprised you're not in favor of that scum putting a nuke on Moscow. Usually, you would be all for it.

[Booger]

I read in the paper this morning that the majority of Russians are willing to have to have some freedoms restricted in exchange for increased security.

Originally posted by Booger
I read in the paper this morning that the majority of Russians are willing to have to have some freedoms restricted in exchange for increased security.

Only security gives me freedom, man living in fear can't be free.