Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Tom Lantos showed how to fight anti-Westernism in Russia.
Photo: AP
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
The West Doesn't Change Its Brains
// The U.S. and Britain respond to Putin
The U.S. Congress and British Parliament reacted to Russian President Vladimir Putin's latest declarations. Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Tom Lantos responded to Russian President Vladimir Putin's order to step up foreign intelligence activity by calling for a transatlantic alliance against Moscow. In the British parliament, which Putin recommended “change its brains,” they said that Russia may be moving toward totalitarianism and called on other European countries not to extradite anyone to Russia ever.
The American Attack
“Russia is using anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism to wreak havoc,” Lantos stated Wednesday during open hearings on democracy in Eastern Europe. In his address, Lantos, one of the most influential politicians in the country, listed almost all recent foreign policy moves made by Russia, and criticized them all. A large part of his speech was devoted to accusations against Putin personally.
Lantos poured the greatest ire out on Putin's “shameful rhetoric” on the U.S. administration's proposed anti-missile defense system, including his recently-announced suspension of Russia's obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. “No one is more aware than the Kremlin that the proposed missile defense system has nothing to do with Russia, but his claims fit neatly into the spiteful rhetoric emanating from Moscow these days,” Lantos continued. Moscow's policy toward its neighbors caused indignation as well. “Russia under Putin began to work to regain its influence in the region. The explosion of oil prices gave the Putin government the opportunity to assert itself – not by military might, but by strong-arm economic tactics. Putin holds Central and Eastern Europe hostage with the sustenance it desperately needs – energy,” he said. He cited Moscow's policies toward Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia as examples. The congressman heaped some of the blame on former French president Jacques Chirac and former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as well for maintaining warm relations with Putin and concluded that it is time to “revitalize the transatlantic alliance” to offset Moscow.
The exceptionally harsh discussion of Russia in Congress coincided with discussions in the American media of Putin's recent speech to officers of the Defense Ministry, Interior Ministry, FSB and other enforcement bodies in which he called for “comprehensive strengthening of the armed forces.” The Russian president saw the need for that in the existence of “a number of global threats,” such as new American bases in Eastern Europe and procrastination in the process of ratifying the revised Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.
The president addressed Russian intelligence in particular. “The Foreign Intelligence Service scrupulously carries out its tasks. Its employees help identify external threats to national security and participate in strengthening the international position of our country. But the situation in the world requires that the Foreign Intelligence Service continually enhance its possibilities.” The president's words were interpreted in the Western press as a call to “increase Russia's military might and engage in more spying abroad.” Journalists were not the only ones to become agitated over Putin's speech. According to RIA Novosti information agency, Russian intelligence activities in the United States were the subject of a closed hearing of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism/HUMINT, Analysis and Counterintelligence. The motivation for the hearings, the agenda and attendees were not disclosed, and the subcommittee itself steadfastly refused even to confirm for Kommersant that hearings took place.
Unlike American congressmen, Russian parliamentarians clearly approved of Putin's speech. “Our intelligence always was effective, and I am gratified that the president is giving it directives. Every country that aims toward global foreign policy goals,” Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs, told Kommersant. He considered the harsh rhetoric of the American politicians and media preparations for U.S. elections, and commented that the situation is different in Russia. “It's simpler for Vladimir Putin,” he said. “He won't have a third term, so now he can say what he thinks forthrightly.”
The British Attack
Practically simultaneously with the discussions of Russia in the American Congress, debates on Russia were being held in the British House of Commons. They were the first public discussion of relations between London and Moscow in the whole time of the crisis. The debates were so unusual for the British parliament that they could almost be called scandalous. The MPs were divided into two groups, one defending Russia's behavior and the other criticizing it mercilessly.
Conservative Mark Pritchard began the discussion. That marked his debut as chairman of the all-party group on Russia. Unexpectedly for most of the MPs, he defended Moscow and reiterated all of its arguments in the Lugovoi case. Recalling that the extradition of its citizens is prohibited by the Russian Constitution, Pritchard noted that Russia did not change its constitution even to allow Putin to run for a third term as president. He mentioned that Great Britain has refused to extradite 21 suspects to Russia and asked whether the Foreign Office would consider extraditing Boris Berezovsky to Brazil, where he is suspected of money laundering.
Pritchard also said that London should pay close attention to the behavior of those it grants refugee status to and not allow them to call for the overthrow of democratically elected governments. He also criticized British authorities for spending money on the protection of political immigrants, when it could be using that money to protect average Britons from terrorism. In conclusion, he urged that the extradition of Andrey Lugovoi not be pressed and that a trial be organized in Russia with the participation of three judges – one Russian, one British and one from a third country.
Only one fellow Tory supported Pritchard. That was Mark Field, who represents central London. He spoke about how Russia is an important economic partner, many rich Russians live in London, and it would be wrong if discussions in parliament broke those mutually beneficial economic ties.
All the speakers who followed took the opposite opinion, strongly criticizing both Russia and Pritchard. “His speech is one of the most dangerous that I have heard since I became an MP,” exclaimed Laborite Chris Bryant. “He fails to understand or recognize fully the dangers of the human rights abuses in Russia… He underestimates the direction in which Russia is going – in a way that will not only damage commercial interests in the medium and long-term for the people of Russia and this country, but lead to a dwindling of democracy in that country with the steady advance of a totalitarian regime.” He went on to mention the recent decision of the Constitutional Court that made it possible to close several dozen political parties, and the persecution of the British Council, which was recent forced to close its office in Ekaterinburg. He placed emphasis on the court and law enforcement systems in Russia, in which according to Amnesty International torture is used. “the level of human rights abuses in Russia today is so significant that no country that respects human rights and believes in the foundation of the principle of law can engage in an open relationship with the Russian Federation without being explicit about the problems there,” he said.
Laborite David Drew recalled the YUKOS case and how many former managers of that company found political refuge in London, in connection with which he demanded that all European countries refuse to make extraditions to Russia.
Laborite Tony Lloyd turned out to be an even bigger critic of the Kremlin. “It has been increasing difficulty over recent years to know that the motive is not of the Russian people – I emphasize that – but of the very specific narrow clique of people who run the Kremlin, and round ,” he said. “Russia now has a quasi-market economy, but it is used for sectional and narrow ends and not in the interests, frankly, of the broad Russian population.” Lloyd reminded his audience of Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and stated that Russia must not be allowed to intimidate or bribe it partners with its energy resources. “The emergence of a Russia that sees itself as a bully regionally or on a wider scale is very dangerous,” he concluded.
The parliamentarians did not choose to mention that Putin had just advised them to “change their brains.” His meeting with youth movements and his statements to them were most likely known to them. Tory Mark Francois even quoted part of the Russian president's speech, the part where Putin accuses Britain of “colonial thinking.”
Russian officials refrained from sharp reactions to the impassioned debates in the British parliament. Margelov, for instance, told Kommersant that the Britons need not take offense at the “change their brains” remark, because it is “a normal emotional reaction. It is time to learn to differentiate official appearances in a tie from normal human talks without a tie. The president's word's have to taken correctly.”
Alexander Gabuev, Mikhail Zygar
All the Article in Russian as of July 27, 2007
|
|
|
